Higher EducationAcademy Annual Conference 2008

Session theme: Student Feedback and Engagement

Tues 01 July, 14.00-14.30

Engaging students to enhance the postgraduate research experience

Dr Dilly Fung and Dr Chris Wood

University of Exeter

Abstract

This paper explores, and invites feedback on, the ways in which one research-intensive university is engaging postgraduate research (PGR) students to enhance the PGR learning experience. Students are involved in the development and promotion of an ambitious ‘effective researcher’ skills programme, and contribute effectively towards developmental sessions for PGR supervisors.

Introduction

Postgraduate research students travel a challenging road along which learning and research are inextricably combined. Within the rapidly changing national and international context of postgraduate research (PGR) programmes and qualifications (Park, 2005), students must grapple not only with their own independent study, but also with the need to develop appropriate research and employability skills. In order to thrive, they need in addition to develop effective relationships with supervisors, mentors and peers (Taylor and Beasley, 2005), such that their motivation and learning can be sustained and enhanced over what can be a long period of study. This paper provides an overview of the ways in which one research-intensive university is engaging PGR students to promote and enhance their own learning, and their wider learning experience, both through involvement in the development of an ambitious skills programme for all, and also through contributing towards developmental sessions for postgraduate research supervisors.

The issue of ‘student engagement’ has come to the fore in recent years. What might ‘student engagement’ mean, and what can it involve? What are the values underpinning such a notion? It is, arguably, a phrase adopted by different parties for different purposes. Business-related discourses of outcomes and employer-related targets now permeate higher education, and institutions operate within an audit-orientated, managerial culture: the call for student engagement sits comfortably with the business-like, ‘customer-focused’ approach of HE in the twenty-first century. The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) for higher education in the UK states in a current document that:

We believe that an important feature of United Kingdom (UK) higher education is that students are active participants in their own education and therefore can and should be directly involved in the higher education sector’s approaches to quality assurance and enhancement (QAA, 2008).

The QAA refers in this paper to the need to build partnerships between staff and students, in the realms of both quality assurance and quality enhancement, and the role of student representation in higher education: in short, it speaks of ‘giving students a voice’ when it comes to policy and delivery of HE, to assure and enhance the quality of the HE systems and ‘product’.

Others have, of course, criticised the conflation of HE with business. Barnett (1990) refersto theeffects of the shift in recent decades away from the traditional, liberal ideal of higher education – an ideal which for Barnett promised ‘a freeing of the mind’, and which valuesa transformative experience which is more than the sum of its ‘intended learning outcome’ parts. The argument has been made (see, for example, Biesta, 2004; Bingham and Sidorkin, 2004) that viewing the student as customer, as a consumer of learning, has adversely affected the educational relationships which are vital for an effective, holistic education. Education, it is proposed, arises from relationship, and indeed existsfor relationship in a democratic society (see Fung, 2006). The potential of higher education within this value-frameworkis seen as less about meeting narrowly defined outcomes, and more about what Hand and Bryson (2008: 8), following Perry, refer to as the possibility of ‘becoming’ for participants. From perspectives such as these,the phrase ‘student engagement’ takes on a different set of nuances – rather than a customer-relations exercise,it refers toa ‘holistic concept’ (Hand and Bryson, 2008: 8), whereby students are engaged collaboratively with academic and other staff in creating communities of practice and research. Such communities, for all the inequalities of power and opportunity which pertain in hierarchical organisations and in an unequal society, can bring students and staff to engage with one anotheron many levels, not only to create knowledge, understanding and skills in a particular disciplinary or thematic area, but also(arguably) to contribute to the development of a ‘good’ society.

Here, then, we take the notion of student engagement as one which, in practice, straddles these two opposing frameworks for thinking about the student in higher education. From a ‘student as consumer’ perspective, engagement of the customer is becoming a normalised way of improving customer satisfaction. From an ‘education as relation’ perspective, engaging students more fully in the whole project of higher education, in its policies, processes, design, modes of delivery and underpinning frameworks of competing values and theories, is also seen as beneficial.

Walker et al. (2008) write of fostering ‘a vibrant intellectual life’ through engaging students, arguing that:

Intellectual community is not simply a matter of ambiance, and it does not happen by accident or by magic.

We have been concerned to ensure that PGR students are as fully engaged as possible in our research-led university, because we are committed both to providing our PGR ‘customers’ and their sponsors the best possible quality of provision and, even more importantly, because effective research communities are founded on productive relationships among and between intellectual communities. We outline here some specific contexts and ways in which we have started to engage PGR students more fully in the life of the university.

