Briefing Paper Template

Please submit this template to inclusion@heacademy.ac.uk within two months after delivering the seminar.

The aims of this Briefing Paper is to Summarise the key issues presented at the seminar, including the

implications of research for practice. Stimulate discussion, share practice and support the sector’s access to

relevant research.

The briefing paper will be disseminated through the Academy’s Widening Participation Research Service (WPRS). Please visit our web page for more details: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/ourwork/institutions/wp/wprs).

The briefing paper is designed to accommodate both types of seminar:

Those describing research projects and the implications of findings for practice;

Those describing practice and the evidence that informed it.

The Briefing Paper Template is meant to be developmental and we would like you to be involved in designing the template to best fit. We welcome any suggestions and feedback from you.

1. Background information

Seminar title Learning from the Data – using institutional data to develop an audit tool to enhance student success

Institution(s) Nottingham Trent University Bournemouth University University of Bradford 

Author(s) Ed Foster Sarah Lawther Chris KeenanNatalie Bates Becka Currant Ruth Lefever

Email(s) ed.foster@ntu.ac.uk sarah.lawther@ntu.ac.ukckeenan@bournemouth.ac.uk nbates@bournemouth.ac.ukr.currant@bradford.ac.uk 

1

Research Seminar Series: Access and Success for All

r.lefever@bradford.ac.uk

2. Abstract

Please provide a brief abstract of the seminar delivered (maximum 200 words).This seminar will describe research in progress that explores what we can learn from programmes that have excellent rates of retention and how what we learn from this research can be applied in practice through the use of an audit tool for programmes.

This interactive session will provide an opportunity for discussion about our research and the effectiveness of and applicability of the audit tool. Participants will have the opportunity to engage with the tool, interact with the methodology and provide feedback.

3. Rationale

Please provide the background context of the seminar/research including institutional context, internal and external drivers, and contributory factors.The Higher Education Retention and Engagement (HERE!) project is being conducted by three institutions – Nottingham Trent University, Bournemouth University and the University of Bradford, and revolves around the twin cores of why some first year students have doubts, but stay, and why some first year programmes perform better than their peers.

Recent context behind the project includes: National Audit Office (NAO) – retention has not improved between 2002 and

2007. Public Accounts Committee (PAC) – concerned this is due to WP and thus

greater diversity might worsen retention. NAO (2007) and PAC (2008) – Lack of progress and lack of evidence about

what works. Strategic assessments (HEFCE 2009/01) require institutions to report on

retention and student experience and not just access issues

The research forms part of the Retention Grants Programme; a three-year programme, funded by the Paul Hamlyn Foundation and the Higher Education Funding Council for England. This involves seven project teams and aims to generate robust, evidence-based research and evaluation about improving student retention and success. This seminar forms part of the project activity and contributes to the programme’s focus on sector-wide engagement and learning, thematic analysis, with dissemination for all the projects co-ordinated by Action on Access and the Higher Education Academy.

The HERE! project is important because it concentrates on why students stay rather than what makes them leave (retention rather than withdrawal), with the team identifying two strands of the student learning experience to evaluate and consider “what works” within and across the institutions:

Strand A: First year students who have considered withdrawing but subsequently remained (‘student doubters’). To better understand why doubters stay and make recommendations for institutions to embed into first year working practices; exploring:

2

Why some students have doubts about their experiences What keeps doubters on their course, why don’t all doubters leave? Are doubters actually any more likely to subsequently leave? Can we learn anything from how doubters have coped with university that can

prevent other students from leaving?

Strand B: Different rates of retention between individual first year programmes. To analyse programmes that are performing excellently at retaining students, including talking to staff and students, to identify practices, relationships and processes that appear to be making a difference to retention.  A programme audit tool will then be developed by modelling those programmes most successful at retaining students within the three institutions.

Both of these strands will be discussed in the seminar and feedback obtained from delegates to input into the project.

4. Generation of evidence

Please outline the process by which the research evidence was generated (e.g. developmental, research methods).

