Transcript www.ulster.ac.uk

The first year experience
What do UK students say?
Mantz Yorke
[email protected]
Conference: Strategies for Student Retention
University of Ulster, 14 June 2007
The general plan
1. The First Year Experience Survey – an outline
2. Some findings
3. A brief note of similarities/differences re Australia
4. Theory, and why there’s no magic bullet
5. Some implications for institutions
6. What makes an institution successful?
Origins
Study of non-completion for HEFCE (1997)
• Pre-dated Labour’s new fees policy
• Fee regime again changed in AY 2006-07
First year crucial for many students
• FYE little researched in UK, cf US, Australia
Widening participation agenda
Sponsored by the Higher Education Academy
Purposes of the study
To provide the sector with data that
• is informative
• can be used as a baseline for comparison with future
studies, particularly in a context of ‘top-up’ fees
• can be used comparatively, within and across both
subject areas and institutions, to inform both policy
development and quality enhancement activity
Bernard Longden of Liverpool Hope University is
co-director of the study
The HE Academy FYE study
Phase 1
Spring 2006
Survey mid-1st year
9 subject areas
23 institutions
Phase 2
Spring 2007
Survey of
‘withdrawn’
at/before end
acad yr 05-06
All subject areas
23 institutions
Choices
9 Broad subject areas, spanning the spectrum
25 Varied higher education institutions (became 23)
1st year FT students (home and overseas)
Phase 1 questionnaire survey, completed in class time
Sampling (Institutions as in early 2005)
Post92 universities
Allied to Med
Bio Sci
Psychology
Computer Sc
Eng & Tech
Social Studs
Bus & Admin
Humanities
Creative A&D
Colleges
Pre92 universities
Responses (as at 6 August 2006)
Sent out to HEIs
Distributed in HEIs
Returned
Blank
c20,000
Far fewer, but not known
7,442
314
Jocular/offensive
5
‘Yea-sayers’ (?)
8
‘Middlers’
6
Usable
Completion rate of returns
7,109
~95%
Some demographics (valid %)
Age: 18-21: 75% Over 21: 25%
Gender: Male: 39% Female: 61%
Ethnicity: White: 81%
Family background: Managerial/profess’l: 39% Other known: 41%
Previous HE experience: 33%
Considered withdrawing: 29%
• Proportion of whom wishing to switch straightaway: 52%
Some comparative findings
Family background: little difference re FYE
Older students:
more motivated
more positive relationship with staff
Gender: females more motivated, engaged
Knowing a lot about programme: more positive about FYE
Knowing a lot about HEI:
- ditto -
1 day/week on private study: least positive about FYE
Hours/week on PT employment: very slight differences about FYE
Five factors
Factors relating to teaching and learning
• Stimulating learning experience
• Supportive teaching
• Understanding academic demand
• Coping
• Feedback
Health warning
In all the subject comparison charts that appear later,
differences are emphasised at the expense of similarities
Stimulating learning experience
Understanding academic demand
4500
4500
4000
4000
3500
3500
3000
3000
2500
2500
2000
2000
1500
1500
1000
1000
500
500
0
0
1.00 to 1.80
1.81 to 2.60
2.61 to 3.40
3.41 to 4.20
4.21 to 5.00
1.00 to 1.80
1.81 to 2.60
Supportive teaching
4500
4000
4000
3500
3500
3000
3000
2500
2500
2000
2000
1500
1500
1000
1000
500
500
0
0
1.81 to 2.60
2.61 to 3.40
3.41 to 4.20
4.21 to 5.00
3.41 to 4.20
4.21 to 5.00
Coping
4500
1.00 to 1.80
2.61 to 3.40
3.41 to 4.20
4.21 to 5.00
1.00 to 1.80
1.81 to 2.60
2.61 to 3.40
Feedback
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1.00 to 1.80
1.81 to 2.60
2.61 to 3.40
3.41 to 4.20