1.Theemployment of students as ‘Skills Ambassadors’, to promote the University’s ‘Effective Researcher Development Programme’.

In 2001, the UK Research Councils, the AHRB and major charities that fund PhD research published a Joint Skills Statement (JSS) outlining their collective opinions on the skills and competences that PhD students should be expected ‘to be able to [do]’, during their research training (Research Councils UK, 2001). The JSS is now used nationally as framework and guide for PGR skills development. Indeed, the JSS is usually the basis of many ‘research skills programmes’ that are now offered within many higher education institutions (HEIs). It addressesseven key areas: research skills and techniques, research management, personal effectiveness, communication skills, networking and team working and career management.

Sir Gareth Roberts was then commissioned by the government to review PhD student training needs. The resulting ‘SET for success’ report (Roberts, 2001) came to the conclusion that:

…skills acquired by PhD graduates do not serve their long term needs. Currently PhDs do not prepare people adequately for careers in business or academia.

Specifically, Roberts recommended that:

…the training elements of a PhD – particularly training in transferable skills – need to be strengthened considerably; include the provision of at least two weeks’ dedicated training a year, principally in transferable skills.

The focus on providingopportunities for the development of postgraduate research students was furtheremphasised in the revised QAA Code of Practice (2004). The JSS training needs and the use of personal development portfolios form part of thatcode: both of these are, in themselves, designed to ‘engage’ students more explicitly in planning and managing their own learning.

The government rapidly acknowledged the findings in the Roberts review and subsequently allocated £29.8M, over three years (this has recently been extended by a further six years to 2012), to the Research Councils to implement additional skills training for Research Council-funded PhD students and research staff. This funding, now commonly referred to as ‘Roberts money’, has applied to PhD students from 2003 and is calculated on a pro-rata based on the number of eligible Research Council-funded PhD students and research staff in each institute. The average amount per Research Council-funded student is £850 per academic year. Although the funding is intended primarily for Research Council-funded PhD students and staff, at the University of Exeter it is used to benefit all PhD students through course development, workshops and seminars collectively referred to as the Effective Researcher Development Programme (ERDP).

The ERDP provides a wide-range of workshops to help PhD students undertake their research with confidence. Coordinated by the GraduateSchool, the sessions range from ‘Managing your PhD project’ to ‘How to write effectively at PhD level’, through to ‘How to get published’ and ‘How to become a Professor in 10 years!’. There are over fifty different sessions, all repeated throughout the year. Engagement with the sessions themselves is high, with around 2,000 students attending in the last academic year; this represents around 60%[1] of the entire cohort. Research Council funded students typically engage at around 75%, with some Research Councils having 100% engagement. All of the workshops are interactive and require research students to make a contribution;95% of attendees have stated that they would ‘highly recommend’ the session to other PhD researchers.

We engage students explicitly in the ERDP through the ‘employment’ of Student Skills Ambassadors (SSAs).SSAs serve as representatives for the ERDP and support the Director of Postgraduate Development in expanding and enhancing the programme for PhD students. Ambassadors lend support by acting as a gateway for skills information into schools, helping to:

  • co-ordinate School-based training events
  • generate new ideas
  • encourage other PhD students to attend sessions (particularly incoming and 'detached' students)
  • promote an enhanced postgraduate training culture in their Schools.

The Directors of Postgraduate Study in Schools (academic members of staff) also support and encourage ambassadors to help champion training initiatives at the local level. In addition, SSAs contribute to some training sessions such as the skills induction and feedback to early academics within Doctoral Supervision workshops (see below). There are currently twelve SSAs, each representing a single academic School; the duration of their involvement is typically one year, and they are mainly within the 2nd year of their PhD (or PT equivalent).

The involvement of the SSAs has not only improved the content and structure of the ERDP, it has led (with the combination of targeted e-mail ‘adverts’) to significant increases in PhD student engagement with the programme in general: the current academic year, for example, it has seen an increase in participation of over 25%.

2. The inclusion of PGR students, and the views and responses of PGR students, in developmental sessions for doctoral supervisors.

Doctoral supervisors can adopt a variety of roles and approaches towards their role, and a variety of assumptions about the supervisor-PGR student relationship (Taylor and Beasley, 2005). We have recently taken steps within the university to set up dynamic developmental sessions for new and early career supervisors, whereby academic colleagues have an opportunity not only to explore a range of issues relating to the role, informed by research in the field, and to ask questions of a ‘panel of experts’ (senior academic colleagues), but also to hear from students themselves about their PGR learning experiences.

