1. 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 2011 Professor Karen Nelson (Project Leader) Tracy Creagh (Project Manager)

3. Presentation Overview Background to the project Project overview Developing the principles Small group activity Feedback and discussion FeedbackActivityDiscussion

4. “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 for intellectual discovery”. Bradley, Noonan, Nugent & Scales (2008) Review of Australian Higher Education: Final Report

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

6. Engagement  Success  Retention Disengagement  Failure  Attrition ?

7. Student Factors Individual Contextual Student Factors Individual Contextual Institutional Context Curriculum Institution Institutional Context Curriculum Institution Teacher Factors Individual Contextual Teacher Factors Individual Contextual Students & Staff Knowledge Skills Attitudes Actions Students & Staff Knowledge Skills Attitudes Actions Institutional Experiences Curriculum- mediated & Co- curricular Institutional Experiences Curriculum- 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)

8. Aspiration, Opportunity & Access Offer & Enrolment Orientation & Transition into University First Year Experiences Later Year Experiences Transition to Work / Industry / Post Graduate Alumni

9. Preparedness Finances Alignment of expectations & experiences Course choice certainty Contact with staff Course design & assessment Feedback, early, timely and constructive (E.g. Krause et al, 2005; Scott, 2006; Yorke & Longden, 2008; Kift, 2009)

11. 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.

12. Recognise the changing patterns of student engagement (e.g. work, travel & on-campus time) Yorke, M. & Thomas, L., 2003

13. Create an institutional climate, supportive in various ways of students’ development, that is perceived as ‘friendly’; Yorke, M. & Thomas, L., 2003

14. A willingness to change! Yorke, M. & Thomas, L., 2003

16. 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/Good practice for enhancing the engagement and success of commencing students. 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.Student success : the identification and support of first year university students at risk of attrition. 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...

17. “Outreach” Contact Mgt System Descriptive Information SSP Advisors “students at-risk” reports Student Activities Student Success Program (SSP) FYE Consultant Academic Skills Advisers Careers and Employment International Students Services Specialist Support Manager SSP FYE & Retention Coord Contact Information Existing student support (e.g.) Limited information Counselling Course Coordinators Equity Services Faculty student services Faculty programs Learning support gateway Oodgeroo Unit Peer Advisers (Library) Student Guild Student Services Workshops & seminars “Warm Hand- On” Referral to Existing Services

18. SSP Activity 2008-2011

19. 200820092010Total Total number of students 4487%6220%8978%19,685% Students “At-Risk “ 776/108371.71254/140189.5787/86591.02817/334984.1 “At-risk” & contacted 448/52785.0395/41994.3328/35692.11,171/1,30189.9 At risk - not contacted 328/55659.0859/98287.54591/50990.21,646/2,04780.4 Not at risk 2960/340487.04332/481989.97398/811391.214690/1633689.9 Impact on Persistence (within semester) Learning Engagement Campaign 2008-2010

21. Project objectives and outcomes The 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;

22. 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

23. Project Approach Establish Project Repository Good Practice for Monitoring Student Engagement

24. 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

25. 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.

26. . 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

27. 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

28. Perspectives of Justice The will What should social justice desire? Whose desire? To render How should social justice be achieved? To everyone Who should social justice benefit? Their due What 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 HE Social justice in HE Using perspectives of social justice to frame the MSLE principles (Gale, 2000 p.268)

29. Draft Social Justice Principles for MSLE SELF- 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.

30. Small group discussion Consider how the draft principles relate to the HE context? How will these principles benefit : Students? QUT / Institutions? Workshop Activity FeedbackDiscussion

31. 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 2011 Professor Karen Nelson (Project Leader) Tracy Creagh (Project Manager)