Professor Liz Thomas, Higher Education Academy & Edge Hill University, UK

Building student engagement and belonging in Higher Education at a time of changeDublin Institute of Technology, 22 February 2013

Professor Liz Thomas, Higher Education Academy & Edge Hill University, UK

1. To consider student non-continuation and completion in the UK.

2. To examine the key factors that impact on undergraduate student retention and success in HE.

3. To consider the importance of student engagement in retaining students.

4. To highlight practical examples of effective induction, active learning and teaching and co-curricular activities to improve retention and success.

Informed by What works? Student retention and success programme. (HEFCE/Paul Hamlyn Foundation)

2

Overview and objectives

Continuation rate: proportion of an institution’s intake which is enrolled in HE in the year following their first entry to HE.• The average non-continuation rate was 8.4% for entrants to English higher education institutions in 2009-10;• Non-continuation rates varied between English institutions between 1.2% and 21.4% in 2009-10;

Completion rate: proportion of starters in a year who continue their studies until they obtain their qualification, with no more than one consecutive year out of higher education.• The average completion rate for students entering institutions in England in 2009-10 was projected to be 78.4%; • Completion rates were projected to vary between institutions between 53.8% and 97.2% in 2009-10.

3

Retention: non-continuation and completion

What percentage of students think about leaving HE?• Between 33% (1/3) and 42% (2/5) of students think

about withdrawing from HE.Why do students think about leaving HE?Most students having more than one reason. Top three reasons:• Academic issues.• Feelings of isolation and/or not fitting in.• Concern about achieving future aspirations.When are students most likely to consider leaving?• After Christmas.• During the first semester.

4

Thinking about leaving HE

•NAO (2007) and PAC (2008): Lack of progress and lack of evidence about what works.• £1 million (Paul Hamlyn Foundation and HEFCE) to support 7 projects involving 22 HEIs to identify, evaluate and disseminate effective practice. • The primary purpose of the programme is to generate robust, evidence-based analysis and evaluation about the most effective practices to ensure high continuation and completion rates.

5

What works? Student retention and success programme

•The key message from the programme is the centrality of students having a strong sense of belonging in HE; this is most effectively nurtured in the academic sphere.

•This puts high quality student-centred learning and teaching at the heart of effective student retention and success.

6

Key messages

Student belonging is an outcome of:•Supportive peer relations.•Meaningful interaction between staff and students.•Developing knowledge, confidence and identity as successful HE learners.•An HE experience which is relevant to interests and future goals.

7

Key messages

88

Academic

ServiceSocial

E a r l y e n g a g e m e n t ex t e n d s i n t o H E a n d b e y o n d

Student capacity building

Staff capacity building

Institutional management and co-

ordination

99

Implementation: Characteristics of effective interventions and approaches

Belonging

Mainstream

Proactive

Relevant

Well timed & appropriate

media

Collabor-ative

Monitored

1010

What works process

Implement-ation (activity)

Engagement (level

1 outcome

s)

Belonging (level 2 outcome)

Retention and

success(impact)

11

• Find a person or people near you with the same student story.

• Read the student story.• Discuss and make a note of the reasons

why this student left or thought about leaving higher education.

11

Small group activity: Student stories

Three types of intervention• Induction• Active learning and teaching• Co-curricular activities

12

Effective practice

Induction

13

14

Mature students study skills summer school, Social Sciences

Implementation 2 day non-residential pre-entry study skills summer school for mature students

Mainstream All mature students, all levels and FT &PT

Proactive* All students encouraged to attendRelevant Explicit academic focus on skillsWell-timed & appropriate media

Just before new academic year begins. Develops skills rather provides information.

Collaborative Includes strong social element, lunch with staff and students.

Monitored* Qualitative feedback and review of data.Are non-participants followed up?

15


Outcomes Focus groups with students and analysis of institutional data

Peer relations Developed long-term friendships.Interaction with staff

Got to know programme staff.

Developing capacity

Increased students confidence and skills.

Relevant to current/ future goals*

The academic focus was particularly welcomed.

Sense of belonging

Created cohort identity.

Retention & success

Better retention rates compared to students who did not participate.

16


“...I felt much more able when I realised ‘we all were learning this’ and I wasn’t the only one, and I now had people to share this with and keep me going [...] and they did when I needed it.”

“…make friends, it’s not what I came here to do and didn’t really want to, but it was kind of part of the [weekly] work... I kind of had to... and, I wouldn’t be here if I hadn’t.”

“we’ve kept each other going and it’s all from the very start, from the lunch. Knowing we’d be in [the same] classes together brought us together. We said ‘we can help each other’ and that’s what we did, and we’re all mates and y’know have a coffee and a chat, about Uni and about, well...”

Mature students, University of Hull

17

Implementation Compulsory local field trips during induction

Mainstream Part of academic induction for all level 1 students.

Proactive Compulsory so all students participate.

Relevant Helps students get to know the local area and is relevant to their study.

Well-timed & appropriate media

At the start of the year. Find out by doing.

Collaborative Involves programme staff and students work in groups.

Monitored* Are non-participants followed up?17

Local field trip, Tourism

18

Outcomes Focus groups with students and analysis of institutional data

Peer relations Students got to know each other and support each other.

Interaction with staff

Students got to know members of staff.

Developing capacity

Provided students with experiences to inform studying.

Relevant to current/future goals

Field trips referred to and used in first year curriculum.

Sense of belonging

Created a sense of belonging even for local students.

Retention & success

Progression remained constant (82-86%) despite doubling of cohort.

