what works? student retention and success change programme 2013-2016
DESCRIPTION
What Works? Student Retention and Success Change Programme 2013-2016. Institutions involved. Birmingham City University Bournemouth University University of Chester University of Glasgow Glasgow Caledonian University University of Gloucestershire Newham College of Further Education - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
What Works? Student Retention and Success Change
Programme
2013-2016
Institutions involved
• Birmingham City University• Bournemouth University• University of Chester• University of Glasgow• Glasgow Caledonian University• University of Gloucestershire• Newham College of Further Education• Newman University College• University of Salford• St Mary's University College, Twickenham• Staffordshire University• University of Ulster• University of Wolverhampton• York St John Universityfunded by the HEA and Paul Hamlyn Foundation
funded by the HEA and Paul Hamlyn Foundation
Ulster team
• CORE TEAM – Professor Ian Montgomery (Dean, ADBE) – Roisín Curran (Project Manager)– Grainne Dooher (Quality Assurance Manager)– Dr Aine McKillop (Faculty T&L Coordinator)– Catherine Rosborough (student)
• Plus seven discipline teams representing all faculties and campuses (see hand-out)
funded by the HEA and Paul Hamlyn Foundation
Programme Sponsor
PVC (Teaching & Learning) /Chair RIWG
Denise McAlister
Core Team
Programme Director
Ian Montgomery
Project Manager
Roisín Curran
Student
Catherine Rossborough
Data Analyst Manager
Grainne Dooher
Senior Lecturer
Aine McKillop
Programme Administrator
Elaine Fairweather
Arts
Discipline Team
Creative Technologies (M)
Paul Moore, Greg O'Hanlon, Paul McKevitt, Brian Bridges ,Mark
Cullen and Terry Quigley
Faculty Rep.: Lisa Fitzpatrick
Student Partners:
Year-1: Brandon McCann, Aislinn Mullin
Year-2: Conor Hanna, Marana McLoughlin
Year-3: Tiernan McAlister, James McSparron
Art, Design & the Built Environment
Discipline Teams
Building Engineering Materials (J)
Mark Hamill
Student Partners : Karl Lines, Abdulsalam Darwish and Siofra McAleer
Construction Engineering Management (J)
Karen McPhillips & Clare McKeown
Building Surveying (J)
Ken Boston
Student Partners : Grant Bartley and James Haveron
SCOBE T&L Coordinator
Michaela Keenan
Textile, Art Design & Fashion (B)
Alison Gault & Hazel Bruce, Barbara Dass, Janet Coulter and
Stephen King
Student Partners : Kirsty Riddle, Sophie Rathfield, Daryl Jones, Tara Marzuki, Alice Blackstock and
Helen Murray
Computing & Engineering
Discipline Team
Computing (C)
Michaela Black, Adrian Moore &
Janet AllisonLife & Health Sciences
Discipline Team
Mental Health Nursing (M)
Iain McGowan, Deirdre McNamee
Oonagh Carson, Ursula Chaney
Brian McGowan
Student Partners : Gary Rutherford and Elaine Cooke
Social Sciences
Discipline Teams
Law (M)
Alice Diver
Law (J)
Amanda Zacharopoulou
Ulster Business School
Discipline Team
Accounting (p/t @ J)Accounting (f/t @ J)
Dean Coulter, Greg McGrath, Helen Fee, Helen Foster, Heather Keanie, Justin Magee, Stephen McNamee, Ronnie Patton, Michael Pogue and
Judith Wylie
Student Partners: Sarah Tans, Brian McArdle, James Irwin, Amanda
Potsworth and Andrew Ellis
School T&L CoordinatorClaire McCann
Aim
• The aim is to improve student engagement, belonging, retention and success during the first year through to completion in your institution building on the learning from the What works? Programme through the HEA Change process, and to evaluate the process and impact of change.
funded by the HEA and Paul Hamlyn Foundation
funded by the HEA and Paul Hamlyn Foundation
Objectives
1. Use the learning from the What works? programme, institutional data and institutional review to identify strengths and challenges and priorities for change at the strategic and course/programme level .
2. Improve the strategic approach to improving the engagement, belonging, retention and success of students.
3. Implement or enhance specific interventions in the areas of induction, active learning, co-curricular activities in three selected discipline areas.
4. Evaluate the impact of the changes in both formative and summative ways, drawing on naturally occurring institutional data, bespoke student surveys and qualitative methods such as telephone or face-to-face interviews with staff and students.
funded by the HEA and Paul Hamlyn Foundation
Key Principles
1. Change must be informed by the What works findings, notably interventions in years 2 and 3 should be in the academic domain (induction, active learning and co-curricular engagement).