4.21 to 5.00
Prior knowledge of HEI, programme
4500
4000
3500
3000
Two considerable
risk factors
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1.00 to 1.80
1.81 to 2.60
2.61 to 3.40
3.41 to 4.20
4.21 to 5.00
Worry about financing through HE
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Subject comparisons 1
4.10
3.90
Allied / Med
Bio Sci
Psych
Comp Sci
Engin & Tech
Soc Studs
Bus & Admin
Human
Creative A&D
3.70
3.50
3.30
3.10
2.90
Stimulating learning experience
Supportive teaching
Subject comparisons 2
3.90
3.70
Allied / Med
Bio Sci
Psych
Comp Sci
Engin & Tech
Soc Studs
Bus & Admin
Human
Creative A&D
3.50
3.30
3.10
2.90
Understanding academic demand
Coping
Subject comparisons 3
3.90
3.70
Allied / Med
Bio Sci
Psych
Comp Sci
Engin & Tech
Soc Studs
Bus & Admin
Human
Creative A&D
3.50
3.30
3.10
2.90
Feedback
Feedback, Business & Admin Studies
4.0
3.5
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
3.0
2.5
2.0
Feedback overall
Prompt
Helped learning
Detailed
Feedback overall, Business & Admin Studies
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
U
Z
S
V
W
X
Institutions ordered by mean
Y
T
Promptness of feedback, Business & Admin Studies
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
V
U
Z
X
S
Y
Institutions ordered by mean
T
W
Detail in feedback, Business & Admin Studies
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
U
W
S
X
T
S
Institutions ordered by mean
V
Y
Problems relating to engagement
(lower rating implies greater threat to study)
3.5
3.0
2.5
Pre-92 univ
Post-92 univ/coll
2.0
1.5
1.0
Need to work
Balance commitments
Level of PT working, hours/week
All HEIs, excluding UU
70
70
60
60
50
40
Pre-92 univ
Post-92 univ/coll
30
20
10
Percentage of respondents
Percentage of respondents
All HEIs
50
40
Pre-92 univ
Post-92 univ/coll
30
20
10
0
0
None
1-6 hours
7-12 hours 13-18 hours > 18 hours
None
1-6 hours
7-12 hours 13-18 hours > 18 hours
Tension between academic work and other commitments
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
Need to take up PT employment (Hi = agree)
Missed more than the odd session (Lo = agree)
Difficulty in balancing commitments (Lo = agree)
1.5
1.0
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L M N O
Institution
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V W
'At least 2 academics know me by name'
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
Institution
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
74% of students provided a written comment
Best features of the first year experience
• New friends
• Academic matters
• Social side of HE
Worst features of the first year experience
• Workload and time management
• Assessment and feedback
• Teaching
• Learning-related
• Finance
A brief comparison: Australia and the UK
Similarities
• Satisfaction levels re FYE generally high
• Motivation: good (F>M), save for a significant minority
• Older students more positive
• SES: surprisingly little difference
• PT employment levels similar
• High confidence in obtaining a graduate-level job
• Nearly 30% considered discontinuing
• c70% communicated with peers re academic work
• High satisfaction with institutional resources
A brief comparison: Australia and the UK
Main differences
• Feedback helpful: UK 57%, Australia 33%
• International students: differences more marked in Australia
• Ethnicity: Some variation in UK
• Coping: Substantial minority found academic work
harder than expected
• c40% UK students claimed to keep to themselves,
compared with c25% Australians (save Indigenous)
Why do students leave?
