1. Improving teaching methodologies, increasing student retention Dr Jarka Glassey, CEAM Dr Tom Joyce, MSE Clare Hopkins jarka.glassey@ncl.ac.uk

2. Outline  Motivation  Hands-on  Our approaches  What do students think of them  Ideas  Lessons to be learnt?

3. Motivation - CEAM  Engineering not seen as a ‘sexy’ or ‘wealthy’ career  Career advisors/teachers not clear on what chemical engineering entails and what career options there are  A-level combination required puts students off  Low numbers of students and relatively high non-completion rates (~15-25%)

4. Motivation - MSE  “1 in 4 of you will not get to second year”  “Retention would fund N new lecturers”  “70% of income comes from teaching”  Demanding the impossible?  Has anything changed in 20 years?  Disconnect between academia and industry  Engineering as an exciting, dynamic career which achieves positive change in society

5. I believe our retention statistics can be improved 1.Yes 2.No

6. I am involved in improving retention in my School/service 1.Yes 2.No

7. Most of my colleagues care about retention 1.Agree 2.Disagree

8. Students aren’t as clever as they used to be, retention weeds out the weaker ones 1.Agree 2.Disagree

9. I would welcome more support from University (exchange of good practice, …) 1.Yes 2.No

10. So what do you do?  Form groups of 4-5 – as many different coloured spots as possible  Briefly describe your two ‘top ideas’ in retention – 15 min  Note these down on the paper  Summary of all ideas will be placed on Quilt website

11. Our approaches - CEAM  Improve cohesion  Induction week ice-breaker  Team work session ran by Exxonmobil  Increase student engagement  First week special timetable

13. Our approaches - CEAM  Increase student engagement  First week special timetable  Industrial lectures  Involvement of IChemE early on  Monitoring of progress  Mid-semester 1 ‘health-check’ session  Attendance monitoring  Feedback monitoring

14. Our (older) approaches - MSE  Students allocated to a tutor, meet with them once per week  Mathematics streaming – additional classes  “Attendance monitoring”  Staff student committee  Annual Monitoring and Review (AMR)

15. Our (newer) approaches - MSE  Stage 2 focus groups  Engineering Teams of 5 students  Based on old tutorial system but ‘improved’  Employ Teams in two modules (one 30 and one 15 credit) and occasional labs  Induction week Lego exercise  HEFCE/Paul Hamlyn – on-line questionnaire and focus groups (Clare Hopkins)

16. Why teams?  Increase in student integration – students get to know other students more quickly  Informal peer instruction and learning, sharing skills and knowledge  Improves self-development  Changed environment for interaction with lecturers and tutors  Team-working on projects gives shared goals  Improves engagement

17. Collecting students’ views CEAM - focus groups in two consecutive years MSE – online 6 item questionnaire 3 focus groups

18. What they told us (CEAM)  Relationships formed early in a relaxed environment have a potential to be strong and supportive.  The ‘shy’ student may find this a more challenging although positive process  Active intervention moves students safely out of their social comfort zones

19. What they said: You quickly realise that people get into their comfort zones very quickly....and it is just how people look and I find it all a bit superficial actually. It is all on appearance who groups together immediately...until you get told...... If we hadn’t have had that specification of the group and you have to mix with different sexes and different ethnic backgrounds I don’t think it would have happened. So I think that was probably a good thing. (Female 2010/11)

20. What they said: “and we were one of the last ones in..so the only place we could do the tee shirts was on this balcony outside and we all started just laughing and carrying on and you had to write things on the tee shirts which we enjoyed....which was a really good thing to say to other people “Ah, I have got that on my tee shirt as well” and you met more people and we just like stuck to the people that we first got to talk to.” (female 2010/11)

21. What they said (CEAM) “They actually ended up making groups of 6 who you initially met and then, a couple of months down the line, the groups that we first made we did our first design project with so it was really interesting…..because two of the first people in my group were the closest I had got to and they were the first people I had spoken to” (female 09/10)

22. What they told us (MSE) Questionnaire responses (60% response rate)  84% said that they enjoyed being part of a team either very much/somewhat  90% said that they had gained new skills through being part of a team  72% said that they had gained confidence in their interactions with lecturers  72% said that being in a team increased their sense of being part of the School

23. What they told us (MSE) Engineering team students:  Appreciate getting to know each other quickly  Learn from each other  Support each other (particularly important for international students)  Learn about team work processes (+ve and –ve)

24. Ideas Challenges  Getting students to mix/talk to each other  Admission process – interview students (motivation) What worked  Attendance monitoring in stage 1  Running a tight ship  Giving the students ‘the love’

25. Has it worked in MSE? YearStudents registered % of registered able to progress 2005 9382.8 2006 7582.7 2007 9080.0 2008 11482.5 2009

26. Has it worked in MSE? YearStudents registered % of registered able to progress 2005 9382.8 2006 7582.7 2007 9080.0 2008 11482.5 2009 10792.5

27. Lessons to be learnt?  Cohort cohesion very important  Message consistency & re-enforcement  Early transfer of students to other degrees decreased dramatically  Positive student feedback on Engineering Teams  Positive student feedback on staff who are seen to be concerned  Student relationships formed early in Stage 1 have the potential to be long-lasting and supportive  A directive approach to group formation needed to ensure social, gender and ethnic mix => opportunities for improved peer knowledge/skills exchange

28. Questions?