I've been mentioned in a number of press articles following the recent announcement of a Royal Society investigation into IT teaching in schools.
I'll be writing more on the Royal Society investigation in later postings.
Tuesday, 17 August 2010
UCAS Clearing: Some Advice
Given the reports of an ever increasing shortage of undergraduate places this year, it is timely that I revisit the article 'Getting a computing course in clearing: Some advice' that I wrote for ComputerWorld UK last year. The key points of advice for students who find themselves in clearing were:
The article also has useful advice for parents:
PS. All queries regarding courses at City University should be addressed to them directly, and not the comments of this blog (since this is my personal blog, as per comments policy and I'll be too busy to read them).
- Don't panic - decide in haste, repent at leisure. Keep in mind the reasons why you chose your original course.
- Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. Before the A-level grades come out, it's useful to have a list of target courses based on your previous research.
- First thing on getting the grades to do then is to finalise your list of target courses in clearing. The UCAS website and the Independent have official listings.
- Then start phoning universities. Clear thinking, with a systematic approach, will maximise your chances of success. Be polite and have your results ready as university switchboards will be busy.
The article also has useful advice for parents:
"What can parents do? They can provide moral support and guidance in what may be a fraught few days. They can help find information on courses. What parents should avoid is phoning on behalf of applicants or acting as agents: admissions tutors will want to access the student, as it is the student who has to win the place on their merits."I've worked in the admissions tutor role for a number of years so I know how much the A-level grades mean to people who wish to secure a place on the university course of their choice. All I'd like to say is good luck and I hope all goes well!
PS. All queries regarding courses at City University should be addressed to them directly, and not the comments of this blog (since this is my personal blog, as per comments policy and I'll be too busy to read them).
Tuesday, 3 August 2010
Computing Drop-out: What's the Evidence?
This (rather long) blogpost is a response to a discussion on the Computing at Schools mail-group about student retention on computing degrees. I said I would come back with notes on some of the evidence base for members - this blog is a convenient place to put it as it is of potential interest to a wider audience.
This post should also be read in conjunction with an earlier blogpost, that I won't repeat here.
The focus is on framing issues around the Computing discipline so issues of retention that are not directly linked to discipline are not the subject of the discussion (though there is evidence of disciplinary differences on intake as regards social-economic circumstances).
I am looking at the evidence at a discipline level across the UK HE sector, so inferences should not be drawn about particular universities (they'll likely be wrong). What I'll say is known in the public domain - see the references list.
Student as Customer: Does it Matter?
The idea that students are customers (in the transactional sense) has of late been replaced in the HE management literature with a view that the interaction is on where both sides generate (co-produce) value by the interaction. The co-production metaphor helps resolve the ‘student as customer’ narrative, as it implies partnership in the learning process (Eagle and Brennan, 2007). However since the active engagement of students is required, there are limits to what extent the student experience can be managed. Rather attention needs to be turned to what factors enhance or inhibit a positive interaction.
Kotze and du Plessis (2003) consider the co-production of services in HE, and provide a model of how students socialise and participate with university services (Figure 1).
Considering the model of student participation in Figure 1, we see that the student’s socialisation in the university appears to be the first stage. To this end, the alignment of student, discipline and institutional identity is key. Stensaker (2007) discusses the issue of identity in HE and how it impacts on wider strategic developments and how students see themselves. James (2001) notes that student expectations affect student satisfaction, where incoming student identity plays a major role. This will be explored later.
As we will see socialisation plays a part in retention, and issues of retention and the overall student experience are linked.
What Factors Affect Retention?
Much of the work on retention is based on Tinto (1975) that takes a longitudinal view of the student journey. In this model, the student’s initial commitment to the institution and to graduating affects their integration and thus retention. In many respects, this maps to the model of student socialisation given in Figure 1. The approach by Tinto (1975) is based on studies of full-time students in American universities.
The model is however complex with intermediate stages and so it is arguable that a simpler and more direct model may inform discussion more clearly. DeShields Jr, Kara and Kaynak (2005) use the case study of an American business school to validate empirically a simplified version of the ideas of Tinto (1975). This model, from Keaveney and Young (1997), focuses on aspects of the student experience that the university is responsible for providing (Figure 2).
