Editorial

No one would argue that, in recent times, higher education has undergone some major changes, and this is the case regardless of country or context. The first article in this issue elaborates on how, precisely, the marketisation, of the higher education sector, as a business, so to speak, affects us all, whether students, those who support students, administrators or academics. Entitled ‘Critical pedagogy and assessment in higher education: the ideal of “authenticity” in learning’, the authors, Maria Martinez Serrano, Mark O’Brien, Krystal Roberts and David Whyte, argue that this has led to the expectations that students have are, these days, very different indeed. In brief, it is that students are much more focused not on their time and experiences while at university but instead on the end goal, what that degree will deliver, in terms of a ‘product’. And, as students in many countries and contexts are paying, whether in full or in part, for their studies, this is perhaps not surprising. This, say the authors, naturally impacts both their learning and the assessment associated with it, and, say the authors, we need to not only be aware of the potential harm caused in this shift in our thinking, our perceptions, about the higher education sector but it is something that we need to counteract, in some way. This leads the authors to discuss, at length, issues around critical pedagogy, what learning is (or should be), the need for those within the education system to focus not on self but instead on the wider needs of society, or indeed societies.

This insightful article explores issues around authenticity, learning for learning’s sake, student (and staff) motivation and the complexities around structures within any organisation or beyond. This shift, say the authors, has led to forms of assessment that, even if we are not conscious that we are doing it, encourages our students to adopt an instrumental, success-oriented approach and that this contradicts what, in fact, we want (and our students need). Or, rather, we want our students to succeed, naturally enough, but we do not want them to be solely driven by the marks/grades that they get. Given what is currently going on in higher education, the authors argue that there is a good deal of evidence that we have created obstacles to authentic learning and assessment and that there is a need to look more closely at the issues explored in their research, namely, the material impact of power relationships in the educational process, the relationship between academics and learners, social consciousness and to somehow counteract the perception that higher education is like a bank, with the aim of further developing the concept of authenticity that is not only central to critical pedagogy in relation to assessment but also to learning itself. At the end of the article, the authors return to the dangers of the inauthentic participative assessments that we design, that our students engage in, the subversion and dominance of cultures and autonomy or lack of it. However, they also offer some positivity in terms of how we might meet the challenges involved in terms of putting in place authenticity not only in assessment but also in learning more widely and say that as the higher education landscape continues its journey towards yet further marketisation, this is much needed.

Also changing in higher education is the support provided to our learners via various means. One such mechanism is the provision of an academic mentor, as the authors of the second article explain. Entitled ‘Faculty and undergraduate student perceptions of an integrated mentoring approach’, the authors, Nicola Livingstone and Nicola Naismith, explain that such a mentor normally has a diverse role, that it is discipline specific and that that it is usually not different across the institution more widely. Their article describes academic mentoring, what we understand by this, the practices involved and why we do it before going on to argue that, as mentoring programmes become all the more popular, there is a need to further examine this if we provide the effective mentoring that we hope for, the mentoring that best benefits not only the person being mentored but also the person doing that mentoring. However, like everything, mentoring is not without its potential downsides, as the authors recognise, and that as the higher education landscape changes, so too must mentoring if it is to be fit for purpose. The authors describe the three models of mentoring, that is, the pastoral, the professional and the curriculum one, although as experience tells us there are ‘blurred edges’ here. The study described in their article looks as the design and implementation of a ‘three in one’ approach to mentoring, an approach used by academics to help students have a more positive experience. Whatever the model, as the authors rightly note, we know that students value and possibly benefit from such an experience only if their mentor, the academic member of staff who acts as their mentor, has sufficient time, energy and commitment.

If an academic member of staff has a very small number of students it increases the likelihood of there being sufficient time and energy, and perhaps commitment, although commitment is different in many ways. However, if an academic member of staff has, say, 30 or 40 students to mentor, and this is not uncommon in the sector, then it is all the more difficult to find that time and energy, even if the academic member of staff is wholly committed to it. However, as the authors rightly note, even if there is sufficient time, energy, and commitment from both the academic member of staff acting as the mentor and the student being mentored, this does not guarantee that the student gets the experience that they hope for. Personality clashes and a range of other aspects mean that this human to human interaction may suffer in the same way than any other human to human interaction may suffer, regardless of the good intentions and the rest that both bring to that relationship. Even if, as argued by the authors, we need to manage expectations (of staff, of students) effectively, this does not guarantee that each and every relationship will be a positive one, although it increases the likelihood of this, naturally enough. Whatever the model used in any learning environment, it is a given that we need to best support our learners (and our fellow members of staff) as best we can, and mentoring is one such mechanism by which we can do that. Another part of the role of an academic member of staff, whether as a mentor or anything else, concerns assessment, a fundamental, core aspect of any university, and something which is never far from either the minds of either lecturers (markers), administrators (who have to collect, store and manage all the data concerning marks) or, of course, our students.

