Influences on performance and progression: differences by gender, age and mode of study

1. Influences on performance and progression: differences by gender, age and mode of study Muir Houston1 & Russell Rimmer2 (1) CRLL, University of Stirling (2) University of Paisley

2. Research Aims To study the interactions between progression and performance at a ‘post 1992’ university having: • a substantial non-traditional student population; and, • a reputation for widening access.

3. Dataset: 2000-01 • Demographics (age, gender, qualifications on entry, domicile, etc.) • Withdrawal and performance data from student registry (N=1982) • Survey – random stratified sample (N=231) • Telephone surveys of withdrawn and non-returners

4. Questionnaire: Preliminary Findings • Main reasons for entering HE: ‘improve job opportunities’, ‘improve qualifications’ followed by ‘always wanted to’ and ‘personal interest’. • Why Paisley? ‘study a particular course’ and ‘convenient to home’. • 26% entered direct from school and 40% had been out of school for 10 years or more. • 53% had applied to no other university.

5. 31% ‘clearing.’ 79% paisley first choice. 67% attended induction session; 77% found it useful. 32% of full-time worked 16 hours or more. 32% study less than 6 hours per module per week. 44% stay with parents - 19% rent, 31% own. 50% travel by car and 53% are less than 30 minutes away.

6. How Worried Are They: • 65% worried about financial difficulties affecting studies. • 77% worried about meeting work and ‘uni’ commitments. • 83% worried about meeting family and ‘uni’ responsibilities. • 93% worried about meeting demands of course.

7. 30% did not know they had a Personal Tutor 37% did not know who their PT was 44% had contacted PT and of them 83% had found it useful 1 in 5 had contacted Student Welfare Lack of awareness of who to contact for problems Less than 1 in 10 had joined a club or used the sports facilities More than half socialised with fellow students 70% made use of catering - but a number of hostile comments were made Support & Integration

8. Reasons for withdrawal • Mismatch – course – expectations & reality • Family/personal problems • Employment & Financial • Negative aspects: problems with support/provision • Problems: timetable/travelling etc.

9. But • Want to return • Studying elsewhere • Not university’s fault • Return next session

10. Options explained and did return: ‘Direct entrant into third year.Mymother’s ill healthforced me to leave university. Left before January exams. I hadbeen contactedby someone from Media (unnamed) after leaving and theoptions were explained.Have beenback in contactwith university andhope to resume studies dependent on funding.’ Would like to return: ‘Had been at college for two years doing HNC Social Science and had received funding for that. Came to university and just found I wasalways struggling for money.Myparents helped out as best they couldbut I just couldn’t keep on.Knew what the course was about and found the university extremely good.I have got two jobs just now, but not serious and amhoping to return, to Paisley,once I get a bit of money behind me.’ What did they say?

11. The role of clearing in withdrawal decisions ‘I entered through clearing. Now an Apprentice Electrical Engineer doing day-release at Stow College. No clear idea of what I wanted to do. No clear idea of course or content. I was under a lot of parental pressure plus there was little time to decide. Did think about other courses but job came up instead.’ ‘Positive’ withdrawal ‘I was adirect entrantand came because of theflexible timetableand thought it would help with employment. Left to take up full-time post in Civil Service.Enjoyed coursebut decided to take up job offer. Aminterested in returningat some point, and my employer has already stated that they would contribute to the cost.’

12. Misinterpretation, lack of information on course and/or content. ‘The course wasnot what I expected, and wasnot going to lead to what I wanted.I wasmore interested in the practical side of social careand thecourse was not about that.Left to take upjobin a Health Trust providing residential care to autistic children.’ Academic Issues ‘Found universitydifferent than expectedespecially theway lectures were deliveredand theamount of self studythat was expected. Also hadfunding difficultiesandtravel expensesdid not help. Left in December/January. May beinterested in returningin the future as a part-time student.’ Negative Experience ‘I was on aplacement.I wasgiven incorrect detailsabout the placement and it was not sorted out efficiently. I felt that I wasnot supported by the universityat this time…..…………………… I would not return to Paisley.’

13. Estimation and Modelling Models for: • Performance • Probability of enrolling in the next level Techniques used include 2 stage least squares regression, ordinary least squares and logistic regression where appropriate.

14. Factors identified • Age • Gender • Qualifications on entry • Discipline • Academic performance • Number of modules attempted (NOMA) • Mode

16. Full-time

17. Part-time

18. References • Foster, J., Houston, M., Knox, H. & Rimmer, R. (2002) Surviving First Year, LLRG Occasional Paper No.1, University of Paisley. ISBN: 1903978106 • Houston, M. Knox, H. & Rimmer, R. (2003) Progress and Performance, LLRG Occasional Papers No.3, University of Paisley. ISBN: 1903978173 • Houston, M. & Rimmer, R. (2005) ‘A comparison of academic outcomes for business and other students’ International Journal of Management Education Vol. 4, No.3, pp11-19 • Houston, M. Knox, H. & Rimmer, R. (Forthcoming) ‘Wider access and progression among full-time students’, Accepted by Higher Education