This is a speech given by a student representative Esa Tiusanen, Board Member of HYY (Student Union of the University of Helsinki), at a discussion and information seminar ‘Audit of the University of Helsinki Quality System’ in City Center campus 10th September 2014.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you on an issue that entails nearly all aspects of the university and affects its operations at nearly every conceivable level. Earlier this year I held a short presentation concerning the Audit. One of the main goals of that speech was to discuss the English terminology for quality management. Sometime after my presentation on that scintillating topic, I promised Aimo and Helena, that this presentation would not be quite as – radical. Despite that promise, I thought it appropriate to use that presentation as a sort of starting point for my presentation today.

In my presentation I showed the lecture hall filled with representatives of various levels of the university administration a video about a small boy that had been given a box by his parents. The boy was told that the box contained the source of happiness, but that he wasn’t allowed to open the box to see what is inside it, or else he would lose the source of happiness. I tried – perhaps unsuccessfully – to illustrate the central concepts of the audit process by placing “QUALITY” inside the box, instead of happiness.

In the original video the boy’s uncle eventually convinces the boy to study the box using scales, a stethoscope and an x-ray device. In the video the box turned out to be empty, but for discussing the Audit process, we can assume there is something in the box. But the thing to pay attention to is, that depending on WHAT is in the box, the various ways of analyzing the content will give very different results. If the object inside is, for example, a skeleton from the biology department, it can be clearly detected by the X-ray or the scales, but it would be very difficult to discern what is in the box if all you had was a stethoscope. In a different scenario in which the box is lined with a lead casing the box will look the same on an x-ray regardless of the music box inside, while using the scales or the stethoscope, it will be more than evident that the box is not empty.

On top of this, we should consider whether or not we are content with knowing that the box is not empty, or should we attempt to find out WHAT is inside it? And how strict a definition do we wish to make? We can make more and more specific conclusions on the content by combining various instruments – although obviously adding to the costs and effort needed in the process. But if the box is filled with something as intangible as quality – how do you know which tools are the correct ones? Is quality heavy? Is it noisy? Is it impenetrable to X-rays? Or is it, perhaps, all these things? These are truly fundamental questions for the audit process.

Moving a bit closer to the real world, I would like to discuss the didactic triangle as an illustration of the problems of measuring quality – and thereby the necessary processes of evaluation. The didactic triangle divides the classroom situation into three actors and three interactions between them. The actors are the teacher, the student, and the content. The interactions: teaching, learning and training – or the relationship between the teacher and student. In assessing the functioning of any given situation, we need to acknowledge that we need information on all elements of the triangle.

If we measure the student and notice increased access to the content, we have no way of knowing whether the learning was caused by the teacher, his teaching, or the training provided – or if the student decided to learn on his own. We need information on all (or at least most of) the aspects of the triangle to be able to make even educated guesses on the causal relationships. This observation that is so integral in all science is often neglected when discussing administrative functions at universities. As a real life example of this problem, we can consider the relative abundance of information available on the speed of studies at the university to the relative difficulty on finding solid information on the different ways of providing guidance to students at the various departments. Teaching and learning are being measured, but training is, to some extent, being neglected.

The new Kandipalaute and LEARN -surveys promise to bring significant advancements to the previously patchy information on the learning processes of the students. The surveys have better accounted for teaching, learning, and training. Having the use of these new surveys is in fact an extremely good thing, as in Kandipalaute we have already noticed that on aggregate the worst results are found in guidance, interaction between students and faculty, and the students’ opportunities to influence their surroundings.

Assessing the opportunities to influence thing, is indeed a major challenge for the audit. In assessing the process used to ensure quality, it is very hard at the same time to view the actual content. We have a wide network of student representatives at various levels of the administration, and they are chosen with relatively clear processes. But what is the actual weight given to their efforts? Is representation in one governing body proof that issues are not actually decided someplace else? In addition to the results of Kandipalaute, a study by OTUS (the research foundation of studies and education) this year has shown that there are real concerns about the actual opportunities for students – and even student representatives – to affect the decisions of the university.