The usefulness of this model is that empirical validation allows us to separate ‘hygiene’ factors that must be addressed, from factors that have a positive effect on satisfaction and retention. The study by DeShields Jr, Kara and Kaynak (2005) concludes the following.
The First Year Experience
The first year experience is a topic attracting some attention and is noted as a key factor in retention (Krause et al., 2005; Harvey, Drew and Smith, 2006). It is when undergraduate socialisation in the university takes place. This is arguably important in the case of universities where students typically commute into classes rather than live near campus.
Yorke and Longden (2008, p. 14) have examined the reasons why first year non-returners left their course. For computer science non-returners the main reasons were as follows.
Furthermore, there is a tension between the discipline of computer science and the information technology profession. They have distinct identities that cause difficulties in linking research and teaching between the two in a way that aligns with student expectations for an education for an IT professional (Denning, 2000; Denning, 2001). The computer science discipline is heavily theoretical/technological in nature, whereas the IT profession has evolved to become a provider of business services underpinned by technological innovation (Bowkis, 2006). This tension needs to be actively managed at all (and so makes the problems above worse).
The third and fourth issues support the discussion so far regarding the role of teaching and assessment.
The final issue fits closely with the NSS scores around academic support. Hixenbaugh (2006) discusses the role personal tutoring in retention. In this context, attendance data can be used to improve retention (Bowen et al., 2005).
Conclusion
The above analysis highlights two sets of issues. The first is around provision of services and teaching, the second to do with a mismatch between what students think IT/computing is and the reality.
The first of these is in principle actionable by the university sector. The worry is that the second of these issue is not, and if we are to get the most from out talented students we need to align schools, universities and the wider IT profession and industry better than we do at the moment.
I close with noting that the culture in UK HE is still largely one of wanting students to progress if admitted to the course, for moral and professional rather than financial reasons. We have not yet reached the state in a number of overseas HE systems where the first year is used as a crude filter to sort those (un)able to do the degree (A-levels have traditionally been considered to play that role).
References
Bowen, E., Price, T., Lloyd, S. and Thomas, S. (2005), 'Improving the quantity and quality of attendance data to enhance student retention'. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 29 (4), 375-385.
Bowkis, M. (2006), Developing the Future: A report on the challenges and opportunities facing the UK Software Development Industry Reading: Microsoft UK.
Denning, P. J. (2000), 'Computer Science: The Discipline'. In A. Ralston and D. Hemmendinger (eds), Encyclopedia of Computer Science. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Denning, P. J. (2001), 'When IT becomes a profession'. In P. J. Denning (ed.), The Invisible Future. New York: McGraw Hill.
DeShields Jr, O. W., Kara, A. and Kaynak, E. (2005), 'Determinants of business student satisfaction and retention in higher education: applying Herzberg’s two-factor theory'. International Journal of Educational Management, 19 (2), 128-139.
Eagle, L. and Brennan, R. (2007), 'Are students customers? TQM and marketing perspectives'. Quality Assurance in Education, 15 (1), 44-60.
Harvey, L., Drew, S. and Smith, M. (2006), The first-year experience: a review of literature for the Higher Education Academy. York: The Higher Education Academy.
HEA. (2006), Academy Exchange: The student learning experience. York: The Higher Education Academy.
Hixenbaugh, P. (2006), 'Relationships and Retention'. Academy Exchange: The student learning experience, 22-24.
James, R. (2001), Students’ changing expectations of higher education and the consequences of mismatches with the reality Management responses to changing student expectations. Queensland University of Technology: OECD-IMHE.
Keaveney, S. M. and Young, C. E. (1997), The student satisfaction and retention model (SSRM), Working Paper. Denver, CO: University of Colorado.
Kotze, T. G. and du Plessis, P. J. (2003), 'Students as "co-producers" of education: a proposed model of student socialisation and participation at tertiary institutions'. Quality Assurance in Education, 11 (4), 186-201.
Krause, K.-L., Hartley, R., James, R. and McInnis, C. (2005), The First Year Experience In Australian Universities: Findings From A Decade Of National Studies. Canberra: Australian Government, Department of Education, Science and Training.
