Transcript Using Data to Improve First Year Student Retention and Success

Using Data to Improve Student Retention and
Success
Sarah Broxton
Overview
• About the University of Huddersfield, strategic position;
• Why we need the data – drivers for change;
• Application overview;
• A year in – what we’ve learnt;
• Next steps
UoH Institutional Performance
• Significant improvements made over last 5 year period:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Times Higher University of the Year!
19,500 students
Improving NSS scores
Increasing league table positions
Top 10 Employability
Times Higher Entrepreneurial University of the Year
Award winning estate
University of Huddersfield Strategic Position
30
88
40
86
50
84
60
82
70
80
80
78
90
76
100
74
110
72
2008
Guardian League Table
2009
2010
Times Good University Guide
2011
Sunday Times University Guide
2012
2013
Complete University Guide
2014
NSS Overall Satisfaction
NSS % Agree (Q22)
League Table Rank
University of Huddersfield Institutional Performance
University of Huddersfield Retention Record
Total full-time
first degree
entrants
Number who
Number no
Percent no
transfer to longer in HE longer in HE
other UK HEI
(%)
Bench-mark (%)
2007/08
3415
100
440
12.9
10.7
2008/09
3425
100
425
12.4
9.8
2009/10
3705
100
445
12.0
11.0
2010/11
3700
60
415
11.2
10.0
2011/12
4055
85
380
9.4
8.7
Drivers for Change
• Strategic requirement to improve retention rates;
• Strategic requirement to improve institutional effectiveness and
efficiency;
• Introduction of attendance monitoring system;
• Increased cohort sizes;
• Limited access/knowledge by staff about what data is available.
Drivers for Change
•
Create own systems
– Onerous and bureaucratic
– Duplicates effort, associated version issues
– Increasing risk of error
•
Wider implications
– Reputational impact
– Financial impact
– Social and ethical impact
“The traditional ladder out of poverty is education. Access to university
education is seen as countering social exclusion and poverty” (Quinn et al,
2005, p.1)
Starting Point – Where We Were
• Data is retrospective, informative, though limited
• Useful to be able to monitor student behaviour while they
are still attending
• Early intervention
– Sign post to most appropriate support services
Support Priority Students - Overview
Profile leaver
characteristics from
previous year:
• Gender
• Age
• Entry Tariff
• Entry Quals
• Entry route
• Home Postcode
• Disability
• Ethnicity
Apply to current first
year cohort
(2013/14) :
• Overlay
Attendance
Monitoring data
OUTPUT: Report of
students more likely
to leave:
• Communicated
to:
• Nominated staff
within schools:
• Personal Tutors
via Staff Portal /
My Students
What Happens Next?
Support Priority Student
Get in touch
If all ok, occasional check in
Academic Issues – ASTs
Other Issues – School or central
support services
Occasional check in
Benefits
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Provides targeted intelligence on where to focus initial attention
Data available on the desktop to academic staff
Facilitates proactive, early intervention – mitigates ‘crisis point’
Promotes transparency and accountability
Improves communication between schools and services
Creates further data for analysis
Increases institutional intelligence on the retention issue
Evaluation
Withdrawal and Suspension Rates Comparing SPS Students to Population (to end May 2014)
Current
Suspended
Withdrawn
2013/14
WD & S
Grand Total
13/14 W
& Susp
13/14 W &
Susp as % of
Total
NON SPS
4096
118
222
4436
4436
340
7.7%
SPS
152
8
34
194
194
42
21.6%
Grand Total
4248
126
256
4630
4630
382
8.3%
Population: Fulltime, undergraduate, first year home students
What we’ve learnt so far
• The technicalities are easy
• Organisational culture is the challenge
– Feedback meetings with schools
– Privacy and ethical issues
Next Steps
•
•
•
•
Addition of behavioural indicators
Increase transparency
Training for colleagues
Formal governance structure
– Embedded within T&L strategy
– Links with University Solicitor re DP
– Collaboration and buy in from SU
Governance
Student Support
Steering Group
Use of Data
School and
Central Student
Support
Internal
Communications
Next Steps….
• Addition of engagement indicators
–
–
–
–
–
Accuracy of AM data;
Library usage data;
Missed appointments;
VLE data;
Module assessment data
• Submission / Non-submission
• Results and grades
– SU data
A word of caution……
• Data provided is INDICATIVE
• It’s not PRESCRIPTIVE
– Students identified will not necessarily leave
– Students not identified will also leave
• An SPS student shares characteristics similar to other students who
have left in the past;
• Based on evidence from previous years, these students MORE
LIKELY to leave than students with different profile
• Provides starting point for engagement with students
Conclusion
•
No silver bullet
– Practice is institution specific
– Everyone’s problem, all staff have a responsibility to support action to
improve the student experience
•
“In the final analysis, the key to successful student retention lies with the
institution, in its faculty and staff, not in any one formula or recipe. It resides
in the ability of faculty and staff to apply what is known about student
retention to the specific situation in which the institution finds itself.” (Tinto,
1993, p.6)
References
•
Buglear, J. (2009). Logging in and dropping out: exploring student non‐completion in higher
education using electronic footprint analysis. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 33(4), 381393. doi: 10.1080/03098770903272479
•
Cook, A. (2009). The Roots of Attrition. In A. Cook & B. S. Rushton (Eds.), How to Recruit and
Retain Higher Education Students: A Handbook of Good Practice (pp. 1-12). Abingdon:
Routledge.
•
Cook, A., & Rushton, B. S. (Eds.). (2009). How to Recuit and Retain Higher Education Students:
A Handbook of Good Practice. Abingdon: Routledge.
•
HESA. (2014). PIs: Non-continuation rates (Table T3) Retrieved 06/05/2014 from
https://www.hesa.ac.uk/pis/noncon
•
Longden, B. (2009). Foreword. In A. Cook & B. S. Rushton (Eds.), How to Recruit and Retain
Higher Education Students: A Handbook of Good Practice. New York: Routledge.
References
•
Quinn, A et al. (2005)From Life Crisis to Lifelong Learning: Rethinking Working Class ‘Drop-out’
from Higher Education. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
•
Thomas, L. (2012). What Works? Student Retention & Success, Building student engagement
and belonging in Higher Education at a time of change: a summary of findings and
recommendations from the What Works? Student Retention & Success programme. York: Higher
Education Academy.
•
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving College. London: The University of Chicago Press, Ltd.
•
Yorke, M. (2000). The Quality of the Student Experience: What can institutions learn from data
relating to non-completion? Quality in Higher Education, 6(1), 61-75.
•
Yorke, M. (2006). Gold in them there hills? Extracting and using data from existing sources.
Tertiary Education and Management, 12(3), 201-213.
Contact Details
SARAH BROXTON
Strategic Planning Officer
University of Huddersfield
[email protected]
01484 472069