The evaluation approach was as follows:

Strand A - Student Doubters

a. Pilot Study - October 2008 (NTU only)This was targeted at first year students within a larger Welcome Week survey

b. Main Survey - March to May 2009 (Bournemouth, Bradford & NTU)This was a 40-question online survey actively promoted to all first year students and disseminated by the market research team at NTU and by the team at Bradford and Bournemouth universities.

c. Focus groups May 2009 (NTU)4 focus groups (1 hour workshops, 13 students in total)

Control group of non-doubters Selection of doubters STEM subject doubters Mature student doubters

The initial data analysis was conducted in the summer of 2009, more detailed analysis will look for stronger indicators of key risk factors (see below).

d. Analysis of Students’ Union Leavers’ Survey June 2009 (Bournemouth University)6 first year students were surveyed after withdrawing part way through the 2008-09 academic year.

e. More-detailed analysis of student outcomes Oct 2009 – Jan 2010 (Bournemouth, Bradford & NTU)All student respondents who gave permission for student records to be reviewed are to be analysed to identify students who actually withdrew or remained. This data will then be added to results from the survey to identify factors with the strongest influence over actual withdrawal or retention.

3

The cycle of analysis is to be repeated in 2010 – 11. There will be an interim analysis in 2009 – 10 to help modify the research for the final year.

Strand B - Programmes with better than peer rates of retention

a) Developing Research Methodology (All)

The proposed research methodology is to select programmes with a higher level of retention than their peers and then to survey the programmes for the presence of a range of interventions, for example the existence of personal tutoring and its level of support within the programme.

Grey literature such as course documentation will be reviewed A range of programme staff interviewed Students on the programme will be interviewed or surveyed

The data will be triangulated from the three sources and findings will be compared across programmes to see if there are common practices amongst successful programmes.

A draft questionnaire has been developed identifying a range of possible interventions. These questions will be developed and we will use the different iterations to create a Programme Audit Tool for individual programmes to use to review their own retention practice.

Over the three years, we propose to review seven programmes at each institution (21 in total). At this stage we propose to analyse some programmes common to each institution, for example all three have similar business and social science courses. We will also ensure that some of the programmes are STEM subjects and will survey part-time courses.

We are testing the programme audit tool and are aiming to share it with other interested institutions in 2010-11. It is our intention that they will be able to contribute to its development.

b) Pilot study of two nursing programmes (Bournemouth University)

The pilot study of two programmes at Bournemouth University gave the programme team some practical experience working with programme staff and students and has helped shape the development of the Programme Audit Tool.

5. Related key terms and concepts

Please list up to 5 key words which closely describe the topic of the seminar. These will facilitate the search functionality.RetentionStudent successEngagement

6. Existing evidence

Please describe the existing research evidence reported in the seminar.

Strand A: First year students who have considered withdrawing, but subsequently remained

4

All students over the course of their studies will face disappointments and challenges. In some students, this leads to early withdrawal, in most it does not. Different studies have shown that between 21% (Rickinson & Rutherford, 1995) and 46% (Ozga & Sukhnandan, 1998) of students have considered leaving their programme. In 2004-05, 8.4% of UK students did not progress into the second year (NAO, 2007). Clearly the decision to withdraw, and process of doing so, is more complex than a simple binary "yes/no”; and we believe that there are many lessons that can be learnt from analysing these doubters. For example, Mackie (2001) found that the only significant difference between leavers and doubters was that doubters had the drive and self-confidence to overcome adversity. However, Roberts et al (2003) also found that doubters stayed when they could perceive the benefits, particularly employment benefits, of remaining on the course. These studies were both conducted with business studies students and we aim to test these and other hypotheses on a wider student population.

Strand B: Different rates of retention between individual first year programmes

Some subject areas have lower rates of retention than others, for example STEM subjects, business studies and modern languages have all been cited as having greater problems with retaining students (NAO, 2002, 2007). But there is still variation amongst the actual rates of withdrawal across broadly similar programmes.

Research in this area has found a number of factors that can support student retention. An extensive study by Pargetter et al (1998) concluded that

“…the quality of face-to-face teaching, the extent to which students are ‘welcomed’, their social interactions with teachers and other learners in classrooms, and their early experiences of course advice and support services are the most crucial variables in successful transition” (Pargetter, et al, 1998).

Crosling, Thomas and Heagney, 2008, reported that good learning & teaching experiences can support student retention.