Lusch, R. F., Vargo, S. L. and O’Brien, M. (2007), 'Competing through service: Insights from service-dominant logic'. Journal of Retailing, 83 (1), 5-18.
Stensaker, B. (2007), 'The Relationship between Branding and Organisational Change'. Higher Education Management and Policy, 19 (1), 1-17.
Tinto, V. (1975), 'Dropout from higher education: a theoretical synthesis of recent research'. Journal of Higher Education, 53 (6), 687-700.
Universities UK. (2002), Student Services: Effective approaches to retaining students in higher education. London: Universities UK.
Yorke, M. and Longden, B. (2008), The first-year experience of higher education in the UK: Final Report. York: Higher Education Academy.
This post should also be read in conjunction with an earlier blogpost, that I won't repeat here.
The focus is on framing issues around the Computing discipline so issues of retention that are not directly linked to discipline are not the subject of the discussion (though there is evidence of disciplinary differences on intake as regards social-economic circumstances).
I am looking at the evidence at a discipline level across the UK HE sector, so inferences should not be drawn about particular universities (they'll likely be wrong). What I'll say is known in the public domain - see the references list.
Student as Customer: Does it Matter?
The idea that students are customers (in the transactional sense) has of late been replaced in the HE management literature with a view that the interaction is on where both sides generate (co-produce) value by the interaction. The co-production metaphor helps resolve the ‘student as customer’ narrative, as it implies partnership in the learning process (Eagle and Brennan, 2007). However since the active engagement of students is required, there are limits to what extent the student experience can be managed. Rather attention needs to be turned to what factors enhance or inhibit a positive interaction.
Kotze and du Plessis (2003) consider the co-production of services in HE, and provide a model of how students socialise and participate with university services (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Model of Student Socialisation and Participation, from (Kotze and du Plessis, 2003).
Considering the model of student participation in Figure 1, we see that the student’s socialisation in the university appears to be the first stage. To this end, the alignment of student, discipline and institutional identity is key. Stensaker (2007) discusses the issue of identity in HE and how it impacts on wider strategic developments and how students see themselves. James (2001) notes that student expectations affect student satisfaction, where incoming student identity plays a major role. This will be explored later.
As we will see socialisation plays a part in retention, and issues of retention and the overall student experience are linked.
What Factors Affect Retention?
Much of the work on retention is based on Tinto (1975) that takes a longitudinal view of the student journey. In this model, the student’s initial commitment to the institution and to graduating affects their integration and thus retention. In many respects, this maps to the model of student socialisation given in Figure 1. The approach by Tinto (1975) is based on studies of full-time students in American universities.
The model is however complex with intermediate stages and so it is arguable that a simpler and more direct model may inform discussion more clearly. DeShields Jr, Kara and Kaynak (2005) use the case study of an American business school to validate empirically a simplified version of the ideas of Tinto (1975). This model, from Keaveney and Young (1997), focuses on aspects of the student experience that the university is responsible for providing (Figure 2).
Figure 2: The Student Satisfaction and Retention Model (SSRM), from (Keaveney and Young, 1997)
The usefulness of this model is that empirical validation allows us to separate ‘hygiene’ factors that must be addressed, from factors that have a positive effect on satisfaction and retention. The study by DeShields Jr, Kara and Kaynak (2005) concludes the following.
- The role of advising and central service staff is a hygiene factor. Thomas et al (2003) notes that it is difficult to directly relate services to retention which supports this finding; though Universities UK (2002) has some good practice guidelines to this end.
- The effects of the faculty and classes have a key and positive effect on student satisfaction and retention.
The First Year Experience
The first year experience is a topic attracting some attention and is noted as a key factor in retention (Krause et al., 2005; Harvey, Drew and Smith, 2006). It is when undergraduate socialisation in the university takes place. This is arguably important in the case of universities where students typically commute into classes rather than live near campus.
Yorke and Longden (2008, p. 14) have examined the reasons why first year non-returners left their course. For computer science non-returners the main reasons were as follows.
- Wrong choice of field of study.
