1. What do students want from interventions?
This session will discuss our findings from a series of focus groups with students about what interventions they would like from learner analytics. The focus groups are part of a wider Catalyst funded ‘Collaborative development of pedagogic interventions based on learner analytics’ project that completes in 2018.
Newman is a small catholic university in Birmingham who has, in terms of the sector, a diverse student body with complex lives. Being small, we believe we have an ability to offer a student-centred HE experience that enables a students flourishing.
Sarah Parkes

2. Why learner analytics?
Commitment to well being and human flourishment (Strategic Plan, 2014, p3)
Newman needed more robust mechanisms of monitoring student behaviour in order to target support. Another driver for involvement in the programme is to improve Newman’s HESA benchmarks for retention and success that now relates to TEF outcomes.
Born from What Works phase 2: realisation that in terms of understanding demographics and activity of students we have little holistic knowledge – Meta level data at the programme level that …..facilitates pro-active monitoring of students thus enabling earlier intervention by a range of academic and support staff
Systems need to be in place to monitor student behaviour, particularly participation and performance, to identify students at risk of withdrawing, rather than only relying on entry qualifications or other student entry characteristics. Action must be taken when at-risk behaviour is observed (Thomas et al, 2017, p 10)

3. Learner Analytics
Big data techniques to aid HEI’s in helping learners and institutions meet their goals
It is the human side of higher education that comes first – finding friends, feeling confident and above all, feeling a part of your course of study and the institution – that is the necessary starting point for academic success
HEA (2016) What works? Student retention and success change programme: Briefing for HE providers
Newman’s Involvement is about providing data to inform relationships with students, not to replace them

4. Student Partnership Project 2016 Student perspectives on learner analytics
Two semi-structured focus groups
Overall = very happy with proposal
Students were not concerned [following exploration] about the data collected about them
Keep transparency between staff and students
See the student holistically, not just the data at hand in one circumstance
Concerns
Confidentiality about data, who has access?
Opt-in or opt-out?
Questions about matching university ethos
Institution-wide focus groups: Twelve students, ranging in demographics. Three sections: What data is collected about you? Data collection and learning analytics explanation? Learning analytics response. Recorded and themes extracted

5. Students are real, diverse people who cannot be wholly defined or limited by their visible data nor any interpretations of it
Using data is an ethical practice and aligns with our focus on formative education that seeks to develop the whole person through transformative learning
From focus groups, established generative themes that have informed development of our learning analytics. We thus wanted to work with students to understand how they think we should – or shouldn’t use their data.
Interventions should be pedagogically focused and supportive - not punitive
See here:

6. Student Partnership Projects 2017-18
HEFCE Catalyst Pilot
Student Partnership Projects
Phase One: 2017
Jan to July 17: Consultation re intervention design
Sports & Exercise; English; Youth and Community Work/Criminology and Evolve programmes
Phase Two: 2017/18
Sept to Dec: Implementation of interventions
January: Evaluation
Pilot project running from Dec 16 –March 2018

7. Findings from Phase one
Students confirmed findings from SPP 2016
important we react when data indicates non-activity
transparency needed between students and staff
used in combination with local knowledge to provide an holistic view of the student
personal contact provided by someone with knowledge of the student or experience of their programme of study

8. Findings from Phase one
Interventions should ….
comprise tutor and peer-led activities
enable effective communication between staff/students and peers
be part of a wider mechanism for support
promote autonomy not dependence
be supportive not punitive

9. Findings from Phase one
..one-off activities are insufficient (Thomas, 2017, p 26)
All SPP Phase two interventions seek to utilise a pro-active group peer mentoring system. These will respond to ‘high risk’ scores with focused one-to-one peer mentoring.
Most are combining this with initial ‘nudges’ via text/ and follow-up by Head of Subject or Module tutor.
One size does not fit all. Rather, interventions ought to be tailored to address the issues experienced in specific disciplines and in relation to the characteristics of the student cohort. Furthermore, one-off activities are insufficient: improving engagement and belonging should extend throughout the (first year) student experience, either through ongoing interventions (e.g. active learning, personal tutoring or peer mentoring) or through a programme of linked engagement activities (What works 2, 2017, p 26)
English: x3 30 minute group mentoring sessions as part of the module. Students flagged after 14 days ‘nudged’. If remain as flagged, contacted by tutor and offered mentoring for duration of module. If remain flagged and no response, removed as part of early withdrawal process. Students will opt-out in first class of the module.
Y&C work/criminology: pro-active mentoring programme established from induction for all students. No generic s or texts – peer mentor will get in touch with students at ‘high risk’ following referral from Head of subject/Programme Leader in light of analytics data. Students opt-out of mentoring at induction. Specifically looking to ascertain how student engagement data can inform and shape peer interventions, rather than tutor-led ones.
PESS: pro-active mentoring programme established from induction for all students. At risk students get initial generic text/ highlighting support available. If still at risk ‘nudged’ using early withdrawal process – contact from Head of subject. They then forward the student onto necessary support – mentoring/suspension/student support. Contacted by Head of subjectonly until agreed to access mentoring. Students opt in to one to one mentoring when referred by Head of subject.

10. Student Partnership Projects 2017-18
HEFCE Catalyst Pilot
Student Partnership Projects
Phase One: 2017
Jan to July 17: Consultation re intervention design
Sports & Exercise; English; Youth and Community Work/Criminology and Evolve programmes
Phase Two: 2017/18
Sept to Dec: Implementation of interventions
January: Evaluation

11. Thank you for listening
Questions?
Sarah Parkes, BA, MA, SFHEA.
Tutor for Transition & Retention, Newman University Birmingham
Contact me on: x 2419 or
Read more about my work here: and