Why do students leave? Factors
Yorke 1999
Davies & Elias 2003
N = 2151 FT/SW
N = 1510 FT/SW
Wrong choice
Wrong choice
Academic difficulties
Financial problems
Financial problems
Personal problems
Poor student experience
Academic difficulties
Dislike environment
Wrong institution
Poor institutional provision
& FYE survey Phase 2
N = ~450 FT/SW
Why do students leave? Top reasons
Yorke, 1999
Wrong choice of prog
Lack of commitment
Financial problems
Prog not as expected
Teaching didn’t suit
Lack of acad progress
Needed a break
Prog organisation
Lack staff support
Teaching quality
Prog not relev/career
Emotion, health probs
Stress re programme
39
38
37
37
31
30
28
27
24
23
23
23
22
Why do students leave? Top reasons
Yorke, 1999
Wrong choice of prog
Lack of commitment
Financial problems
Prog not as expected
Teaching didn’t suit
Lack of acad progress
Needed a break
Prog organisation
Lack staff support
Teaching quality
Prog not relev/career
Emotion, health probs
Stress re programme
FYE Phase 2, 2007
39
38
37
37
31
30
28
27
24
23
23
23
22
Prog not as expected
Wrong choice of prog
Teaching didn’t suit
Lack of pers engage’t
Lack staff contact
Lack of acad progress
Prog organisation
Lack of commitment
Financial problems
Teaching quality
Inst’n not as expected
Prog not relev/career
Quality of feedback
44
40
39
36 new
36
35
34
31
29
29
28
27
26 new
Why do students leave? Top reasons
Yorke, 1999
Wrong choice of prog
Lack of commitment
Financial problems
Prog not as expected
Teaching didn’t suit
Lack of acad progress
Needed a break
Prog organisation
Lack staff support
Teaching quality
Prog not relev/career
Emotion, health probs
Stress re programme
FYE Phase 2, 2007
39
38
37
37
31
30
28
27
24
23
23
23
22
Prog not as expected
Wrong choice of prog
Teaching didn’t suit
Lack of pers engage’t
Lack staff contact
Lack of acad progress
Prog organisation
Lack of commitment
Financial problems
Teaching quality
Inst’n not as expected
Prog not relev/career
Quality of feedback
44
40
39
36 new
36
35
34
31
29
29
28
27
26 new
Why do students leave?
I felt quite isolated in terms of studying. Lecturers spoke
during lectures and then would leave the room, with no time
for questions.
During my entire first year I never once met my personal tutor.
There seemed to be no interest in students’ personal needs.
I did NOT enjoy my experience what so ever, due to the lack of
support from staff. I was never introduced to my personal
tutor and felt like a number – not a person in a new
[overwhelming] environment. Not one of my tutors spoke to
me as an individual …
Why do students leave?
Found it very difficult to maintain employment & academic
study. The more I wanted to progress at Uni – the more money
I needed – so needed to work more to get more money – I
received no grants.
I had a lot of debt so had to work a lot of hours to meet my
Outgoings. This in turn effected my attendance in class.
[…]
I would love to go back to university but I still have financial
difficulties.
Why do students leave?
Issues around being a mature student in an environment
geared towards school leavers.
I … didn’t settle into my accommodation and I only connected
with one of my flatmates. Conflict of interests – I felt peer
pressured into partying every night when I didn’t want to.
Coupled with being homesick, I couldn’t stay.
I felt that living at home excluded me from a lot of the ‘student
life’ that I wanted to experience.
What help does theory offer?
Some relevant theorists or users of theory
Dweck (1999): self-theorising
Pintrich & Schunk (2002): motivation
Bandura (1997): self-efficacy
Flavell (1979): metacognition
Sternberg (1997): practical intelligence
Salovey & Mayer (1990): emotional intelligence
Biggs (2003): constructive alignment in pedagogy
Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick (2006): formative assessment
Bourdieu & Passeron (1977): cultural and social capital
Academic
experiences
Pre-entry
attribute
s
Intentions,
goals,
commitments
Social
experiences
I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
Intentions,
goals,
commitments
Departure
decision
After Tinto, 1993
Adventitious
happenings
Psy of
Indiv
Instit’l
context
Broader
society
Theory in this area is complex
My ‘take’ on theory is that we should be aware of it,
but not fall into the trap of assuming simple causality
between ‘intervention’ and student response.
There are simply too many variables in play
(student behaviour is said to be ‘overdetermined’ by theory).
‘… students change in holistic ways and that these changes have their
origins in multiple influences in both the academic and non-academic
domains of students’ lives.’ Pascarella & Terenzini 2005, p.603.
Knowing what we do, we can only seek to ‘bend the
odds’ in favour of student success.
