Transcript Slide 1

Is the first year experience of full-time HE
different for disadvantaged students?
Mantz Yorke
Lancaster University
[email protected]
European Access Network Conference
NUI Galway, 27-29 June 2007
The general plan
1. The First Year Experience Survey – a brief outline
2. The importance of the first year experience
3. Characteristics of institutional types (Phase 1)
4. Some further data from Phase 1 (on-course, 1st year)
5. Some data from Phase 2 (‘non-returners’ to 2nd year)
6. Concluding comments
The importance of the first year experience
• It involves transition in which the demand on students
may be quite different from their previous experience
• In addition to the ‘access’ dimension, it connects with
other themes of importance, such as
- employability
- assessment (especially formative)
- student success generally
- retention
Origins of the UK FYE study
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 HE sector in the UK 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 UK 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‘withdrawn’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
The UK FYE study: 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
Colleges
Pre92 universities
Allied to Med
Bio Sci
Psychology
Computer Sc
Eng & Tech
Social Studs
Bus & Admin
Humanities
Creative A&D
Some colleges subsequently became universities
Responses
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%
Institutional characteristics
Limitations in the analyses
• Students resident in the UK
• One substantial but atypical institution excluded
in the relevant bar charts
Marked differences between Pre-1992 Universities
and Post-1992 Universities/Colleges
Student age profile, by Institutional Type
100
90
80
Percentage
70
60
Pre-92 Univ
(N=1483)
Post-92 Univ/Coll
(N=3873)
50
40
30
20
10
0
Under 21
21-25
26-30
31-35
36-40
40+
Residence by University Type
90
80
70
Percentage
60
50
Pre-92 Univ
(N=1484)
40
Post-92 Univ/Coll
(N=3871)
30
20
10
0
At home
Other private
accommodation
In institution-run
accommodation
SES by Institutional Type
60
50
Percentage
40
30
Pre-92 Univ
(N=1452)
Post-92 Univ/Coll
(N=3739)
20
10
0
Managerial / Intermediate Supervisory, Long-term
Professional
technical, unemployed /
manual etc
Never
worked
Not sure /
Other
Ethnicity by Institutional Type
100
90
Percentage
80
70
60
Pre-92 Univ
(N=1487)
Post-92 Univ/Coll
(N=3739)
50
40
30
20
10
0
White
Black / Black Asian / Asian
British
British
Chinese
Other
Health warnings
1. Data are not claimed to be representative
2. But the spread of institutions makes them suggestive
3. Even with a reasonably large number of responses,
the numbers in analytical groups become quite small
and hence reliability is weakened
4. Some ‘collapsing’ of data has had to be undertaken
Headlines from Phase 1
Teaching and Learning
• Programmes generally stimulating
• Supportive teaching
• Good understanding of academic demand…
• … but coping with it more of a problem
• Feedback, esp. promptness, seen less positively
• Low likelihood of ‘reading around’ the subject
• Differences between subject areas
• Differences between institutions
Headlines from Phase 1
Risk factors
Two main risk factors are
• Poor appreciation of programme and/or institution
• Worry about finance
Part-time employment may exert an influence, and is
differentially related to socio-economic grouping:
those from lower SEGs are more likely to take it up
Days/week study at institution, by Institutional Type
70
60
Percentage
50
40
Pre-92 Univ
(N=1461)
Post-92 Univ/Coll
(N=3778)
30
20
10
0
1 day
2 days
3 days
4 days
5+ days
Days/Week private study, by Institutional Type
35
30
Percentage
25
20
Pre-92 Univ
(N=1460)
Post-92 Univ/Coll
(N=3709)
15
10
5
0
1 day
2 days
3 days
4 days
5+ days
Hours/Week PT employment, by Institutional Type
80
70
Percentage
60
50
Pre-92 Univ
(N=1449)
40
Post-92 Univ/Coll
(N=3718)
30
20
10
0
None
1-6 hours
7-12 hours 13-18 hours > 18 hours
Headlines from Phase 1 (ctd)
Demographic-related findings (a)
• Socio-econ status: surprisingly little difference re FYE
• Older students: more motivated to study
more positive relationship with staff
• Gender: females more motivated, engaged
• Ethnic grouping: some variation, but not consistent
• Generally confident of gaining a graduate-level job
Headlines from Phase 1 (ctd)
Demographic-related findings (b)
Less positive re teaching/learning …………….
