Australian Learning and Teaching Council Project CG10-1730  2011-2012

Developing a social justice framework for monitoring student learning engagement

My Inclusive University Seminar

4 October 2011Professor Karen Nelson (Project Leader)

Tracy Creagh (Project Manager)

Presentation Overview

• Background to the project• Project overview• Developing the principles• Small group activity• Feedback and discussion

Feedback

ActivityDiscussion

“Higher education can transform the lives of individuals and through them their communities and the nation by engendering a love of learning for its own sake and a passion forintellectual discovery”.

Bradley, Noonan, Nugent & Scales (2008) Review of Australian Higher Education: Final Report

?Why is a social justice framework needed......

Engagement Success Retention

DisengagementFailure Attrition

?

Student Factors

IndividualContextual

Institutional Context

CurriculumInstitution

Teacher Factors

IndividualContextual

Students & Staff

KnowledgeSkills

AttitudesActions

Institutional ExperiencesCurriculum- mediated &

Co-curricular

Input / Presage Factors

Transformation Process Output / Product Factors

Model of Student Engagement

The Individual and Institutional Characteristics Influencing Student Retention and Engagement (IICISRE) Model (Nelson, Kift and Clarke (2011)

Aspiration, Opportunity &

Access

Offer & Enrolment

Orientation & Transition into

University

First Year Experiences

Later Year Experiences

Transition to Work / Industry /

Post Graduate

Alumni

PreparednessFinancesAlignment of expectations & experiences

Course choice certainty

Contact with staffCourse design & assessment

Feedback, early, timely and constructive

?(E.g. Krause et al, 2005; Scott, 2006; Yorke & Longden, 2008; Kift, 2009)

Some words of advice“stop  tinkering  at  the  margins  of  institutional academic  life  and  make enhancing student success the linchpin about which they organize their activities ... 

and  [to]  establish  those  educational conditions on campus that promote the retention of students,  in  particular  those  of low-income backgrounds”.

Tinto, V (2009) Taking Student Retention Seriously: Rethinking the First Year of University. Keynote address delivered at the ALTC FYE Curriculum Design Symposium,

QUT, Brisbane, Australia, February 5, 2009.

Recognise the changing

patterns of student

engagement (e.g.

work, travel & on-campus

time)

Yorke, M. & Thomas, L., 2003

Create an institutional

climate, supportive in

various ways of students’

development, that is

perceived as ‘friendly’;

Yorke, M. & Thomas, L., 2003

A willingness

to change!

Yorke, M. & Thomas, L., 2003

Monitoring Engagement

• At QUT – progressive development of a system to monitor and intervene with students at risk of disengaging – the Student Success Program

• Nelson, Karen J., Quinn, Carole, Marrington, Andrew, & Clarke, John A. (2011) Good practice for enhancing the engagement and success of commencing students. Higher Education. Online First 30 March, available at http://www.springerlink.com/content/atn87g2q3l2522x4/

• Nelson, Karen J., Duncan, Margot E., & Clarke, John A. (2009) Student success : the identification and support of first year university students at risk of attrition. Studies in Learning, Evaluation, Innovation and Development, 6(1), pp. 1-15.

• High levels of interest from the sector, e.g., Deakin, Monash, University of Auckland, Griffith University, UniSA, RMIT, Charles Sturt, Griffith, University of Queensland, Curtin, Edith Cowan...

“Outreach”Contact Mgt

System

Descriptive Information

SSP Advisors

“students at-risk” reports

StudentActivities

Student Success Program (SSP)

FYE Consultant Academic Skills AdvisersCareers and Employment

International Students Services

Specialist Support

ManagerSSP

FYE & Retention

Coord

Contact Information

Existing student support (e.g.)

Limited information

CounsellingCourse Coordinators

Equity ServicesFaculty student services

Faculty programs Learning support gateway

Oodgeroo UnitPeer Advisers (Library)

Student GuildStudent Services

Workshops & seminars

“Warm Hand-On”

Referral to

Existing

Services

2008-S2 2009-S1 2009-S2 2010-S1 2010-S2 2011-S10

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Int. Stud. Progress

Offers

Welcome

Academic Perf.

Cohort

Learning En-gagement

SSP Activity2008-2011

2008 2009 2010 Total

Total number of students 4487 % 6220 % 8978 % 19,685 %

Students “At-Risk “ 776/1083 71.7 1254/1401 89.5 787/865 91.0 2817/3349 84.1

“At-risk” & contacted 448/527 85.0 395/419 94.3 328/356 92.1 1,171/1,301 89.9

At risk - not contacted 328/556 59.0 859/982 87.5 4591/509 90.2 1,646/2,047 80.4

Not at risk 2960/3404 87.0 4332/4819 89.9 7398/8113 91.2 14690/16336 89.9

Impact on Persistence (within semester)Learning Engagement Campaign

2008-2010

Project objectives and outcomesThe key objective of this project is to:

• lead the establishment of good practice for the Australasian HE sector in monitoring student engagement

What we aim to do:

• design and develop a set of guiding principles for MSLE illustrated by annotated examples of good practice

• making available a set of resources to support learning and teaching policy and practice for monitoring student engagement.