The STAR Project (2006) used a variety of methods as a “…means of providing evaluated examples of good practice in managing student transition” (Cook, Rushton and Macintosh, 2006, p5). They illustrate this through the use of case studies and an induction audit tool to support student retention.

The HERE! Project will draw on existing research such as this, to inform their research on programmes with better than peer rates of retention.

7. Research findings / New evidence

Please describe any new findings or evidence reported in the seminar/research.

Key Findings by Institution

Nottingham Trent University

Student Transition Survey243 (37%) of the 656 respondents had considered leaving during their time at university

5

so far.

Respondent Demographics 62% of respondents were females, 38% males 67% were aged 19 – 21, 17% 18 or under, 16% were 22+ 94% were from the UK, 6% from overseas 80% classified themselves as White - British, the next largest group was Indian,

with the remaining students spread over another 16 groups 6% stated that they had a disability 49% currently live in university halls, 15% are in the private rented sector, 14% in

private halls of residence, 11% with relatives and 11% in their own home 64% were living independently for the first time

What has made students consider leaving NTU?

Reasons why students considered leaving (NTU)

HERE Project March - May 2009 (263 responses from 219 individual respondents)

112

3828 26 22

137 7 7 3

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Course-related issues

Student lifestyle (accomm

odation & s...

Finance

Personal incidents/ problems

Personal /Emotional

Homesick/ M

issing family

Other

Doubts about future goals

Lack of support

location

Series1

263 reasons were given altogether by 219 individual respondents (1.2 reasons per student). The figures indicate the number of times a reason was given.

1. Course-related factors2. Student Lifestyle3. Financial reasons4. Personal Incidents/ Problems5. Personal/ Emotional6. Homesick/ Missing Family7. Doubts about Future Goals8. Lack of Support9. Location

What has helped you students to stay at NTU?

6

Reasons why Student Doubters stay at University

HERE Project March - May 2009 NTU data 198 responses from 171 first year respondents

55

3428 27

24

14

7 63

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Suppo

rt fr

om fr

iend

s & fa

mily

Futu

re g

oals/

em

ploy

men

t

Deter

minat

ion/

inte

rnal fa

ctor

s

Adapt

ing

to C

ours

e/ U

nive

rsity

Lack

opt

ions

/ har

d to

tran

sfer

/ cos

t

Suppo

rt fr

om In

stitu

tiona

l Sta

ffOth

er

Fina

ncia

l Diffi

culti

es R

esolve

d

Chang

ed C

ours

e

171 students gave comments about what had helped them stay; in total they made 198 points (1.1 reasons per student).

1. Support from friends & family 2. Future goals/ employment3. Determination/ internal factors4. Adapting to Course/ University5. Lack options/ hard to transfer/ cost6. Support from Institutional Staff7. Financial Difficulties Resolved8. Changed Course

For the above two sections further commentary about the listed categories can be obtained by contacting Sarah Lawther sarah.lawther@ntu.ac.uk

Impact of Student Demographics on incidence of doubtingFemale students were more likely to consider withdrawing than male, and there was a general trend that as students aged they tended to be more likely to doubt. 50% of students who declared that they had a disability were more likely to have doubts. 39% of international respondents had considered withdrawing, 2% higher than the 37% of UK doubters. NTU uses 18 different ethnic descriptors; the largest of these (White-British) had a doubt rate of 36%, marginally below the average. The highest incidence of doubting was amongst the five students of Mixed-Black Caribbean and White origins (80% doubt rate), but the numbers are so small that they ought to be treated with care. Amongst the four Asian or Asian British – Bangladeshi students, none had considered leaving. 48% of respondents to the survey stated that they were the first person in their immediate family to come to university, 39% of them had doubts compared to 35% amongst those for whom other members of the family had already experienced higher

7

education.

AccommodationLiving away from home appeared to have no impact on the incidence of doubting. Students living with relatives were least likely to have doubts and those in private halls most likely.

Entry RouteStudents entering through clearing were more likely to have doubts.

Accuracy of information from the University36 students (5%) found that the information was either ‘not very accurate’ or ‘very inaccurate’. Although the numbers are small, 73% and 67% of students in these groups had doubts about being at University, against 37% who found it ‘reasonably accurate’ and only 27% of those who found it ‘very accurate’.

