 I'm Paul Trowler from the Department of Education Research at Lancaster University, and I've been asked to talk about our projects on student engagement, and I'm going to talk until about 10 past 10, and then there will be 10 minutes for comments and questions if you have them. There were two projects, one funded by the Higher Education Academy and one funded by the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education consecutively, and that's quite nice because for the first project what we did was to do a huge literature review, Vicky Trowler and myself, she's my wife, and she's the same name, and Vicky did the work on that so I acknowledge that straight away. It's a 20,000 word literature review, and poor Adrian was telling me that he had it dumped on his desk the other day. It takes some getting through, but there is a summary as well, which is one of the outputs from that project of that, and also a summation of kind of what we know. The Americans would say I think 10 things we know for sure about student engagement, well not quite that crass, but some of the things that the more rigorous research can tell us, and we can be fairly robust about in terms of our understanding of student engagement. We also did some case studies from secondary data of highly engaged institutions and the kinds of things that they did, and we were able to follow that up with the second study funded by the Leadership Foundation to go and interview leaders. Leaders here are not meant in formal terms, like Vice-Chancellars or heads of department or teams or whatever in universities, but leaders of students and leaders of courses and so on. We're all leaders in the sentiment and we're also all followers, so it's a very flexible concept and of course we were interested in student engagement, so we were interested in interviewing students. We also interviewed leaders as well, and so we developed out of that a toolkit for leaders and I'll briefly be showing you that here. All of these resources, all of these deliverables are of course available on the web, both at the Higher Education Academy's website and the Leadership Foundation's website, but also as one of the deliverables we set up a Sakai site. Sakai, if you don't know, is an open source web 2.0 thing where you can contribute as well as download, and so we've brought resources up there for people who are involved with student engagement. So there's quite a lot of resources out of those two projects, and what I want to do in this talk really is to think a little bit with you about what student engagement is. It's one of those terms that's thrown around a lot. Of course it's a hot term. It's a sexy term at the moment. Everybody's thinking about it, hence the funding of these two projects in quick succession and lots of invitations like this one to give talks about it. But it's used in a very flexible way. Karl Marx talks about chaotic conceptualisation, and I think that's quite a useful idea, you know, the fact that the horizontalization and the capitalism and so on are used in many, many different ways. And I think it's really important for us to try to pin down what we mean by terms if we're actually going to take action about them. So I'd like to talk a little bit about that. And I'd also like to think about the implementation issues, and this is where I come in, really, the implementation side of it. I think, as I say, you did the hard work of going through all that literature on student engagement. But I brought what little brain I have to the question of, OK, what do we do about it? Of course, as I say, it's a very flexible term. How do you review literature on student engagement? Well, if you begin to think about it, almost all the teaching and learnings about student engagement, you know, you go back to Socrates, and the Socratic Method, and so on, that's about student engagement. So what we had to do on that literature review was to only look at the literature that self-identified itself as being about student engagement. Thinking about the implementation side, what I want to do is to bring a little bit of theory to that. I don't think you can understand change unless you understand Stasis, how the social world works. Well, of course, we don't fully understand it, but we can theorise about it, and we can try to suggest ways in which it works, which we can then apply in terms of thinking about change. Paul mentioned Girardi's work and work at Management School at Lancaster, which is based on communities of practice theory, activity systems theory, and so a broad body of work, a social cultural theory. I want to say a few words about social practice theory, which is part of that body of work, and really social practice theory says we shouldn't concentrate too much on individuals and what individuals do. We should think about groups and how they develop the social world, how they develop meaning, how they develop sets of practices, recurrent practices that often are invisible to them, and sets of feelings, sets of assumptions and sets of evoked responses that are really significant and that are picked up as new talents come in to the situation, and so on. There are ways of going on, if you like, both among students and academics and others, that might facilitate or might obstruct students' engagement. So, this focus on leaders, we should be a bit careful about. There's only so much that individual people can do, and obviously we're in a social world at a miso level, the social construction of reality to some extent, and we're also in a world, of course, that is structured by the economic system we're in, the culture that we're in and so on. For example, the stress on students as consumers, that whole flow of thinking of ideology, if you like, of course, in patients on questions of student engagement. So, taking a social practice approach to all this means that we should be really careful about focusing too much on individuals, of course individuals can do things, but we should also think about context, how recurrent practices and so on have developed in particular context, and therefore it's a bit difficult to sort of say, OK, this works with student engagement in one place, in all the evidence that we've looked at. Therefore, that's