• design and develop a good practice guide for MSLE that reflects the expertise of personnel in existing good practice programs;

Project Universities

• Auckland University of Technology• Queensland University of Technology• University of New England• Curtin University of Technology• Charles Sturt University• University of South Australia• Edith Cowan University• RMIT University

Project Approach

• Action Research Cycle 1: Develop the MSE Principles

Principles & Exemplars

• Action Research Cycle 2: Develop the exemplars and resources

Good practice Guide & Resources • Action Research

Cycle 3: Pilot Good Practice Guide

Final Suite of Resources in Repository

Establish Project Repository

Good Practice for Monitoring Student Engagement

• Requires examination of the concept of Justice• E.g. Kant, Rawls, Miller, Rizvi, Young, Wollstonecraft, Mill &

Marx...• Two ‘traditions‘– liberal individualist & social democratic

• No single view of social justice but consistent reference to human rights, fairness and equality.

• Consensus that key elements include: equity of access to social & material goods, equal participation in society, measured by equal performance and outcomes, equal liberty and rights.

• Critique by Amartya Sen (2009) further considered transcendent institutionalism & reasoned difference.

Literature analysis SJ Principles

Social Justice & Education• Distributive & retributive perspectives (liberal-individualists)

have some shared characteristics (Gale, 2000)– Tendency to be concerned with people’s assets (including social goods,

e.g. Opportunity, power) rather than social processes which (re)produce those assets

– Limits just distribution of goods to some sort of statistical modelling– Regards all people as the same – a utopian hegemony ‘tend to be interested in economics and ignore social institutions’

• Marginson (2011) - tensions in equity policy & measures of success of equity policy and programs framed in terms of the type of strategy– Fairness – strategies to change the composition of participation HE

representative of society– Inclusion – strategies to broaden the access and completion of under

represented social groups.

•.

Developing a Philosophical Stance• Self- determination does not mean separate

determination• Socially just processes – are necessarily democratic• ‘Groups’ need to be represented and their views to

be engaged with as part of the decision making processes

• Therefore we have taken a social democratic stance that emphasises process and action over state and form

Recognitive Social Justice• Positive regard for social difference• Centrality of socially democratic processes in working

towards achievement• Focus on procedural issues of participation in

deliberation and decision making• Recognised when

– the ways in which groups of students are identified and the extent to which all those involved in the social process are involvement in their own development and the purpose of the process

• Does not abandon but informs interests central to distributive and retributive perspectives

Perspectives of Justice

The willWhat should social justice desire? Whose desire?

To renderHow should social justice be achieved?

To everyone Who should social justice benefit?

Their dueWhat should social justice deliver?

Distributive Freedom, social cooperation and compensation.Individuals/ groups represented by govt / authorities

Proportional distribution

Disadvantaged individuals groups

Basic material & social goods /opportunities

Retributive Liberty, protection of rights, punishments for infringements.Individuals in free market.

Open competitive and govt protection of life and property

Individuals who contribute to society

Material & social goods / opportunities commensurate with talent and effort

Recognitive Means for all to exercise capability and determine their actions.All people within and among social groups

Democratic processes that include / generalize from the interests of the least advantaged

All people differently experienced within and among social groups

Positive self-identity. Self development; self determination.

Social justice in HEUsing perspectives of social justice to frame the MSLE principles (Gale, 2000 p.268)

Draft Social Justice Principles for MSLESELF-DETERMINATION:

Programs embrace democratic processes, self identification and case management through students ‘opting-in’.

EQUITY: The provision of support and services takes into account the hidden curriculum of institutions and individuals educational, cultural and social backgrounds.

ACCESS: Universities must ensure that systems and structures are in place to actively identify and intervene with students at risk of disengaging to ensure access to services and support for those students who require it.

PARTICIPATION: The program should actively enable and promote participation in university life and should improve the quality of engagement and the quantity of connections.

RIGHTS: All students have the right to be treated with dignity and respect and to have their individual cultural and social backgrounds valued.

Small group discussion

Consider how the draft principles relate to the HE context?

How will these principles benefit :

Students?QUT / Institutions?

Workshop Activity

FeedbackDiscussion

 

Australian Learning and Teaching Council Project CG10-1730  2011-2012

Developing a social justice framework for monitoring student learning engagement

My Inclusive University Seminar

4 October 2011Professor Karen Nelson (Project Leader)

Tracy Creagh (Project Manager)