Understanding the nature of higher educationOnly 52% of respondents felt that since coming to university, anyone had explained the difference between learning at university and earlier educational institutions. Amongst these students 33% had considered leaving whereas 42% of those who had not been informed about the differences had done so.

Furthermore, when asked how much they understand the differences between HE and other systems of education, 62% of those who didn’t understand the differences had doubts, against 38% who understood a little and 30% of those who understood in detail.

Coping with studiesThose students finding their studies the hardest to cope with were more likely to have doubts than those who were coping within their comfort zones. When asked to report how hard they were working, those working the hardest were slightly more likely than average to have doubts, those not working hard at all were much more likely to have doubts and the group with the lowest level of doubts were those who reported to be working fairly hard.

Academic OutcomesThose students aiming for higher grades at the end of the first year and upon graduation were less likely to have doubts.

Academic tutors/ Pastoral supportThe small number of students with very regular contact with tutors (at least fortnightly) had the lowest levels of doubt (27% incidence) whereas there was very little difference between those who saw their tutors weekly, monthly or less than monthly.

Mode of studyThe very small number of part-time respondents (14 students) were more likely to have doubts than their full-time counterparts.

CampusNTU has three academic campuses. Doubt rates were 38% at the main city centre campus, 37% for the smaller suburban campus and 35% at the much smaller agricultural site.

Testing Student Satisfaction about the learning environment with the incidence of doubting

All students were asked to evaluate the importance of 17 academic and student lifestyle factors, for example ‘I have enthusiastic lecturers’. They were then also asked to what

8

extent they agreed with the statement on a scale of 1 – 5 (1 –disagree strongly, 5 – agree strongly). In the next section we describe this agreement as ‘satisfaction’ with the experience. Whilst strictly, we asked students ‘how much did you agree’, not ‘how much are you satisfied’, we feel that using the term ‘satisfaction’ makes the next section more readable than ‘the extent to which the participant agreed with the statement’.

NTU Student Satisfaction compared to Experience– all students ig

On average

In 15 of the 17 areas, students report a higher importance than satisfaction. Satisfaction is, on average, 12% lower than importance for this group of all students.

For example, in response to the statement ‘My subject is interesting’, 91% of all students

In 15 of the 17 areas, students report a higher importance than satisfaction. Satisfaction is, on average, 12% lower than importance for this group of all students. For example, in response to the statement ‘My subject is interesting’, 91% of all students report that it’s important that the subject is interesting and 85%, report that their subject has been interesting so far. The two areas where students indicate a higher level of satisfaction than importance are against the measures ‘I have an enjoyable social life’ and ‘my fellow students are supportive’. It is also interesting to note that this phenomenon is almost repeated in a third area ‘my family is supportive’; 83% of students report that their family is supportive and 84%, that having a supportive family is important. These differences between the importance and satisfaction about social factors are repeated in both the doubters and non-doubters results.

We would tentatively suggest that this strengthens the case for more consideration to the importance of social and lifestyle factors within institutions.

The largest gaps between importance and satisfaction are those associated with having enough money (27%), quality of feedback (24%) and course organisation (22%).

Non-Doubters413 students (63%) reported that they had not considered withdrawing from their course. We found that across all measures they had rated both importance and satisfaction more highly than doubters. Also the gap between importance and experience was relatively low, on average only 8%.