The existence of these various surveys and other forms of feedback is a great thing, but I would like to raise the issue of the degree to which students actually want to partake in them. Low response rates have been an issue with Kandipalaute as well as other forms of feedback. This is, in my opinion, a major issue. And indeed, I think I find the solution once again in the didactic triangle: students need to be helped to find motivation to respond! Students need to feel that they get something from participating. One way of achieving this – I have personally noticed in working with the survey – is telling the student responding to the survey will bring more money for the university. I find this motivation to be severely flawed, and it is a relief to notice that studies have shown that such direct benefits are not major factors in why students want to take part in decision making process.

So what is? How to motivate students into participating – or at least answering surveys? By illustrating to them, how their actions affect reality around them. The example of financial benefits for the university is in my opinion, as I said, a bad motivation – but it works! Cause – and effect. I will give another example, although it, too, is flawed.

In another Finnish university – luckily not this one – a teacher consistently received good reviews of his classes. His course feedback had high response rates. He received good reviews, in particular, for his responsiveness to the feedback. When certain issues with his courses were pointed out to him, he altered his methods. Eventually, though, he ran into a problem. I turned out, he didn’t so much consider the comments on his classes, as he guided them. He had prepared two alternative ways of holding his class, and switched between them when the feedback turned sour. Students were only at the university long enough to notice one cycle. While I cannot describe the actions of the teacher as exemplary, I want to focus your attention on one thing: students appreciated the fact that their voices had been heard, and as a result were more prone to tell their opinions on the class. Cause and effect was made clear, and added motivation.

* * * * * *

To end my presentation, I have to admit, that preparing for this speech, I had some difficulties answering the title question in itself. “How does the audit improve the quality of studies?” It’s not in fact all that easy to think of the precise ways in which evaluating the quality system, DIRECTLY translates into improvements in the real daily functions at the university. Interestingly, though, I was having problems coming to grips with the question from two completely different, even diametrically opposite perspectives.

On one hand, I kept thinking: “There’s really no way in which the audit doesn’t relate to the daily processes of studying at the university.” Helping the university gather better information to base their decisions on, can have a serious impact on anything from the use of our facilities, to the services provided for students, to the content and medium the university tries to communicate to its members. Improving feedback-systems can directly improve lesson-plans and help us locate problems to resolve. So really everything the Audit can do, will improve studies at the university. But I can’t really just say “in every way imaginable.” That wouldn’t be very informative, nor would it be entirely accurate.

And this is the second viewpoint I kept coming back to: “There’s really no direct way, the Audit process will help improve the quality of studies.” This is a slightly radical insinuation, but I fear it is accurate – at least to some degree. The audit system has no direct impact on the functioning of the university, unless the university decides to truly work hard to resolve the problems that the audit brings to light. To the credit of the administration at our university, they HAVE taken the process very seriously. And I have no doubt that the appropriate lessons from the Audit will be taken into account in future. And that the University of Helsinki will continue working on these issues with the determination they deserve.

Thank you!

This is a speech given by a student representative Johanna Riitakorpi, Board Member of HYY (Student Union of the University of Helsinki), at a discussion and information seminar in Viikki 10th September 2014 ‘Audit of the University of Helsinki Quality System’.

First I would like to thank you for the opportunity to get the voice of the students heard. My name is Johanna Riitakorpi and I began my studies at the uni in 2009 in Environmental Soil science, located at the faculty of agriculture and forestry. In 2012 I changed my major to limnology and at the same time my faculty changed to faculty of biological and environmental sciences. Limnology is, for those who aren’t familiar with it, the study of inland waters. I usually have to explain that one, when I let people guess what it means they most often think that I study body parts or something else as weird. Nevertheless I have studied in Viikki my whole academic career and have seen how this campus has evolved during the past 5 years.

The Viikki campus is the heart of biosciences and with its four faculties it is often called the green campus of the University of Helsinki. Still the imaginary (and sometimes very concrete) walls between the faculties feel too high to climb. For example, I think that there’s no reason to have four almost identical courses of basic chemistry just because of the faculty boundaries when there could be just one course planned and executed in co-ordination of the whole campus. Gladly I can say that during the last five years those boundaries have become easier to cross and there has been more and more discussion between different faculties. It has become common to share AND implement good practices with all the different actors on the campus.

