Page content

Published Date

11th April 2017

Watch our Panopto Video

We have information on the case study.

Overview

In order to develop a sustainable solution to these issues staff decided it was important to enable students as partners to encourage more personal investment and to help build positive student-staff relationships. Strong et al (1995) states ‘most of us work hardest on those relationships that are reciprocal—what you have to offer is of value to me, and what I have to offer is of some value to you'.

The agreed aims were:

  • Build positive staff-student relationships
  • Help students develop team working skills
  • Improve student experience and increase confidence and performance across a range of disciplines.

Contributors

Staff

Terry Quigley

Project Description

Creative Technologies (CT) is a trans disciplinary course encompassing several diverse areas of study such as audio, computing, coding and visual arts. Making meaningful connections between these disciplines is an underlying aim of the course and by graduation students are able to apply knowledge from all disciplines to certain themes or issues. Jakobs (1989) provides an appropriate analogy which validates this approach; ‘when you are out walking, nature does not confront you for an hour with only with flowers and in the next only with animals’.

In year one however, the focus for students is to experience a foundational introduction to all the disciplines the course has to offer. This invariably means all students, regardless of previous experience or background will undertake a discipline which they find both technical and challenging.

As a result, the majority of year one students experience low levels of confidence at some stage during their first semester of study. These confidence issues are exacerbated within the context of a normal transitional experience to third level education.

Context

In order to develop a sustainable solution to these issues staff decided it was important to enable students as partners to encourage more personal investment and to help build positive student-staff relationships. Strong et al (1995) states ‘most of us work hardest on those relationships that are reciprocal—what you have to offer is of value to me, and what I have to offer is of some value to you'.

Evaluation Approach

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions we adopted a mixed method approach. A series of goal focused and goal free questions were designed in line with the project aims for each intervention. Gathering quantitative and qualitative data enabled us to both measure directly the success of the interventions in relation to the project aims, and also to document more nuanced student insights and unintended outcomes. Mertens (2009) agreed that combining quantitative and qualitative approaches help form a more complete understanding.

A combination of quantitative and qualitative data was also captured through the use of two student surveys conducted separately to evaluate the impact of the interventions outlined above.

Evidence of Impact

The most significant evidence of impact was observed through the marked decrease in the year one attrition rate. In 2012/13 CT lost 23% of year one students. In 2013/14 this was reduced to 4.2%. In 2014/15 it was 11.5% which remained under the 14% target.

Another significant change was noted in relation to module failure rates. From 2012/13 to 2013/14 six from eight year one modules noted reductions in failure rates. The other two modules noted a one and two percent rise. CRE116 noted a 50% improvement in student success while CRE103 and CRE113 noted a 12% and 18% improvement respectively.

Reflective Commentary

Staff have already made similar amendments to the management of teaching, learning and assessment strategies in all year one modules based on the positive feedback from the CRE104 interventions. This will be an ongoing process based on student conversation and feedback with careful monitoring of performance at a modular level.

Transferability

Based on the success of the student trip and hackathon activity staff will endeavour to continue providing a similar platform for students and staff to build relationships and team working skills. The year 1 induction has been identified as another opportunity where new students can part take in an appropriate technical activity with emphasis on introductions to the course, staff and each other without fear of assessment and a genuine emphasis on fun, engagement and creativity.

References

  • mrein, A. (2003). The Effects of High-Stakes Testing on Student Motivation and Learning. A Research Report.
  • Jakobs, H (1989). Interdisciplinary Curriculum: Design and Implementation. Assn for Supervision& Curriculum.
  • Mertens, D (2009). Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology: Integrating DiversityWith Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods. 3rd ed. USA: Sage Publications. 225-267.
  • Prensky, M. (2001). Fun, Play and Games: What Makes Games Engaging. Digital Game-BasedLearning.
  • Strong, R. (1995). Strengthening Student Engagement: What Do Students Want (and what really motivates them)?. Strengthening Student Engagement . 53 (1), 8-12.

Acknowledgements

This case study was part of a three-year What Works? Student Retention & Success Change Programme funded by the Paul Hamlyn Foundation, co-ordinated by the Higher Education Academy (now, Advance HE), and Action on Access.

Sustainable Development Goals