As the literature on assessment tells us, and as we know from our own experiences, it is here that we find something that is the subject of the third article in this issue, namely, the mismatch between what we, markers, believe that we have provided in terms of useful feedback and how students themselves perceive that feedback. Entitled ‘Marking and providing feedback face-to-face: staff and student perspectives’, its authors Charlotte Chalmers, Elaine Mowat and Maggie Chapman report that we, lecturers, often report that our students are more interested in the mark/grade itself rather than any written or oral feedback associated with that mark/grade but that students clamour for more and/or different written or oral feedback on their performance. Nothing but nothing gets more attention, by staff and by students, than assessment so it is no wonder that we are always seeking to better understand it or, as here in this article, try something a bit different. In this article, it is perhaps a technique that rather than being ‘a bit different’ is instead ‘a lot different’, and so it makes for a fascinating read. The authors first begin with a comprehensive overview of marking and providing feedback, making the very valid point that it is usually the case that students get feedback on their performance often long after they have submitted their coursework or taken their test or examination. This is all the more likely to be the case where markers are marking perhaps hundreds of scripts because, however quick we are, marking is a time-consuming process. Or, more accurately, while doing the actual marking normally takes up a lot of time, unless it is something like a multiple-choice examination which can be marked very quickly, particularly if software is used, as much, if not more, time is taken up with putting marks into either spreadsheets or computer systems, checking them, processing them, that is, doing all the administration associated with that assessment. If there is one thing that makes students dissatisfied, and also markers, it is around assessment, for one reason or another. As the authors say, markers may spend many hours crafting copious written comments as feedback, only to find that either students have not understood it, either because we have not communicated it in such a way as to be useful or simply that we have used ‘academic speak’ and if they are new to the university they have not yet fully learned that language.

A lot of communication, as with anything else, is around expectation. The authors discuss a study in which students were offered more extensive feedback on their performance but only after they had been told their mark/grade. Students made use of that additional feedback only if their marks/grades were not as they had expected, whether that mark/grade was higher, or lower. As it was reported that only 10% of the cohort sought such feedback, the authors queried whether we, markers, should instead be devoting our time to other, more useful, ways of providing feedback rather than writing such extensive feedback in the first place. Whether we should spend our time in different ways or not, no one would disagree that there is dissatisfaction from both markers and students around feedback. However, as the authors recognise, even providing lengthy one-to-one tutorials with students does not necessarily do that given the complexities associated with relationships between human beings. If the student lacks confidence or feels uncomfortable, say the authors, this could have a negative emotional impact on the student, regardless of how well meaning, positive and the rest the academic member of staff might be. Lack of confidence and feeling uncomfortable is not the preserve of only students; academic members of staff may feel uncomfortable or lack confidence, for various reasons. Another issue that is raised in the article is that of class size; many of us experience not only very large classes (perhaps 300, 500 or even numbers of students in one classroom well beyond that) and/or high staff/student ratios, and no amount of excellent technologies, a paring down of the amount of assessment or anything else can make marking and providing feedback anything less than what it is, that is, a time-consuming process. Most work also has to undergo a rigorous set of ‘checks and balances’, involving other people, such as moderators, who are internal to the department and university and also, here in the United Kingdom anyway, academic members of staff who are external to the department and university, that is, who work at other universities. Once all of this has been added into the mix, and it has to be added into the mix because the ‘checks and balances’ are essential in terms of helping to assure quality and standards, it is no wonder that the timescale between students submitting their coursework or doing their tests or examinations and getting feedback on them is as long as it is.

As the authors say, both students and academic members of staff find themselves between a rock and a hard place, one way or another. Both want marking to be done and appropriate, personalised feedback provided quickly but many factors conspiring to ensure that this is usually not going to be the case. Very interestingly, the authors raise a discussion about the time that we, markers, spend, and how it increases depending on the level/year of the undergraduate student. That is, it is normally the case that we, markers, usually set assessments that are not only longer but necessarily more complex as students progress through their studies, and this naturally means that markers spend more time marking the work of the final year students than that of students in their first year. Yet, say the authors, as new/first year students have little, if any, experience of anything, including assessment, at this stage, it is during their first year that we provide the greatest amount of feedback given that they will base their future expectations around their experiences in their first year. If, as argued, expectations are so vitally important, it is during that first year that we, markers, have the most to do in terms of helping our students to better understand marking, marks, and everything else around assessment. Students in their final year would likely not be so keen on that, however! Put forward here, and described, is an approach whereby both marker and student are present at the very time of that marking. While the authors say that this is not new, few have taken it up, for various reasons, not least of which is that many universities require marking to be done anonymously, that is, that the marker has no knowledge of the candidate whose work is being marked. Although many might perhaps not be able to use such a method given this, it is nonetheless a practice which, as the authors say, put the marker and the student together in one room, at the time of marking, and such a one to one meeting may well be a better use of the time, for both marker and student, in terms of helping the student to better understand what impacts our judgements when it comes to marking. In their study, students had the choice of either receiving written feedback in the normal way or instead having a 15-minute meeting with the marker, as they marked their coursework. It is slightly surprising, perhaps, that the take up for the novel approach was only slightly more than the standard, normal one.

