The challenge of taking a wider and longer perspective of students’ devel- opment has been met in myriad ways, many of which have their roots in the real world learning tradition. In this sense, real world learning may be highly appropriate if it can be reclaimed from some of the two- dimensional understandings of the term as drawing a spurious distinction between
‘study’ and ‘work’, and thus implying that universities are not part of the real world (James, 2015). What must be avoided is a narrow conception of real world learning which only deepens performativity and restricts student academic freedom (Macfarlane, 2016). It can be dangerous to assume that any element of pedagogy, which bears resemblance to prac- tices found in the workplace, are inherently meaningful (e.g. the contin- ued unpopularity of group assessments and how they are assessed). In particular, embarking on graduate-focussed activities without making it
clear to students why these activities are meaningful and failing to man- age these in a meaningful way feels counter to real world learning prin- ciples. While many colleagues have found success in applying the principles of real world learning, our second case study would suggest that a staff-student partnership approach which is rooted in negotiating shared expectations, purposes and responsibilities of any academic endeavour. In undertaking a staff-student partnership approach that places expectations and responsibilities on both sides of that dichotomy, a more meaningful engagement is possible.
Staff-student partnership is a concept which has gained significant traction in the UK and internationally in the last decade. The literature on staff-student partnership is a broad church; as an emerging area of practice and study, these principles have been applied in a range of con- texts (see Mercer-Mapstone et al., 2017, for a review of the literature).
Indeed, much of the conceptualisation encourages a focus on centralising values or principles than specific set of practices (Healey, Flint, &
Harrington, 2014). Few analyses have conceptualised partnership work- ing as a form of real world learning. Certainly, much of the evidence of the benefits of partnership focusses on the skills and employability ben- efits to students. Real world learning is also based on similar principles around the empowerment of students (https://www.real world learning network.org/real world learning-model/empowerment.aspx). In that sense, a partnership approach would extend this to also empower staff to be more flexible, responsive and authentic in their teaching, support and assessment. In one of the most significant conceptualisations of partner- ship, Healey, Flint and Harrington describe it as such:
It is […] about a change in mind-set and attitude to the nature of learning itself, understood as an experiential process of reflection and transformation in relation to oneself and with others. It is about cultural change in the academy, and about embracing the often-disorientating complexity of the contempo- rary world while maintaining the curiosity. (Healey et al., 2014, pp. 55–56)
The following case study will outline a practical way in which these principles were enacted in order to deliver a meaningful change in staff- student relationships and to rationalise the use of a real world learning approach.
Case Study 2
Negotiating a Shared Understanding and Real World Priorities Through Partnership Learning Agreements (Stuart Sims, Senior Lecturer in Higher Education, University of Portsmouth, Susan Noble, Academic Lead, University of Portsmouth, Amy Barlow, Head of Academic Development, University of Portsmouth, UK)
Context
This intervention occurred with a Year Two cohort of students in the University of Portsmouth’s Fashion and Textile Design course. Lecturers as a group felt they were having difficulty in engaging the students in this year group with much of the standard expectations of the course, and this was having a natural impact upon student attainment and the culture and environment of the course. Previously this course had been highly suc- cessful in creating an effective course community, including significant casual interaction across year groups. This was a necessary element of the course as it centralises an authentic, real world learning approach with large portions of teaching and the more general experience of the course taking place in design studios. While containing a range of up-to- date and effective resources, this is naturally a finite space which usually encourages close staff-student collaboration. This Level 5 group then were somewhat of an outlier in that they had not adapted to the culture of the course and this was leading to a range of challenges for staff and students alike.
Intervention
Through concern about both student well-being and attainment, the course team reached out to the University’s central Academic Development Team for support in resolving this issue. A meeting between the course team, academic developers and the Student Union occurred, and a
multi- stage process was devised to co-create Staff-Student Partnership Agreements.