Lower confidence in study skills ………………
Less likely to cope with academic demand ….
More likely to say resources are inadequate ..
Less likely to say staff are friendly ……………
Less likely to make friends ……………………..
More likely to worry about finance ……………
L; NW
L; NW
NW
L; NW
NW
NW
L
L = Lower socio-economic status; NW = ‘Not white’
These are, however, relatively small variations on the
general run of findings
Digging a little deeper…
Student Learning Experience, by SES
4.0
3.5
Pre92 Managerial etc
(N=817)
Post92 Managerial etc
(N=1320)
3.0
Pre92 Intermediate
(N=277)
2.5
Post92 Intermediate
(N=828)
Pre92 Supervisory etc
(N=178)
2.0
Post92 Supervisory etc
(N=761)
1.5
1.0
Stimulating
learning
experience
Supportive
teaching
Understanding
academic
demand
Coping
Feedback
Noticeable differences, by SES
Management/prof background compared with supervisory etc. backgrounds
Students from supervisory etc. backgrounds were
• less confident about studying in HE
• less happy with HEI facilities for working on their own
• less happy with travelling
• less likely to find their institution to be as expected
• less engaged with the social side of HE
• more concerned with finance, PT jobs and balancing
commitments
Student Learning Experience, by Ethnicity
4.0
3.5
Pre92 White
(N=1289)
Pre92 Other
(N=198)
Post92 White
(N=3032)
Post92 Other
(N=845)
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
Stimulating
learning
experience
Supportive
teaching
Understanding
academic
demand
Coping
Feedback
Noticeable differences, by Ethnic Group
• Chinese more likely to have done expected
background reading
• White less likely to have done wider reading
• White more likely to claim they are developing
independence in learning
• White more likely to say staff are friendly
• White more likely to enjoy the social side of HE
• Black/Black British more confident that they will get
a graduate-level job
Noticeable differences, by Accommodation
Institutional accommodation
• enhances friendship, socialisation
• gets least in the way of academic study
• is much better for travel to HEI (home is worst,
other private accommodation is in between)
• but correlates with less recognition by academic staff
Home and other private accommodation relate to
• greater motivation to study
• greater satisfaction with accommodation
• greater worry over finance
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
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
Straws in the wind
Numbers in the following groups are small
• Ethnicity (other than white)
• Declared a disability
and hence comparisons are particularly tentative
Ethnicity: particular reasons for leaving
‘Other than white’ more likely to mention
• Aspects of teaching quality
• Programme organisation
• Contact with academic staff
• Aspects of institutional resourcing
• Lack of personal support from family, partner etc.
• Financial problems
• Demands of employment whilst studying
• Travel difficulties
SES: particular reasons for leaving
Students from supervisory etc. backgrounds
more likely than those from professional/managerial
backgrounds to mention
• Programme difficulty and Lack of engagement
• Teaching quality
• Class size
• Lack of study skills
• Library / learning resources
• Stress
• Lack of personal support from family, partner
• Financial problems
Disability: particular reasons for leaving
Declaring a disability = more likely to mention
• Personal health
• Lack of personal support from staff
• Lack of specialist equipment for the programme
But less likely to mention
• Lack of commitment, engagement, etc.
• Insufficient progress
• Demands of employment whilst studying
• Teaching approach
Concluding comments
1. Surveys are insufficient to solve an institution’s
problems
2. Data from surveys should be seen primarily as
analogous to formative, rather than summative,
assessments
3. They do however help to pinpoint where further
investigative (often qualitative) and
developmental activity might most profitably
be undertaken