supporting students: early induction - uob.edu.bh · preface the purpose of this booklet is to...

Supporting Students: Early Induction

Edited by A. Cook, K.A. Macintosh and B.S. Rushton

The STAR (Student Transition and Retention) Project

www.ulster.ac.uk/star

Supported by the Fund for the Development of Teaching and Learning (Phase Four)

© A. Cook, K.A. Macintosh and B.S. Rushton, 2006

This publication may be reproduced in full or in part provided appropriate acknowledgement is made to the STAR Project and to the authors.

ISBN 978-1-85923-210-1

Published by the University of Ulster, Coleraine, Northern Ireland, BT52 1SA

Printed in the United Kingdom by the University of Ulster, Coleraine

The STAR Project

Student Transition and Retention


Contents

PagePreface 4Induction: a Formal Initiation into a Position or Office

7

Anthony CookOrganisation of Registration Week 13

Mike Mortimer and Suzanne McLaughlin

Residential Events for Induction 27Suzanne McLaughlin, David Southall and Brian S. Rushton

Off Campus Events for Induction 43Janet Pearce and Suzanne McLaughlin

Homestart – a Support for Students in Non-university Accommodation

51

Elizabeth A. Sheader and Helen C. Richardson

E-tutor Support for Inducting Distance-learning Students

73

Peter Mitchell, Clifford Stephenson and Anthony Cook

Acknowledgements 91

PrefaceThe purpose of this booklet is to describe practices that have worked in some institutions to ease the stresses of students’ transition into Higher Education and to help to improve retention. This is important because student retention has become a significant issue both for students and for institutions. Students waste valuable time and resources if they drop out from a university course in which they have invested their hopes and aspirations and institutions waste money and staff effort. Early withdrawal of students frustrates the purposes of all. It is, however, just the measurable component of a more general malaise. For every student who takes the decision to leave a course there must be many more who are just able to pass, who are just able to cope with the stresses of Higher Education and who are failing to reach their full potential. Equally, there will be students at university who should never have joined or who should have joined a different course. They might be too immature, too deficient in the basic skills required or their talents might lie in different directions.

Every institution that has highlighted student retention as a significant component of its strategies has investigated the causes of early leaving and most will have drawn similar conclusions. The STAR consortium was formed at a time when the generality of these causes was becoming apparent but the responses to them were less clear. The first action of the consortium was to list a set of outcomes that, if achieved, would contribute to the alleviation of problems associated with student transition. These we published as the Guidelines for the management of student transition (Cook et al., 2005). The consortium then identified practices that were likely to assist the achievement of the outcomes in the Guidelines booklet and researched them.

The STAR booklets, of which this is one, are small compendiums of practices that have worked in some institutions to ease the stresses of students’ transition into Higher Education. Many have been shown to improve retention. Many are the practical expression of institutional policies. All are descriptions of the dedicated work of teaching and support staff in the Higher Education sector who have introduced, maintained or developed practices for the benefit of students. The practices are derived from three sources. First, some were identified through survey. These were researched by STAR staff and written in collaboration with practitioners. Second, some staff volunteered to write about their practices independently. Third, some new practices were introduced and some existing ones evaluated using funding provided by the STAR project. Most practices have been described by staff and then validated by students through questionnaires or focus groups. All the reports contained in these booklets have been refereed independently and then approved by the STAR Steering Group.

This booklet describes the practices in enough detail to allow others to adopt or advocate that practice in their own institutions. The practices, however, should not be considered as definitive. They work in the institutions in which they were implemented by the staff who implemented them and with the students who participated. They are unlikely to remain the same. They will almost certainly evolve further even in the institutions in which they have

been described and, when adopted elsewhere, will need to be adapted to suit local conditions. They are, therefore, offered as foundations on which to build appropriate practices to suit the staff, the students and learning environments involved.

REFERENCE

Cook, A., Rushton, B.S., McCormick, S.M. and Southall, D.W. (2005). Guidelines for the management of student transition. University of Ulster, Coleraine.

Induction: a Formal Initiation into a Position or Office

Anthony Cook, The STAR Project, University of Ulster, Coleraine, Northern Ireland, BT52 1SA

Dictionary definitions of educational processes are not often very helpful. Induction can mean many different things ranging from the practice of hazing (initiation through abuse) in some American colleges to formal addresses of welcome from university senior officers. The meaning of induction adopted by the STAR project is deliberately vague. We have divided it roughly into two sorts of processes. The first, which is addressed in this booklet, refers to those events that occur immediately on the arrival of a new student – early induction. This is probably the conventional meaning of induction and is sometimes called ‘orientation’. The second process is a longer-term assimilation of new students into the ways in which the institution operates, particularly as it relates to its teaching and learning methods – extended induction. This is the subject of a separate booklet (Cook et al., 2006).

A well-constructed early induction process has much in common with traditional rites of passage. These consist of a number of phases:

Separation (removal from former habits and habitat);

Transition (learning behaviours appropriate to a new circumstance); and

Incorporation (acceptance into a new society).

Universities are excellent in managing the rites of passage associated with leaving. We prepare students for the world of work, careers offices help students to find appropriate new roles and we celebrate graduation in elaborate ceremonies. Universities are less good, however, in organizing and celebrating the rites of passage associated with joining the institution.

Forrester et al. (2005) working with distance learning students identified the generic aspects of effective induction as encompassing:

An encouragement to communicate and socialize both with staff and peers;

Information about administrative procedures, the course and the institution;

Information about support services; and

Support for the transition to new methods of working.

This has to be achieved against a background of the impressions that students have acquired from a variety of sources about the course and institution and the nature of study in Higher Education.

Students’ first impressions of institutions are probably formed prior to entry during open days and visits during which they are the focus of much attention. Different impressions

are formed on entry during which activities are often dominated by administrative rituals associated with enrolment on courses and the payment of fees. Brief but inspirational addresses from Vice-Chancellors, Provosts, Deans and Heads of Department may be supplemented by informative talks from careers advisors, accommodation officers, student counsellors, course administrators, Presidents of Student Unions, etc. which provide a surfeit of information. A Freshers’ Fair typically displays a bewildering variety of student clubs and societies all demanding attention. These periods of high excitement are punctuated by interludes of inactivity during which parents and friends may depart, new students may sit isolated in new accommodation and wander, seemingly lost, along unfamiliar corridors.

The organization of activities during this initial period is critical in the formation of new students’ impressions of the institution they have joined and the behaviours of both staff and existing students can influence student persistence.

Despite the potential pitfalls in week one most students manage their activities well. A question remains, however, about how much is learned in those first few days. Thus students interviewed during the course of the STAR project commented:

“It’s very overwhelming when you come to university for the first time, even for a mature student; it’s so big and everyone else seems to know what they’re doing and where they’re going.”

“What I remember about induction week was: I didn’t feel a whole week was necessary; it was a good icebreaker; it showed the ‘human’ side to lecturers; and it showed us where to find buildings and lecturers.”

For a minority of students, however, the experience of the first few days at university can be a damaging one and can affect their willingness to persist through the course.

Most students who leave university early do so in the first six to eight weeks. Thus at the University of Ulster in 2003-04 about 60% of the students who left in year one did so before December and the commonest cause given for leaving was related to the suitability of the course. This coordinates well both with the theoretical framework of Tinto (Tinto, 1993) and the findings of Yorke in national surveys (Yorke, 1999).

Tinto (1993) proposed that students left early because of a number of factors related both to the students’ prior experience and to institutional characteristics. Where the experiences of a student early in a course fail to promote that student’s academic or social integration into their new institution then the student commitment to the course or institution decreases and persistence is unlikely. The solutions to this lack of integration lie both prior to entry so that students are better prepared to meet the challenges of the institution they choose to attend, and also soon after entry so new students do not feel alienated from their new institution at the outset.

Yorke (1999), in an analysis of withdrawn students from a range of UK institutions, demonstrated that the major reasons given for non-continuance were:

Poor quality of the student experience;

Inability to cope with the demands of the programme;

Unhappiness with the social environment;

Wrong choice of programme;

Matters related to financial need; and

Dissatisfaction with aspects of institutional provision.

It is clear that the experience of students early in their course leaves a significant impression that may influence later decisions.

A range of early induction practices have been reported in detail elsewhere (Frame, 2001). They vary in organization from being institution wide to being locally based but they all share the common purpose of rapidly integrating new students into the practices of the institution. The purpose of this booklet is to update Frame’s accounts and to provide models of good practice on which others may build policies and procedures that are suited to their own circumstances.

The STAR studies reported here deal with isolated aspects of early induction and some could be seen as components of an integrated approach to the management of the early experiences of students. None in isolation would provide an adequate induction.

The first week at university can have the appearance of confusion with many seemingly unrelated tasks being completed rapidly and then punctuated by periods of inactivity. At the University of Huddersfield the procedures in the first few days are well orchestrated so that the necessary formalities are completed efficiently and punctuated by subject based activities. These are aimed at initiating both the social and the academic integration, which Tinto (1993) has observed are conducive to student persistence.

The social aspects of induction are illustrated by two case studies. At Plymouth, new students are taken off campus to a field site where they are given some elementary tasks to complete and left to their own devices to return. At Ulster the off-campus experience is a residential one and the academic component more pronounced. In both cases, however, the effect is largely a social one with most students becoming familiar with a range of staff in an informal setting and, perhaps most importantly, with each other. In most cases off-campus induction works well although it has to be managed sympathetically if it is not to be off-putting for some.

A third case study is aimed at the social integration of students who live in non-university accommodation. Students in residences benefit from the proximity of other students and organised events. The project Homestart aimed to integrate students living off campus by providing similar events at which they might meet students with similar problems and outlook. The concept is set to continue at Manchester and has been adopted at the University of North Wales, Bangor.

There is increasing emphasis on distance learners and the need to treat them in similar ways to residential students has led to the development of a variety of practices such as e-tutoring and e-mentoring. In particular the socialisation of new distance learners has been emphasised (Forrester et al., 2005). At the University of Ulster an e-induction has been in place for some years but for most students this merely involved the ability to access an e-lesson on how to learn effectively from e-teaching. Staff involved in the PgDip/MSc in Biomedical Science introduced an e-mentor scheme to assist students through a pre-teaching induction programme. Relatively few students participated, although the materials provided were excellent and the support intensive. A revised scheme integrated the support into the first weeks of module delivery and this has worked better.