During my studies I have been fortunate to be able to participate in several laboratory and field courses. We have great facilities for lab work and several interesting research stations located in different parts of Finland, for example those of Lammi, Hyytiälä and Tvärminne. Those courses have been usually well-organized and flexible. Students’ ideas are taken into account and there is real will to develop the courses to be more interesting and offer for example some insight to as of what the working life of a marine biologist could actually be like. I have felt that my feedback really matters and occasionally even leads to developing better practices.

This is, sadly, not always the case. I have experienced courses where my feedback has been regarded as irrelevant because of low feedback percent or courses where student feedback was seen just as a necessary evil to be dealt with, with no concrete effect on the actual development of the course in the future.

Students’ opinions matter and have to be taken into account. We have many different ways to influence the decision making at the university: we can talk directly to professors and student counsellors, we can give feedback during courses, work as student representatives in different administrative organs, be active in student organisations and take part in university’s own or nation-wide surveys about our studies.

I have always tried to make a difference when there has been a chance, but everyone is not like me: not everyone has time or will to act. If you can’t see the consequences of your actions or feedback, there is not much motivation to take part in the system.

And yet we should focus on activating just these slightly passive students.

The University’s own Learn feedback survey on the learning and study environment and the national Bachelor’s Graduate Survey have improved the situation somewhat, but there’s still a lot of work to do. The first priority should be developing the current system based on the collected feedback – feedback has no value if it is not used for something. Good example of when feedback has actually lead to action is the services of student psychologists, which the university acquired after demand for their services, became apparent from the student feedback. Student psychologists offer guidance for students who need help with learning skills, motivation, time management or coping with stress. Previously they were only for students on one campus, now their services are available almost on all campuses, and there is demand for more.

So, how does the audit improve the quality of studies? That was the topic of my speech, wasn’t it?

Well I won’t talk much about the fact that only a minority of the students even know what the audit means. It’s not the sexiest topic to talk about.

I have been glad to notice that the university has been more and more interested in the opinions of students while the Audit comes closer. They even made a campaign “do you have a say” where it was reminded to the students and other stakeholders of the University community that they can contribute by participating in supervision and guidance, feedback surveys and development discussions and this way play an important role in managing the quality. Us, the students have a responsibility to have a say in the quality of studies, but even though the university says it will listen, are our ideas, complaints and thoughts really being heard in the future as well?

The audit is a great way to look into the quality system of the university. It forces us to stop and evaluate good and bad practises. It is also important that this development does not stop when the audit team, hopefully, gives a green light for our university’s quality system. We need to listen to the whole academic community, including students, even when there’s no audition on our doorstep.

Last week in his speech in the University’s opening ceremony, our rector Jukka Kola said that next year, in the year 2015 the goal of our university is not only to be closer in becoming the best for the world but to become best for the students. I hope that this goal is set to be actually achieved and university will continue to improve its ways to listen to the feedback of the members of this community.

Anne Rautanen on Helsingin yliopiston ylioppilaskunnan (HYY) koulutuspoliittinen asiantuntija.

Innostavan luennoitsijan vetämä kurssi, mielenkiintoiset tenttikirjat, samasta aiheesta kiinnostuneet ryhmätyötoverit ja valinnanvaraa suorittamistavoissa. Tällaisia vastauksia saa usein opiskelijoilta, kun kysytään, millaista olisi opiskelu parhaimmillaan. Usein vastauksissa listataan myös oppimistapahtuman puitteita: toimivia tietokoneita, helposti saatavilla olevia kirjoja, viihtyisiä lukupaikkoja ja aikaa syventyä opittavaan aiheeseen.

Osa tekijöistä on oppijasta itsestään riippuvia: oma motivaatio, usko omaan osaamiseen ja kykyyn omaksua opittava aihe ja tavoite, jota kohden kulkiessa on valmis sietämään myös jonkin verran epämukavuutta sekä epävarmuutta. Iso osa tulee kuitenkin myös ympäristöstä. Omasta aiheestaan innostuneen opettajan ilo ja into tarttuu, rento ja hyväksyvä ilmapiiri madaltaa kynnystä kysyä apua silloin kun tuntuu, että itse ei ymmärrä. Opiskelijan opiskelutaidotkin ovat tärkeitä. Ne antavat välineitä muokata opittavasta asiasta omaksuttavan kokoisia palasia ja luovat uskoa siihen, että asiat ovat tavalla tai toisella opittavissa.

