What can we learn from studies of the first-year experience?

Mantz YorkeLancaster University

mantzyorke@mantzyorke.plus.com

University of Worcester30 April 2008

The importance of the first-year experience

FYE involves transition in which the demand on students may be quite different from their previous experience

FYE connects with other themes of importance, such as

- employability

- assessment (especially formative)

- student success generally

- retention

Non-continuation data (relating to the same HEI) give a rough indication of institutional success in promoting student success

Of course, institution-wide data conceals any intra-institutional variation

Hence intra-institutional benchmarking is important

How, at institutional level, does UW stand?

Performance measures

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0

Percentage from Lower SEGs

No

n-c

on

tin

uat

ion

, %

Young FT first degree entrants, smallish English HEIs

Clearly‘better’

W

So what can we learn from studiesof the first-year experience?

Agenda:The UK FYE study

- Phase 1 (on-course)

- Phase 2 (having left)

Comparison of Phase 1 with Australia (very briefly)

What the literature (theoretical and empirical) can offer

What makes (or can make) institutions successful

Origins of the UK FYE study

Study of non-completion for HEFCE (1997)

• Pre-dated Labour’s new fees policy

• Fee regime again changed in AY 2006-07

First year crucial for many students

• FYE little researched in UK, cf US, Australia

Widening participation agenda

Sponsored by the Higher Education Academy

Co-directed by Bernard Longden (Liverpool Hope University)

Purposes of the study

To provide the HE sector in the UK with data that

• is informative

• can be used as a baseline for comparison with future studies, particularly in a context of ‘top-up’ fees

• can be used comparatively, within and across bothsubject areas and institutions, to inform both policydevelopment and quality enhancement activity

The UK FYE study

Phase 2 Spring 2007

Survey of ‘withdrawn’ at/before end acad yr 05-06

All subject areas 25 institutions

Phase 1 Spring 2006 Survey mid-1st year

9 subject areas 23 institutions

The UK FYE study

9 Broad subject areas, spanning the spectrum

25 Varied higher education institutions (became 23)

1st year FT students (home and overseas)

Phase 1: questionnaire survey, completed in class time• 7109 valid responses

Phase 2: questionnaire survey, postal• 462 valid responses

Headlines from Phase 1

Teaching and Learning

• Programmes generally stimulating

• Supportive teaching

• Good understanding of academic demand…

• … but coping with it more of a problem

• Feedback, esp. promptness, seen less positively

• Low likelihood of ‘reading around’ the subject

• Differences between subject areas

• Differences between institutions

Headlines from Phase 1

Risk factors

Two main risk factors are

• Poor appreciation of programme and/or institution

• Worry about finance

Part-time employment may exert an influence, and isdifferentially related to socio-economic grouping:those from lower SEGs are more likely to take it up

Headlines from Phase 1 (ctd)

Demographic-related findings (a)

• Socio-econ status: surprisingly little difference re FYE

• Older students: more motivated to study more positive relationship with staff

• Gender: females more motivated, engaged

• Ethnic grouping: some variation, but not consistent

• Generally confident of gaining a graduate-level job

Headlines from Phase 1 (ctd)

Demographic-related findings (b)

Less positive re teaching/learning ……………. L; NW Lower confidence in study skills ……………… L; NWLess likely to cope with academic demand …. NWMore likely to say resources are inadequate .. L; NWLess likely to say staff are friendly …………… NWLess likely to make friends …………………….. NW More likely to worry about finance …………… L

L = Lower socio-economic status; NW = ‘Not white’

These are, however, relatively small variations on the general run of findings

Phase 2

Evidence from ‘non-continuers’

Why did students leave?

Seven groups (factors) of influences

• Quality of academic aspects of experience

• Inability to cope with academic demand

• Wrong choice of programme

• Dissatisfaction with resources

• Finance-related, including part-time employment

• Unhappiness with location

• Problems relating to social integration

Why students leave: Programme not as expected

The timetable was so much heavier than I expected – over 18 hours a week, which was a lot more than my other friends and was far too much. I was studying [Language] and History of Art joint honours and presumed it would be equal amounts of both disciplines but I hardly spent any time doing History of Art which I enjoyed more.

Why students leave: Wrong choice, etc

I had no idea what I wanted to do so I thought better try university in case I regretted not going. I made some good friends so stayed the whole year but I realised in the summer that I didn't want to make a career out of what I was studying.

I didn't see the point in getting even deeper into debt for something I wasn't sure I really wanted.

I wanted to do economics but did not get a place as I didn't quite get the required grades. I was offered Computer Science and as I really wanted to attend [University] I thought I would try it . But it did not [suit] me and [University] would not allow me to change courses so I had to move to a different uni.