REFERENCES

Cook, A., Rushton, B.S and Macintosh, K.A., eds. (2006). Supporting students: extended induction. University of Ulster, Coleraine.

Forrester, G., Motteram, G., Parkinson, G. and Slaouti, D. (2005). Going the distance: students’ experiences of induction to distance learning in higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 29, 293-306.

Frame, P., ed. (2001). Student induction in practice. SEDA Paper no. 113. SEDA, Birmingham.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving university: rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition, 2nd ed. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Yorke, M. (1999). Leaving early: undergraduate non-completion in Higher Education. Falmer Press, London.

Organisation of Registration Week

Mike Mortimer, School of Applied Sciences, Biological Sciences, University of Huddersfield, Queensgate, Huddersfield, HD1 3HD

Suzanne McLaughlin, The STAR Project, University of Ulster, Coleraine, Northern Ireland, BT52 1SA

SUMMARY

The School of Applied Sciences in the University of Huddersfield have developed their practice in registration week so that it fulfils both the requirement for formal registration and the need to begin the process of early integration of students into the department. A study skills module has been brought forward to the start of the registration week. Students write up the practical that they undertake during registration week for their study skills module. The induction also incorporates social activities by giving the students a day to join clubs and societies, which is an important aspect in integrating into the Higher Education environment.

Keywords: retention, induction, study skills.

INTRODUCTION

With increasing numbers of students entering university from a wide range of backgrounds the emphasis on their first impressions has become more important. Good practice in relation to induction suggests that opportunities should be available to facilitate both academic and social integration (Carter et al., 2003). The first week of making friends and getting to know lecturers can play a crucial role in helping retain these students by making the university environment one in which they feel secure.

There is considerable variety in the ways in which different institutions and subjects address induction. Some, such as the University of Central Lancashire’s Flying Start programme (UCLAN, 2005) have introduced pre-induction events which allow students to experience University life in the summer before entry, but it has not been practical to offer this to all new entrants. Others, such as Environmental Science at the University of Ulster have introduced a residential induction prior to the start of teaching, but this is expensive and subject specific.

However addressed, induction processes have to be able to make students from different social and academic backgrounds feel comfortable in the university environment. At Huddersfield, registration week plays a vital role in helping students settle into a different living and working environment relatively quickly.

RELEVANCE TO THE STAR GUIDELINES

At its outset the STAR project researched, produced and published a set of guidelines based on the causes of student attrition and which pointed the way towards possible good practice. The STAR guidelines relevant to this case study are:

2.1 Induction activities should familiarise students with the local area, campus and its support services.

2.3 Induction activities should support the development of those independent study habits suitable for Higher Education.

2.5 Induction activities should promote the development of good communications between staff and students.

Cook et al. (2005)

THE PRACTICE

Biology programmes within the School started approximately ten years ago and induction practices have evolved and been refined over that time. In 2003, when student feedback was analyzed at University level, many students thought that much of registration week was ‘a waste of time’. In response, the University required that study skills development was included in induction activities so that the students were focused and more actively engaged. Applied Sciences already had incorporated this into their induction structure. Attendance during this week is virtually 100%. Most of the timetabled activities involve staff; only attendance at the Union Societies Fair is not managed by academic staff (see the timetable in Appendix 1).

The Study Skills module, introduced during registration week, is a 20-credit point module, which runs throughout the whole of first year (Appendix 2). The personal tutors, who are academic members of staff, conduct it. Students are required to attend weekly and this indirectly helps the tutors to build up a relationship with their tutees.

Some of the activities that are integrated into the first week can help ‘level out’ some of the differences in the ability of students from different educational backgrounds.

This registration week contains academic work to keep the student interested; it also allows for social activities such as a free day to attend the Freshers’ Fair. The students are shown around the various facilities available to them and meet the staff. They are also made aware of their access to student services and the extent of the support on offer should they require it. Thus there is a balance of both social and academic activities that can help students integrate into the Higher Education environment more quickly and more effectively.

RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

Staff within the Department arrange the induction programme. Other staff, associated with the Library and Student Services, however, contribute to events. Since this is a scheduled teaching week the staff involvement cannot be viewed as ‘additional’ activities. The tutorial scheme (one meeting per week per student group) is part of a study skills module.

EFFECTIVENESS

Induction activities are designed to aid new students to integrate both socially and academically. The effectiveness of these activities has to be judged against that background. The activities themselves address a particular concern of staff:

“One of the problems we find with students now is that they have pretty minimal experience of practicals. So we get them in and using these things right at the start.”

The emphasis placed on practical experience in the induction is only sparsely reflected in the student comments, which are mainly focused on the social benefits of induction. Thus the only comment related to the practicals in a lengthy student focus group was:

“In the lab during induction week we had to do some practical exercises. Some of us hadn’t come from a scientific background and found it really hard to follow. When a student guide helped with induction this year, she made sure she put them in.”

Feedback has been gained from student-staff liaison committees and also from questionnaires. Generally the feedback has been positive for the study skills support. In particular mature students appreciate activities related to plagiarism and referencing.

“It’s very good and very well explained. We are doing an essay right now about plagiarism, so next time we’ll know how much we can copy … (laughter). The other day my tutor showed me … he put an excerpt through and it came up with the plagiarised bit in red. The thing is, I’m in final year, and I never really believed that they’d got the software.”

A mature student

Student Opinions

A group of seven students were interviewed. Five of these were mature and the others represented the more traditional intake. This group of students was very positive about the usefulness of the week devoted to induction activities.

“By the time the induction week was over, you’d made friends. When I walked in I felt that I was the only one who felt like I did. Then I found that everybody felt the same. By the time you start the lectures you’d built up close friendships. To me anyway the ones I met in induction week are still my friends.”

A mature student

One particular aspect of the induction, which was praised by the students, was a booklet that had been produced by a second year student who was, in the year in question, involved in showing new students around.

“I think that we had the best induction because one of the second years made a booklet and she put in everything, even how many students come here and when it was built. We asked her questions; we had a tour.”

A traditional entry student

Another traditional entry final year student commented:

“I read through it, and if I had had that in my induction I’d have been laughing. She even put in hobbies and interests of the teachers, so you get to know them as well.”

The only mild rebukes from this group of students related first to the Wednesday on which students were free to attend the Freshers’ Fair and second to the information distributed about the induction week activities. Thus the student-organized activities appear to focus on traditional aged students.

“I just kept thinking that if I were young it would be fantastic … none of us joined any student societies because of the cost … the Freshers Ball was £30 per ticket!”

New students did not apparently appreciate the extent to which they would have commitments during induction week.

“We got a timetable on the day that we started – Monday – I can understand why they found it hard to fit all the modules in. But it’s hard especially when you’ve got children in childcare.”

Overall students gained the impression of a well-organized but friendly department, which had rules to maintain academic standards. Thus one commented:

“It was very well organized, but my overall impression was that it was very stern; more stern than I have ever come across. I used to think that university was dead casual. They had to lay the law down and they did. You knew exactly where you stood and if anybody misinterpreted there was no reason for them to.”

The need to tailor induction to suit the needs of specific student groups is illustrated by the comment of one mature student:

“I remember somebody came in to talk about life at university and I can remember thinking I don’t know what I’m doing here because it was aimed at young students. The things they were talking about – like you can’t just live off kebabs – and I thought – Oh My God. It was basically just for them and I

thought why am I sat here?”

CONCLUSION

New students benefit from the approach taken to the organization of activities in this week, particularly in their social integration and their appreciation of plagiarism but it is less apparent that the practical skills acquired contribute significantly to induction. By integrating induction activities into registration week the university communicates the importance of these activities to its staff and the expectation of good attendance to its students. The organization of many events can be improved and the students interviewed in Huddersfield had the wit and confidence to identify where appropriate changes might be made.

CONTEXT

University of Huddersfield 18,000 full-time and part-time students

6,500 full-time

3,800 sandwich students

7,800 part-time students

35.6% of entrants are mature

1,200 academic staffSchool context 65 Biology undergraduate students

(2001/02)

3 left early (<6 weeks)

6 failed academically

12 transferred at end of first year to physiotherapy. In normal years only one or two transfer to other programmes.

45% male, 55% female

9% mature students

30-40% live in Huddersfield

20-30% are within daily travelling distances

REFERENCES

Carter, C., Stone, M., Shobrook, S., Gadd, D., Guyer, C. and Smart, C. (2003). Student progression and transfer (SPAT). Universities of Plymouth and Ulster, Plymouth

and Coleraine.


UCLAN (2005). Flying Start Summer School.http://www.uclan.ac.uk/facs/class/edustud/flyingstart/

APPENDIX 1. Registration Week Timetable

Day Activity Staff InvolvedSun Open day

Parents attend with students for a tour of the campus, a v is i t to th e h al ls o f r e s i d e n c e a n d m e e t members of staff.

Mon A welcome to the students

This also includes an introduction to the staff.

All Biology staff

Com plete r egis tr ation forms

Forms for the school record system are completed.

All Biology staff

Student Services talk

This lets students know what services are available.

Student Services

I n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e University Learning Centre

This was previously the Library, which now has a suite of networked PCs which are available 24 hours a day.

Learning Centre Staff

T a l k f r o m H e a d o f Department

This is to inspire students to progress and work hard by showing them through the means of a presentation, examples of successful students.

Head of Department

Module option choice forms

Students s elect which modules to do in year one.

All Biology staff

Visit the School Resource/Learning Centre

This contains resource material and networked computers.

Year One Tutor

Tues Enrolment

The students are taken over to the central enrolment area by staff.

Year One Tutor

Wed Freshers’ Fair

Students are free to attend this and to join clubs and societies.

Thurs Laboratory safety

T h e s t u d e n t s g e t a handbook and do a ten minute test to ensure they have learned the essential points. They must complete this test before they are allowed to work in a laboratory. Failing students have the opportunity to repeat the assessment.

All Biology staff

Introductory laboratory class

This is designed to get the students using equipment such as auto pipettes and spectrophotometers to build up their experience of p r act ical s k i l ls . Th is introductory laboratory class is also the start of their Study Skills module and they have to write up this practical for that module.

