The focus of this January post is to report back on the student focus groups held just before the Winter break; structured around a Diamond 9 ranking activity.

The majority of the cohort participated in the focus group, and their discussions and sorting were video recorded (voices, hands and cards in video only) before being transcribed and analysed.

The cohort was divided into 4 smaller groups, each of which completed the Diamond 9 ranking activity separately. The brief given was to rank ‘factors that indicate engagement’ – from the most to least important.

The 9 factors provided for the sort were identified from a combination of themes in the literature, and the measures used by the university (and tracked in LEARN). They were as follows:

• Spending time on campus outside of timetabled hours
• Using learning development support – drop ins and/or 1-2-1s
• Grades
• Reading relevant and wider literature
• Attendance
• NILE usage
• Determination to progress and achieve
• Communicating with lecturers and personal tutor
• Meeting assignment deadlines

Analysis of the diamond sort factor placement started with attribution of points based on priority of placement. Factors were attributed 0 points for placement in the bottom row (least important) – up to a maximum of 4 points attributed for placement in the top row (most important).

Factors ranked on priority points	Grp 1	Grp 2	Grp 3	Grp 4	TOTALS
Determination to progress and achieve	4	3	3	4	14
Meeting assignment deadlines	3	4	2	3	12
Communicating with lecturers and personal tutor	2	2	4	3	11
Reading relevant and wider literature	3	3	2	2	10
Attendance	2	1	2	2	7
NILE usage	2	2	1	2	7
Using learning development support – drop ins and/or 1-2-1s	1	1	3	1	6
Grades	1	2	1	1	5
Spending time on campus outside of timetabled hours	0	0	0	0	0

Interestingly, the factor that was most important to the cohort, and placed at the top of the diamond by two of the four groups, is the hardest (most subjective) for the university to recognise: Determination to progress and achieve.

Interaction with each of the focus groups, after the diamond sort had been completed, allowed for exploration of that top choice. Students were asked how we would recognise that determination to progress and achieve was present; “How would I recognise that was you?” Brief summary of their responses would be that we would need to “gauge” this and “just have to overhear” through a combination of the other factors present in the diamond. For example, “Wider research and coming to lessons with more knowledge” would indicate determination to progress and achieve. Through their communication with us, we would need to gauge their “attitude towards learning”.

That jumps straight to the heart of the rationale for this research project. For the factor that students consider most indicative of their engagement to be so complex to compile and open to such attribution error and individual variations – which colleague sees/looks for/recognises which signs; which colleague sees/looks for/recognises in the moment and also somehow records this AND later collates this record with other such records across the team AND then analyses the bigger picture to get an idea of whether that student is determined to progress and achieve…

Arguably, this is what the contribution of a system such as LEARN may be intended to provide – IF this ‘evidence’ were a simple causal relation, and IF the LEARN system were functional such that it might be trustworthy. 

Stating that colleagues would know students were determined to progress and achieve because students would be “using resources, reading.”, “communicating”, handing in “assignments on time, being in your lectures, I guess” is not the same thing as saying that if a student does NOT read, communicate well, submit on time or have good attendance they are without determination to progress and achieve. This comes through also in the focus group data.

Attendance is valued as an aid to learning and for peer and tutor interaction that supports learning. Whilst attendance is seen as making it easier to engage, it is not seen as synonymous with engagement; the group were clear that attendance alone was an empty measure in that its benefit came through interaction (and improved communication). There were clear echoes of ‘the Index for Inclusion’ (Booth and Ainscow, 2002) in these themes, in that Presence, Participation and Achievement were all closely linked and needed to all be in play for meaningful engagement.

Students did recognise the performative function of attendance and of NILE usage. This view of how ‘engagement factors’ might function is referenced, by them, to their awareness of the factors recorded in LEARN… There are multiple layers of performativity here that will be interesting and important to explore further. 

Other themes emergent from this data included a view of both attendance and meeting submission deadlines as a matter for individual choice, such that neither factor may directly indicate engagement. There was mention of the consumer stance that if the student is paying then the student can choose. There was also awareness of “mitigating circumstances” that might lead a student not to attend and/or not to submit on time – but that this might be due to other important things in their life and therefore in no way indicate diminished engagement.

Poor and disorganised sleep patterns were linked to challenges in meaningful attendance (ie participation and attention-ful presence); and attributed to too much non-timetabled time: “Cos I’ve got to fill 5 days, like fill 5 days with something. I feel like that’s why my sleep pattern’s even worse cos I’m like sat there on a Thursday at 2 O’Clock and like well what am I meant to do? So I just sleep and then I can’t sleep at night and then I’m tired and it just doesn’t work.” There were interesting patterns in who expressed these views and who did not, relating to age; prior educational or work schedules, and whether students live on or off campus.

I’m really looking forward to continuing to explore and pull together these themes, and will continue to update you with ongoing blog posts.

As always, any comments, thoughts, feedback is most welcome! Thank you.

 

 

 

Booth, T. and Ainscow, M. (2002) Index for Inclusion: developing learning and participation in schools. Center for Studies on Inclusive Education (CSIE) Available at https://www.eenet.org.uk/resources/docs/Index%20English.pdf