The main reason for leaving university was the vast contrast of teaching styles between university and college. […] I failed to see how I needed to pay over one thousand pounds for a few hours listening to lecturers doing little more than read aloud.

Why students leave: Teaching issues

I was unimpressed with the teaching. There were a lot of tutors, the majority in fact, that did a powerpoint presentation copied straight out of a textbook and read it to us, getting us to fill in the blanks on a worksheet. […]

Why students leave: Poor staff/student contact

I felt quite isolated in terms of studying. Lecturers spoke during lectures and then would leave the room, with no time for questions.

During my entire first year I never once met my personal tutor.

There seemed to be no interest in students’ personal needs.

I did NOT enjoy my experience what so ever, due to the lack ofsupport from staff. I was never introduced to my personal tutor and felt like a number – not a person in a new [overwhelming] environment. Not one of my tutors spoke to me as an individual …

Why students leave: Finance

Found it very difficult to maintain employment & academic study. The more I wanted to progress at Uni – the more moneyI needed – so needed to work more to get more money – Ireceived no grants.

I had a lot of debt so had to work a lot of hours to meet myoutgoings. This in turn effected my attendance in class.

[…]

I would love to go back to university but I still have financial difficulties.

Why students leave: Social integration issues

Issues around being a mature student in an environment geared towards school leavers.

I … didn’t settle into my accommodation and I only connected with one of my flatmates. Conflict of interests – I felt peerpressured into partying every night when I didn’t want to.

Coupled with being homesick, I couldn’t stay.

I felt that living at home excluded me from a lot of the ‘studentlife’ that I wanted to experience.

Some sub-analyses featuring aspects of access

Access-related findings: some comparisons

A caveat:

Numbers in the following groups are small

• Ethnicity (other than white)

• Declared a disability

and hence comparisons are particularly tentative

Ethnicity: particular reasons for leaving

‘Other than white’ more likely to mention

• Aspects of teaching quality

• Contact with academic staff

• Programme organisation

• Aspects of institutional resourcing

• Lack of personal support from family, partner etc.

• Demands of employment whilst studying

• Travel difficulties

• Financial problems

SES: particular reasons for leaving

Students from supervisory etc. backgrounds more likely than those from professional/managerialbackgrounds to mention

• Teaching quality

• Class size

• Lack of study skills

• Library / learning resources

• Programme difficulty and Lack of engagement

• Stress

• Lack of personal support from family, partner

• Financial problems

Disability: particular reasons for leaving

Declaring a disability = more likely to mention

• Personal health

• Lack of personal support from staff

• Lack of specialist equipment for the programme

But less likely to mention• Lack of commitment, engagement, etc.

• Insufficient progress

• Demands of employment whilst studying

• Teaching approach

Have things changed over time?

The pattern of findings is pretty consistent

1997

6 Factors48.5% of variance

Quality of experienceInability to copeUnhappy with social environmentWrong choice of programmeFinance-relatedDissatisfaction with resources

2007

7 Factors60.9% of variance

Quality of experienceInability to copeWrong choice of programmeDissatisfaction with resources Finance-relatedUnhappy with locationProblems re social integration

Why do students leave? Top reasons

Mid-1990s

Wrong choice of prog 45Prog not as expected 45 Lack of commitment 41 Financial problems 36 Teaching didn’t suit 35Inst’n not as expected 31 Lack of acad progress 29 Needed a break 28 Prog organisation 27 Prog not relev/career 23Emotion, health probs 23Lack staff contact 22 Lack staff support 22 Teaching quality 22

The numbers are the percentages of respondents indicating that the reason was ‘very’ or ‘moderately’ influential on their departure

Colour coding

Black: low institutional capacity to affect

Purple: moderate institutional capacity

Blue: institution should be able to affect

Why do students leave? Top reasons

Mid-1990s AY 2005-6

Wrong choice of prog 45 Prog not as expected 48Prog not as expected 45 Wrong choice of prog 42Lack of commitment 41 Teaching didn’t suit 42Financial problems 36 Lack of pers engage’t 39 newTeaching didn’t suit 35 Lack staff contact 36Inst’n not as expected 31 Lack of acad progress 35Lack of acad progress 29 Prog organisation 34Needed a break 28 Lack of staff support 34Prog organisation 27 Lack of commitment 32Prog not relev/career 23 Inst’n not as expected 31Emotion, health probs 23 Teaching quality 31Lack staff contact 22 Financial problems 29 Lack staff support 22 Prog not relev/career 27Teaching quality 22 Quality of feedback 26 new

Some comparisons: Australia and the UK

The Australian evidence comes from three surveys conducted since 1994 by

the Centre for the Study of Higher Education at the University of Melbourne

The Australian picture is remarkably similar, in general, to that from the UK – broadly positive

Demographics: female, older more positive; SES little impact. Variation re international students (Aus); ethnicity (UK)

Motivation, expectations, PT employment, potential withdrawal are similar

Feedback in Australia less positively regarded than in UK

Social aspect of academic study similarly perceived – quite a high proportion of students kept to themselves

What help does theory offer?