2. Senior managers must be actively engaged for institutional change to be effective.
3. Students must be actively involved in the process of change.
4. A commitment to the collection and analysis of data and evaluation are central to the wider success of the programme, for which funding is provided. Teams should design their interventions to ensure that impact can be analysed both qualitatively and quantitatively.
funded by the HEA and Paul Hamlyn Foundation
What Works? Key findings
1. At the heart of student retention and success is a strong sense of belonging in HE for students. This is most effectively nurtured through mainstream activities that all students participate in.
2. The academic sphere is the most important site for nurturing belonging.
3. Specific interventions cannot be recommended over and above each other. Rather the institution, department and programme should all nurture a culture of belonging.
4. Student belonging is an outcome of: supportive peer relations; meaningful interaction between staff and students; developing knowledge, confidence and identity as successful HE learners; and an HE experience which is relevant to interests and future goals.
funded by the HEA and Paul Hamlyn Foundation
Change Programme details
• 3 + years (3 years implementation; additional year to measure impact).
• 16 institutional teams, with a core team and 3 discipline-level teams.
funded by the HEA and Paul Hamlyn Foundation
Overview of each year
• Year 1 (2012-13): identify strategic issues and discipline courses/programmes; implement changes at the strategic level; plan pilots at discipline level. Activities: start-up meeting, institutional visits, thematic workshops, residential, action plan.
• Year 2 (2013-14): implement strategic level changes and introduce discipline-level changes, and contribute to the formative and impact evaluation processes.
• Year 3 (2014-15): continue to implement strategic and discipline level changes, and contribute to the formative and impact evaluation processes.
• Year 4 (2015-16): contribute to the formative and evaluation processes and the dissemination of outputs.
Built Environment
funded by the HEA and Paul Hamlyn Foundation
funded by the HEA and Paul Hamlyn Foundation
Built Environment• Historically been significant amount of large shared
modules within Built Environment – some decoupling over recent years; however, examples
remain.
• Programmes were selected on basis of significant number of modules that can & are shared between programmes & significantly within semester 1 , year 1 - resulting in:-– Larger student cohorts– Arguably - loss of programme/student group identity?– Less opportunities for students from individual programmes to
form friendships – consequences for belonging?– Less opportunities to be taught directly by dedicated core team
members in some cases
funded by the HEA and Paul Hamlyn Foundation
Context
3 Programmes involved:-
1. BSc (Hons) Building Surveying
2. BSc (Hons) Building Engineering & Materials
3. BSc (Hons) Construction Engineering & Management
• Focus – INDUCTION – Programmes developing specific activities focussing upon
tailored induction and embedding extended transition.
funded by the HEA and Paul Hamlyn Foundation
Our Aims for INDUCTION: Driven By What Works:-
Effective Inductions
• Provide information• Inform expectations• Develop academic
skills• Build social capital• Nurture sense of
belonging
What Students Want?
• Have opportunities to make friends
• See course induction timetable in advance
• Understand nature of teaching and learning & be reassured that they will cope
• Understand how the course will benefit them in the future
• Have a timetable that fits around other commitments
funded by the HEA and Paul Hamlyn Foundation
Built Environment Strategic Approach
• All programmes moving to induction of year 1 undergraduates to week 0
• Provides the underpinning for the implementation of Built Environment Discipline Team Plans as:-– Staff can concentrate efforts solely on effective
and tailored induction– All core staff can be involved – More focussed group activities, trips etc– Stripped back in order to place emphasis upon
and promote ‘Just in Time Teaching’
funded by the HEA and Paul Hamlyn Foundation
BEM & CEMTailored Induction & Enhanced Transition
• Programmes interrelate & module change within 1 programme directly affected other
• CEM - Particular problem – semester 1, year 1 no modules taught by core team members & where student group were on own as programme cohort
1. Week 0 Tailored Induction
2. Introduction of Transition & Study Skills Module in Semester 1 on both programmes – led by Course Director– BEM – semester 1– CEM – across semesters 1 & 2
• promote on-going induction & transition• Include changes course team practices – also library intros; careers etc
funded by the HEA and Paul Hamlyn Foundation
Building Surveying
Year 1
Tailored Induction & Embedding Transition
- Week 0 Tailored Induction
- Extended Induction activities within existing modules/programme
Year 2
Active & On-Going Embedded Transition
Large numbers direct entry students into year 2• 1 day intensive welcome/welcome back
induction –group based• On-going induction activities focussing
on belonging & managing expectations• Embedded 2 modules with significant
amounts group work & modules interrelate
• Groups selected to ensure integration of existing & new students– Aid effective peer learning & to help
manage expectations of income students
funded by the HEA and Paul Hamlyn Foundation
Challenges
• Timetabling – the move to week 0 induction
• Student recruitment/participation– Critical to the development of the programme and
to build ethos of students as partners– Timing may have been a factor?
