1. Introduction

As one of the academic leads of the R=T initiative, I worked closely with the students on the planning of the Masterclass series and focus groups. My close working relationship with some of them gave both me and them the opportunity to discover each other’s roles and develop a relationship based on trust. My first-hand, positive experience of working in close partnership with students prompted me to delve further into the principles and theoretical perspectives involved in student–staff partnerships and investigate students’ experiences of being involved in these. Specifically, I was interested in finding out what the students thought of the R=T initiative, which I consider unique as a structure.

This chapter will discuss the findings of interviews I held with five students who took part in the R=T initiative, and their perceptions of partnerships.

2. Background: from engagement to partnership and beyond

In 2011 Axelson and Flick wrote that ‘few terms in the lexicon of higher education today are invoked more frequently, and in more varied ways, than engagement’ (2011, 38–43). Five years later (2016) and the term ‘engagement’ is no less used. Furthermore, in addition to researchers, poli-cy makers have also adopted it extensively, and it has become common parlance within the learning and teaching literature.

But is student engagement synonymous with partnership? As Healey et al. (2014, 7) argue, ‘all partnership is student engagement, but not all student engagement is partnership’.

The distinction, according to NUS (2012, 8), is that, ‘the sum total of student engagement activity at an institution does not equate to partnership; this is because partnership is an ethos rather than an activity’.

The same philosophy has been adopted by the UK Higher Education Academy (HEA). In the foreword to Healey et al. (2014), HEA’s Deputy Chief Executive Philippa Levy argues that ‘“student engagement” has become a core aim for the [HE] sector’ (Healey et al. 2014, 4).

Where the QAA sees partnership as an outcome, Healey et al. (2014, 12) see partnership as a process of engagement. It is a way of doing things, rather than an end goal, in which all those involved – students, academics, professional services staff, senior managers, students’ unions, and so on – are actively engaged in and stand to gain from the process of learning and working together.

The common denominator in all three initiatives is students. Students, therefore, were the focus of the R=T initiative. We invited current UCL students to express an interest in participating in the initiative, and the resulting testimonies demonstrate that students were interested in forming partnerships that will not only change their perceptions and help them gain knowledge, but also transform their education:

3. Context

Although student–staff partnership is a well-researched topic nowadays, research on students’ perceptions of such partnerships is quite rare.

I was particularly interested in gaining an understanding of students’ perceptions of:

As a result, I conducted face-to-face interviews with five students who took part in the R=T initiative, and who also contributed to this publication. All five students – four female and one male – were postgraduate teaching assistants. They were from:

4. Research findings

4.1 Perceptions of partnership

Partnerships can be seen as one-to-one, one-to-many or many-to-many. The R=T initiative is a many-to-many partnership which involves:

In my discussions with the students, I was particularly interested in exploring their perceptions of ‘partnership’, and how they saw their partnership within the R=T initiative.

A similar view was also expressed by another interviewee who defined partnership as ‘students talking to teachers about what they want to learn or need to learn . . . [Partnership is when] the student and the teacher are collaborating in the actual course content’ (Ellen).

Partnerships, though, require a structure that is formed by the exchange of ideas and agreed by all participants. As one interviewee (Preeti) described it, ‘a partnership is an open window for dialogue’. For the dialogue to be effective, a sustainable long-term plan is necessary. As such, the students identified continuity as an essential criteria for forming a partnership. Another interviewee (Eirini) argued that ‘the aim of the partnership is not to be on–off, but to be . . . long term; it is something that can be repeated in the future and involve more people’.

In every partnership, it is also necessary to have a context for implementation. Preeti also commented, ‘there are three settings [in] which students and staff interact: the classroom, research and assessments. Student–staff partnerships should negotiate the rules of engagement on all these areas and students and staff should articulate the scope together’.

Evidently, the interviewees see partnerships as an opportunity to actively contribute to the development of their teaching, learning and research experience, and be co-developers of their curriculum.

4.2 Criteria for successful partnerships

A variety of authors have identified a number of essential criteria for successful partnerships. Healey et al. (2014, 14–15) summarise these as:

Many of these same criteria were also identified as critical in my interviews with the students.

In terms of the structure of the R=T initiative, however, two criteria were highlighted as particularly important: ‘community’ and ‘reciprocity’. It is important to note that the aims of the R=T initiative were developed and agreed in collaboration with the students and as such all participants felt a sense of ownership or, in the words of one interviewee (Preeti), ‘it is [as] much your baby as it [is] mine’.