what we should do, because context is different, recurrent practices are different assumptions, values, emotions, emotional responses and so on are different. So any innovation that wants to enhance student engagement really needs to be low resolution, not too much in a way of big visions fully developed, but broad sets of aims that can be domesticated, to can fit in to some extent and also change to some extent the practices that are already there. Innovations come preloaded with sets of responses and so on, as market products do, and so people in particular situations will respond to them in particular ways and will perhaps ignore them, will change them, reshape them and so on, otherwise they will domesticate them. OK, so that's a little kind of introduction to where we're coming from on this. I will be asking you to do one short thing and also to do a little bit of reflection in a second, so I won't be talking all the time. OK, marks, chaotic conceptualisations, let's try to unpick what student engagement actually needs before we begin to think about what we might do about it, if we think we need to do it. OK, there's the first substantive slide then. As you can see, it suggests that engagement has these three dimensions, three aspects, behavioural, cognitive and effective, what people do, what people think and how they feel about it at the moment. And in the literature, you can say that also students might have a congoant or conforming, and what they call oppositional or negative or rebellious kind of dimension to it as well. The language of that second one is quite difficult, so obviously if a student is engaged they're taking on the assignment that you've asked them to do, they're working as you want them to do and so on, they're conforming. But some of the literature tends to say, OK, well there's also the oppositional dimensions, or they're engaging but they're challenging, they're opposing and so on, and often that's the situation that's been a bad thing. I think about the students, was it last year or the year before, demonstrating in London about three years and a half ago, it sort of in the news was nice and so on. Oppositional, they're engaging for sure, but they're engaging, they're challenging. For me, I don't know what you think, I would say that's a good thing, that's a necessary, that's higher education, if they're not doing that we're in trouble. So this language of oppositional negativeness is an innovative process, but you can see that it could go in one of two ways. The goody-goody students who engage and does what they're told, and or the students who engage, but says, hang on, this is rubbish, I don't want to be assessed like that, I don't want to be assessed like this, the curriculum is wrong and so on. So, and of course feelings and actions and thoughts are involved in all of that. There's our draft, it's going to be draft forever, we did this for the HEAR draft definition, they said, oh no, I don't like that, for example what would you prefer, I don't know, but people won't agree with that. Well, okay, tough, but you have to have a definition or something, you can't, you know, this chaotic conceptualisation, you can't use a word and not try and define it at least. I think the key thing about this one for me is that it places the emphasis on both the students and the institution. There's a lot of emphasis on one or the other in the literature, sometimes governments place all the emphasis on the institution for academics and some useful words. There's a thing in the literature called the magic effect, you know, who can do this, then it will just happen by magic. Well no, it needs effort and time and so on and intelligence from both sides, from students and academics and of course blended professionals as well as teaching environment. And you can see too, we've added as well as enhancing, optimising the experience and enhancing the learning outcomes and development of students. Also performance and reputation of institutions and that prefigures something I'm going to talk about in a second about what student engagement is for. We tend to take that into as bread, but actually there are multiple objectives of student engagement and senior managers may have one set of objectives which might be the reputation of the institution going up the lead tables. So on particularly lead tables when students engage me, academics will have another one and so on and that's often a good thing. I did a study years ago about the credit framework and the assignment of credit value to assess learning which spread across the country very quickly in the entities without the direction from above. Well I think one of the reasons was there were multiple objectives behind them and so all sorts of people at different levels and different field like educational ideologies could subscribe to it and be in favour of it. And I think the same is true of students engagement, so it's quite an optimistic thing, but actually there are multiple purposes, multiple agendas behind the student engagement initiative. Ok, I think this slide is particularly important because it pulls out these three focus on student engagement. When we talk about student engagement, I don't know about you, but I tend to think about learning and teaching, student engagement and learning process at first because I'm a new teacher. How do we get them in class to have you get them in a lecture to listen and process and stuff? Have you get them in a workshop or seminar or tutorial in class to be involved, to speak, to meet the stuff and so on? And then further along from that kind of thing perhaps maybe we could be involved in designing the syllabus, in designing the assessment. In being involved in assessment and so on, so there's a whole sort of spectrum on that first one that you could go on. Then there's the question of the structural process and the kind of axis of your league. In other words, things like student representatives, course representatives appearing at the bucket of committees and having their input going on to the governing bodies of institutions. Or whatever it is that you have against student representatives. Giving a voice to students through some kind of democratic system and again you've got an axis from