• Driven by Course Directors but as its induction success will rely on active involvement of core team
Computing
funded by the HEA and Paul Hamlyn Foundation
Computing
Martin McKinneyMichaela BlackAdrian MooreJanet Allison
New for Computing 2012-13• Group Mentors -
Influencing and Embedding the Curriculum• Group mentors (final years) became part of teaching team
- join the community of practice• Interviewed applicants• Induction training session
– Including curriculum design workshop• Periodic review sessions
– Feedback students experience and progress– Continue curriculum design workshops to enhance sessions
• Review student feedback via quiz (77 respondents)
Proposals from Group Mentors
• Split up large group assignment – Smaller practice group assignments which are linked– Smaller groups
• Leaders design range of group assignments– Real world problems– Teaching group review and approve
• White boards in all tutorials– Improve problem solving and sharing good practice
• Student groups design and create quiz questions for tutorial
49.33
45.33
5.33
Did you find the Group Structure a helpful support resource for starting University?
Strongly AgreeAgreeDisagreeStrongly Disagree
020406080
100
38.67
86.67
14.67
44.00 37.33
2.67
What aspects did you find the Mentors most useful with?
(You can select more than one option)
Peer Support Making New Friends
Developing Team Skills
Travel Together
Having a mentor
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
68.00 65.33 68.00
4.00
73.33
Which aspects of the Group Support Model did you find the most useful? (You can choose
more than one)
48.0050.67
1.33
Did you find the first practice mini-group assign-ment useful for starting the second larger version?
Strongly AgreeAgreeDisagreeStrongly Disagree
33.33
48.00
17.33
1.33
Did you find the smaller Group Size model bene-ficial for the group assignment?
Strongly AgreeAgreeDisagreeStrongly DisagreeUnanswered
2013-14 and Beyond
• Incorporate a more sense of BELONGING for the students leaders and the students in year 1
• Embed work from Peer to Peer Support Project and Transition +model [Jane Andrews & Robin Clark (Aston University)]
• Pedagogic Methodology:– Using Communities of Practice or focus of improvements– Implementing iterative cycle of curriculum design
workshops and reflective sessions using feedback and focus groups
Recruit Student Members August 2013 September 2013 Shortlist of members; Interview questions and scores
4 students selected for the Curriculum Project
Student Induction with some inclusion of student BELONGING using the Transition +model
September2013
September 2013 Student Project Induction Session with 2012-13 Feedback
Students project induction and training complete
Students will be provided with feedback from the various HEA workshops highlighting what works.We aim to introduce the students leaders to Peer to Peer Support Project and Transition + model presented by Jane Andrews & Robin Clark (Aston University)
First Curriculum Reflection & Design Workshop - Phase 1 -
September2013
September 2013 Students Recommendations for Curriculum Design - Phase 1
Phase 1 of 2013-2014 curriculum design for action within module
Certain priorities for the School and Faculty will be used to prioritize the generated recommendations if too many new designs or adjustments
Embed phase 1 curriculum designs into module
September 2013 December 2013 New curriculum design;
Enhanced student engagement with new design
Engagement will be assessed in a number of ways: lecture contribution, resource engagement online, attendance,
Phase 1 Reflection & Review Workshop 1
October 2013 October 2013 Reflection on success of new curriculum design and review any necessary changes that must be incorporated.
Amendments to curriculum design
Phase 1 Reflection & Review Workshop 2
October 2013 October 2013 Reflection on success of new curriculum design and review any necessary changes that must be incorporated.
Amendments to curriculum design
Second Curriculum Reflection & Design Workshop - Phase 2
October 2013 October 2013 Following reviews of Phase 1 - Students Recommendations for Curriculum Design - Phase 2
Phase 2 of 2013-2014 curriculum design for action within module
Certain priorities for the School and Faculty will be used to prioritize the generated recommendations if too many new designs or adjustments
Phase 2 Reflection & Review Workshop 1
November 2013 November 2013 Reflection on success of new curriculum design and review any necessary changes that must be incorporated.