Particularly common in Scottish Higher Education due to the pio- neering work of Sparqs (the Scottish organisation for student partner- ships in quality and an affiliate of Quality Assurance Agency Scotland), partnership agreements are designed to publicly acknowledge shared responsibilities and mutual direction of travel between the university and the student body. What distinguishes such documents from similar pieces (e.g. Student Charters) is a commitment to enhancement of quality rather than minimum standards as well as an emphasis on working rela- tionships (Williamson, 2013). Typically, these agreements are signed between a relevant senior member of university staff (e.g. Vice Chancellor and Registrar) and a member of the Student Union’s Sabbatical Officer Team (e.g. President and Vice President for Education). Such documents are therefore extensions of existing frameworks of representation at the highest level and set out expectations institutionally. These tend to include value statements, link to other strategic documents and establish baseline expectations for areas such as conduct, provision and support. A critique of such agreements is that they often do not directly engage with staff or students. As such representatives are deciding what they are agreeing to.
These agreements may seem opaque or distant to staff and students in their everyday lives. The principles of this particular partnership agree- ment was adapted in order to reflect more local-level priorities without reliance on the representation typical in institution-wide agreements.
To design a local version of a staff-student partnership agreement, a multi-stage workshop approach was undertaken. The initial workshop was conducted in the Student Union to provide a neutral environment and only included the students. While much of the initial driver was concerns around engagement and behaviour, this was not treated as remedial intervention to only target particular groups—rather a whole year group cohort approach was taken with the intent of fostering a greater sense of course community and belonging. Every student in the second year was invited and the vast majority attended. Drawing on the expertise of the Vice President, Education, a series of warm-up exercises were undertaken to get the participants actively moving and discussing before moving onto the more substantive aspects of the workshop. This
then progressed to a whole group activity which asked students to reflect on their motivations and priorities around their education. The stu- dent group were then asked to stand along the back of the room at par- ticular points to indicate the extent to which they agreed with a set of statements (almost like a living Likert Scale). Explanations of their choices were invited from the group and they were quite forthcoming about why they chose particular views, and this led to in-depth discus- sions about the support on the course and its links with their employ- ability. The students were then put into groups and asked to outline what they believed their perfect course would look like. The purpose of all these activities was to encourage reflection from the students to give them a clearer idea of what they wanted from the course and beyond as well as how they could achieve this. This progressed into a second stage where members of the course team were invited in and joined a group. Drawing on the previous discussions and facilitated by the Academic Development and Student Union team, each group was invited to outline what their expectations of staff and students would be for the course. The final stage involved a separate workshop day session where students and staff brought together their priorities into a final list of responsibilities for the pro- gramme, as identified in Table 3.1:
Table 3.1 Agreed list of staff and student responsibilities
Students Staff
• Should turn up to all sessions and recognise effort put in by tutors
• Should be considerate of space and shall share/leave space when moving between rooms
• Should be enthusiastic and positive and acknowledge what is out of control to change and good changes we’ve experienced
• Take active steps to discuss and resolve conflicting feedback from different tutors and find the answers we need
• Be on time and do not disrupt the lesson, enter quietly or wait outside—respect those that are learning
• Improve communication about issues that we raise so that students understand what action is taken
• Allow 10 minutes of feedback time for student representatives to talk to wider group
• Reward positive behaviour and attendance
• Be more transparent about feedback and how it links to the marking criteria
• Will start sessions on time even if students are late
Conclusion
In many ways, developing a partnership agreement is quite distinct from values and practices associated with real world learning. However, the drivers behind this intervention were around a sense of shared responsi- bility and collaboration which are very consistent with this tradition.
Universities tend to be values-based institutions, subscribing to a particu- lar agenda of what the purpose of education is and its role in wider soci- ety. Bridging the gap between a more liberal conception of the purpose of education and courses that adopt a more real world approach is para- mount. Often the function, shape and tradition of universities are unclear to students in a massified system. This is particularly pronounced when students are attending with their future employability as their primary motivation. Engaging with principles of staff-student partnership and real world learning can surface the expectations of both groups. The work presented in this case study has yet to be evaluated fully and therefore it merely serves here as a suggestion of an approach that can address grow- ing concerns across the sector that merges a real world learning and part- nership approach. Anecdotally, the staff team reports that the benefits of the partnership agreement have mainly been felt in Staff-Student Consultative Committees where the agreed statements can be used to contextualise course issues or changes as well as holding all participants to account.