All Biology staff

Fri Discussion of laboratory data

This is guidance on how to handle data and plot graphs. The students also have to write up this practical and present their report as part of the assessment in the Study Skills module.

Year One Tutor

Tutorial

This is the start of the Study Skills module. Personal tutors are responsible for the direction of students’ study skills development.

Personal Tutor

APPENDIX 2. Study Skills for Biologists

Module synopsis This module will introduce students to the study and learning skills required to successfully complete an honours degree. The first part of this module will focus on information technology and provide an understanding of the operation of computer packages for teaching support, word-processing, database searching, virtual learning and spreadsheets. Armed with this knowledge each student is given a topical area or issue in biology to explore and asked to communicate their findings in a short talk to teaching staff and fellow students; each student also prepares a poster and a written scientific style report. This will enhance the student’s study skills and enable them to gain experience in communicating scientific information, both orally and visually. Student’s progress is monitored by small group tutorials with personal tutors. This is predominately a self-study module, which will be assessed by course work with the support of personal tutors . Students are also encouraged to use e-mail for problems encountered out of scheduled tutorial times. The module is essential for first year students studying biology. It is assessed by a range of exercises and presentations.

Outline content In all cases references will be made to the application of the packages to problems taken from Biology.

Operation of program manager, loading of programs, switching between them and importing/exporting data, printing and page set up.

Sending/receiving e-mail and Web access using the University system.

Operation of the basic functions of Word – opening, finding files and starting files. Editing, formatting, spell checking and tables.

Use of databases, building files, ordering/retrieving information and reporting output.

Basic principles of spreadsheets, data input, mathematical operations, graphical output and importing/exporting data.

U t i l i s a t i o n o f v i r t u a l l e a r n i n g environments.

Communicating scientific information: general aspects of writing essays and reports, literature survey and reviews, organising a poster display and delivery of oral presentations.

Residential Events for Induction

Suzanne McLaughlin, David Southall and Brian S. Rushton, The STAR Project, University of Ulster, Coleraine, Northern Ireland, BT52 1SA

SUMMARY

The undergraduate intake into the School of Environmental Science, University of Ulster comprises students studying honours degrees in geography, environmental science and marine science and students following a two-year non-honours Associate Bachelors degree. During the first week of teaching in semester one of year one, formal teaching is suspended and the students are taken on a compulsory residential fieldtrip that lasts for three days and two nights. The main aim of the trip is that it should act as an icebreaker so that the students can get to know each other and the academic staff who will be teaching them during the coming months. However, work completed during the trip also counts towards assessment in some year one modules. This case study outlines the organization and rationale of a residential fieldtrip for a large group of students and evaluates the trip from both a student and staff perspective.

Keywords: induction, residential fieldtrips, social induction.

INTRODUCTION

Increasing importance is being placed on the management of students moving into Higher Education. As the diversity and range of the types of students entering Higher Education changes so it has been recognized that the management of these students needs to change accordingly to take into consideration their changing needs. Modularisation has led to the development of large shared modules in year one as institutions benefit from economies of scale. In Bioscience courses a first year class size might commonly be of 200 students compared to a secondary school class size of 20. Some students require help to deal both academically and socially with such changes in the scale of their learning environment. Science students at the University of Ulster were asked about their social life in the December of their first year. It was clear from their responses that some students were not finding it easy to integrate. About 64% found making close friends to be difficult and 76% felt socially isolated to some extent (Cook and Leckey, 1999).

Individuals vary considerably in their ability to socialize, especially when thrust into the strange surroundings of a new educational institution. So, attempts to encourage them to socialize early in the course help to increase the extent to which they are socially integrated into the academic community. This also leads to greater goal and institutional commitment, reducing the probability of dropping out (Grosset, 1991).

This case study outlines a residential off-campus induction combined with fieldwork during

the first teaching week of the first semester in year one for geography, environmental science and marine science undergraduate honours students as well as Associate Bachelors students.



2.4 Induction events should provide the foundations for social interactions between students and the development of communities of practice.

2.5 Induction activities should promote the development of good communication between staff and students.

3.3 Students should receive regular formative evaluations of their work throughout year one, particularly early in semester one.

Cook et al. (2005)

HISTORY OF THE PRACTICE

The fieldtrip has been an integral part of the School since 1970. The original idea was that it would provide an ideal opportunity for students to get to know each other on a social basis as well as to meet the staff informally.

THE PRACTICE

The practice consists of all the first year students going to Co. Donegal for three days during the first week of term.

Students meet at the University and are transported on buses to Ardara, a small town in the southern part of Co. Donegal. In past years all of the students have stayed in the local hotel, however, due to increasing student numbers there is now an overspill and some of the students are now accommodated in local B&Bs.

The time away is spent on different field-based exercises in the towns, villages and countryside around Ardara. There are different exercises for each of the three student groups, which are led by teaching staff in that discipline. Within the larger geography and environmental science groups they are also sub divided into smaller more manageable groups to facilitate the teaching of the exercises. This means that some of the exercises have to be repeated.

In 2005 a total of 129 students went on the trip. They were divided into their subject groups to travel as some do field stops and work both on the way to Ardara and on the return

journey.

The students are given a fieldtrip handbook at the start of the trip. This contains information on what they are going to be doing and when and how the assessment is organized. Each of the exercises is detailed in the booklet and contains some background information, activity in the field, what they have to produce from it and any appropriate health and safety notices that are needed for specific field exercises.

Although the main aim of the trip is to allow the students to socialize in an informal atmosphere there is also an element of academic work attached to the programme. This eases students gradually into fieldwork methods; because the students have to work in groups, they also begin to make friends and begin to feel comfortable working cooperatively. There is an element of assessment tied into the work and students have to hand in fieldtrip reports when they return to the University by the Friday of the following week (week two of teaching). The fieldtrip report contributes 20% of the mark for the module Environmental Issues (ENS104) taken by all geography and environmental science honours students; the students following the marine science and Associate Bachelors Degree programme submit the work for other modules. In the fieldtrip booklet there is a detailed breakdown of the learning outcomes, the assessment criteria and the allocation of marks. Appendix 1 shows an example of the breakdown of the geography students’ marks. Submission of academic work so early in the semester enables students to get feedback very quickly in relation to how their work relates to the standards expected at Higher Education level.


The financial contribution that each student pays is £40, which goes towards the cost of accommodation. The School contributes approximately £4,000, which makes the total per head including staff around £65. This includes mini bus hire and staff accommodation and expense costs. A total of ten academic staff and two or three post-graduate demonstrators attend the field course and they are usually there for the whole trip.

EFFECTIVENESS

Formal evaluation of this practice was conducted by the STAR project and consisted of two questionnaires and a student focus group as well as interviews with two key members of academic staff.

Questionnaire

Student opinion of the trip was gained via a pre- and post-fieldtrip survey of those going on the induction fieldtrip to Donegal in 2004. The questionnaires were adapted from those used by Turner et al. (2003). The use of two questionnaires was so that students’ perceptions before the trip could be compared with their experiences of the trip itself. The students’ feelings, both before and after the trip are evaluated in the context of both work and social perspectives. Fifty-two students (40%) completed the pre-fieldtrip questionnaire

with 71 (54%) completing the post-fieldtrip questionnaire.

There is clear evidence (Table 1) that the fieldtrip is very effective in encouraging students to get to know each other and the academic staff.

% of students knowing other studentsNumber of students known

None 1 2-5 6-10 >10

Before7.7 9.6 67.4 11.5 3.8

After 1.4 1.4 2.9 22.5 71.8 % of

students knowing staffNumber of staff known

None 1 2-5 >5

Before30.8 44.2 25.0 0

After 2.8 1.4 87.3 8.5

Table 1. The assessment of the residential fieldtrip in Co. Donegal as an ‘ice-breaker’ – the percentage of students claiming to know other students before and after the fieldtrip and the percentage of students claiming to know the academic staff before and after the fieldtrip.

These results show that before the trip the majority of students knew between two and five other students, but after the trip 72% knew more than ten fellow students. The majority said that they made friends through working with people in the field and also by sharing a room with fellow students. Nearly one third of the students (32.7%) were anxious about sharing a room but this anxiety had been allayed for all but 8.4% of the students after the trip. In relation to the staff, most students either knew none or one member of staff before the trip but afterwards 87% knew between two and five members of staff.

When questioned about how they felt before the trip 17.3% did not want to go, 38.4% were apprehensive and 44.3% were anxious about going. However, in the post fieldtrip questionnaire 80.3% were looking forward to going on more excursions. All except one student agreed that the fieldtrip had helped them settle into university and that the trip should be repeated for the first year students the following year.

Approximately a quarter of the students questioned claimed that they did not know what to

expect or what was expected of them on the trip. Twenty-nine percent suggested that better information prior to and during the trip would improve the experience.

Student Focus Group

A focus group of four female students was interviewed about their experiences on the field course. This illustrated that the attitudes of students could vary widely. Student C was enthusiastic and obviously sociable. She had intended to do a degree in environmental health but had made a poor choice of A level subjects. Her choice of environmental science was made with the intention of progressing to environmental health as a postgraduate. She commented on the field course as:

“Well if you ask me personally, I enjoyed it because I really got to know everybody, because I know lots of other girls who still know nobody in their class, whereas I’m confident that I know the majority in my class.”

She concluded:

“The fieldtrip made me realize that this is what I want do. It banished all the misgivings I had about not getting into Environmental Health. I really enjoyed it.”

Student D also chose environmental science because she did not get into an environmental health course and this was her second choice. She did not want to attend the field course from the outset:

“I dreaded it. I got the letter through the door and virtually burst into tears. I didn’t want to go at all.”

In answer to a question about making friends she said:

“Not really during the fieldtrip. Maybe one or two, but I wasn’t positive about the fieldtrip at all. I definitely made more after, during assignment projects.”

She was academically focussed and saw the value of the fieldtrip only in the grounding it gave for future study. The best thing about the trip was:

“Getting a basis for later study. I thought it was handy for what we did later on. A good foundation.”