Some relevant theorists or users of theory

Dweck (1999): self-theorising

Pintrich & Schunk (2002): motivation

Bandura (1997): self-efficacy

Flavell (1979): metacognition

Sternberg (1997): practical intelligence

Salovey & Mayer (1990): emotional intelligence

Biggs & Tang (2007): constructive alignment in pedagogy

Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick (2006): formative assessment

Bourdieu & Passeron (1977): cultural and social capital

Tinto (1993): departure from HE

Intentions,goals,

commitments

Academicexperiences

Social experiences

Integration

Intentions,goals,

commitments

Departuredecision

Pre-entryattribute

s

After Tinto, 1993

Psy ofIndiv

Instit’lcontext

Adventitioushappenings

Broadersociety

My ‘take’ on theory is that we should be aware of it,but not fall into the trap of assuming simple causality between ‘intervention’ and student response.

There are simply too many variables in play (student behaviour is said to be ‘overdetermined’ by theory).

‘… students change in holistic ways and that these changes have their origins in multiple influences in both the academic and non-academic domains of students’ lives.’ Pascarella & Terenzini 2005, p.603.

Knowing what we do, we can only seek to ‘bend the odds’ in favour of student success.

Theory in this area is complex

• Institutional approach

• Curriculum design

• Pedagogy for student engagement

• Dealing with the part-time employment issue

• Staff development

Some challenges facing UK institutions in mass HE

Institutional approach• Sustained visible commitment to student learning

• Managing expectations

• Institutional and departmental leadership

• Institutional structures and practices

• Emphasis on 1st year in resource allocation

• Celebration of pedagogic achievement

• Learning space (‘active learning’; ICT)

NB The ‘demographic dip’ after 2011 (from Bekhradnia, 2006)

Chart 1: 18-20 year-olds from 2005-06 to 2020-21

1750.0

1800.0

1850.0

1900.0

1950.0

2000.0

2050.0

2100.0

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

2017-18

2018-19

2019-20

2020-21

Th

ou

san

ds

~250,000

Curriculum design

• FYE: early start on academic study

• Formative assessment

• Curricular interconnectedness

The holistic nature of learning suggests a clear need to rethink and restructure highly segmented departmental and program configurations and their associated curricular patterns. Curricula and courses that address topics in an interdisciplinary fashion are more likely to provide effective educational experiences than are discrete courses accumulated over a student’s college career in order to produce enough credits for a degree.

Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005, p.647

Curriculum design (continued)

• FYE: early start on academic study

• Formative assessment

• Curricular interconnectedness

• The problem of learning outcomes

• Risk-taking in study, or playing safe?

• The valuing of collaborative learning

• Employability

Pedagogy for student engagement

• ‘Active learning’

• Generating a ‘buzz’

• Social engagement

With striking consistency, studies show that innovative, active, collaborative, and constructivist instructional approaches shape learning more powerfully, in some forms by substantial margins, than do conventional lecture-discussion and text-based approaches.

Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005, p.646

Pedagogy for student engagement (ctd)

• ‘Active learning’

• Generating a ‘buzz’

• Social engagement

• Student networking

• Formative assessment (again)

• Supporting development of personal attributes and qualities

• Staff-student interaction

Student part-time employment

• Blurring of FT and PT study: implications for

- curriculum design

- funding

- performance indicators

• Exploiting part-time employment:

- drawing on student experiences

- awarding credit

- being bolder?

Staff development

• Using the institutional working group

• Bringing part-time appointees into the loop

Close to a third (30 per cent) of seminars in old universities are taught by non-academics. The figure in new universities is much lower (8 per cent).

Bekhradnia et al (2006)

• Academic leadership

What makes an institution successful?

• Commitment to student learning…

• … and hence student engagement

• Management of student transition

• Curriculum seen in terms of social engagement

• Appropriate curricular structures

• Emphasis on importance of FYE (incl. resourcing)

• Monitoring and evaluating, and acting on evidence

• Academic leadership (though in some cases implicit)

Common themes from the literature

You might want to look up …

the reports of the First Year Experience Project

which are on the Higher Education Academy website and can be accessed via

www.heacademy.ac.uk/ourwork/research/surveys/fye

The reports contain a number of references to the wider literature, though these references are by no means exhaustive