NTU Student Satisfaction compared to Experience– non-doubters

9

67%

68%

68%

68%

73%

74%

74%

77%

80%

81%

81%

82%

83%

84%

87%

89%

91%

49%

60%

50%

70%

74%

59%

47%

66%

59%

57%

59%

63%

67%

83%

82%

86%

85%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

I feel valued by teaching staff

Assessment on my course is what I expected

I know where to go if I have a problem

My fellow students are supportive

I have an enjoyable social life

I like where I am living

I'll have enough money to finish my course

Lecturers are accessible

My taught sessions are interesting

Feedback on my work is useful

My course is well organised

I'm confident that I can cope with my studies

I have enthusiastic lecturers

My family is supportive

I have easy acess to University resources

Completing my degree will help me achieve future goals

My subject is interesting

Agree

Importance

71%

72%

69%

71%

73%

75%

76%

79%

83%

84%

83%

88%

85%

85%

90%

92%

94%

58%

67%

55%

77%

81%

65%

55%

74%

68%

64%

66%

78%

75%

88%

84%

91%

92%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

I feel valued by teaching staff

Assessment on my course is what I expected

I know where to go if I have a problem

My fellow students are supportive

I have an enjoyable social life

I like where I am living

I'll have enough money to finish my course

Lecturers are accessible

My taught sessions are interesting

Feedback on my work is useful

My course is well organised

I'm confident that I can cope with my studies

I have enthusiastic lecturers

My family is supportive

I have easy acess to University resources

Completing my degree will help me achieve future goals

My subject is interesting

Agree

Importance

The largest gaps between importance and satisfaction were the same as for the group as a whole: money (21%), quality of feedback (20%) and course organisation (17%).

Student DoubtersDoubters have lower scores in both importance and actual satisfaction. Furthermore the gap between importance and satisfaction is much larger (21% difference). We might expect a lower level of satisfaction, but it’s interesting to see a lower score on importance too. This suggest a level of semi-detachedness, that students don’t feel as invested in their experience as their non-doubting peers, or may reflect that students were feeling more negative about the experience and so found it harder to score anything highly.

NTU Student Satisfaction compared to Experience – Doubters

60%

61%

67%

65%

72%

72%

70%

74%

75%

76%

79%

73%

78%

82%

84%

83%

86%

34%

46%

40%

58%

61%

49%

33%

54%

43%

44%

48%

39%

53%

76%

78%

77%

73%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

I feel valued by teaching staff

Assessment on my course is what I expected

I know where to go if I have a problem

My fellow students are supportive

I have an enjoyable social life

I like where I am living

I'll have enough money to finish my course

Lecturers are accessible

My taught sessions are interesting

Feedback on my work is useful

My course is well organised

I'm confident that I can cope with my studies

I have enthusiastic lecturers

My family is supportive

I have easy acess to University resources

Completing my degree will help me achieve future goals

My subject is interesting

Agree

Important

The largest gaps have a slightly different ordering. Once again money is the largest (37%), but second is confidence that students can cope (34%) and two factors are joint 3rd with a 32% gap: feedback and interesting sessions.

Some analysis of the impact of satisfaction on propensity to have doubts

10

When each of the 17 factors are analysed, it is very apparent that if a student rates the experience more negatively, they are more likely to be a doubter.

For example, 63% of students who disagreed with the statement ‘my course is well organised’ had doubts about being at university. 40% of those who answered neutrally had doubts and only 30% who answered the statement positively were doubters. Therefore, those students who answered the question negatively were more than twice as likely to have considered withdrawing from university.

On average across all 17 statements:

63% of students who disagreed with a statement were likely to be doubters 45% of students who answered neutrally were doubters 30% of students who answered positively were doubters

There appears to be therefore a relationship between a poorer level of satisfaction and having doubts; whilst this is clearly stating the obvious, it’s interesting to see the actual numerical difference.

However, some individual factors appear to have a stronger impact on the likelihood of having doubts. For example, 93% of those students who do not find their subject interesting are doubters, whereas only 53% of students who do not know where to go if they have a problem have doubts.

Focus groups (NTU)May 2009A selection of students who had agreed to take part in further research in the HERE Transition Survey were contacted by email and invited to take part in a focus group to talk more about their experiences. These students were selected from the groups who had doubts, but remained and those who had not doubted in the first place.

Student doubters who had decided to stay

Fundamentally the messages about doubters and non-doubters identified in the main survey were reinforced by the focus groups.

There was a spectrum of reasons why students who had doubts subsequently decided to stay, ranging from those who felt they had no choice to do otherwise to those that had made a positive decision to stay.

