This document discusses a research project conducted by Dr. Camille B. Kandiko Howson that explores students' expectations and perceptions of higher education in the UK, focusing on quality enhancement and student engagement. It details the methodology of interviews and focus groups with over 150 students, revealing key findings related to students' views on ideology, practices, purpose, course experiences, and institutional relationships. The project emphasizes the need for more clarity on course expectations, financial transparency, and stronger engagement between students and institutions.

1. Student expectations and
perceptions of higher
education:
Engaging Students
Student Engagement and Partnership
Sheffield Hallam University
19 March 2014
Dr Camille B. Kandiko Howson
@cbkandiko
King’s College London

2. Overview
• Student Engagement
• The Project
• Findings
• Conclusions
• Discussion
2

3. Background: Student
engagement (UK)
The participation of students in quality
enhancement and quality assurance
processes, resulting in the improvement
of their educational experience (QAA
Quality Code, Chapter B5)
3

4. 4
Background: Student
engagement (US)
“the time and effort students devote to
activities that are empirically linked to
desired outcomes of college and what
institutions do to induce students to
participate in these activities”
(Kuh, 2009: 683)

5. The Project
Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)-funded
research project explored the views of students
in higher education across the UK in 2012-13,
to investigate their perceptions and
expectations of the quality of their learning
experience and the academic standards of their
chosen programmes of study
5

6. Methodology
• Concept-map mediated interviews and focus groups
were used to elicit students‟ expectations and
perceptions of quality, standards and the student
learning experience
• Interviews and focus groups were conducted with
over 150 students in 16 settings, across 4 general
institutional types (research-intensive, teaching-
intensive, regional-focused and special interest)
6

7. Analysis
• Interview and focus group data were
analysed through open-coding using a
grounded theory approach, with codes
combined into thematic areas
• Concept maps were analysed visually,
structurally and thematically
7

8. Findings
• How students frame higher education
• Ideology
• Practices
• Purpose
• Students and their course
• Students and the institution
8

9. I. Framing of ideology
Consumerist ethos: Student
perceptions of value
9

10. 10

11. II. Framing of practice
Student expectations of the learning
environment: Clear benchmarks
11

12. 12

13. III. Framing of purpose
Student expectations for employability
13

14. 14

15. IV. Students and their
course
• Evaluation, feedback and feed-forward
• Staff: Attributes, practices and attitudes
15

16. 16

17. V. Students and their
course
• Equity of opportunity: Personalisation
versus standardisation
17

18. 18

19. VI. Students and the
institution
• Students as stakeholders? Community,
engagement and belonging
• Transition into higher education
19

20. 20

21. Value for money
• Finances: How are tuition fees spent
• Value: More „high-quality‟ contact time, in small
seminars and tutorials run by qualified teaching staff,
not simply more lectures
• Information: How can students find out if they are
going to be (and what proportion of the time) taught
by well-qualified, trained teaching staff in small
settings? Where do tuition fees go and why?
21

22. Advice and guidance
• More realistic information about a course,
what students should expect and what was
expected of them
• Opportunities for internships, placements and
work experience
• Promotion and coordination of student
services and Student‟s Unions activities
22

23. Course-level leadership
• Strong course-level management of
curriculum, quality and standards, with a
structure mirroring undergraduate
student-facing aspects
23

24. Transition
• Students want more realistic information
about their course, including what they should
expect and what was expected of them
• Importance of direct interventions in students‟
transitional experiences, not only general
provision of services
24

25. Engage Students!
• Challenge students
• Support students
• Inform students
• Seek, ask and report on feedback
• Provide opportunities for students
• Hold students responsible
• Work WITH not FOR students
25

26. 26
References
Kuh, G. D. (2009). What student affairs professionals need to know about
student engagement. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6), 683–
706.
Quality Assurance Agency (2012). UK Quality Code for Higher Education. Part
B: Ensuring and Enhancing Academy. Chapter B5: Student Engagement.
Gloucester: QAA.

27. 27
Dr Camille B. Kandiko Howson
King‟s College London
camille.kandiko_howson@kcl.ac.uk
@cbkandiko
Thank you!
Research Assistant: Dr Matthew Mawer
Questions?