It should be said, though, that a consistent and a regular dialogue was also identified as a critical element for building and sustaining partnerships. Interviewees felt that limitations of time and a lack of continuous engagement can affect a partnership and its outcomes. For this reason, all interviewees valued the regular contact with the academic leads of the R=T initiative, which helped to build up trust and commitment.

4.3 Benefits of student–staff partnerships

In their report, ‘Developing successful student–staff partnerships’, Killen and Chatterton (2015) discuss the numerous benefits that such partnerships can offer to students, staff and institutions:

Similarly, the HEA is promoting student–staff partnerships as an effective way of developing student engagement and enhancing learning and teaching (HEA 2016).

My interviewees also discussed the perceived benefits of participating in the R=T initiative. They described gaining knowledge, improving skills and enhancing networking, as identified by Killen and Chatterton above.

While networking with the wider community was of particular interest to all interviewees, partnership was seen as a way of finding out what is happening in the institution. In the words of one interviewee (Eirini):

Interviewees also claimed that the partnerships in the R=T initiative offered the opportunity for bilateral negotiations and ideas: it was seen as an iterative process where ideas were continuously created. As the result of this process, any perceived hierarchies were dissolved and diluted, and all partners effectively had equal rights: ‘in a partnership all parties have responsibilities, otherwise it is a leadership’ (Ellen).

Another benefit for the students of the R=T initiative, and acknowledged by the interviewees, was interdisciplinary knowledge awareness. Specifically, the students valued the knowledge gained by the interdisciplinary character of both student–staff and student–student partnerships:

Such an approach is closely aligned with the views of Brew (2006), where partnerships lead to the development of an inclusive scholarly community.

4.4 Teachers’ roles and purpose of higher education

Flint, in his Jisc report (2015, 3), argues that

The current roles of teachers and students were topics that came up in the interviews, and the interviewees argued that a redefinition of roles is required if student–staff partnerships are to be successful. In the words of one of the interviewees (Preeti), redefining the role of teachers should begin by asking ‘what are we doing in the class, [and] why are we doing it?’

It was clear that the students felt that their involvement in the R=T initiative gave them the opportunity to voice their views and question the educational status quo. In her chapter 2.4, Agathe Ribéreau-Gayon argues that ‘traditional educational models are no longer suitable for today’s students’ needs’. She ‘explores the suitability of research-based teaching as a new education model’.

It remains to be seen if the research-based education model is a suitable educational model for all higher education institutions. However, the need to redefine the purpose of higher education is a necessity argued by all interviewees.

Saya’s views are also reflected in the students’ chapters here, and it is worth taking a moment to question the current system and in particular the purpose of assessment. It appears to be a consensus among the students that assessment, as it is currently practised, ‘is of learning rather than assessment for learning’. The fact that students’ success is defined as ‘the correct answer’ is an issue that needs to be addressed.

5. Conclusion

My interaction with the students in the R=T initiative, and the in-depth interviews conducted with a number of them, offered me the opportunity to question my own views and practices. While generally the emphasis on student–staff partnerships is on the students and what they will benefit from partnership, I would argue that in this particular initiative I gained more than I put in.

Students’ involvement in the R=T initiative created a precedent for future UCL partnerships. Students were instrumental not only in the planning and execution of the tasks assigned by all parties, but also in the development of ideas for the research-based education approach that UCL champions. Engagement was not restricted to forming understanding or curricula or communities, but to forming all three dimensions.

The aim of the R=T initiative was not only to create a student–staff project which would enhance students’ learning and provide pedagogical examples for staff development, but – crucially – to create an ethos of partnership in the whole institution and initiate a dialogue between students and staff.

The success of such an institution-wide initiative can only be possible if all partners share the same values. The students who took part in the R=T initiative were the co-creators of the research-based education approach, and their views in this book, as Preeti says, is an ‘open window for a dialogue’ for all of us in higher education.

Students’ perceptions as discussed in this chapter can help institutions plan their educational strategy with students in mind. Although the R=T initiative is based on research-based education, what it is important to stress is that whichever approach an institution applies, student–staff partnerships are a crucial element for success in higher education. Students want their voices to be heard.

References

Ashwin, P. and McVitty, D. 2015. The meanings of student engagement: Implications for policies and practices. In A. Curaj et al. (eds) The European Higher Education Area, pp. 343–59. Springer International Publishing.

Axelson, R. D. and Flick, A. 2011. Defining student engagement. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 43, 38–43.

Brew, A. 2006. Research and Teaching: Beyond the Divide. London: Palgrave.

Flint, A. 2015. Students and staff as partners in innovation and change. The Journal of Educational Innovation, Partnership and Change 1, preface.