On teasing out the reasons for her dissatisfaction it became apparent that this student was lacking in confidence (in stark contrast to Student C!):

“I was just thrown in at the deep end. You were expected to know everything and I just didn’t. You’re just out of school, which was the complete opposite of university. They [university staff] don’t seem to appreciate that, and I think the whole thing was frightening. It was terrible and they didn’t appreciate your feelings at all. If there had been some sort of a routine that you knew roughly what you were doing and what times you were doing it, then we could have been organized.”

Although it must be acknowledged that some aspects of the domestic arrangements of the fieldtrip in this particular year lacked organisation, it is clear that some students coming from the highly structured secondary school system directly into university have difficulty coping with changed staff expectations. Others, like Student C, appear to thrive on the freer atmosphere.

Academic staff who have been running field courses for some years may not appreciate the difficulties of some new students. Thus Student A noted:

“It was the first week at university and I’d never been away for a whole week before. I come from a large family and being away from them and having no contact at all was dreadful. We should have gone somewhere where there was a mobile phone signal.”

At least one student left the University after the field course. Student C related her tale:

“In the accommodation there was a girl from … She was really upset the first night and then by the second she didn’t want to do it. When she got back she changed her course, and by the end of the next week she had left altogether. The fieldtrip put her off completely.”

“She talked to [a member of academic staff] and he was really helpful and helped her to change her course. But I think it was because she was just new. I only knew her to see when we were at school, but when we came here she was clinging on to me. She just couldn’t cope with being away.”

Staff Opinion

The fieldtrip for year one students early in their programme has been a feature of the School of Environmental Science extending over the last 35 years but it has only been in recent years that its value as an effective mechanism for successful induction has been recognised:

“I would put more emphasis on [social bonding]. Certainly for the Donegal fieldtrip the primary aim was to get the students to work as a group, to interact with members of staff and to get to know their colleagues more than anything else. If they became a happy working group in the first instance then that would continue through.”

“The primary objective is as an ice-breaker for the students, between themselves but also to meet the staff that are going to be teaching them for the next three to four years.”

“I think the big benefit is a social one. So many of them tell me that during practical classes they at least know another face. They talk to their friends in other courses and they know nobody.”

“It seems to be a very popular thing amongst the students; almost all the students come back and say it has been a positive experience. Primarily I would say this positive experience comes from the fact that they can meet

everybody in a relatively relaxed environment, that is the key positive. But it also does introduce people to field work as well.”

The workload, although not onerous, does fall at a particularly busy time of year and this can create difficulties getting academic staff to attend:

“It’s usually the same staff which volunteer every year. We used to have large numbers go away but those have frittered away and it’s usually the same core of people. We have lost a couple of people over recent years and we haven’t had anyone coming on board to take their place.”

Apart from organizing transport, accommodation and logistics, the highest workload seems to be in pulling together the various parts of the fieldtrip handbook to support the work in field and the post-fieldtrip marking:

“It would be additional I suppose. Writing the exercises and preparing the booklet … and, of course, marking the exercises of 120 students.”

The staff are also aware that, for some students, it is not just their first time away from home but also perhaps the first time some students have had to cope with meeting and socializing with complete strangers:

“We probably reduce the drop out rate at an early stage, because a lot of students come and are concerned about leaving home. We do get homesickness. If people are left isolated they are much more likely to be unhappy.”

It is easy, when running such fieldtrips, for complacency to set in and it is very important that if standards fall, changes are made as soon as practicable. Thus, in 2004, the standard of food at the accommodation was dreadful; this was quickly resolved for the following year:

“We made some minor adjustments since last year to make the students happier. There were some complaints about the quality of the food and some of the accommodation and we reacted to that. I had a word with the hotel, paid a little bit more money and this year it was superb.”

CONCLUSION

Residential fieldtrips get courses that involve an element of fieldwork off to a relevant start and reinforce key aspects of the subject. This works well for those students committed (or who become committed) to the subject. If a student is unsure about the course on which they have embarked, however, the total immersion of a field course can break their resolve to continue. Thus the content needs to be supportive of the breadth of the course and not just favour practical elements so early in the course.

There are some aspects that need to be handled with care. Some new students may never have been away with strangers before and can feel threatened and isolated, even in a group.

The socialization aspects of a field course are to been seen as benefits but this presupposes that all students are accustomed to the range of social situations found on a residential field course. Academic staff have to be observant, open and supportive.

CONTEXT

University of Ulster 4 campuses

26,360 students

Undergraduate: 20,490

Postgraduate: 5,870

Full-time: 17,825 (15,865 undergraduate, 1,970 postgraduate)

Part-time: 8,525 (4,620 undergraduate, 3,905 postgraduate)

>3,500 staff

REFERENCES

Cook, A. and Leckey, J. (1999). Do expectations meet reality? A survey of changes in first year student opinion. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 23, 157-171.


Grosset, J. (1991). Patterns of integration, commitment, and student characteristics and retention among younger and older students. Research in Higher Education, 32, 159-178.

Turner, A., Boyle, A., Conchie, S., Maguire, S., Martin, A., Milsom, C., Nash, R., Rawlinson, S. and Wurthmann, S. (2003). Fieldwork is good? The student experience of field courses. Planet Special Edition, 5, 48-50.

www.gees.ac.uk/pubs/planet/pse5back.pdf

APPENDIX 1. Geography Assessment Form

Donegal Field Course Report – Assessment Form

Name ………………………

Note that credit will be given for the presentation standard in each of the four sections of the report. Thus, attention should be given to such matters as organisation of material, accuracy and neatness of maps and diagrams, readability of tables, as well as grammar, sentence structure and spelling.

Weighting Mark ObtainedI. Social & Economic Issues

25

Evaluating CCTV Report

II. Historical Geography (Settlement)

25

a. Annotated sketch map

8

b. Buildings and commentary

8

c. Ardara and whaling

8

III. Tourism Development Exercises

25

a. Description of Donegal Town’s location, site and access

5

b. Description of the opportunities for recreation

5

c. Description of the facilities for staying and eating in the area

5

d. Map of Donegal Town, environs and its tourist facilities

10

IV. Rivers 25V. Landscape Interpretation 25

*TOTAL MARK 100

*Geography students do the three human geography themes (I, II and III) and only one of the two physical geography (Rivers and Landscape Interpretation) exercises.

Off Campus Events for Induction

Janet Pearce, School of Biological Sciences, University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth, PL4 8AA

Suzanne McLaughlin, The STAR Project, University of Ulster, Coleraine, Northern Ireland, BT52 1SA

SUMMARY

The School of Biological Sciences in the University of Plymouth runs a short off campus event, which consists of a one day trip for students to get to know each other and the surrounding environment of Plymouth. Staff and students go on a short boat trip from Plymouth to the other side of the Tamar estuary so that staff and students can become acquainted with each other in a more informal environment than the University.

Keywords: induction, off-campus, socialize.

INTRODUCTION

The widening participation agenda has had two major effects on the intake into institutions of Higher Education in the UK in recent years. Firstly, class sizes have grown at a phenomenal rate and it is not now uncommon to see class sizes in excess of 200 and, in modules such as genetics which service a number of very popular courses, class sizes can even be in excess of 500. Secondly, the diversity of the intake particularly with regard to the range of qualifications, age, ethnicity, etc. has seen a similar increase. Many students faced with moving from a school to such a large diverse institution are able to cope well and adjust to the different circumstances with little difficulty. However, for some students this is a major hurdle. They may have come from a relatively ‘sheltered’ background where their circle of family and friends was small and close. They may never have needed to develop a new social network ‘from scratch’ and this, at a time, when they are also having to come to grips with their academic subject.

If students are able to integrate into the academic community and feel part of the social group then they are less likely to drop out of their course and more likely to commit to their subject and to their future in the institution (Grosset, 1991). Students therefore need to ‘find their feet’ quickly at university and this case study outlines a very simple procedure whereby a short excursion lasting a few hours helps the students to meet their colleagues in a relaxed atmosphere where there is no academic pressure. Friendships made at induction meetings like this are likely to persist through the course and decrease the possibilities of withdrawing from it.





Cook et al. (2005)

THE PRACTICE

The School of Biological Sciences has been running a boat trip since about 1989 and prior to this they ran a coach outing. The practice did not arise out of a problem but was designed to get students to know each other. The initial resource implications consisted of the hiring of a coach, which then became the hiring of a boat.

Initial induction within the School of Biological Sciences lasts one week. Activities include meetings with programme coordinators and personal tutors, registration and introductory laboratory skills, meetings with welfare and other University services and a quiz. The quiz is run as a fun event, but it also covers some topics in basic biology. Feedback on their performance is given to personal tutors to discuss any deficiencies and potential improvements. The boat trip runs on the final day (Friday).

For the trip the students and staff meet at the University and walk down to a jetty in the Barbican area of Plymouth (approximately a 10-15 minute walk). They board the boat and travel across to the other side of the River Tamar, which is approximately a 20-30 minute trip. On the other side of the estuary the students walk to Mount Edgcumbe Country Park where there is a choice of activities. Those enrolled for Marine Biology separate and investigate the shoreline. Those enrolled for degrees in Biology are given a walking tour leaflet and go for a tour around the park to look at their surroundings. The leaflet includes some biological notes, which indicate features of interest as they walk around. The tour includes panoramic views of Plymouth. Approximately 25% of the students go on the tour. For the students who prefer not to go on the tour there is a coffee bar and restaurant available where they can socialize. The students make their own way back to Plymouth on a local pedestrian ferry. Staff are normally available in the country park for between three and four hours.

The idea behind the practice is that staff and students can mingle in a casual atmosphere and students can reflect on the week’s induction and ask any questions about things that still concern them. The students will have previously been working in groups during the week doing various laboratory-based practicals and this is a chance to get to know more of their classmates and staff before formal classes begin the following week.

The trip is very simple in its design and there is little staff effort in planning the trip other than hiring the boat and getting staff members to turn up. However, a small inexpensive trip such as this can help form social groups among the students and therefore help them integrate more quickly into the Higher Education environment.


In 2004 there were 180 students and nine staff on the trip. The trip across the river is paid for by the School and the return trip (£1.20) is paid for by the students themselves.

EFFECTIVENESS

The trip is not evaluated in a formal way but the students are asked casually about their experience and what they thought of it. From those asked it seems that the trip is well liked. The students recognize the fact that it was organised for them and appreciate this.