The following features were particularly noticeable: Placement opportunities were a motivator to stay for some Doubters were less likely to have developed supportive relationships with staff or

other students Negative reasons due to perceived last chances or levels of debt motivated some

doubters to remain Doubters were less likely to feel that they belonged in the university environment Both doubters and non-doubters had finance worries, but doubters also felt that

they weren’t receiving good value for money

Bournemouth University

Early findings from the research suggest that the following areas require consideration during students’ transition into Higher Education:

• Information prior to arrival e.g. course information, Stepping Stones 2HE• Support (pastoral, academic and financial)

11

• Opportunities to form friendships – increasing a sense of belonging• Academic expectations of students – independent study new to most• Information overload• The role of personal tutors• Working in partnership with the Students Union

University of Bradford

The Student Transition Survey revealed that:

• 29% of respondents had considered withdrawing at some point during their first year at Bradford

• 71 % had never considered leaving• 23% have considered leaving but since decided to stay• 4 % had not made their minds up yet as to their future plans

Factors that made students consider leaving and those that helped them to stay were presented and it was noted that these were broadly similar to the findings at NTU and BU, although some issues relating to the City and social opportunities may be more prevalent at Bradford. The data presented then focused on staff engagement issues, which appears to suggest the importance of spending time engaging with students. Although at Bradford issues relating to staff did not feature as a very common reason for students who had considered leaving university, when looking at what had helped students to stay on the course, approximately a fifth of responses included tutor/staff support or interaction as a factor. Although many of our students provided positive comments about staff, when asked about improvements to academic or pastoral support a significant number of respondents suggested items related to staff engagement. Issues of time, access and availability were common, including wanting more regular/structured meetings but items relating to approach or attitude were also important – such as:

• A more personal approach – talking to students ‘at their level’ or as friends• Being hands on, proactive• Taking an interest and make/keep in contact• Valuing the students• Being responsible – reply to emails and keep agreed commitments

8. Application / Outcomes of research findings

Please identify any application or outcomes of research findings. This box may be particularly relevant to those seminars which use research to inform practice.The data accumulated during the first year of the HERE! project, generally confirms findings of our previous research projects and the wider literature, regarding key themes around transition and induction to HE. However, the focus of the project on the core themes of "what works" in terms of encouraging doubters to stay at university, and "what works" on courses that perform better than their peers in terms of retention, has provided the project team with real insight into key issues. Research into reasons why doubters choose to stay at university is still ongoing and early indications from surveys will be explored more thoroughly through individual interviews. None of the findings so far are necessarily a surprise, nevertheless, how to address the underlying issues and drive change is a challenge. It is perhaps useful to theme the issues in order to provide a useful starting point to think about what does work and what makes a difference. Some of the issues can be addressed by provision of better pre-entry information and guidance. Some of the issues can be addressed by ensuring that systems are in place to value the individual, often done through a personal tutorial role. Some issues can be addressed by ensuring that

12

adequate and effective academic support is in place to ensure that students are adequately prepared for early assessments, and to learn from effective, well developed and prompt feedback. Some of the issues can be addressed by fostering an environment that values peer to peer relationships and that has provision for strong tutor/student relationships. In addition, Bournemouth found that engaging with extra curricula activities such as volunteering and leadership awards, had a very positive impact on decisions to remain at the university. It is then interesting to look at other factors that influenced the doubters to stay particularly in the terms of different engagement strategies adopted. For example those that stated the influence of friends, flatmates and course mates has led us to question more deeply the role of friendship development and we are therefore undertaking further research into the psycho/social aspects of friendship and what friendship provides in terms of social support. In addition some students felt that receiving help and support from the university and lecturers helped encourage them to stay and our research indicates that the relationship between student and personal tutor is pivotal in the early experience and decision making phase - where the relationship works the influence is incredibly positive, yet there is not consistent personal tutor provision. However, applying the understandings and knowledge gained to practice and how to make change a reality is our challenge, particularly in cases of policy development and systems, which often require time to embed. Nevertheless, an example of positive change can be seen in the area of pre-entry information and guidance. For example, where students indicate that a wrong choice of course made them consider leaving, questions can be raised about: the type of information provided and how it is expressed, whether the student had informed insight into the content and structure of the course, whether student motivation during the transition period had been optimised by the provision of directed and structured learning activities, whether the first week had been effective in terms of stimulating interest and curiosity, whether enough consideration had been given to providing opportunities to develop strong social and academic integration and, critically, whether there is empathic and effective staff engagement with first year students.