- Difficulty of the programme.
- General quality of the teaching.
- Class sizes being too large.
- Poor provision of specialist equipment.
- A lack of personal support from staff.
Furthermore, there is a tension between the discipline of computer science and the information technology profession. They have distinct identities that cause difficulties in linking research and teaching between the two in a way that aligns with student expectations for an education for an IT professional (Denning, 2000; Denning, 2001). The computer science discipline is heavily theoretical/technological in nature, whereas the IT profession has evolved to become a provider of business services underpinned by technological innovation (Bowkis, 2006). This tension needs to be actively managed at all (and so makes the problems above worse).
The third and fourth issues support the discussion so far regarding the role of teaching and assessment.
The final issue fits closely with the NSS scores around academic support. Hixenbaugh (2006) discusses the role personal tutoring in retention. In this context, attendance data can be used to improve retention (Bowen et al., 2005).
Conclusion
The above analysis highlights two sets of issues. The first is around provision of services and teaching, the second to do with a mismatch between what students think IT/computing is and the reality.
The first of these is in principle actionable by the university sector. The worry is that the second of these issue is not, and if we are to get the most from out talented students we need to align schools, universities and the wider IT profession and industry better than we do at the moment.
I close with noting that the culture in UK HE is still largely one of wanting students to progress if admitted to the course, for moral and professional rather than financial reasons. We have not yet reached the state in a number of overseas HE systems where the first year is used as a crude filter to sort those (un)able to do the degree (A-levels have traditionally been considered to play that role).
References
Bowen, E., Price, T., Lloyd, S. and Thomas, S. (2005), 'Improving the quantity and quality of attendance data to enhance student retention'. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 29 (4), 375-385.
Bowkis, M. (2006), Developing the Future: A report on the challenges and opportunities facing the UK Software Development Industry Reading: Microsoft UK.
Denning, P. J. (2000), 'Computer Science: The Discipline'. In A. Ralston and D. Hemmendinger (eds), Encyclopedia of Computer Science. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Denning, P. J. (2001), 'When IT becomes a profession'. In P. J. Denning (ed.), The Invisible Future. New York: McGraw Hill.
DeShields Jr, O. W., Kara, A. and Kaynak, E. (2005), 'Determinants of business student satisfaction and retention in higher education: applying Herzberg’s two-factor theory'. International Journal of Educational Management, 19 (2), 128-139.
Eagle, L. and Brennan, R. (2007), 'Are students customers? TQM and marketing perspectives'. Quality Assurance in Education, 15 (1), 44-60.
Harvey, L., Drew, S. and Smith, M. (2006), The first-year experience: a review of literature for the Higher Education Academy. York: The Higher Education Academy.
HEA. (2006), Academy Exchange: The student learning experience. York: The Higher Education Academy.
Hixenbaugh, P. (2006), 'Relationships and Retention'. Academy Exchange: The student learning experience, 22-24.
James, R. (2001), Students’ changing expectations of higher education and the consequences of mismatches with the reality Management responses to changing student expectations. Queensland University of Technology: OECD-IMHE.
Keaveney, S. M. and Young, C. E. (1997), The student satisfaction and retention model (SSRM), Working Paper. Denver, CO: University of Colorado.
Kotze, T. G. and du Plessis, P. J. (2003), 'Students as "co-producers" of education: a proposed model of student socialisation and participation at tertiary institutions'. Quality Assurance in Education, 11 (4), 186-201.
Krause, K.-L., Hartley, R., James, R. and McInnis, C. (2005), The First Year Experience In Australian Universities: Findings From A Decade Of National Studies. Canberra: Australian Government, Department of Education, Science and Training.
Lusch, R. F., Vargo, S. L. and O’Brien, M. (2007), 'Competing through service: Insights from service-dominant logic'. Journal of Retailing, 83 (1), 5-18.
Stensaker, B. (2007), 'The Relationship between Branding and Organisational Change'. Higher Education Management and Policy, 19 (1), 1-17.
Tinto, V. (1975), 'Dropout from higher education: a theoretical synthesis of recent research'. Journal of Higher Education, 53 (6), 687-700.