fairly limited involvement to actually being involved in selecting staff. And other things that some people would say about that and for others it would be perfectly normal. One of my current PhD students will carry it that John Ward is doing a study on this and he makes the point and it's got a telling point I think that so often the student representative system is simply reactive. We didn't like this, we didn't like that and so on. It's not actually involved in an involved way, in a positive way, in a creative way, it's a consumer kind of situation. So again you're thinking of an axis on the spectrum of the taxes. And then third one, for me this one is particularly important is identity, student identity. How do they feel, again it comes to this affective design? Do they feel part of the institution? Are they, are students engaged with the institution and do they feel that they're part of your institution? Do they proudly say, no, this is me, do they get involved in extracurricular stuff? I think Lancaster's quite lucky accidentally because of its collegiate system. And there are students feel part, not of Lancaster University but of Carpill College or some of that college. But nobody has thought about that, they just called it Oxford and Cambridge. But actually in terms of student engagement on identity it was a clever thing to do accidentally. And you know a lot of the American work on minority ethnic groups in higher education talk about the revolving door of higher education. When people come in they see that this is a white institution, they don't feel it, but it's for them what the class of people and so on. And so they're actually feeling it. And that issue of identity and engagement in that sense, who students feel that they are, is really important. And it's one that isn't much considered in literature. And I'll say a little bit more about that in a second. So as I say, this just sums up in a fairly calculated way. What I've just said, so you've got the learning one, the first one on the left, the structure process at the bottom and identity on the right. And you might want to think about where you're positioned and the cube. There should be more on each of those things where you're students. And where you'd like to be, which of those three axes is most important for you? And where are the challenges and so on? Well, I'll come back to that again in a second. I've given you a hand out. Oh, sorry, no. So again, this is just summing up what I've just said. So you've got the behavioural emotion on the cognitive side. And you've got the congruent, the conformity, non-engagement and the, as I said, it might work, but the opposition or the challenging and some examples of what students might do. OK, the QAA have just very recently developed a students' engagement chapter on their new quality code. And it's longer than this, but I just pulled around for the QAA. So you've got the big indicator and then lots of subsections of that. So just over, for two minutes, very, very quickly, I don't know how much time, but I'd like you to just have a look at that and offer any comments. OK, so it's a big expectation. Any thoughts? I think, obviously, just from what I've written on the indicators at the beginning, there's an idea of more of a sharing idea between the institution and the student. And then if you take the model you had before of rejection and congruent, are we, there's a point where could you not be rejecting and congruent at the same time having a reason and an enthusiastic and apatistic poetry approach to the lectures and the things that you're learning, but questioning and rejecting them, not from a position of marching and picketing and being outside the institution but being within it and questioning what you're being taught and what is there. And if there is, then if this became part of that, although it's encouraging talk, does it also still then reinforce the idea that the institution does hold all the power ultimately? And so then that rejection will be for sure lost. But it has to be assimilated and how along with that discussion we could take if there was a real feeling of, no, we don't agree with this, but academic integrity and the frameworks in the institution believe that there has to be there. Does it create that kind of a change? That's a real danger, isn't it? I absolutely agree. Constructive criticism would be the ideal. I agree, it's going to take a lot of resources to do this properly. And I agree there's a danger that students will come. And if it's not done fully and they don't feel their voice is being listened to really, then there'll be alienation and so on. That's one of the things that we picked up from the literature, but so-called closing the loop. Listening to students, taking action and closing the loop by telling students what action you've taken is really important. And if you forget that last one, you lose them even if you have taken action. And they do exactly what you're saying. Indicator 7 stands out for me again in relation to, or briefly mentioned, in relation to the reforms of the rebel group, which I like that so much. Because there's a statement to excel at the effectiveness of students engagement, using 3D5 to keep forth indicators, et cetera. One of the whole ideas, I think for me there's a danger of not only making conform this whole of students, but conform this whole of academics and stuff, who might have quite out of language ideas, but there's a risk of what they might be told by creative aspects or innovation. Because at the end of the course, you'll be assessing how things are being refined, which is absolutely a closing down system. Teaching to the test. Whenever you set up indicators, you do actually structure practices and that's a danger too. I think for me, one of the... I was involved on the steering group with development of this, and this is the best iteration. But when it started, it was all about quality. Of course it's the quality agency. But if you're looking at student engagement, you can easily forget exactly that, but the indicators will drive the behaviour. And if you're driving behaviour only in one direction, you're forgetting certain elements of student. OK. Sorry. Since I disagree with some of the