Staff and Student Opinions

The general opinion of the staff seems to be that they enjoy the trip and the chance to talk to the students. They have been running induction field trips since 1989 and obviously enjoy them. Last year nine staff went which worked out at approximately one staff member for every 20 students.

A focus group was held in Plymouth to collect student views. Of the six students present, only one did not go on the induction boat trip. Those that did had had a positive experience. Students who did not already know anyone thought that it was a good opportunity to meet new friends.

“It did get me to meet other people.”

“This is where I met a group of five or six students which I got along really well with which was vitally important in that first week (when you are unsure if you made the right choice).”

“Made friends with my housemate.”

Of those that had already made a friendship:

“It mainly involved getting to know people that I had already met better.”

For students who had already made some social contacts it may be a less rewarding experience. One student commented:

“I went around with my flat mate who I already knew.”

The student who was unable to attend due to a prior commitment that day did acknowledge the following:

“I would have liked to attend though, as it was a good opportunity to get more guidance, answer any questions still on your mind and to become acquainted with others from the course.”

PROPOSED FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

If funding were available the staff would like to take the students on a residential trip to further promote group cohesion. They note that the marine biology students have always had good group dynamics, primarily because a diving course is included in the curriculum. All the students meet at the diving and sailing centre and so get to know each other quite well.

Staff are also hoping to integrate some of the postgraduate induction programme, in particular to bring postgraduates on the boat trip to facilitate integration between them and the undergraduates.

CONCLUSION

Induction is more than students receiving information about the course and getting to recognize a few academic faces. Induction is an important part of students establishing themselves rapidly in a new social context. It is in the interests of students and good working practices that student social groups form. This promotes communities of learning and initiates a group ethos that will be a valuable component of collaborative working throughout the course. Attempting to promote social cohesion with the distractions and anxieties of the first few days of a new course in a new institution is challenging. Removing a student group to an interesting and relaxing environment is an effective way of achieving both an element of relevant academic experience and promoting cohort cohesion.

CONTEXT

University of Plymouth The University of Plymouth has an educational history dating back to 1862.

In 2003-04 it had 15,291 full-time and 6,115 part-time undergraduates. There are 936 academic staff.

School of Biological Sciences

Within the School of Biological Sciences there are approximately 315 Biology undergraduate students.

42% male, 58% female; 68% 18-20yrs old, 4% >31 yrs old

A significant proportion of students now live at home. From a survey of travel times, 90% live less than 30 minutes away with only 7% living more than one hour away.

Entry requirements vary from 280 points (BC at A level) for specialised degrees such as Marine Biology to 160 points (CC) for less specialised degrees such as Biological Sciences. About 80% of entrants are admitted on the basis of their A level (or Highers) qualifications.

Of the 250 students admitted in 2002/3, 20 withdrew early (8%) and 22 (9%) failed academically.

Overall the University of Plymouth’s retention statistics are better than its HEFCE benchmark, particularly for mature students.

REFERENCES

Cook, A., Rushton, B.S., McCormick, S.M. and Southall, D.W (2005). Guidelines for the management of student transition. University of Ulster, Coleraine.

Grosset, J. (1991). Patterns of integration, commitment, and student characteristics and retention among younger and older students. Research in Higher Education, 32, 159-178.

Homestart – a Support for Students in Non-university Accommodation

Elizabeth A. Sheader, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, Stopford Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PT

Helen C. Richardson, School of Biological Science, University of Manchester, Stopford Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PT

SUMMARY

Academic advisors have identified feelings of social isolation as a reason for students ‘dropping out’ of university. ‘Homestart’ aims to help students living in non-university accommodation during their first year, to feel more integrated within the university community. Such students are a diverse community and include mature students as well as recent school leavers.

This project helps these students to meet socially with one another, thereby helping them to be integrated within the university community and reducing their social isolation and the potential impact of this on their retention. A key feature is that an initial workshop meeting takes place before registration week. This is important as it works pro-actively to help these students avoid feelings of isolation, by helping them to meet and start to build a social group before ‘exposure’ to the differing social priorities and experience of a wider student community living on campus.

Evaluation has shown that this support is well received by the students. Take up is good and the scheme is popular in the Faculty where it has been implemented.

Keywords: prior to entry, induction processes, student retention.

INTRODUCTION

‘Homestart’ is aimed at students living in non-university accommodation during their first year. They may describe themselves as living ‘at home’ with parents, a partner, their children, or in ‘shared accommodation’ with friends, etc. Such students have recently increased in number and are forecast to increase further as more students opt to remain at, or close to, a home university, associated with factors such as widening participation and increased financial demands. These students are a diverse community and include mature students as well as recent school leavers.

This practice aims to help these students to meet socially with one another, thereby helping them to be integrated within the university community and reducing their social isolation and the potential impact of this on their retention (Sheader and Richardson, 2005). Staff arrange an initial pre-induction workshop and a social event to ‘kick-start’ these students into forming a social community, and the idea is that students would then take ownership and arrange their own events, with staff providing administrative support if required.

Evaluation has shown that Homestart support is well received by the students. Take up is good and the scheme is popular in the Faculty where it has been implemented. A core of students regularly attends arranged meetings and they also arrange meetings of their own.



1.3 Support should be available prior to study particularly where problems of transition may be predictable.

Identifying and supporting this group of students, with common backgrounds and for whom potential problems are predictable, prior to study, aligns with this guideline.


By providing foundations for social interactions between students and the development of communities of practice, the project has the potential to achieve this guideline.

2.5 Induction activities should promote the development of good communication between staff and students

The induction events also promote the development of good communication between staff (especially the project co-ordinator) and students.

Cook et al. (2005)

THE PRACTICE

The objectives of Homestart are:

To integrate first year students living off campus in non-university accommodation (referred to as ‘home’ students) more effectively into the first year population; and

To help students who do not live on campus to feel more a part of the university community and to provide a support network for these students.

Key features of the practice:

Welcome pack to all new students includes invitation for ‘home’ students to meet other ‘home’ students before registration week (Appendix 1);

Half-day workshop with lunch, icebreakers, group activities before registration week (to build rapport). Co-ordinator helps students arrange first social event;

Week three: follow up meeting at which students are encouraged to arrange further social events (to give them ownership), with access to modest financial resources and administrative support if required;

Co-ordinating academic staff member keeps in contact with students by e-mail, in (practical) classes and/or informal get-togethers a couple of times in the semester;

Evaluation to identify what has worked well, what students value and areas for development (evaluation ‘prompts’ form in Appendix 2); and

Refinement of practice in the light of student and staff feedback.

Homestart was set up as a pilot project in summer 2003, in preparation for the academic session 2003-04. The narrative below describes the current practice (2005-06), refined through experience and feedback. Figure 1 shows a suggested time line for a Homestart programme.

Before registration, the Faculty routinely sends out welcome packs to all students. These now include a Homestart flyer, which briefly explains Homestart and invites students, who plan to live at home or in non-university accommodation during their first year, to an initial half-day Homestart workshop. A second flyer is posted on the first year notice board.

Figure 1: Suggested time line for the Homestart practice.

Students are asked to reply whether they plan to attend or not. A copy of a flyer, including acknowledgement slip is in Appendix 1. The practice co-ordinator books a room suitable for the workshop, and with a partition so more students can be accommodated if necessary. Two to four additional members of staff are usually available to help (as required, depending on number of students who attend).

The aim of the workshop is to give ‘home’ students an opportunity to meet socially before registration week. The workshop centres on ‘ice-breaker’ sessions and small group activities. Some of these are drawn from TIP (Teamwork Induction Project). It was envisaged that this would help the students to get to know each other, before meeting campus-based students, who would be likely to be forming peer groups centred around their University accommodation. Additionally, the project co-ordinator suggests ideas for social functions and has helped to arrange these during the first semester, to offer a source of support and to encourage the Homestart students to meet during their initial weeks at University and, potentially, throughout their course. An important feature is that the workshop is facilitated by the co-ordinator and additional academic staff, whom students would be meeting in practical classes and tutorials. This gives an opportunity for students to build rapport with some members of academic staff, before the semester begins. As one student commented: “it made us realize that lecturers aren’t scary!”

Students have been very positive about benefits to them of the initial workshop. At one evaluation meeting, students described some of the initial workshop ‘ice-breaker’ activities. One activity was working in groups of about four, making a T-shirt out of newspaper, with a prize (chocolate bars or similar) for the one judged best by other groups. They remembered this as “great fun”. Another was showing each other where, on a map, their hometowns were in relation to Manchester and being really surprised by UK (and wider!) geography. These were recollected with animation and enjoyment nearly eight months after the event and had clearly had an impact on the students and had helped to build their friendship group. (Evaluation is considered in greater detail in a subsequent section of this case study.)

Depending on students’ individual degree programmes and timetables, some students have opportunities to work together in practical classes and/or tutorials as well as building friendships socially. Additionally, all first year tutors are e-mailed the flyer and encouraged to publicize Homestart to their tutor groups

To foster a sense of student ownership, after the initial meeting and a follow up in week three with staff ‘to set them off’, students are encouraged to arrange their own social events (with administrative/ academic staff support as appropriate).

EFFECTIVENESS

Evaluation Strategy

Student evaluations have been through focus group meetings, with a person other than the staff co-ordinator. Questions were e-mailed to all Homestart students about two weeks

before an evaluation meeting, with an invitation to attend and a request to complete the questionnaire and return it if they were unable to attend. Additionally, the evaluator had an opportunity to meet several Homestart students at an informal lunchtime get-together about a week before the focus group meeting, which helped build rapport ahead of the evaluation meeting and encouraged students to attend. Additional evaluation has been undertaken using e-mailed questionnaires.

Staff evaluation has been on going and on an ad-hoc basis, to identify areas for development.

Evaluation Findings

Student Evaluation and How This Has Informed Homestart Development

Student evaluation has shown that participating students are enthusiastic and feel well supported by Homestart. In summary, they feel it has helped them make friends and helped to build their confidence, as well as helping by having others around in a similar situation, such as having to commute.

They have also explained how their friendship networks have grown, as Homestart students have met ‘non-Homestart’ friends of other ‘Homestarters’ and they now all go out socially together.

The following are a sample of evaluation comments, which exemplify the range from feedback evaluation meetings/ questionnaires.