Universities UK. (2002), Student Services: Effective approaches to retaining students in higher education. London: Universities UK.
Yorke, M. and Longden, B. (2008), The first-year experience of higher education in the UK: Final Report. York: Higher Education Academy.
Saturday, 31 July 2010
An academic's view of the cloud?
I was recently interviewed by Computer Weekly during the Beyond the Cloud conference organised by BT and Computer Weekly. The interview is available online.
Sunday, 18 July 2010
Barcelona, Interdisciplinary Research and the REF
Blogging has been light - a combination of loads of work to do and then much needed leave to recover!
Right now I'm in Barcelona attending the WCCI 2010 conference where I'm presenting a rather nice algorithm for fuzzy-rough set reduct optimisation. I'll also be working on a journal paper with my collaborators.
What's this to do with information leadership? Well, first of all I like good science and I enjoy working with my co-authors from Aberystwyth University. I also like to get my geek on, once in a while...:-)
The other is more pragmatic. A large chunk of HEFCE income to UK universities (about 20% of a £7476m spend in 2008, see here), is allocated according to a periodic research evaluation process (the one coming up is called the Research Excellence Framework - REF). It also ends up acting as a (contested) measure of relative prestige and appears in some league tables.
Needless to say a >> £1Bn incentive will affect behaviour. Given that teaching is not funded (incentivised) by HEFCE on a 'quality' basis (in fact by student numbers and subject price group), some believe that teaching has suffered - the arguments are well-rehearsed in the HE management literature. The effect of the National Student Survey is at present on reputation (its also worth looking at recent press reports on student contact hours in some research intensive universities).
The problem for setting up a research programme to support information leaders is that something that doesn't neatly fit in a disciplinary silo can suffer. For example, the computer science panel naturally likes its logic, code and algorithms and possibly won't be cognizant of the (intellectual) challenges that information leaders and policy makers face. Other panels will have their own issues, no matter who much they try to be objective (and they do try).
Doubtless high quality mainstream work in business, law etc that the Centre for Information Leadership can stimulate will be recognised. But other core activity of the centre may not necessarily generate results (no matter how high the quality is) that there is a prestigious forum to publish in, or that any single REF panel will fully appreciate. This is a well-known problem for interdisciplinary research, especially those that attempt to look at something new and engage with professions, business and civil society. But such activity is IMHO necessary if universities are to re-energise their relationships with the outside world.
I expect the Centre for Information Leadership to be a game-changer on how universities work with the IT industry, but there's a natural annoyance that we are working in a system that actively incentivises the status quo. The rules of the REF game are fluid and subject to change as the details are argued over. But if you are happy to focus in a core discipline then the fora in which to get quality work recognised by any reasonable version of the REF rules are clear (i.e one knows what they need to do in this game, so a paper in Nature is always good!). Anything else, has to work harder and second guess. A case if one is needed as to how the state can construct unintended dysfunctional systems.
One thing we will do in the Centre for Information Leadership is to find a way of making the research that information leaders need get recognised and funded (its part of my mission - perhaps later blogposts?), but it is prudent to make sure I have good 'core-CS' publications portfolio for the time being. So I'll be publishing good papers on AI algorithms and attending conferences for a while yet.
Right now I'm in Barcelona attending the WCCI 2010 conference where I'm presenting a rather nice algorithm for fuzzy-rough set reduct optimisation. I'll also be working on a journal paper with my collaborators.
What's this to do with information leadership? Well, first of all I like good science and I enjoy working with my co-authors from Aberystwyth University. I also like to get my geek on, once in a while...:-)
The other is more pragmatic. A large chunk of HEFCE income to UK universities (about 20% of a £7476m spend in 2008, see here), is allocated according to a periodic research evaluation process (the one coming up is called the Research Excellence Framework - REF). It also ends up acting as a (contested) measure of relative prestige and appears in some league tables.
Needless to say a >> £1Bn incentive will affect behaviour. Given that teaching is not funded (incentivised) by HEFCE on a 'quality' basis (in fact by student numbers and subject price group), some believe that teaching has suffered - the arguments are well-rehearsed in the HE management literature. The effect of the National Student Survey is at present on reputation (its also worth looking at recent press reports on student contact hours in some research intensive universities).
