STUDENTS WORK WITH MENTORING SOCIAL ENTERPRISE ON REDUCING SCHOOL DROPOUT

Name and position of the participant and other supporting staff if relevant Máté Farkas-Kis

PhD student, assistant professor
Name of the course and discipline, level and year of study and any useful background info.

 

 Decision Techniques

BA in Human resources, Business and management, Commerce and marketing, Tourism and Hospitality, 2nd year students
Name of community partner and/or any other supporting partners (public or private sector) InDaHouse Hungary Association
CERL project title(s)

 

 How can the school dropout rate of teenagers living in poverty be reduced?

Students conducted a problem-solving process and executed an action aiming potential donators and volunteers for the partner
Tangible info – e.g. module descriptor, learning outcomes, assignments, assessment criteria, …  2VL60NBK03B, Decision Techniques

Because it was a pilot, there wasn’t any special description. The Community Partner just connected to the related seminar sessions and worked together with the students.
How was it taught:

1.      number of students

2.      student groupwork or individual,

3.      how they worked with the partner,

4.      how the project proceeded,

5.      any reflection done with students,

6.      evaluation or formal assessment of their learning,

7.      Could or should we follow up with students?

8.      tech used

9.      Anything else interesting?

10.   For how long have you been teaching this course, and since when there is a community partner involved?

  

1.      7 students

2.      They worked together as a group

3.      They met the partner several times, to discuss the topic of teenagers living in poverty and how this affects their studies.

4.      Based on their discussions and the problem-solving process, the students developed an action plan that they talked over with the partner and after adjusting what they’ve concluded put it into action.

5.      The students from the group and the community partner both filled the feedback form as the Spring semester group work ended. Students wrote individual reflections on their learnings as well as a group reflection as part of their assignments.

6.      The partner was present when the students presented their learnings from their action at the closing of the course and reflected live on the results. The group got a formal evaluation and grade for their work from the lecturer

7.       

8.      MS Teams
What did you CHANGE about your programme/course in relation to CERL during CIRCLET?  

 

 1.      Before CERL during the course the students’ groups only needed to take an interview with somebody who is connected or affected or has and affect to their problem. It was just a one-way communication (and only one time) when the students had the possibility to get more information from somebody, who is more involved in that problem they were working on. Now for that group – who worked with the community partner – the world opened up and they had the possibility to dig deeper in their topic.

2.      There is only one group who got the chance to work with the Community Part. Therefore, I needed to rethink the evaluation of the whole group in a fair way, because to work together with a Community Partner also meant a little bit more work for that given group.

 
CHALLENGES and how you overcame them?

 

 From week-to-week the student group working with the community partner seemed to have lost momentum and had to warm-up for much more time every time they met. After several meetings the group seemed to have been overwhelmed by the hopelessness of the problem and couldn’t see the way forward towards a feasible action.

I paid attention to their need for more time to warm-up and reassured them to keep going.
What did your STUDENTS LEARN or how will they benefit?

 

 The student’s response in the science shop feedback form:

“Besides the learnings of the course I think we improved our communications and cooperation skills the most, since we had to keep in touch in three different directions.”​

I think the main take away for the students was the difference between reality and perceptions. It’s always easy to talk about a problem if we are not involved in it but we have just read and heard about it. But with the Community Partner they had a chance to understand the problem deeper, and to meet the real people behind the stories. Therefore, they had the opportunity to change their perspectives.
What do you think the BENEFIT was TO THE PARTNER?

Do You have any feedback from the partner?

 

 The partner’s response in the science shop feedback form:

“I think it was useful for the students, it opened up their worldview and made them more aware of the reality they cannot even imagine. Most of them haven’t even been to the countryside, they don’t know children living in poverty, and cannot imagine what a segregated school can be like.”

Honestly? I’m not sure that this first pilot got a big impact on the Community Partner. Of course, because of the student’s “Action”, some people know a little bit more about them, but directly to the Community Partner I’m not sure that we can identify anything. It’s just because of how they acted, how the participants and a Community Partner worked together. My feeling is though that it was a very genuine knowledge sharing with close experiences for students, and the Community Parner “just” deliver these.
HOW could/will you IMPROVE YOUR CERL teaching practice next time? I will focus more on the Community Partner’s side to understand more, what is the takeaway for them. Not just knowledge transfer to the students, which is of course an opportunity for them if they can seize it.
How would you RAISE SOMEONE’S CURIOSITY about CERL? Share the final “Action” in the University social media platforms and manage forums where the students share their experiences about CERL.