Links between Differing Perceptions of Quality of Learning and Student Engagement in Learning, a QAA Collaborative Enhancement Project led by Bangor University in collaboration with Grwp Llandrillo Menai
Understanding the shift: how a study of ethnic and disciplinary difference in experience of blended learning can help us understand student engagement in learning
Different Perceptions of Quality of Learning, a collaboration between Portsmouth, Solent, Manchester Metropolitan and Nottingham Universities evidences a mammoth ambition to address two key debates of Covid-era Higher education: firstly, what elements to maintain from the pivot to blended and online learning and secondly, how the pivot was experienced across ethnic and racial groups.
Learning from the pandemic is an almost ubiquitous theme in teaching and learning conferences this summer. Its prominence reflects the discussions which have been pulsing through our virtual meetings with increasing urgency since the publication of the Pearson-Wonke survey (of 3,500 students) in June 2020. However, notwithstanding this survey, there has been an almost total absence of systematic cross-institutional evidence of what students’ experience of blended learning was during 2020/21.
The second key issue was of course that of race, and the effects of racism and colour-blind pedagogy in HE. At the height of the pandemic, the highly visible murder of George Floyd and the acquittal of his policeman murderer, did what so many other killings of Black men had not done and sparked global protest. It led to calls to decolonise the curriculum within UK HE and some were taken to do so, notably at Bristol University. The BAME awarding gap (now at 17.4%), already a focus for managers and governing bodies, is now addressed through an OfS target to eliminate the unexplained gap in good degree outcomes between white students and Black students by 2024-25 and to eliminate the absolute gap by 2030-31.
The study led by Dunbar-Morris and colleagues examines student experiences of blended learning within an ethnically stratified sample of 835 students and explores their experiences by subject area using free text comments and follow-up focus groups. They identified key aspects of teaching, the learning environment, resources and social learning to be explored the survey. Across disciplinary groups, students perceived of quality teaching in terms an engaging style, and the extent to which it developed their understanding, and enabled them to achieve their goals. It was also seen as being comprehensible and accompanied by support and guidance.
Students studying courses in Health Sciences reported a better experience than others - although the authors are careful to point out that these groups would have had more on-campus contact due to regulatory requirements. In terms of ranking valued elements of teaching such as recordings, face to face lecturers or individual or group tasks, students in health sciences reporting significantly more positive views than other groups. Students’ learning experiences, including issues such as being confident in their ability to contribute online and the sense of missing out also differed significantly between Business and Health Sciences when preference for face-to-face teaching was removed. Students’ agreement with a range of statements relating to aspects of engagement such as meaningful learning, being able to demonstrate knowledge through assessments, or a sense of belonging was significantly different across disciplines, with health sciences students scoring these experiences more highly.
Black, Arab and some Asian groups had a better learning experience in 2020/21 and white students had a poorer one. Arab students reported the best experience of blended learning. In terms of elements of delivery such as support, orientation, resources, peer learning or interaction with staff, Black students rated these as being most important and, with the exception of contact with staff, they rated their experience during the period of blended learning highly. White students report a contrasting pattern. Students’ expectations of how often they would engage in activities online as opposed to on campus also varied by group with white students reporting patterns that were significantly different from Arab and Asian students. Face-to-face teaching was the preferred medium across all groups bar Arab students, who preferred online delivery. All groups valued recorded teaching materials and Arab students had the most positive views of the value of all elements (such lecture engagement sessions, and individual and group feedback) but were less positive about personal tutorials.
Recommendations are made on the basis of the overall results including encouraging students to produce their own recorded learning material to interact with their teaching, developing personal tutorials and remote group working to better fit student needs and integrating community and networking opportunities into courses.
More granulated work will be needed to explore other factors such as stage and mode of study as well as including larger samples for some groups. But perhaps the clearest message from the sample as a whole is that student’s own recordings are a valuable resource and in order to maximise their potential, we need to understand them better.
At the same time, the first Welsh CEP, sought to unpick what we mean by student engagement. As a group of 8 universities we discussed a digest that traced the development of the concept, its ties with regulation (targets on retention) and market position (though NSS and similar measures). We also considered criticism of the widespread assumption that engagement equates to active participation in class. As a major review initially found only 2% of papers initially included met quality criteria, we wanted to identify well-designed interventions with effects on student performance, retention and belonging. We are now building a tool kit of these high-quality interventions arranged by the areas where there is evidence of effectiveness. A small but well-designed group of papers reports interventions to address differential achievement, for example by matching tutors and students by background or by using an ethnically matched social support network.
Our focus group study found that students used peer-to-peer learning to understand teaching, to test concepts, to prepare for assessments and make sense of feedback. Those in the FE reported that their positive engagement was often catalysed by their lecturer. In common with Dunbar-Morris and colleagues, we conclude that post-pandemic teaching needs to build in peer and wider engagement for the outset and needs to be attentive to different learning styles. Like Dunbar-Morris and colleagues, we recognise that student’s preferences do not always align to better teaching. For example, in the case of assessed group work, we need to engage in evidence-based co-production with students to retain the undoubted benefits of group work in terms of learning and employability, while addressing the reasons for students’ dislike of the method.
More widely, it may be useful to think about the positive experience of ethnic minority students – and particularly Arab students reported by Dunbar-Morris and colleagues in the light of the criticism of engagement as active participation in physical classes. Their study suggests that that the notion of student engagement in terms of those that put their hands up in class may be powerful example of colourblind pedagogy.
As we discuss the positive changes that we may take from the pandemic over the summer, this careful and timely resource provides us with a model of deep and committed engagement with students through which to plan for inclusive and personalised teaching.
Link to Overview report of Welsh CPE:
