The first year in UK higher education: experiences and departures

1. The first year in UK higher education: experiences and departures Mantz Yorke Lancaster University CHEER, University of Sussex 28 April 2008

2. The importance of the first year experience FYE involves transition in which the demand on students may be quite different from their previous experience FYE connects with other themes of importance, such as - employability - assessment (especially formative) - student success generally - retention The main reason for leaving university was the vast contrast of teaching styles between university and college. […] Male, U21, Humanities, Pre-1992 university

3. 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 • Co-directed by Bernard Longden (Liverpool Hope University)

4. 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

5. The UK FYE study Phase 2 Spring 2007 Survey of ‘withdrawn’ at/before end acad yr 05-06 All subject areas 25 institutions Phase 1 Spring 2006 Survey mid-1st year 9 subject areas 23 institutions

6. The UK FYE study • 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 • 7109 valid responses • Phase 2: questionnaire survey, postal • 462 valid responses

7. Methodological issues – Phase 1 • Sampling across spectrum v. HEIs high in WP (political) • Up to 3 broad subject areas per HEI (9 varied areas in all used) • Negotiation with HEIs (and in some cases departments) • In-class completion to maximise response (large classes best) • Needed lecturers’ support • Paper-based survey, allowing reasonable coverage (but < US; Aus) • Required c20mins to complete (piloted) • OMR scannable, save for qualitative comments • Return in sealed envelope to ensure anonymity • Reporting: no institution or individual identifiable • Ethics: use of BERA Guidelines

8. Methodological issues – Phase 2 • Same HEIs, plus 2 that asked to be involved in Phase 2 • ‘Non-completers’ necessitated a postal survey • Survey based on one used in mid-1990s, allowed comparisons • OMR scannable, save for qualitative comments • Relied on HEIs to address and mail out surveys (DPA issues) • Mail to all ‘non-completers’, irrespective of subject area • Return of surveys direct to Project Team, prepaid envelope • Reporting: no institution or individual identifiable • Ethics: use of BERA Guidelines • There are always trade-offs: no questionnaire is perfect

9. Including qualitative data • Illustrative, not representative • Partial (both senses?) quotations • Easier for some to engage with • Prompts questions such as ‘Does this reflect what we find?’

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. Headlines from Phase 1 (ctd) Demographic-related findings (b) Less positive re teaching/learning ……………. L; NW Lower confidence in study skills ……………… L; NW Less likely to cope with academic demand …. NW More likely to say resources are inadequate .. L; NW Less likely to say staff are friendly …………… NW Less likely to make friends …………………….. NW More likely to worry about finance …………… L L = Lower socio-economic status; NW = ‘Not white’ These are, however, relatively small variations on the general run of findings

14. Why did students leave? • Seven groups (factors) of influences • Quality of academic aspects of experience • Inability to cope with academic demand • Wrong choice of programme • Dissatisfaction with resources • Finance-related, including part-time employment • Unhappiness with location • Problems relating to social integration

15. Why students leave: Programme not as expected The timetable was so much heavier than I expected – over 18 hours a week, which was a lot more than my other friends and was far too much. I was studying [Language] and History of Art joint honours and presumed it would be equal amounts of both disciplines but I hardly spent any time doing History of Art which I enjoyed more.

16. Why students leave: Wrong choice, etc I had no idea what I wanted to do so I thought better try university in case I regretted not going. I made some good friends so stayed the whole year but I realised in the summer that I didn't want to make a career out of what I was studying. I didn't see the point in getting even deeper into debt for something I wasn't sure I really wanted. I wanted to do economics but did not get a place as I didn't quite get the required grades. I was offered Computer Science and as I really wanted to attend [University] I thought I would try it . But it did not [suit] me and [University] would not allow me to change courses so I had to move to a different uni.

17. Why students leave: Poor staff/student contact 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 …

18. Why students leave: Finance 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.

19. Why students leave: Social integration issues 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.

20. Some sub-analyses featuring aspects of access

21. Students’ prior knowledge Those with lower levels of prior knowledge indicated consistently stronger influences on leaving, compared with their better-informed peers The difference was particularly marked in respect of their levels of commitment and of financial concern

22. Access-related findings: some comparisons • A caveat: • Numbers in the following groups are small • Ethnicity (other than white) • Declared a disability • and hence comparisons are particularly tentative

23. Ethnicity: particular reasons for leaving • ‘Other than white’ more likely to mention • Aspects of teaching quality • Contact with academic staff • Programme organisation • Aspects of institutional resourcing • Lack of personal support from family, partner etc. • Demands of employment whilst studying • Travel difficulties • Financial problems

24. SES: particular reasons for leaving • Students from supervisory etc. backgrounds • more likely than those from professional/managerial • backgrounds to mention • Teaching quality • Class size • Lack of study skills • Library / learning resources • Programme difficulty and Lack of engagement • Stress • Lack of personal support from family, partner • Financial problems

25. 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

26. Have things changed over time?

27. The pattern of findings is pretty consistent 2007 7 Factors 60.9% of variance Quality of experience Inability to cope Wrong choice of programme Dissatisfaction with resources Finance-related Unhappy with location Problems re social integration 1997 6 Factors 48.5% of variance Quality of experience Inability to cope Unhappy with social environment Wrong choice of programme Finance-related Dissatisfaction with resources

28. Why do students leave? Top reasons Mid-1990s Wrong choice of prog 45 Prog not as expected 45 Lack of commitment 41 Financial problems 36 Teaching didn’t suit 35 Inst’n not as expected 31 Lack of acad progress 29 Needed a break 28 Prog organisation 27 Prog not relev/career 23 Emotion, health probs 23 Lack staff contact 22 Lack staff support 22 Teaching quality 22 The numbers are the percentages of respondents indicating that the reason was ‘very’ or ‘moderately’ influential on their departure Colour coding Black: low institutional capacity to affect Purple: moderate institutional capacity Blue: institution should be able to affect

29. Why do students leave? Top reasons Mid-1990sAY 2005-6 Wrong choice of prog 45 Prog not as expected 48 Prog not as expected 45 Wrong choice of prog 42 Lack of commitment 41 Teaching didn’t suit 42 Financial problems 36 Lack of pers engage’t 39 new Teaching didn’t suit 35 Lack staff contact 36 Inst’n not as expected 31 Lack of acad progress 35 Lack of acad progress 29Prog organisation 34 Needed a break 28Lack of staff support 34 Prog organisation 27 Lack of commitment 32 Prog not relev/career 23 Inst’n not as expected 31 Emotion, health probs 23 Teaching quality 31 Lack staff contact 22Financial problems 29 Lack staff support 22Prog not relev/career 27 Teaching quality 22 Quality of feedback 26 new

30. Have (8 selected) influences changed over time? Mid-1990s 2005 poss 2006-07 Influence (ranked) left leaving left Wrong choice 1= 1 2= Programme not as expected 1= 2 1 Lack motivation / commitment 3 4 7 Finance 4 8 8 Teaching issues 5 3 2= Lack of academic progress 6 7 5 Programme organisation 7 5 6 Lack of contact with staff 8 6 4

31. What help does theory offer?

32. 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 & Tang (2007): constructive alignment in pedagogy Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick (2006): formative assessment Bourdieu & Passeron (1977): cultural and social capital Tinto (1993): departure from HE

33. I n t e g r a t i o n Academic experiences Intentions, goals, commitments Intentions, goals, commitments Pre-entry attributes Departure decision Social experiences After Tinto, 1993

34. Adventitious happenings Psy of Indiv Instit’l context Broader society

35. 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.

36. 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

37. ~250,000 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) • NB The ‘demographic dip’ • after 2011 (from • Bekhradnia, 2006)

38. Curriculum design • FYE: early start on academic study • Formative assessment • Curricular interconnectedness

39. 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

40. 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

41. Pedagogy for student engagement • ‘Active learning’ • Generating a ‘buzz’ • Social engagement

42. 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

43. 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

44. 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?

45. 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

46. What makes an institution successful?

47. Common themes from the literature • 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)

48. You might want to look up … the reports of the First Year Experience Project which are on the Higher Education Academy website and can be accessed via www.heacademy.ac.uk/ourwork/research/surveys/fye The reports contain a number of references to the wider literature, though these references are by no means exhaustive