“Homestart was a really good introduction to university! It helped me settle in as I was able to find people in the same situation as myself!”

“Meeting up the week before Freshers’ week was really good, because in Freshers’ week, people in Halls had made friends already, and we had friends through Homestart.”

“The best bit about Homestart was making friends – the friends I made through Homestart will be my friends all through uni!”

“It gave me a sense of belonging and a chance to meet others who understood the travelling.”

“It has given me more confidence, made new friends, more able to speak to others, and allow us to work in a group. As well as discovering more about Manchester’s fine attractions.”

“I have made very good friends with a number of people from the group and have also made friends with their friends – I have met many people who I wouldn’t have met if it wasn’t for Homestart.”

“Meeting up a week before the start of uni meant that we had friends during fresher’s week and at the fresher’s ball.”

There were very few responses to the question: “what hasn’t worked so well?” These included:

“Having meetings at the end of the day.”

“Communication by e-mail is difficult as not everybody checks them – the group is also not big enough, so if a few people drop out of meetings, then we don’t meet up!”

“Meeting up to do things later on in the year – many group members although we all made friends, didn’t reply as much.”

Responses to “How could it have been made more useful to you?” included:

“I wish there were more 30+ ‘homies’!”

“If meetings were at a time when I wouldn’t have to stay after a day at uni, because if I stayed I’d be getting home at seven or eight pm.”

“I think for me it did all it set out to do. It’s a shame though that we never got around to sorting a Christmas do, and that so few people attended.”

The question “How might we improve Homestart for students starting this September?” drew the following responses:

“More of the same! Possibly give groups of people the opportunity to organise social events for everyone!”

“Send out leaflets earlier.”

Students’ ‘Take Home’ Messages from Evaluations

These suggestions are compiled from the students’ feedback, as ‘messages’ to practitioners who might be considering the feasibility of setting up a similar scheme:

Ensure invitations are ready early enough to be included in pre-registration welcome packs, with time for reply before the workshop, to ensure all have an opportunity to participate from the start;

Check that invitation wording is inclusive – e.g. ‘if you plan to live in non-university accommodation, with family, partner, friend(s) or by yourself’;

Set up a web bulletin board for communication with Homestarters, as some students do not regularly read their e-mail; and

Arrange meetings at lunchtime if possible, as commuting students find it difficult to stay for evening events.

Some of these suggestions may work more or less effectively for different groups of students, e.g. one year, students preferred to use e-mail, and did not use the bulletin board;

then the next year, students asked for a bulletin board because of a perception that some did not regularly access their e-mail. It is important therefore to select flexibly from a suite of available technologies.

Staff Evaluation and How This Has Informed Homestart Development

To ensure all students have an opportunity to attend the pre-induction workshop, inclusion of flyers in pre-registration welcome packs and allowing plenty of time to reply with the acknowledgement slip before the workshop are priorities. It was felt that this has worked well and will be continued.

Students appear to have benefited not only by forming peer groups, but also by opportunities to build rapport with academic staff that they have continued to meet in classes. They appear to value greeting a ‘familiar face’ in classes, as this gives them an ‘anchor’ and, in turn, appears to help boost their self-confidence in approaching other staff in the practical class.

It was planned from the outset that Homestart would be led by a member of academic staff, with gradual phasing in, year-by-year, of being more student-led, including ‘older years Homestarters’ helping new first year students (with administrative/academic support as required, including availability of a designated member of academic staff to approach for advice throughout the year). Our experience previously, with established Faculty practice in peer mentoring support, has been that this approach gives students a sense of ownership, which is essential for students getting involved and feeling their efforts are valued and benefiting from staff-led initiatives.

This has been now realized and students organized most social activities in 2005-06. These have been well attended and enjoyed.

Feedback has indicated that Homestart has helped students build wider social peer networks (see below) and they have reported that they have met frequently in these wider community networks. This emphasises student ownership and is an indicator of the achievement of Homestart aims.

It was found that students may attend initial meetings, but then stop attending. Students may stop attending for a variety of reasons. It may be due to competing time priorities, including balancing study and time at University with home life, commuting or employment. Recognition of this (through feedback) has led to arranging meetings during the day; lunchtime meetings are popular. Another important reason identified is that when a student has established a friendship group, they feel more settled and benefit socially and academically from peer support. Therefore, Homestart aims have been achieved for that student. Homestart should judge its success not only by the number of students who continue to attend, as students have different ways of managing personal and academic

issues. Replies to an e-mail to those who had stopped attending to find out why showed, for example, that one had joined the University athletics union and found this became his priority and way of making friends and another had changed to a course at another university due to a change in personal circumstances.

The Faculty of Life Sciences has recognized the benefits of Homestart and expressed its intention to continue support for Homestart, which is now embedded practice.

Capturing some of the essence of what works well and what we have learned, we suggest that potential Homestart implementers might consider incorporating the following recommendations:

Prompt students to encourage one another to go ahead and arrange social events even when only some of the group can attend;

Prompt students to encourage each cohort to agree a student co-ordinator, or small co-ordination team, who will take on the role of arranging events, so fulfilling the aim to give students greater ownership of the scheme; and

If the university/faculty has a peer mentor scheme, prompt Homestart students to consider becoming peer mentors for incoming Homestart students. (How this would work in practice, inevitably would depend on arrangements of such mentor/mentee schemes.)

Quantitative Data

Student Take-up

Before the project started, it was estimated that about ten percent of students live in non-university accommodation during their first year. Initially it was anticipated that students would be identified as ‘home’ students if their university semester address was the same as their ‘home’ address. Table 1 shows these data for the past few years, and it is apparent that there is a large variation between cohorts in the number of students whose semester address is the same as their home (usually parental) address, being less than five percent in 2003-04 and greater then ten percent in 2004-05. However, these data may underestimate the number of students in ‘non-university’ accommodation, as some are living with partners or spouses or friends during the semester and so provide different ‘semester’ and ‘home’ addresses, although living in non-university accommodation.

Note that the University of Manchester and UMIST merged in 2003-04 and that data prior to that date refer only to the University of Manchester whilst data after that refer to the newly merged institution.

Seven students from the cohort 2004-05 have continued to attend in 2005-06. They have arranged most Homestart events this year and helped to support current first year Homestarters.

2003-04 cohort 2004-05 cohort 2005-06 cohortNumber of students in FLS whose ‘semester address’ is the same as their ‘home address’

18 of a total of 379 53 of a total of 449 66 of a total of 604

Number who attended an initial Homestart workshop

11 16 10

Number who have continued to attend during the year

6 14 8

Table 1: Numbers of students in the Faculty of Life Sciences (FLS), University of Manchester in different cohorts whose ‘semester address’ differs from their ‘home address’.


Homestart practice is now established and although it will evolve to suit future requirements in the Faculty, plans to develop the practice relate to transferability rather than to enhancing the practice itself.

Since the inception of Homestart, the University has set up a review of student support in Faculty/Schools. One of the authors is currently on this review committee. The group is in the process of compiling an outline of the project for dissemination of good practice across the University.

It is planned to extend Homestart style practice as a pilot to the Faculty of Medical and Human Sciences from 2006-07, with the current Homestart project co-ordinator acting as co-ordinator. The experience of the Homestart project will inform the practice, which is being implemented partly in response to student-led demand.

An important point to bear in mind is how such developments may link with other peer support networks, including the peer mentor scheme, which has been established for almost a decade and has similar though more generic aims, and the mature students’ society.

EMBEDDING/TRANSFERABILITY

Homestart practice is now integrated and embedded in the Faculty of Life Sciences student support plan. It is also fully publicized and supported by the academic advisory service, through which, individual ‘home’ students from any faculty who seek support are put in

touch with Homestarters as well as other relevant University student groups (e.g. the mature students’ society) as potential ‘lifelines’.

Following dissemination, practice based on experience of the Homestart project is in the process of being adopted elsewhere. A similar practice has now been adopted by the University of Wales, Bangor in 2005, who have reported to HomeStart informally that:

“Inspired by Faculty of Life Sciences (University of Manchester) programme, our Student Services arranged a two-day event with a few departments.”

“The programme included some welcomes with ice breakers, general introductions and workshops, including: inspiring talks by Peer Guides; a tour of the University; an introduction to services and facilities; a session on Money Advice; a session by our counselling service on looking at issues of being a non-resident student; and a session by our Careers and Opportunities Centre.”

“Forty students came from five departments – they all had lunch together, and apart from the general welcome – which was compulsory, could attend any or all of the workshops.”

“We had a 50% return on our evaluation questionnaire sent in October. The event was well received, but the main benefit for them all seems to have been the opportunity to meet with other students, to make connections, to get to know a few faces before welcome week started; and to become a bit more familiar with the University; which had the effect of taking away some of their nervousness.”

RESOURCES

Homestart practice would normally require the following resources:

Essential:

Time resource: Staff co-ordinator time in setting up and implementation/continuation; and

Financial resource: Initial workshop, refreshments and first social event.

1. Initial set-up: Staff time includes one-off set up time, such as getting agreement to pilot practice, preparation of flyers

Year 1 only

6-8 hours

1. Implementation during a typical year includes workshop (*with two additional staff members), follow-up meetings, events, maintaining contact with students, meeting evaluator

Year 1 and each year subsequent

12 hours

(*+8 hours)

2. Stationery and printing – flyer for workshop, other promotional flyers as necessary (a lot could be via e-mail)

1-5 pence per copy

2. Pre-registration workshop: lunch, refreshments

£3-£5 per person

2. First social event, e.g. fares and entrance for ten pin bowling, canal trip, museum visit, meal, etc. (remember that museum visits are often ‘free’ and can be used as an effective learning and bond-building activity!)

£2-£10 per person

Desirable:

Time resource: Evaluation and reporting to inform future development; and

Financial resource: Social events for students.

Each year1. Evaluation and reports: Staff time 10-20 hours2. Social events – as above. Remember to look out for discount vouchers and promotions!

£2-£10 per person

CONTEXT

The practice was an individual initiative by one of the authors (EAS), in the light of perceived student need. It has been supported by management as a pilot and is under consideration of being rolled out University wide and shaping University policy.