thoughts on the same thing, the behaviours that were lessons, some of what it says on the turn, that students don't turn or might be left, I think in a moment like this, where we've got a policy working process page, sometimes there's students on our course who are working well independently, coming less briefly there, but are highly engaged with their working adults, but on a more kind of philosophical basis. So it might look a register as it happens. Just at the end of it, you know that there's something that was aimed at at the work, highly engaged with them, and that was the challenge. Yes. I absolutely agree. I mean, that's the difficulty of only looking at behaviours and not looking at it in other things, reasons for the issues and so on. Skipping lectures, but doing the work and talking to the lecturers. It's not what it is. I agree with it. It is a new class. I don't respond to that actually. The word you use is registers. Registers, in my memory of registers, was when I was a boy in the prime of the school. When I first went into education, I saw these registers, and I'm now alone. I mean, in fact, I have nightmares now. I have a universal sense that, the great temple of contrast and rejection and contestation is suffering the dead hand of a register. Now, my understanding was that traditionally, seven other tendons were obligatory. I had a painful memory from my undergraduate days, and postgraduate days were my issue. But I understand increasing registers is the border agency, and this is what I've been about, about larger structures, conditioning, practices. It's the border agency that is beginning to control what is going on in university practices. That's deeply established, so you have to be ready to ensure basically that your, really, the issue is, you're overseas students at 10, but you can't target just overseas students for the right thing to do. So, actually, you have to have registers on every point, but the real issue is very sensitive. So, that illustrates the point. I need to move on quite quickly. I think what's missing from that is the third thing about identity, actually. There's a lot about quality, and there's a lot about enhancing and learning in the first and second axis, and obviously representation and so on. It's very interesting, I'll just point to that, though I'm saying more about it. A very interesting study just came out on that, and they're finding, through empirical studies of undergraduate courses, basically that axis one, teaching and learning, and particularly engagement with knowledge, has a big effect on axis three, identity. And changing the students, and changing their own identity of someone, and for all of these authors, that latter thing is really important. Identity change, that's what our education really is about. You know, you're a different person, a more critical person, and you think differently, and so of course that varies from discipline to discipline, exactly how that's manifested. So, engagement with knowledge leading to identity change, and that's actually actually the point I would say from this study, and I think that third axis is a bit absent. I've mentioned educational ideology, and I think it's really important. In the Leadership Foundation materials, we call it philosophy. We'd go away from the word ideology, because ideology isn't, you know, as a negative connotation, I'm certainly not using it in a negative way. But it permeates a lot of what we do, and in some other work, I talked about four educational ideologies in higher education. Traditionalism, concentrating on the discipline, progressivism, concentrating on the student, social reconstructionism, nice of changing the society, and a sense of what I've mentified in the sense of vocationalism and contributing to the UK and PLC, and we see those manifested, I think, in two different models of student engagement, and I think there's some contestation right now in this country and abroad between those two models. One we call the market model of student engagement, and I think you can see it to some extent in the QAH chapter. In other words, seeing students as consumers, entering a higher education market, and seeing them as consumers when they're satisfied, as opposed to a developmental model of students engagement, which sees them as participants in the process of education, of their own education, of being fully involved, not as consumers, but as fully involved participants. And those are manifested in two different approaches to evaluating what happens in universities. I would say that the National Survey of Student Satisfaction embodies the first one to the market model. Did you like it? You bought some beans? Did you like them? You had an undergraduate degree? Did you enjoy it? That sort of thing. It's situating the student as a consumer. In Australia, in North America, piloting in South Africa and piloting in China, and in some institutions here and other institutions in other countries in the rest of the world, they're using an engagement survey. So in North America, for example, you have NES, the National Survey of Students Engagement in Australia. They have Aussie. Something like that. You can read the rest yourself. So they're asking different questions. And as we said before, the questions that are in Australia, there are funding consequences. Nesi in North America has important implications. So people try to get good answers to those questions. And they're questions like, where are you involved? Did the lecturers discuss where they're representatives? Did you have an opportunity to do this? In other words, ask about a process of education, not about outcomes or satisfaction. And I think it's really hard to move all the way to partnership if you're involved in it. Behind all questions, you're taking a market model for your students engagement. So engagement for what? I mentioned that there were multiple purposes for engagement. And so these are some of the things that we abstracted from the literature. There's a gap there because there are probably different types of roles interested in them at all. And some pointers, again, that we abstracted from the literature. I'll talk about the empirical work. The deep project, there's a lot of very good materials