While there had previously been some opportunities for supervisors to sign up for developmental sessions, it was recognised by the committee responsible for policy in this area that we needed to enable all doctoral supervisors regularlyto participate in appropriate developmental opportunities, to ensure not only that they are aware of the requirements upon them by the university in terms of administration, record-keeping and so on, but also that they became aware of the themes raised by research in the field, including issues of equality and diversity and pedagogic dimensions relating to supervision, and of new national and international developments. With the backing of the committee, stafffrom the Education Enhancement team in the university worked in conjunction with itsquality assurance section to devise a coherent package of approaches:

2.1We brought in an external consultant to run an exploratory, strategic planning session. A group of around 40 academics and professional staff came together to review issues in PGR supervision, and agreed on a combined strategy of a) running central sessions for new and early career supervisors; b) requiring all academic Schools to bring their supervisors together at least once every two years for a developmental session; and c) setting up an online ‘supervisors’ handbook’[2].

2.2We then piloted a one-day event for new and early career supervisors,which received excellent feedback from its 40+ participants, and which has subsequently become embedded in our ongoing developmental provision for research supervisors. The intended learning outcomes of these sessions are as follows:

Intended learning outcomes

Having participated in the session, you will be able to demonstrate enhanced knowledge and understanding of:

  1. The national and international context in which your work as a doctoral supervisor is conducted
  2. Issues arising from recent higher education research into the experiences of PGR students and supervisors
  3. The administrative requirements associated with doctoral supervision
  4. The PGR ‘skills agenda’ and its relevance for students and supervisors
  5. Issues of particular interest to you in your role as supervisor
  6. How and where to gain ideas and advice in the future with regard to supervision, as and when the need arises.

The day’s session isdeliberately designed to involve a sequence of interactive sessions including, importantly for our purposes here, a particularly lively session in which postgraduate research (PGR) students came in and talked to staff about their studies and, in particular, about the ways in which the Effective Researcher Programme sessions have specifically helped them address various issues and challenges in their research. It is noticeable in these sessions that the PGR students speak of their engagement with these skills sessions not simply as an instrumental learning opportunity to aid their research study, but also as a way of meeting and building relationships with peers; they are strong advocates of this specialist provision, and also of complementary School structures, such as combined research seminar programmes, which foster a sense of an inclusive research community.

2.3 The rolling programme of School-based events for all supervisors within a given School has been set up: each academic School chooses its own focus for a session to which all doctoral supervisors are invited. Increasingly, this has involved student participation and representation: for example, one School (June 2008) has chosen to split its session into two halves, with two areas of focus: the experiences of staff, whereby colleagues can hear from an Education Adviser about key themes arising from recent research into supervisor experience and then talk frankly together about any issues arising for them in their doctoral role, followed by a ‘student experience’ session. In the student-led session, a number of PGR students sit as a ‘panel of experts’ to answer questions of staff, and make suggestions about creative and innovative ways forward in building an increasingly vibrant research community in that School and beyond, to the wider academy.

2.4PGR students with a teaching role have also helped inform and develop a ‘Learning

and Teaching in HE’ programme, accredited by the Higher Education Academy. This interactive programme enables PGR students not only to mix with and learn from one another through discussion and shared tasks, including a very active online discussion forum, but also to engage conceptually with notions of ‘knowledge’ and ‘reality’ in ways which challenge them to evaluate their place in the PGR community more widely. One session, on ‘Teaching Your Specialism’, asks PGRs to consider the epistemological and ontological dimensions of research in their own subject discipline, and explore the relationship between cognate and contrasting disciplines. Evaluative feedback on the programme, and on this session in particular, has been extremely positive, and continues to help shape the programme and its delivery.

There are other, more standard, ways in which PGR students are ‘engaged’ in the institution: evaluative feedback is gathered through surveys and Staff-Student Liaison Committees (SSLCs), and student representation on School and University committees. However, the engagement of students in the development and promotion of the Effective Researcher Development Programme, and within the staff development sessions for supervisors both at university and at School level, has been particularly productive.

Conclusion

The strategies outlined here for seeking pro-actively to engage postgraduate research students are proving successful. There are still, however, many more ways in which we could be more imaginative in our inclusion of research students in idea generation, promotion of schemes and decision-making. One next step is to engage our research students even more explicitly as change agents, workingcollaboratively with them to generate new possibilities for additional, productive means of student engagement in diverse contexts. In so doing, we aim further to develop the kinds of mutual engagement and shared enterprise described by Wenger (1998), dimensionswhich are needed to cultivate effective, collaborative communities of practice in the shifting and challenging environment of postgraduate research.