The problem for setting up a research programme to support information leaders is that something that doesn't neatly fit in a disciplinary silo can suffer. For example, the computer science panel naturally likes its logic, code and algorithms and possibly won't be cognizant of the (intellectual) challenges that information leaders and policy makers face. Other panels will have their own issues, no matter who much they try to be objective (and they do try).
Doubtless high quality mainstream work in business, law etc that the Centre for Information Leadership can stimulate will be recognised. But other core activity of the centre may not necessarily generate results (no matter how high the quality is) that there is a prestigious forum to publish in, or that any single REF panel will fully appreciate. This is a well-known problem for interdisciplinary research, especially those that attempt to look at something new and engage with professions, business and civil society. But such activity is IMHO necessary if universities are to re-energise their relationships with the outside world.
I expect the Centre for Information Leadership to be a game-changer on how universities work with the IT industry, but there's a natural annoyance that we are working in a system that actively incentivises the status quo. The rules of the REF game are fluid and subject to change as the details are argued over. But if you are happy to focus in a core discipline then the fora in which to get quality work recognised by any reasonable version of the REF rules are clear (i.e one knows what they need to do in this game, so a paper in Nature is always good!). Anything else, has to work harder and second guess. A case if one is needed as to how the state can construct unintended dysfunctional systems.
One thing we will do in the Centre for Information Leadership is to find a way of making the research that information leaders need get recognised and funded (its part of my mission - perhaps later blogposts?), but it is prudent to make sure I have good 'core-CS' publications portfolio for the time being. So I'll be publishing good papers on AI algorithms and attending conferences for a while yet.
Saturday, 12 June 2010
Computer Science Unplugged - The Show
To start off a series of post on promoting computing in schools, this video shows an entertaining way to introduce computer science to school students. It's given me a few ideas.
For more details of the initiative that gave rise to this see CS Unplugged. Worth a look.
There will be more of these videos posted in the future. Some of them are quite good, others not.
For more details of the initiative that gave rise to this see CS Unplugged. Worth a look.
There will be more of these videos posted in the future. Some of them are quite good, others not.
Sunday, 6 June 2010
Public Sector CIO Pay: Are we comparing like with like...?
There has been something of a moral panic regarding the pay of some senior civil servants, including some government CIOs getting paid more than the Prime Minister (who appears to have been given a pay cut). I'm not about to make moral or value judgements - this is not the place.
The real issue for me is whether we are comparing like for like. In executive recruitment, you need to consider the whole reward package: pay, perks, use of hotels/residences, memberships, pensions... For example, the PM gets the free use of two 'grace and favour' residences (No. 10 and Chequers) plus associated maintainence, cleaners, servants. I somehow doubt this is matched by the civil service CIOs.
The above applies to making comparisons with private sector peer CIOs too. We also then need to consider the benefits side, i.e. what they deliver. At that point we can start to look at costs and benefits somewhat more objectively, before discussing the value judgements.
All this reminds me of comparisons made routinely in the press about goods being cheaper in the US than in the UK (currently fluctuations aside). These claims don't always stand up to scruitiny as they invariably quote US prices excluding sales tax but UK prices including VAT and/or compare US out of town prices with central London prices. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story!..:-)
The real issue for me is whether we are comparing like for like. In executive recruitment, you need to consider the whole reward package: pay, perks, use of hotels/residences, memberships, pensions... For example, the PM gets the free use of two 'grace and favour' residences (No. 10 and Chequers) plus associated maintainence, cleaners, servants. I somehow doubt this is matched by the civil service CIOs.
The above applies to making comparisons with private sector peer CIOs too. We also then need to consider the benefits side, i.e. what they deliver. At that point we can start to look at costs and benefits somewhat more objectively, before discussing the value judgements.
All this reminds me of comparisons made routinely in the press about goods being cheaper in the US than in the UK (currently fluctuations aside). These claims don't always stand up to scruitiny as they invariably quote US prices excluding sales tax but UK prices including VAT and/or compare US out of town prices with central London prices. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story!..:-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)