Some challenges facing UK institutions in mass HE
• Institutional approach
• Curriculum design
• Pedagogy for student engagement
• Dealing with the part-time employment issue
• Staff development
Institutional approach
• Sustained visible commitment to student learning
• Managing expectations
• Institutional and departmental leadership
• Institutional structures and practices
• Emphasis on 1st year in resource allocation
• Celebration of pedagogic achievement
• Learning space (‘active learning’; ICT)
Chart 1: 18-20 year-olds from 2005-06 to 2020-21
Bekhradnia, 2006)
2050.0
2000.0
Thousands
NB The ‘demographic dip’
after 2011 (from
2100.0
1950.0
1900.0
~250,000
1850.0
1800.0
1750.0
2005- 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- 2016- 2017- 2018- 2019- 202006
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Curriculum design
• FYE: early start on academic study
• Formative assessment
• Curricular interconnectedness
The holistic nature of learning suggests a clear
need to rethink and restructure highly
segmented departmental and program
configurations and their associated curricular
patterns. Curricula and courses that address
topics in an interdisciplinary fashion are more
likely to provide effective educational
experiences than are discrete courses
accumulated over a student’s college career in
order to produce enough credits for a degree.
Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005, p.647
Curriculum design (continued)
• FYE: early start on academic study
• Formative assessment
• Curricular interconnectedness
• The problem of learning outcomes
• Risk-taking in study, or playing safe?
• The valuing of collaborative learning
• Employability
Pedagogy for student engagement
• ‘Active learning’
• Generating a ‘buzz’
• Social engagement
With striking consistency, studies show that
innovative, active, collaborative, and
constructivist instructional approaches shape
learning more powerfully, in some forms by
substantial margins, than do conventional
lecture-discussion and text-based approaches.
Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005, p.646
Pedagogy for student engagement (ctd)
• ‘Active learning’
• Generating a ‘buzz’
• Social engagement
• Student networking
• Formative assessment (again)
• Supporting development of personal attributes
and qualities
• Staff-student interaction
Student part-time employment
• Blurring of FT and PT study: implications for
- curriculum design
- funding
- performance indicators
• Exploiting part-time employment:
- drawing on student experiences
- awarding credit
- being bolder?
Staff development
• Using the institutional working group
• Bringing part-time appointees into the loop
Close to a third (30 per cent) of seminars in old universities
are taught by non-academics. The figure in new universities
is much lower (8 per cent).
Bekhradnia et al (2006)
• Academic leadership
What makes an institution successful?
Successful UK institutions
as regards widened participation
exhibit characteristics from the following list:
• Commitment to the student experience
• Pre-entry and early engagement with students
• Curricula attuned to widened participation
• Curriculum treated as a social arena
• Emphasis on formative assessment, esp. in the first semester
• Allocation of resources preferentially to first year studies
Action on Access (2003)
High-performing US institutions
• Focus on getting students engaged, especially in their first
year
• Have a genuine emphasis on the quality of undergraduate
teaching and learning
• Ensure that academics and administrators monitor student
learning, taking advantage of the power of modern data
systems, and use monitoring for helping individual students
and for developing policy and practice
• Have leaders who make student success a top institutional
priority – and stick with it
Carey (2005)
Documenting Effective Educational Practice (DEEP)
• Focus on the first year experience in HE
• 20 varied HEIs in the US
• All do well on the National Survey of Student
Engagement (NSSE)
• The purpose of the Project was to gain insight as
to why their students scored well on the NSSE
Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt & associates (2005)
5 ‘key clusters’ of attributes
• Level of academic challenge
• Active and collaborative learning
• Student-faculty interaction
• Supportive campus environment
• Enriching educational experiences
Kuh et al (2005, p.174)
Considerably influenced by Chickering & Gamson (1987)
Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education
‘Foundational principles’
• Organisational structures etc for integrated FYE
• Enrolment & transition practices consistent with
mission
• FYE given high priority
• Serve all 1st year students according to their needs
• Student engagement re learning in context of
mission
• Widen perspectives of 1st year students
• For enhancement, monitor and review student
outcomes
Reason et al 2006, pp.151-2
Common themes
• Commitment to student learning…
• … and hence student engagement
• Management of student transition
• Curriculum seen in terms of social engagement
• Appropriate curricular structures
• Emphasis on importance of FYE (incl. resourcing)
• Monitoring and evaluating, and acting on evidence
• Academic leadership (though in some cases implicit)