Is the increased focus on student voice in higher education harming participation?

At Student Voice, we understand the clear benefits of including student perspective in the development of higher educational practices. However, Mendes and Hammett (2023) (Source) question the motivations behind the increased focus on student voice and whether it has led to a ‘tyranny of participation’. This argument stems from a failed attempted at encouraging student participation in curriculum design at a UK university.

As universities have been increasingly run as businesses, there has been a growing emphasise on student voice within higher education as a quality assurance method. Student voice is used as a metric within the Teaching Excellence Framework, an award which is frequently used by universities to market to prospective students. The National Student Survey, a scheme which gathers student opinion on their higher education experience, also measures student engagement and voice. This application of student voice, along with increased student fees, places students in the role of consumer. As a consumer, students view their education as an individual investment through which they strive to gain the greatest return with minimal cost and /or effort. This challenges the expectation that students should wish to actively engage with education development processes which provide little individual benefit.

In response to this shift in the role of student voice within the higher education framework, universities have drastically increased the number of evaluations which students are encouraged to engage with. A student completing a 3-year degree at a UK university could be asked to complete upwards of 60 surveys throughout their time in higher education. As a result, students report to experience ‘survey fatigue’ and therefore resist engaging. Additionally, the routinisation of surveys contributes to the idea that student voice mechanisms are performative, leading to resentment and decreased participation. There is little acknowledgement of the effort required by students to engage with large numbers of feedback requests. These requests offer little benefit to the participating students but require great time and effort. This is viewed as unreasonable by students under their current role as consumers.

In order to tackle this problem, one must consider why we assume students want to participate in student voice. The accepted understanding is that students wish to be partners in their education. However, the typical methods of student voice allow for little active student engagement in the development of teaching and learning practices. Students are treated as consumers and consultants, rather than active partners. As such, they have limited power in the decisions made in response to their feedback. Additionally, methods which do empower students to be active partners typically have great time demands with no direct benefit to students’ degree outcomes.

Encouraging student voice requires a change in how students are positioned within the higher education framework. The current methods for gaining student perspective assumes that students view themselves as active citizens of the university that wish to commit time and energy to the development of higher educational practices which will likely not benefit them directly as individuals. This assumption contrasts with the prevailing role of students as consumers who prioritise their individual degree outcomes. These conflicting roles result in student resentment and frustration. Additionally, the frequency, intensity, and mode of student voice requests must be examined. The excessive volume of student voice requests, in addition to their seemingly performative nature, leads to students feeling bombarded and ultimately disengaging.

FAQ

Q: How do different demographics of students perceive and engage with student voice initiatives?
A: The perception and engagement of students in student voice initiatives can vary significantly across different demographics. For instance, mature students might view these initiatives as crucial for enhancing their educational experience, given their more practical approach to learning. In contrast, younger students may see them as less relevant. Similarly, students from various socioeconomic backgrounds might have different views on the importance of these initiatives, with those from less privileged backgrounds potentially viewing them as a way to ensure their needs and concerns are addressed. Students from different academic disciplines might also engage differently, as those in fields with a strong emphasis on participatory learning may be more inclined to see the value in student voice. However, without specific research or text analysis on these demographics, these observations remain speculative.

Q: What are the specific impacts of 'survey fatigue' on the quality of feedback provided by students?
A: Survey fatigue can significantly impact the quality of feedback provided by students in several ways. When students experience fatigue from too many surveys, their responses can become less thoughtful and more perfunctory, leading to feedback that lacks depth and insight. This reduction in quality makes it challenging for universities to extract meaningful data from the surveys, potentially leading to decisions that do not accurately reflect the student body's needs or opinions. The diminished engagement could also mean that only the most motivated or dissatisfied students complete surveys, skewing the feedback. Text analysis of survey responses over time could potentially identify patterns of decreasing engagement or repetitive, less insightful feedback, highlighting the impact of survey fatigue.

Q: What alternative methods or platforms for student voice have been explored or suggested, and how effective are they in comparison to traditional surveys?
A: In response to the limitations of traditional surveys, various alternative methods and platforms for student voice have been explored. These include digital forums, interactive workshops, student representation in university committees, and the use of social media platforms for more informal feedback mechanisms. Each of these methods aims to reduce the impersonality and formality of surveys, encouraging more genuine and continuous dialogue between students and educational institutions. For example, digital forums can offer a space for ongoing discussion, allowing students to raise concerns and suggestions in real-time. Similarly, involving students directly in decision-making processes through representation in committees can empower them to influence change more effectively. The effectiveness of these alternatives often depends on how well they are implemented and whether they genuinely allow for student engagement beyond mere consultation. However, without comprehensive analysis or comparison to traditional surveys, it's challenging to quantify their overall effectiveness.

References

[Source] Ana Barbosa Mendes and Daniel Hammett (2023). The new tyranny of student participation? Student voice and the paradox of strategic-active student-citizens. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(1), 164-179 DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2020.178322

Related Entries

• The relationship between student voice and personal tutoring
• The important role of student voice in curriculum design
• Student voice is underpinned by student rights and respect