Student Engagement Survey Middle East (SESME) Implementation Workshop

1. Student Engagement Survey Middle East (SESME) Implementation Workshop Smarter Learning Symposia Shangri-La Hotel, Dubai Wednesday 24 April 2013 Professor Hamish Coates & Dr Sarah Richardson highereducation@acer.edu.au

2. Linking global insights into higher learning

3. Career-ready Academic standards Student focused Human potential Focused support Educational principles Evidence Productivity Multi-disciplinary Curriculum Work readiness Pathways Participation Innovation Outcomes Value added Capabilities Global education

4. Imagine an institution…

5. Plan • Improve • Act • Evaluate • Hunch

6. institutional, educational, epistemological, conceptual, disciplinary, industrial, transnational, commercial, cultural, professional, practical, supranational, universal, ontological, metaphysical, pedagogical, situational, organisational, interpersonal, historical, aesthetic, political…

8. Commitment to effectiveness • Little data • Happiness data • Effectiveness data • Elite • Mass • Universal

9. Change perspectives • Spotting areas of risk • Producing a cultivating climate • Profiling groups • Responding to individuality • Identifying unexpectedness • Stimulating change • Tracking change

10. An emerging global measure Global benchmarking: student engagement measured systematically in United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, United Kingdom, China, Japan, South Africa, etc. Nearly 4 million students participated in the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Over 1,500 North American colleges and universities participated in NSSE More than 150,000 students have participated in the Australasian survey of student engagement (AUSSE)

11. After lunch… Refine definition of ‘student engagement’ and how we will measure this in the Middle East Look at reporting for institutions Review approach to pilot implementation in 2013-14 Chart next steps

12. Continuing consultative development Initial meetings in Qatar in November 2011 and October 2012 Constitute Advisory Group to oversee development Establish communications architectures Students, staff, institutions and other stakeholders will provide feedback Invite institutions to participate in the pilot survey fieldwork

13. What is student engagement? Student-centred perspective of learning Encompasses both academic and ‘beyond classroom’ activities and conditions Assumption that individuals learn and develop through involvement with key educational practices and activities Grounded in decades of research Links between student engagement and retention, completion and positive learning outcomes

14. Developing questionnaire for the pilot MESEQ will be based on current version of NSSE MESEQ will be adapted to be appropriate for the Middle East context Feedback will be sought from the sector and Advisory Group to further develop the MESEQ Survey will be discussed with students in focus groups, interviews and small scale tests Based on feedback and findings from consultation and focus groups, MESEQ will be further revised

15. Shaping aspirations Higher-Order Thinking General Learning General Development Career Readiness Average Overall Grade Departure Intention Overall Satisfaction Future Intentions • Graduate transitions • Admission and integration Academic Challenge Active Learning Student and Staff Interactions Enriching Educational Experiences Supportive Learning Environment Work Integrated Learning • Involvement and retention

18. Academic Challenge • Extent to which expectations and assessments challenge students to learn • Time spent preparing for class • Amount of reading and writing • Institutional expectations • Focus of coursework

19. Academic Challenge Hours spent preparing for class

20. Active Learning • Students’ efforts to actively construct their knowledge • Asking questions/contributing to discussions • Giving presentations • Working with other students • Participating in community-based learning

21. Active Learning Frequently participated in active learning

22. Student and Staff Interactions • Level and nature of students’ contact with teaching staff • Receiving feedback • Discussing grades and assignments • Discussing ideas from classes • Discussing career plans • Working with teaching staff

23. Student and Staff Interactions ‘Never’ interacted with staff

24. Enriching Educational Experiences • Participation in broadening educational activities • Interacting with people of different backgrounds • Participating in extracurricular activities • Taking part in a practicum or internship • Doing volunteer work • Studying a foreign language • Participating in a learning community

25. Enriching Educational Experiences Participated in broadening activities

26. Supportive Learning Environment • Students’ feelings of support within the university community • Quality of relationships with students and staff • Academic support provision • Non-academic support provision • Support to socialise

27. Supportive Learning Environment Quality of relationships

28. Demographics and contexts • Demographic and context questions • Students’ gender • Year level • Mode and type of study • Discipline • Residency/citizenship status • Home language • Ethnicity • Living arrangements • Age

29. Demographics and contexts Average engagement by mode of study

30. Demographics and contexts Average engagement by field of study

31. Localisation for equivalency

32. Localisation for equivalency

33. Shaping continuing improvement…? Your reactions to the current draft instrument? Further improvements you recommend? Language and cultural issues? Value of different questions?

34. How is data on engagement used? Responding to accountability and transparency Assessing and improving student learning, curriculum and teaching practices Creating partnerships through benchmarking Improving student retention and success Institutional audits and performance reviews Evidence-based conversations about improving student engagement

35. Do more for learning

36. Benchmarking results • Within an individual institution • Between individual institutions • Between groups of institutions • With national level findings

37. Benchmarking between institutions Average Active Learning scale scores

38. Benchmarking between countries Average scale scores

39. Pilot fieldwork Following finalisation of MESEQ survey will be piloted with participating institutions Pilot survey will be conducted in English and Arabic Survey will be conducted primarily online with some paper survey forms used as required All data returned to ACER for processing and reporting

40. Psychometric analysis and reporting Following fieldwork, ACER prepares overall data file ACER conducts psychometric analysis of the survey and its scales Each participating institution receive its own data file and customised benchmark report Overall report will be prepared and published

41. Review of SESME pilot Based on the psychometric analyses some changes may be made to the instrument Based on feedback from participating institutions, survey methods will be refined All participating institutions will be asked to provide feedback on their experience of being involved in the pilot All feedback and analyses will feed into the development of the next SESME

42. SESME pilot timeline