Their insightful discussion and conclusion of this approach with first year undergraduate students shows the pluses and minuses of such an approach and, regardless of what these might be, it must certainly be the case that, as the authors report here, students left with greater clarity as to what our priorities, as markers, are and also of the language used and our expectations around assessment. Of note is that the markers were of the view that, for various reasons, meeting the student while marking their coursework was a more worthwhile activity. The authors end by saying that as education is becoming more market driven, which may mean that relationships are more transactional in nature, not to mention increased class sizes, such an approach may perhaps foster a closer, more collegiate, relationship between students and their lecturers, which can only be a good thing. The issue of building relationships continues with the fourth article comprising this issue, as it looks at this from the perspective of the relationships that exist in service learning, that is, when students are engaged in a project or activity within their local community. Its authors, Karl-Heinz Gerholz, Verena Liszt and Katrin B Klingsieck, from the universities of Bamberg, Kassel and Paderborn, respectively, all in Germany, look at the engagement of students with those in the community and how their conceptions of themselves, their self efficacy and their attitudes might be shaped by involvement in a project designed to help those in the wider community. Entitled ‘Effects of learning design patterns in service learning courses’, the authors argue that while service learning is becoming much more popular in the sector it is important that we better understand the role that we, educators, play in that given our focus on the learning outcomes that we want for our students and our support for their learning that this involves. Beginning with a comprehensive overview of what service learning is and its perceived effectiveness, the article describes the effect that service learning has on these aspects and at the end of it cautions for the need for appropriate counselling of students and the other support mechanisms that are needed in order to ensure an appropriate sense of reciprocity in what is, naturally enough, a process involving students, academic members of staff and also those either working for, or benefiting from, the charitable organisations concerned.

It is recognised that studying, being a student, can be stressful, whether while undertaking service learning or anything else. Entitled ‘An exploratory study of students’ weekly stress levels and sources of stress during the semester’, it is clear from this title that the fifth article in this issue looks at exactly this. Its authors, Adele Pitt, Florin Oprescu, Geraldine Tapia and Marion Gray, with the first, second and final authors from the University of the Sunshine Coast in Australia and the third from the University of Bordeaux in France, argue that while we have long known that for some students it can be a very stressful experience to study at university, and that there are many known sources of stress, little is known about how their experiences might change over time, that is, as the course progresses, hence their study. They argue that if we, educators, could identify the particular periods of time in which excessive stress is at its worst, we could perhaps develop appropriate support mechanisms to help them through this. As our mental well-being, whether as a student or anyone else, is of fundamental importance, any study into this is to be welcomed. Their article looks first at stress itself and then at how this plays out in the arena of higher education, arguing that the studies carried out show some mixed results in terms of whether or not there is fluctuation at certain points in time or whether levels remain relatively stable. Not unsurprisingly, students reported that the significant academic-related stressors were around assessment, and workload, although not too far behind this was the difficulty of maintaining an appropriate work/life balance; something that all of us can readily identify with. While this study looked only at students in their first year, it is nonetheless useful in that it offers insights into what are, for these particular students, the more risky periods in terms of levels of negative stress and therefore how we, educators and others, might either support students in their management of stress or look at the learning environment that we play a part in designing. As assessment is such a vital part of the experiences of students, whether in their first year or at any other point, it is no wonder that this figures so extensively not only in our day to day activity but also in terms of the research that is published which is devoted to this aspect. Our choices, as educators, as to what assessments we design in our modules or courses is informed by many aspects and, as the author of this sixth and final article says, today’s students are much more ‘assessment driven’ than used to be the case. Entitled ‘Engaging with assessment: increasing student engagement through continuous assessment’, its author Naomi Holmes looks at the complexities involved not only in assessment itself but also in student engagement.

As we, educators, play a significant role in their engagement and that the design of our assessment impacts this, the article provides support for the argument that assessment underpins what and how our students learn. If it is the case that some or many of today’s students are more assessment driven, more strategic, more focused on their marks/grades than on learning itself, then it is all the more important that we look at how, precisely, we design whatever assessments we choose to use, whether in the online environment, the environment explored in this article, or the ‘normal’ one. Specifically, the study described in this article looks at whether or not using continuous assessments via the online environment increases student engagement. However, as the author rightly notes and discusses at the end of their article, measuring ‘engagement’ via a virtual learning environment (VLE) is a very difficult one, for the reasons given. Nonetheless, whatever the measures used, the study described in the article helps us to better understand whether or not we should consider the use of short, regular assessments, assessments determined to be ‘low stake’ in nature, via a VLE, might lead to a change in student behaviour in terms of learning and engagement. As the author rightly says, we are all moving towards, or are already using, blended learning in an online environment, so it is all the more important that we take into account the type of assessments that we choose to use given the impact of assessment on not only student satisfaction but also their engagement, whether in a higher education sector that is more market driven or any other.