Amendments to curriculum design
Phase 2 Reflection & Review Workshop 2
December 2013 December 2013 Reflection on success of new curriculum design and review any necessary changes that must be incorporated.
Amendments to curriculum design
End of semester review at student/staff/mentor level
December 2013 January 2014 Feedback from all active parties: students/staff/mentors
Review of Phases 1 and 2 of 2013-14 curriculum design
This review process will use a combination of online questionnaires and focus groups with staff/students/mentors We would hope that some of student cohort will have that sense of belonging and can actively engage with leaders prior to curriculum design phase 3
Prepare a paper of of the two phases highlighting the focus of change, the reviews and the overall enhancement of the adaptions
January 2014 February 2014 Research paper highlighting the practices introduced to address certain cohort issues concluded with overall reflections and final review data from all parties
This paper will reflect on the process to date and present current findings in relation initiatives embedded. It can then act as a indicator for phase 3 in semester 2.
This paper will highlight the process of incorporating students into curriculum design, staged reviews and amendments needed and the final data collection from all parties involved including engagement data and sense of belonging
Law
funded by the HEA and Paul Hamlyn Foundation
Law-Rationale for involvement in the programme
• The LLB degree runs on two campuses (Magee and Jordanstown). Incoming students must achieve high level entry tariff points but fail rates in some year 1 modules are high. Variation in NSS scores (student satisfaction) existed between the two programmes (2012-13) but was generally high.
our plans for change - area of focus
• Focus is on induction (embedding ‘belongingness’) with the addition of a pre-arrival, pre-induction activity for freshers, tied to overall induction programmes.
• Students will be sent out a case to download from an open access legal database (bailii.org) and be required to read it carefully, make notes (500 word summary/analysis) and prepare for Q & A and discussion, in small groups, with their Studies Advisor
• This will serve as both ‘ice-breaker’ and tie in with the ‘Amazing Brains’ and ‘PASS’ induction activities as useful preparation for studying/reading law and doing legal research at degree level including e.g. court visit in semester 1 and required reading of case law across all other law modules
• Any students who are unsure of whether the LLB is their best degree choice, should also be able to gauge fairly quickly whether they have made the correct choice.
Our vision for the next three years
• PASS leaders will engage with incoming law students in supporting them through week zero induction activities and extended induction throughout the year
• Social networking/online support to continue e.g. ‘UUM Facebook’ page which currently exists – new students are encouraged to log on to this to meet their fellow law students and avail of pre-induction and semester-time opportunities e.g. to socialize, join study groups, buy 2nd hand books, vote for student reps, volunteer for law-related activities (e.g. CAB, Law Centre, charitable fund-raising events)
• Frontloading of skills development at Jordanstown across all Law programmes with dedicated workshops on learning legal skills in weeks one and two (pilot 2013 intake)
funded by the HEA and Paul Hamlyn Foundation
Nursing (Mental Health)
Enhancing Belonging and Identity in Mental Health NursingIain W. McGowan
Why Mental Health Nursing?
High attrition rate (13.6%) in comparison to faculty (7.4)
Annual cost- £99 million
High student satisfaction rates (90%+, NSS)
UK NI
Ulster
Liverp
ool
Napier
Huddersfield
Glamorga
n
Edge Hill
G Cal
Birmingh
am0
10
20
30
Attrition
Attrition
Why people leave
Personal Finance Childcare
Academic Module failure Lack of identification or belonging Content not obviously related to area of study
Professional Practice learning experiences
BSc (Hons) Nursing (Mental Health)
Year 1
Generic Modules
Care, compassion and Communication
Introduction to Professional
Nursing
Biology, Psychology, sociology
Evidence based Care
Fostering Safe and Holistic Care
Shared Modules
Person Centred Adult Nursing
Person Centred Mental Health
Nursing
Total cohort circa 250 (200 adult & 50 mental health)
5 groups of 50 (40 adult & 10 mh)
Enhancing belonging and identity
Pre-induction
Induction Mental Health Nursing specific activities
Semester long induction
Outcomes
Increased successful completion of year 1.
Increased student reported sense of belonging and identity.
funded by the HEA and Paul Hamlyn Foundation
References
• Building student engagement and belonging in Higher Education at a time of change: final report from the What Works? Student Retention & Success programme http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/retention/What_works_final_report.pdf
• HEA Retention and Success Resources http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/retention-and-success
• Student retention and success change programme: Implementing and evaluating the impact of the ‘What works?’ programme http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/change/SRS_12-13/SRS_info