Opettajan rooli innostuksen luojana ja oppimisen mahdollistajana on merkittävä. Oman esimerkin lisäksi kurssin sisältö, sen suhde osallistujien lähtötasoon, opittavien asioiden määrä ja käytettävissä oleva aika luovat oppimisen viitekehyksen. Ketään ei voi pakottaa oppimaan eikä paraskaan kurssi kykene tuottamaan oppimiselämyksiä osallistujalle, jonka ainut tavoite on ainoastaan saada siitä opintoviikot plakkariin vähimmällä mahdollisella työllä. Oikein innostava kurssi saattaa kyllä ajoittain onnistua muuttamaan vastahakoisenkin opiskelijan. Mutta vastuu oppimisesta on kuitenkin oppijalla itsellään.

Vaikka into ja kiinnostus auttavat hankalienkin asioiden omaksumisessa, joskus tarvitaan lisäapua opittavan asian käsittelemiseen ja hahmottamiseen. Aiheestaan selkeästi kiinnostunutta opettajaa on ujommankin tosin helpompi lähestyä lisäkysymyksin. Kurssien ilmapiirin luomiseen epämuodollisemmaksi ja keskustelua ruokkivaksi on olemassa roppakaupalla keinoja, vinkkejä ja koulutusta. Neuvoja voi saada vaikka pedagogisilta yliopistonlehtoreilta, Opettajien akatemian jäseniltä tai järjestöjen opintovastaavilta. Opiskelutaidon oppimiseksi järjestetään kursseja mutta olisi hyvä jos niitä olisi helposti saatavilla aivan jokaiselle uudelle opiskelijalle, niin että opintopolun hyvä alku ei ainakaan siitä jäisi kiinni.

Innon ja sisäisen motivaation lisäksi niin opiskelijoihin kuin opettajiinkin vaikuttavat myös opintojen järjestelyt sekä hallinnointi. Jos kurssilla opeteltavat asiat edellyttävät kovin suurta tietomäärää, jota ei osallistujalla ennen kurssia ole, lisääntyy opeteltavien asioiden määrä helposti niin suureksi, että se ei enää ole inhimillisesti katsoen mahdollista. Tässä asiassa on yliopistomme tosin kehittynyt hurjasti vuosien varrella niin, että tutkinto- ja kurssirakenteita tehtäessä on alettu kiinnittää huomiota siihen, miten sisällöt rakentuvat toistensa päälle.

Kun opintotaidot ovat kunnossa, työmäärä kohdallaan ja opettajakin erinomaisen motivoiva tyyppi, voi silti oppiminen jäädä takkuamaan, jos yllättäen vaikka läheinen sairastuu, kirjoja ei löydy kirjastosta, rahat loppuvat tai vaikkapa flunssa iskee väärään aikaan. Näitä ongelmia voitaisiin ratkoa kehittämällä lisää joustavia suoritustapoja ja oppimismenetelmiä. Kaikkia kursseja ei toki voi tenttiä ja opettajienkin työmäärä on otettava huomioon, jotta yliopistoyhteisö olisi miellyttävä kaikille. Mutta toisaalta suorittamistapojakin on useita aina sähköisistä tenteistä esseisiin, ryhmätöihin ja erilaisissa ryhmätyöalustoissa suoritettaviin kurssitöihin ja tentteihin.

Selkeät, konkreettiset oppimistavoitteet auttavat opiskelijaa hahmottamaan, mitä häneltä odotetaan, sekä myös oppiaineita karsimaan turhia päällekkäisyyksiä ja epäolennaisuuksia tutkinnoista pois. Toimintatapojen pohtiminen yhdessä opettajien ja opiskelijoiden kanssa sekä niiden kirjaaminen auttaa uusia yhteisöön tulijoita omaksumaan yhteiset toimintatavat sekä osoittavat myös ulospäin sen, että opetukseen on käytetty aikaa, vaivaa ja ajatusta. Tällä tavalla myös laadukas opiskelu on todellinen mahdollisuus.