Up-to-date information and data about the University are available at: http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/facts/statistics/studentsandstaff/

University of Manchester Academic year 2005-06Size of University Number of students: 25,683

undergraduate; 9,000 postgraduate

Number of staff: >10,000 including 4,500 academic and research staff

Size of Faculty Number of students in Faculty: 1,844 (including 44 Erasmus)

Number of staff in Faculty: 231 (>1,000 people involved in research)

Course titles Biological Sciences: approximately 20 modular degrees, ranging from Anatomical to Zoological Sciences, each supported with three or four year options

Size of intake In 2005-06, 648 year one students (including 44 Erasmus, who attend in year one only)

% mature 57 year one students (excluding Erasmus) who are aged 21 and above

% living at home 66 year one students (excluding Erasmus) have the same home and term time address

Relevant entrance data, standard offer, average points score on intake

Asking grades: BBC (Biology and Chemistry preferred but not essential)

In 2004-05, the average qualification on entry was 320 UCAS points, ABB

All successful applicants offered A level or equivalent qualifications

Retention data Year one retention in 2005-06 to date:

631 Registered students (42 of whom are Erasmus)

9 year one leavers

2 year one students expected not to complete year (both are ERASMUS students, have not yet completed registration)

REFERENCES


Sheader, E.A. and Richardson, H.C. (2005). Home – but not alone. HomeStart: a support network for students not living in university accommodation in their first year. TRDN, Manchester.

APPENDIX 1. The Homestart Flyer

University of Manchester Faculty of Life Sciences

SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT

Supported by STAR Supported by CAASCentral Academic Advisory Service

Are you living in non-university accommodation during your first university year?

Come along and meet other home students before term starts.

On Wednesday 15th September 2004

In the Stopford building foyer at 1pm

---------------------------------- cut along ----------------------------------------------

Please tick box and return slip or e-mail before Sept 8th 2004 to: Dr Liz Sheader, Faculty of Life Sciences 3.329 Stopford Building, Oxford Road, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PT. E-mail [email protected]

I can attend

I cannot attend but would like information about other events

Name (please print): ………………………………………………Course: …………………………………………………………….Email address: ……………………………………………………..Phone number (optional): ………...……………………………….

APPENDIX 2. Form Used to Prompt Discussion at Evaluation Meeting 20th April 2005

HomeStart: Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester

Questions for HomeStart Focus Group Meeting: on … (Date)

Please answer the following questions, continuing overleaf if necessary.

Year of entry: 2003

2004

2005 (please circle one)

Degree programme (optional):

The Homestart Project aims:

To integrate students living at home (referred to as ‘home’ students) more effectively into the 1st year population; and

To help students who do not live on campus to feel more a part of the University community and to provide a support network for these students.

How well have these aims been realized for you?

Please give some examples if possible?

e.g. How has Homestart helped you to feel a sense of belonging?

With others in the Homestart community in your year?

With non-Homestart students in your year?

How (else) has Homestart helped you?

What about Homestart has worked particularly well?

What about Homestart hasn’t worked so well?

Suggestions for how Homestart might be improved for next academic year?

How does Homestart fit alongside the faculty student mentor scheme?

e.g. Are you a mentor? Do you have a mentor? If yes, is your mentor a Homestart student? How useful is the mentor scheme to you? How might it be improved for Homestart students?

Thank you for your time in attending this focus group meeting and completing this questionnaire. Your replies will help students to benefit from Homestart.

Helen Richardson: STAR Project (Student Transition and Retention) Working Group Member (http://www.ulster.ac.uk/star)

(Date)

E-tutor Support for Inducting Distance-learning Students

Peter Mitchell, Clifford Stevenson and Anthony Cook, The STAR Project, University of Ulster, Coleraine, Northern Ireland, BT52 1SA

SUMMARY

Distance learning students on web based programmes require support to learn how to use the virtual learning environment before they can exploit its features for interaction both with fellow students and with staff. This project examines the use of a pre-teaching induction week during which new students are helped to find their way around WebCT by a trained e-tutor. It was found that uptake was poor and no more effective than other, less labour intesive means of induction. In general, distance learning students do not avail themselves of pre-entry activities.

In a follow up study greater engagement was found when on-line induction was integrated into one of the taught modules.

Keywords: Induction, distance learning, retention.

INTRODUCTION

The PgDip/MSc Biomedical Science (Distance Learning) course recruits students each year from around the world. The course uses e-tutors to support student learning and assessment. Each e-tutor is a specialist in the subject of the module, undertakes an e-moderation course and is assigned 20 to 25 students within their module of study. The e-tutor’s role is to support individual students by monitoring progress and responding to questions. The students are mature and self- motivated but their full-time employment and other commitments mean that they cannot afford apparently ineffective effort-hours.

Induction week (effectively week zero), during which students are expected to familiarize themselves with the virtual learning environment (WebCT), is a largely passive experience for students since e-tutors commence their role in week one of module delivery. Thus much time is spent in the first few weeks of teaching in students learning how to be distance learners rather than in developing their knowledge and skills of the subject. This reluctance of students to waste time in non-subject based activity detracts from their ability to interact effectively within the subject in the early weeks of the course.

The University of Ulster’s Institute of Life Long Learning manages the University virtual learning environment (Campus One) and provides a virtual tour of WebCT as an online induction. Experience thus far has shown that relatively few students avail themselves of this facility. The intention of this project was to develop and evaluate a process in which e-tutors took their tutees through the features of the electronic system and guided them into

appropriate study habits prior to the formally taught part of the module.



1.3 Support should be available prior to study particularly where problems of transition may be predictable.


Cook et al. (2005)

THE PRACTICE

The Initial Induction Procedure

Sixty-seven students accepted places on the course and were divided into four groups of about 17 students. Each was assigned to an e-tutor.

Campus One provides an on-line tutorial but it assumes that students already have an elementary knowledge of WebCT before they can access it. The project team therefore wrote a ‘how to use guide’ as a guide for the tutorial package. This was communicated to students by e-mail as a part of a welcoming procedure from the Virtual School Manager and the Course Director. In addition, the e-tutor contacted his/her student group to brief them on the induction week activities and signpost them to other tutorial materials (e.g. on plagiarism).

An induction package comprised:

A welcome signposting;

An overview of the six effort-hours to be spent by the student during induction week;

A Library tutorial; and

A plagiarism tutorial.

E-tutor Training

Training for the e-tutors addressed three areas:

An overview of the induction experience from an e-tutor’s and a student’s perspective;

Discussion of the ‘how to use’ guidelines for the ‘Getting started with WebCT’ tutorial; and

Discussion of the ‘use of the Library’ tutorial.

The questions raised and discussion generated by the e-tutors during the training was invaluable in finalizing the ‘induction week’ documentation.

Student Response

The response of students to this initiative was poor. By 21 September 2004 only 63% of the 67 students accepted on the course had registered. The e-tutors e-mailed these students in their groups with a welcome and the induction materials. The remaining 37% of students did not log onto WebCT, note the welcome nor did they make contact with their e-tutor during induction week.

Although more of the contacted students may have used the induction materials, only 16 (38%) responded to their e-tutors (five, one, four and six in groups one, two, three and four respectively) during induction week (20-24 September 2004 inclusive) and only two (5%) students posted replies to the discussion board despite encouragement from all the e-tutors. Tracking of the discussion board at four p.m. on 24 September 2004 indicated that the number of messages posted by groups one to four were four, four, twelve and nine respectively.

This poor response was attributed to four factors:

Many students were not aware of the induction week programme;

Many students did not log onto WebCT until 27 September 2004 when module delivery began and some students were not even registered to access WebCT until 11 October 2004 (week three of delivery);

Students would engage in becoming confident e-learners on a ‘need to know basis’, at a time set by them, and not at a time line set outside the module delivery period; and

Students may have found the induction material easy and therefore had no need to reply.

As a result of these initial findings the procedure was modified for a second student cohort starting the course in Winter 2005. The new process consisted of:

Re-use of the materials developed – the ‘How to use guide’, the plagiarism tutorial, the Library guide and a set of frequently asked questions developed by the Library; and

The implementation of an induction procedure concurrent with the first few

weeks of the taught module.

A Revised Induction Procedure

All the new students (20), joining the PgDip Biomedical Science (Distance Learning) course in semester two were assigned to a single e-tutor. The students were encouraged to engage with the induction package materials in week one (commencing 31 January 2005) and to contact the e-tutor with any queries. This encouragement continued throughout weeks two and three.

Student Response

Student comments on the induction package were invited at the end of week three and the findings summarised as follows:

All students reported that they were coping well with WebCT and their studies by week five of module delivery;

Several students praised the value of the induction materials particularly the ‘frequently asked questions’;

Several students made little use of the induction package because it was optional and they were pressed for time; and

These students in general use WebCT as a tool to get things done. This is characterised by:

The tendency for students to compile and print lecture materials for review when time is available;

The tendency to solve problems in the use of WebCT and distance learning as they arise with the help of the available induction materials and e-tutor/Library staff; and

The avoidance of the discussion tool unless its use is a compulsory part of a module.

EFFECTIVENESS

Clearly the expectation that students would engage with distance-learning materials outside the declared teaching period was ill-founded. Further it proved difficult to get serious engagement with non-subject related materials at any time. The second attempt in which support and materials were integrated with the subject based content proved more popular and, judging by usage of the system, equally effective.

A survey of students in the first cohort (67 students) sought to identify how students used WebCT in a research design and statistics module. It resulted in 20 responses and the following findings:

Seventy-five percent of these students downloaded 100% of the notes and only 5% of the students downloaded less than 60% of the notes;

Sixty-five percent of the students were familiar with working in WebCT by the end of the third week of starting the course and all students were familiar by the end of week eight;

While most students accessed the Biomedical Sciences Resource Area, 65% of them did so infrequently. Five percent of the students downloaded all the information in the Resource Area; and

Seventy percent recommended an information-based approach to introduce WebCT based around a tutorial, course booklet, CD Rom or PowerPoint presentation prior to WebCT use; only 15% recommended the more interactive guided approach.


We conclude that an induction week prior to commencement of new students on the PgDip Biomedical Science (Distance Learning) course is not effective; it was only infrequently exploited by students and proved unpopular. The current involvement of e-tutors in supporting the module content for a small group of distance learners is sufficient to solve any problems that arise in the use of the technology. It is clear that most of the students adopted a ‘just enough, just in time’ approach to access learning materials appropriate to the modules of study. As a consequence of this, generic materials outside the modules such as tutorial materials on ‘avoiding plagiarism’ and ‘Athens passwords’ were not being effectively accessed in the first three weeks of teaching.