and handbooks and things in states stemming from the documenting effective education practices. So these are the things that they've identified and seem to be the indicators of success from what we can see from the literature and sort of from our own empirical work. Again, some of them in some context might be seen as quite radical. What did we find from our interviews? Well, and we, as I say, we went to case study institutions which on a number of cases were highly engaging institutions when we didn't sample the resources for that. So we just wanted to ask the question where are the roots of success in those institutions? And this one identifies people at the top. I said we shouldn't overemphasise individuals, but the literature on change and the universities generally tells us that it's really important that it's on your side to get good stuff. It's not a it's not an unobvious point, but some of them commit that students having a proper voice co-produces in all aspects. See how radical that's on the on the framework. So it's a bit of a journey according to this person to mention the power relationship. Of course you can't get away from the institution and the people in it do have that. But it's been a building on from that I'm trying to go around. And this business about these different agendas the university was and maybe that first quote is suggesting those different agendas, those different targets objectives are not in confidence to get the high rankings on student engagement on a scale is to get a better reputation so actually you do have to do some real things that do involve students in their learning and so on. And again you've got a champion to deal with some of the senior managers about that, to convince them. So I would agree with the senior manager same journey, different motivations and it doesn't matter. In fact it's a good fit though because everybody's involved as it is the junior manager. And this individual making the comparison the analogy between investor relations, employers and employees, students and then universities from Exxon sports partnership, co-operation working together not a conflict power based what you can take. So some of the success factors the critical success factors that we've abstracted from the literature and abstracted from the empirical work of themselves, I'll just pick up one or two things. Go to the goal I was giving a talk to the NUS and the HEA and I was talking enthusiastically about engagement services and the satisfaction service and one of the NUS he stood up quite angrily and said we've had enough of bloody surveys fed up of filling in bloody forms come and talk to us Yes, good point. Perhaps I should be a bit less but there's only so much that surveys and questions are going to be so go to the goal and procedures, software and procedures and even structures, university structures and mitigated gains and student engagement so that mentioned the closing feedback So it's practice theory if an evoked responses see somebody in a suit looks like a manager talks like a manager and so it evokes a response and the cheers but those can be evoked to responses social practice theory which says are very important and you need to think about what responses you're evoking in your discourse and how you behave So really what we're saying is that if you're thinking about enhancing student engagement you need to think about where you are at the moment on one side of the river where you want to get particularly the three axes and how you might get there and also of course the metaphor has environment in it climate, geography et cetera so it's a bit of a criticism metaphor we kind of expand on it So in that then in thinking about making a bridge and crossing a bridge you need to think about the three dimensions of student engagement think about not only the future but where we are now what are our recurrent practices what are our assumptions about our students and what's possible within this context what resources are we talking about and some of the key lessons about change if you go to any talk that I give you here is through the salience conference to be successful change has to be salient it has to matter issues the agendas that we have at the moment if it doesn't then it will eventually assume a lot of the need for change has to be congruence what your planning needs to be to something so congruence with what current practice is at the moment is obviously practices need to change and will change not just to fit into the status quo but it does need to have congruence profitability not in terms of money but in terms of what matters academics is time time is the key thing that you always hear from academics what do you want a lot more time I've got too many things to do so if something is about resources if something is getting into it for an innovation towards student engagement it will cost you time and it's another thing to do it must be ways to find so if you want to reflect whether you are in the future then those are some of the questions and then I mentioned the resources the HEA reports the other leadership foundation reports the Sakai engagement site the interactive one has everything on it from all the sides so just I'll give you those details some examples of materials from the NUS themselves as they are working on this course very strongly with the number 2 and then the examples from SC and LZ that I mentioned deep project management project report and also there is one of the more useful things the student engagement tool kit I'm sorry the other time but we did have a bit of discussion before so do you want to go first? sure, thanks Paul just was securing to me as you were talking that there's a heavy emphasis on the literature and evidence in the QAA increasingly student engagement is viewed as a systemic it's a series of things you do but the question in my mind is if you want to comment on why do you think or do you feel like staffing engagement is a necessary precursor to effective student engagement yes our focus has been on student engagement but you are absolutely right and one of the things I skipped over very quickly you said choose the right people and that's one thing in terms of selection how committed are usually there