9. Implications for policy and practice

Please identify any implications for policy and practice for different stakeholder groups such as academics, widening-participation/disability/equality and diversity practitioners, senior managers, policy makers, students, sector organisations.In research at Bournemouth, we have been talking to staff involved with first year students, and students themselves. We asked students about their early experiences and what had made positive influences on their motivations and decisions to remain at university. We asked staff to reflect on their thoughts about issues to do with information giving during transition and induction. We also asked staff to think about policy change that they would advise senior management to make. Staff were keen to avoid actions that would promote dependency but, not sure about how to help students in transition between earlier learning and self managed learning at university. This was raised by students as well, who expressed it in terms of not understanding why they had so little contact time. However, some staff felt that the institution valued developing research profiles in favour of time spent developing relationships with students - a potential conflict with university mission. Our interviews with students and staff revealed a lack of consistency of experience across tutorial groups - with clear implications for staff development and departmental policy. Students expressed that they had been overwhelmed with information at the start of the course, staff were frustrated that students were not 'absorbing' information, either because they were excited about starting the course and filtering out information that

13

the university believed to be important, or, that they just did not have the cognitive skills required at that stage. Clearly, there are implications here for the management of transition and induction, ensuring that information giving is at the appropriate level and at the appropriate time - phasing information in order to ensure that it has some context for students, for example, providing detailed library induction when assignments are set. There are further implications in terms of improved communication between staff and senior management, more contact time with students - frontloaded time into the first term with reduced contact being phased in, plus group size was found to matter and staff wanted more engagement of management at curriculum planning level. Other staff mentioned a need to improve student selection processes and more adherence to entry qualifications to avoid students being accepted to the course who could subsequently struggle or fail. Once again, these appear to be common sense views and idealistic, however, staff considered them to be aspirational, and achievable if there was closer integration of all aspects of student university experience. One example was that the curriculum should be developmental and not punitive in the first few weeks including introducing developmental learning through formative assessment in the first term, rather than imposing high risk assessment strategies. This suggestion demonstrates understanding of the gains to be had by integrating confidence building strategies within the curriculum. There are therefore institutional implications in terms of re-thinking the aims and objectives of induction week, the aims and objectives of first year assessment, and in drawing together the experience of staff and expectations of students into a framework that works. Other issues that were raised at the seminar included: how to develop curriculum to support doubters, who holds accountability, how to engage staff and raise awareness and Quality Assurance implications (interviews with staff and students revealed a lack of consistency of provision across even a single cohort) such as personal tutor provision, timetabling and feedback processes. Clearly all these have implications for staff development and resources, policy development and change management through the complete cycle of student selection, transition support, induction week, curriculum design and provision of extra curricula activities.

10. Institutional change

Please identify how the research evidence contributes to an inclusive institutional culture.

A proposed output of the HERE! project is a Programme Audit Tool. The tool will exemplify examples of good practice to achieve change in terms of what works. The content of the tool will describe outcomes of the research being undertaken for the HERE! project and describe activities and strategies that appear to work. For example in terms of improving pre-entry Information and Guidance, there is evidence that the provision of Stepping Stones 2HE, an on-line transition resource at Bournemouth University, has had a major impact on improved retention where students engage with the learning activities prior to starting at university. Consequently, it is now embedded in the University Education Enhancement Strategy as an underpinning approach to enhancing the experience of first year students. This is inclusive in the sense that provision is being rolled out to ensure that all new students will benefit from it, plus, it is designed to meet the needs of every new student, whatever their background. It contains an About You survey that allows the student to communicate their expectations about starting at university, their reflections on their own learning experiences, and to ask a burning question, all of which provides space for individual and personal engagement with their own transition. This is just one example, but it demonstrates the sort of implications

14

practitioners may encounter in terms of influencing change. Research demonstrates that effective pre-entry information and guidance improves confidence and early retention and is therefore worth the investment. But, this, and/or similar interventions, depends on a fully integrated institutional approach to: developing the learning resources, getting the buy-in of staff at course level, getting the buy-in of senior staff, integration of systems between Registry and Information Systems, integration of pre-entry learning and early curriculum, and providing a format to students that is engaging and accessible.

11.Emerging themes

Please detail the discussion topics or themes that were raised by delegates during the course of the seminar.

