Transcript Carol Pearson - Presentation January 2012 (2)

Personal Tutoring - What students want : First Year
Students Experiences
Background:
 Transition: many not prepared for managing the demands
of Higher Education (e.g. Cook & Leckey, 1999)
 Early intervention: ‘bridge the gap between school and
university quickly & effectively’ (e.g. Lowe & Cook, 2003)
 Social and Academic Integration: academic and social
integration are vital during students’ first year at University,
as is institutional commitment to giving support (e.g. Tinto,
1996, 2002)
 Sense of Belonging: a ‘sense of belonging in students’ can
make the difference between ‘dropping out’ and staying on
for some students (e.g.Kember, Lee & Li, 2002)
Student Perspectives on Personal Tutoring: What do
students want? Hixenbaugh P., Pearson C., Williams. D.
(2006)
Aim: To explore the experiences of our first year students
and personal tutors (Regent Street Campus)
Design:
 Questionnaire to all teaching staff
 Questionnaire to all first year students
 Interviews 1st year course representatives – Psychology,
Modern Languages, English and Law
 Focus Groups – 48 1st year Psychology undergraduates
 Interviews - with 15 1st, 2nd and 3rd year undergraduates
Results:
Teaching Staff Questionnaire - Main Points:
 Agreement 1st year tutees have the greatest need for
personal tutoring
 Majority 62% felt the personal tutoring system was working
well for both staff and students
Student Questionnaire – Questions:
 Considered ‘dropping out’?
 Who they had talked to?
 Personal tutoring – frequency, continuity, accessibility,
helpfulness & satisfaction, wanted, improvement
Findings:
 69.8% - met personal tutor during Induction
 10.5% - didn’t know the name of personal tutor
 55% - stated didn’t need to see personal tutor – although
some had on 15 or more occasions
Data suggested:
 Students wanted to see their personal tutor more than they
needed to see them
 Students gained a sense of support from the knowledge
that they could approach their personal tutor – regardless of
whether they needed to or not
Retention:
 18.6% - considered ‘dropping out’ – financial difficulty,
volume/pressure/difficulty of work, feeling overwhelmed
 Data suggested:
 Lack of confidence – ability to cope with demands
 Social Network system – main source of support

Cause of concern – 26.3% reported not discussing this
with anyone
Personal Tutoring wanted:
 Academic and Personal Advice
 Continuity
 Greater Accessibility
Dissatisfaction - most were actually happy with personal
tutors - small number expressed dissatisfaction suggesting
tutors needed to:
•
Understand students better
•
•
•
Cooperate with students more
Be more reliable
Form closer links
 Structured regular sessions with active feedback and some
sessions compulsory
Student Focus Groups and Interviews:
1. First Contact with Personal Tutor:
 All had met their personal tutor during induction
 Initial meeting positive - exchange relevant information
 All but one reported being happy with the initial contact
2. Personal experience of Personal Tutoring System
 Amount of Contact - sporadic but all had seen personal
tutors at least twice. Very little development of relationship
with tutor for most
 Accessibility – major issue for most students
• Practical Level – accessible through office hours, email &
phone. BUT stressed need for speedy responses
• Personal Level – overall positive experience
− tutors seen as ‘busy people’ reluctant to bother them
− tutors ‘gender’ raised
− approachability:
› positive = sociable, helpful & understanding
› negative = general manner, tone of voice, no
familiarity
Support:
 Academic Support – overall positive. Academic support
seemed to take two forms:
• University Processes: advice was given on processes
such as plagiarism and internal referrals, fees and
module enquires
• Course Related Issues: advice in terms of referrals to
appropriate material, books, websites and other staff
 Personal Support – concern none of the students had seen
their personal tutors on personal matters
• one student would have been appropriate
• others felt unable to go to their personal tutor – despite
actually experiencing difficulties
Suggestions:
 Enforced Meetings – not just ‘drop in sessions’





Email Contact - by students
Academic Tutorials – throughout 1st yr.
Selection of tutors – more selective
Mobile phones contact – main contact source for students
Coverage for absenteeism
Conclusions:
 System working well in places




Evidence of good practice
Students wanted more structure
Personal tutors should take more active role
Students want to be able to relate to tutors, they should be
enthusiastic and care about them
Overall Conclusion – we should be PROACTIVE not REACTIVE
Other research findings relevant to retention:
Students both implicitly and explicitly reported that they had
developed a ‘lack of motivation to attend’
 Isolation – have to make a number of difficult transitional
moves: directed to self-directed learning; controlled to selfcontrol; familiarity to anonymity; teaching led tutorial to
student led tutorial contact
 Demoralisation – heavy work load; deadlines; perceived lack
of help from staff; fear of failure
In turn this led to feelings about ‘dropping out’ – wanted better
pastoral care and a clearer definition of tutoring system
What changes were made?
Major changes in particular to level 4 – across the University
Department of Psychology:
 Induction – social event to meet Personal Tutors, Key staff
and other staff members
 Tutoring linked to year long core module – Research
Methods – Practical sessions taken by tutors
 Full time/fractional staff only
 Designated Office hours - two hours per week
 E-Mentoring
 Attendance monitoring and follow up
 1st Year Coordinator
Personal Tutor Policy ‘organic process’ – systematic reviews
of quality and standards; Proactive Approach
Other Initiatives:




30 credit year long modules – continuity, deep learning
Westminster Change Academy - joint project with SU
Student Forum – agenda set by students (3 per year)
Student Charter -
Has it made a difference?
Retention rates are improving year on year.
Contact: [email protected]