are but in terms of the staff as we're already there absolutely if the staff are alienated and disengaged from the institution from their work for whatever reason of course they're not going to it's about profitability and salience and coherence and so on if their work and being excellent in their work industry aren't salient to them so I absolutely agree if you're making a point that's both staff exhibit the same characteristic of individual difference as students do so we also have rebellious and inhibitive yes the social practices approach one of the things that always attracts me about that is how it does do all the things there that we're talking about bringing students in and making a dialogue part of how we shake things or develop from there and it reminds me very much of adult literacy as well that I used to be involved in and how that was where old staff and all the theoretical discussion seems to go for a large part but we ended up with functional skills and it's like how do you get that point where there is a great sense of this is how people feel enriched and empowered and how we can develop courses but it's in the face of a government agenda and a policy agenda that also runs this which is saying here we want the NSS we don't want this open shared thing we do want the kind of beings approach to your ideas and if we're not doing it right then you hit with that and how do the two do you think fit together for you as a practitioner for us and for institutions and we've got that that drives everything where the money comes from and so although these are brilliant ideas and can really develop what we do they're in the face of that and they're in the other direction I know and it's it's depressing isn't it so much is taking it towards the quality agenda narrowly can see towards a market model satisfaction and so on but I don't think we ought to be we're not tubes we're not social tubes and that's one thing that social practice theory says we're not just puppets of the situation that we're in of course we're not and especially not in universities and higher education centres we're a pleasure people and we can think this through and we can recognise as you've just done what's happening and that's really important I wrote a paper in 2001 called captured by the discourse question mark in other words do we eventually sink into a closed or do we necessarily seek into those discourse things I wasn't even then a student at the age of but you can apply to that it's a very limited view and my conclusion was I hope I'm right that no you can apply your mind to it and one of the things is to surface all this and point it all out and to keep it in mind all the time but it takes work to challenge the discourse of the market so it's it's effort it's resources and as I say times on the issue so I don't want to talk about any other questions I don't want to talk about what's wrong I think just relative we're going to work captured by the discourse in particular I think the resources were on the faircraft two years ago about the language language and what was fascinating about that was that Norman crystallised this nasty destruction distinctions and the way the way that then the orthodoxy tried to say there were no divisions there were no there were no contestations that we were all being together goodness me, that's her again which is really just a bit of temp philosophy recycled of course and I just wonder whether this what could be called honest debate, honest honest disagreement that for a period of time in this country what could be called sharp individual differences that were either ignored or defined out of existence and some people say we'll bring back a good old 1980s and in a funny sort of way we're entering a period now in this country's macroeconomic management where there is a degree of contestation and I wonder whether this is going to actually be diverse thank you, that's so optimistic and I thought it reminds me actually when we were talking in England they have the quality enhancement framework very nice with universities as autonomous people making their decisions and so on so there is that difference and potential for contestation and so on that's very nice I just wanted to kind of go back to these QIA indicators again the more I look at them the more I begin to question whether they are consistent with each other as a set of indicators that could be implemented by any institution I wonder is this a sort of I wonder is this really being examined to see if these things are consistent with each other and actually make sense to try and achieve all at once well the working group met about three or four times and there was a national consultation finished two or three months ago maybe it didn't but they haven't been piloted in any sense and in a way what's happened I think with these is that they have been improved I mean one of the early ones was that they had that students and institutions should get together and define student engagement well I'll tell you what having spent 30 months trying to do exactly that I thought my chances of that were nil which was the point I made so that's not there but no I mean I still think there are lots wrong with these things and I think they are inconsistent but I do think actually they have the advantage that they're pretty broadly drawn now so you could there is a space for an institution to make their own definitions to do it their way so in that sense I'm not too concerned about that I suppose I look at them and I see that things that managerial types will single out and ignore the things that are inconvenient students and staff engaging in discussions that aim to bring out the one support enhancement of the education experience I think that is the part that is hardest to achieve and will be conveniently swept away and number seven will be key performance indicators discussing data to the students we are going to be all saying things again and again but of course I'm sure you're absolutely right hardly because it's easy quantitative stuff and so on it's just easier than engaging in discussions that are not just to talk and do something talking about which and over my time so I'd like to stop there thank you so much for a very good period