The seminar was interactive throughout and focused on four key areas of improving retention and success as outlined by the Higher Education Academy: the curriculum is designed and delivered to promote the success of all students; institutions and partnerships ensure that students are sufficiently prepared to make the transition into higher education; the student experience is managed and co-ordinated to promote student success and formal and informal extra-curricular activities support students and promote their engagement in HE. Presentations based on data collected and analysed in the three institutions were delivered for these areas with group discussion and feedback for each part as well as delegates providing examples of initiatives in their own institutions. Key discussions considered student ‘doubters’ and reasons why students had decided to stay as well as how institutions can empower students, identify those that might be ‘at risk’, the role of staff and how student engagement could be defined.

Positive feedback was received both during and after the event and notable issues that came from the day were suggestions for further data regarding ‘doubters’ such as at what stage in the year they had considered leaving, what had triggered their doubts and when, how severe the level of doubt was and what made doubts ‘serious’, and what their prior expectations had been before entering university.

Other themes that emerged from the seminar involved: if project data was cross referenced with other course/module surveys for consistency; considering courses with compulsory attendance for comparison; preparedness and training of teaching staff – focusing on how they engage with learners and ensuring they know how to deal with issues or refer students on; and managing withdrawals positively – not all decisions to leave are negative, therefore institutional attitude needs to change and it be made easier for students to return if they wish to.

Participants were also given the opportunity to engage with and discuss the effectiveness and applicability of the project’s audit tool and to provide feedback. Comments involved using less closed questions, considering the complexity in different programmes and needing more specificity. Other suggestions for the tool were to include questions on outreach work with FE/Schools; the use of student profiles, demographics and their previous education; and on staff awareness of student support services and asking how a student would know where to go for help. These discussions highlighted a number of constructive points for the audit tool’s development which will be considered by the project team.

15

12.Bibliography / references (preferably annotated)

Please list any references mentioned in or associated with the seminar/research. Where possible, please annotate the list to enable readers to identify the most relevant materials.

COOK, A., RUSHTON, B.,. AND MACINTOSH, K., (eds), 2006. Student Transition and Retention [online]. University of Ulster, Coleraine. Available at: http://www.ulster.ac.uk/star/resources/(A)%20Student%20Transition%20And%20Retention [Accessed 3 November 2009].

CROSLING, G., THOMAS, L. & HEAGNEY, M., (eds) 2008. Improving Student Retention in Higher Education: the role of learning & teaching. Padstow: Routledge.

HEFCE 2009/01, Request for widening participation strategic assessments, [online] Available at: < http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2009/09_01/#exec>

MACKIE, S., 2001. Jumping the Hurdles - Undergraduate Student Withdrawal Behaviour, in Innovations in Education and Teaching International, Vol 38 No 3, pp 265-276.

National Audit Office, 2002. Improving student achievement in English higher education, UK, The Stationery Office

National Audit Office, 2007. Staying the Course: the retention of students in higher education, UK, The Stationery Office

OZGA, J., & SUKHNANDAN, L., 1998. Undergraduate Non-Completion: Developing an Explanatory Model, in Higher Education Quarterly, Vol 52, No 3, pp 316-333.

PARGETTER, R., MCINNIS, C. JAMES, R., EVANS, M., PEEL, M., DOBSON, E., 1998. Transition from Secondary to Tertiary: A Performance Study [online]. Available at: <http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/highered/eippubs/eip98-20/contents.htm> [Accessed 4 November 2009].

Public Accounts Committee, 2008. Staying the course: the retention of students on higher education courses: Tenth Report of Session 2007-08, London, The Stationery Office

RICKINSON & RUTHERFORD, 1995. Increasing undergraduate student retention rates, in British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, Vol 23, No 2.

ROBERTS et al 2003. Supporting Student 'Success': What can we Learn from the Persisters?,[online] Available at: < http://www.ece.salford.ac.uk/proceedings/papers/cr_03.rtf> [Accessed 2 November 2009].

The STAR Project (Student Transition and Retention) Induction Audit [online]. Available at: <http://www.ulster.ac.uk/star/resources/induction_audit.doc> [Accessed 3 November 2009].

16