The following changes are proposed for future induction of these distance-learning students:

An induction which runs in parallel with the taught modules as implemented in the spring cohort but accessed through a single induction icon within a core module in each semester; and

Students will be required to complete a section of ‘frequently asked questions’ (Appendix 1) and a short induction package including activities addressing:

Plagiarism;

Using the Library;

Using Netmail;

Using discussion boards; and

Uploading an assignment.

These changes build upon the poor experience with the first cohort of students and the better experience with the smaller second cohort.

RESOURCES

The costs of this project were related to the employment of e-tutors for the additional week prior to the start of the module. Since this additional time will not be required in the final version of this activity, this will not be an additional cost. Other costs relate to the time spent in the preparation of materials such as the activities in: plagiarism; using the Library; using Netmail; using discussion boards; and uploading an assignment. Some of this material was already available and the remainder represents a one-off cost.

CONTEXT

University of Ulster The School of Biomedical Science is based on the Coleraine campus. It specialises in professionally recognised science based courses. It has a large distance learning provision based in a ‘Virtual School’, which employs its own management and staff. The University has implemented WebCT as its virtual learning environment and this facility is managed by the centrally based Institute for Life Long Learning, which can also provide assistance in translating face-to-face courses into distance learning materials.

Course Title/Student Group PgDip/MSc in Biomedical Science (Distance Learning)

Size of Course Two intakes: 67 in the autumn and a further 20 in the spring

% Mature All students are mature and live at homeRelevant entrance data Applicants for the PgDip must normally

hold an upper second class honours degree in a science subject. Completion of the MSc requires that students complete a research project at their place of work and are therefore normally employed in a science laboratory.

REFERENCE


APPENDIX 1. Frequently Asked Questions for the Students on the PgDip/MSc in Biomedical Science (Distance Learning)

Frequently asked questions reflect those areas of the administration of the module or course which cause students most concern.

Who is my e-tutor?Your e-tutor will introduce him/herself to you by e-mail within the first week of the semester. Should you not receive an introductory message within the WebCT mail system, please contact the Virtual School directly.

When should I contact my e-tutor?

Your e-tutor’s role is to provide guidance and support during your studies, hold tutorials and mark your assignments. You should contact your e-tutor with any general query relating to your module. Your e-tutor is your first point of contact with the University of Ulster and the School of Biomedical Sciences. Your e-tutor may answer your question or relay the query to another member of staff. Your e-tutor will also make contact with you on a regular basis throughout your course.

Can I speak with a lecturer to discuss an assignment or lecture material?

Yes, you may speak with a lecturer or module co-ordinator at any point. Please contact your e-tutor in the first instance, who will then put you in contact with the relevant person.

I cannot access the website using my access details.

If you are having any problem with accessing WebCT – please contact the Virtual School by e-mailing [email protected]. or calling on +44(0) 28 7032 4181.

What is a cover sheet?

Each assignment submitted must have a cover sheet. The cover sheet is the first page of each assignment and must including your name, student registration number, module name and code, assignment title, submission date and plagiarism statement. All pages should also be numbered with your student registration number at the top. Please do not add your name to any page other than the cover sheet.

Each assignment is given a maximum word count; what should I include in the word count?

Yes, every assignment must have a total word count given at the end. If an assignment consists of a number of parts, each allocated a particular maximum number of words then

the word count must be provided for each part.

Word counts must include ALL words in the main body of the text, within figures and tables but NOT in referencing. Exceeding the maximum word count allocated to a particular assignment and/or failing to include a word count will both result in the loss of marks for that assignment.

What is referencing?

This is a list of all source materials used in the completion of a piece of work. A reference list must be provided at the end of each assignment. Failure to provide a reference list will result in the loss of marks. Each reference listed must also be referred to in the associated text or diagrams within the assignment. Any diagrams or figures in an assignment must have the reference written below. If the diagram/figure is self-authored, this must also be written. Failure to acknowledge the source of a figure/diagram will result in it being ignored by the marker. In addition, always refer to any given table or figure within the main body of the text. Do not just insert tables or diagrams at end of a piece of work without referring to them. Also number them Figure one, two in the order they appear in the text and give them all a title.

What reference styles may I use?Vancouver or Harvard styles may be used. The New England Journal of Medicine contains a comprehensive article regarding referencing. The reference for this article is as follows:

Anonymous (1991). Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. The New England Journal of Medicine 324(6): 424-428.

Additional information can be found at:

http://www-mugc.cc.monash.edu.au/glib/style/hessay.htm

References for the Internet should follow the same format as that for printed materials where possible; that is, author, title, publication (journal, newspaper, etc.) and so on. While this detail is not always provided, what is provided should be referenced e.g.

Murphy, M. (1996). Ireland computes as base for Europe. Business Review Weekly Interactive.

http://www.brw.com.au/fr_features.htm. 15 August 2006

The URL (web address) must always be given. Any websites referenced must be active on the date of submission.

How do I submit coursework?

The preferred method for the submission of course work is via the module online.

Please submit each assignment only once and in the module site to which the assignment belongs.

What should I do if I will be late with the submission of an assignment?

You should inform your e-tutor on but preferably before the submission date stating your reason for late submission. An EC1 form should be completed and submitted to your Course Director explaining the circumstances surrounding your request for an extension.

An extension may be granted by the Course Director or module co-ordinator in some circumstances. If you are submitting late due to illness, you must submit a medical certificate or a copy with your assignment and EC1 form.

I cannot submit my assignment through WebCT; what should I do?

Assignments should be submitted through the website and must be submitted on or before the submission date. You will receive e-mail confirmation that your assignment has been submitted successfully. If a problem arises in doing so, you should be notified as soon as possible. In this instance, the assignment should be e-mailed to the Virtual School ([email protected]) with a message explaining why the assignment is being sent by this means. Please read the important information relating to the naming of assignment files within the assignments section of each module.

I have submitted the wrong draft or article for an assignment; what should I do?

The Virtual School takes no responsibility for the submission of incorrect drafts or articles. It is the responsibility of each student to ensure that the document submitted is the correct one. Any loss of marks resulting from such error lies solely with the student. Please submit each assignment only once.

I’ve submitted my assignment in the wrong drop box, what should I do?Each module had its own submission facility. It is important that assignments for a particular module are submitted via that module. However, if you realise that you have placed an item in the wrong drop box, please contact the Virtual School before the submission date. Any loss of marks resulting from such an error lies solely with the student.

I’ve been asked to write a critical review, what does this involve?Rather than simply writing an essay on the function or anatomy of the subject matter, a critical review involves the coherent analysis of the issues surrounding a topic. This involves addressing inconsistent or incompatible evidence stemming from the research conducted in the area and attempting to explain the discrepancies or at least provide viable suggestions for the differences.

Can I include colour in my assignments?Colour may be included in any assignment but it should be noted that documents submitted via e-mail will be printed out in black. Poster presentations are normally assessed directly from the PC – therefore markers will review colour schemes.

Who do I contact regarding fee payments?

The Finance Department deals with all enquiries regarding fees and may be contacted by phone 08700 400 xxx. When calling you should have your student identification (registration) number to hand. More information on fees can be found at:http://www.ulster.ac.uk/finance/fees

What do I do if I lose my Student Card/PIN Card?If you have lost your Student Card or PIN Card, please request another by completing the Replacement Form (Downloadable from the Resource Area) and e-mail or send to Registry as directed on the form. There is a £5 charge levied for replacement of each card.

Who should I contact if my contact details change?If you move house, change telephone numbers or e-mail address, you should inform the Virtual School through your e-tutor as soon as possible.

Who should I contact if my name changes?Please download a Change of Name form from: http://www.ulster.ac.uk/academicservices/student/namechange.pdf Please complete and return to the Virtual School. The Virtual School will inform Registry and your Course Director.

Who should I contact if I wish to change course/module?Any proposed change of course should be discussed with your Course Director and also with the Course Director of the course to which you intend to apply. All applications for a change of course/module must be made on a Student Record Amendment Form http://www.ulster.ac.uk/academicservices/student/studentrecordamend.pdf. Please complete and return to the Virtual School for your course choice to be amended.

Who should I contact if I wish to take a Leave of Absence?Please contact your Course Director to discuss your Leave of Absence. Please download and complete a Student Record Amendment Formhttp://www.ulster.ac.uk/academicservices/student/studentrecordamend.pdf. Please complete and return to the Virtual School for your leave to be granted.

What do I do if I wish to withdraw from the course?This is not a step that should be taken lightly and before doing so you should talk to your Course Director. He/she may be able to give help and support which enables you to overcome your difficulties. It is important to remember that all students have problems, but some are more affected by them than others. Seek help early, before a problem gets out of hand.

Acknowledgements

This booklet is the result of the activities of the STAR consortium. The STAR Project was funded through the Fund for the Development of Teaching and Learning (Phase Four) by the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the Department for Employment and Learning, Northern Ireland. The ideas and impetus of the project have derived from the enthusiasm of a core group of academic staff:

Tony Cook (University of Ulster)

Mark Davies (University of Sunderland)

Bill Norton (University of Liverpool Hope)

Helen Richardson (University of Manchester)

Brian S. Rushton (University of Ulster)

Steve Waite (University of Brighton)

This group has been ably assisted by STAR development officers Katrina Macintosh, Sinead McCormick and Suzanne McLaughlin and placement students Leslie-Anne Buchanan, Gina Smith and Dave Southall.

The project’s external evaluator, Mantz Yorke (University of Lancaster), has also made constructive contributions.

The printing of this booklet has been with the sympathetic cooperation of Stanley McCahon of the Reprographics Department, University of Ulster.



PAGE 90

May/June

First and second semesters

Refine practice

Evaluation

Maintain contact

Social events

Week three: follow up meeting

Pre-registration half day workshop

Homestart Flyer on Notice board

September

Homestart Flyer with reply slip in pre-registration Welcome Pack

August

EMBED Word.Picture.8

supporting students: early induction - uob.edu.bh · preface the purpose of this booklet is to...

Documents