18


19

Local students felt isolated and that students in accommodation were better integrated: “It’s mostly all the halls, like everyone staying in halls and then local people” .Students felt that the field trip “strengthens the whole group on a social basis” and this in turn “created a positive environment within the class” . “I met people during the day yeah. We did a little run around the city, getting into different things. I thought it was a bit tedious, but now when I actually look back it was just getting people to familiarise themselves with the city which was quite clever.” “I feel more part of the group than before, which makes my course easier because I can ask anyone in my course if I’ve got any difficulties.”

19


20

Implementation Fun, semi-structured approach to group formation during induction in engineering

Mainstream Activity takes place as part of academic induction for all level 1 students.

Proactive All students participate.Relevant It is led by senior lecturer as part of

the course. Groups then undertake projects.


During first week. Emphasis is on forming groups rather than providing information.

Collaborative Promotes peer interaction and group working. Structured to promote mixing.


20

T-shirt induction activity, Chemical Engineering and Advanced Materials

21

Outcomes Surveys and focus groups with students and analysis of institutional data

Peer relations Groups continued to work and socialise together one year later (58%)


Opportunity to get to know a key member of staff.

Developing capacity

Students help each other (44% reported receiving help)


Group working in the curriculum, and relevant to engineering employment.

Sense of belonging

Created a belonging always or mostly (81%)

Retention & success

Better annual retention rates (75%-93%) and compared to other engineering schools.

21

T-shirt induction activity, CEAM

22

“....it kind of makes....you don’t just feel like one individual person on a course, it is kind of like you are in a conglomerate of people kind of thing...I think it does definitely make you feel part of the group or part of something within the year group rather than just one lone person.” “First year is bad because you don’t know anyone....if you don’t set up the design group you have got to make friends, where are you going to make friends kind of thing.....well you wouldn’t usually.....and if it was all individual work. You have to stick around to do the work and obviously if it is group work you are forced to meet people....”. “…I think if you are part of the kind of group then if, if you are going to drop out then.... or if you are struggling academically then you have got people there to support you as well”.

22

T-shirt induction activity, CEAM

Active learning and teaching

Implementation Core level 1 course using problem-based learning in groups of 8 students.

Mainstream This is part of mainstream curriculum.

Proactive All students participate, and group work is assessed.

Relevant Relevant to current learning and team working in employment.


During first week. Emphasis is on forming groups rather than providing information.

Collaborative Uses the academic sphere to facilitate social integration. Staff work with groups of 8 students.

Monitored* Qualitative feedback and review of data.

24

Problem-based learning in groups, Psychology


Peer relations Students worked in groups outside of the classroom and made friends.

Interaction with staff*

Opportunity to get to know staff in small groups.

Developing capacity

Supported to work in groups through coaching and other staff support.

Relevant to current/future goals.

Able to relate to own experiences and interests.

Sense of belonging

Created a sense of belonging.

Retention & success

Better retention rates year on year from 77% to 85%.

25


“I made [friends] through my seminars, really. I got four really good friends, and I’ve just clicked with them straight away, and then we sit together in lectures and stuff. And now I’m working on this project with them and we’ve been meeting up outside of Uni and stuff.”

“[...]I like that you can work together and somebody can bring a piece of information that you’ve never heard of, and you can bring something that somebody else has never heard of, and then you can swap them and find out how they found it and what’s in the research. I like that.”

26


2727

Implementation Divided into groups of 5 students on first day of Semester 1 for collaborative study and undertook team building activities.

Mainstream Group work required in two core modules that all MSE students take in Semester 1.

Proactive All students participate; tasks are assessed.

Relevant They are core modules; also stress the relevance for employability.


First semester.

Collaborative Promotes peer interaction and group working.


27

Group learning, Mechanical and Systems Engineering

2828


Peer relations The majority of students (84 & 92%) either ‘very much’ or ‘somewhat’ enjoyed working as part of an Engineering team.


?

Developing capacity

Team working skills developed.


Group working in the curriculum, and relevant to engineering employment.

Sense of belonging

The majority of respondents (72% & 83%): being part of an Engineering team had helped them to feel that they ‘belong’ in the School.

Retention & success

Better annual retention rates (85%-94%) and compared to other engineering schools.

28


“In the first hour... you were sat in the introductory lecture thinking ‘I don’t know anyone’, ‘how am I going to make friends?’ and they said ‘we are going to put you in these teams’ and instantly there was... straight away there was like 10 or 11 other people you knew straight away”.

“...if I am stuck with anything and they are just good support...it works both ways too [...] and if you have people straight from the beginning that you can bounce stuff off...that helps, because you don’t always need to go to the lecturer and try and find them”.

29


Co-curricular activities

Implementation Group tutorials developing academic skills and working relationships with staff and students.

Mainstream Part of the compulsory skills module.Proactive All students participate; those who

are failing are followed up one-to-one.

Relevant Assessed coursework set through PASS contributes 30% of the module assessment.


Meet 4-5 times per semester; more frequent meeting in first semester. Face-to-face and text book.

Collaborative Emphasis on learning with each other and from each other.

Monitored Attendance monitored and followed-up.

31

PASS: Personal and Academic Support System, life sciences

Outcomes Student survey, interviews, focus groups; attendance monitoring; and data.

Peer relations Students learn from each other and feel more confident.


89% reported sufficient contact with staff through PASS; 88% confident now to ask for academic help.

Developing capacity

Develop skills of all students; including failing students.

Relevant to current/future goals.

Taught by academics from their discipline, so perceived as relevant

Sense of belonging

Shows that the dept cares/they belong.

Retention & success

83% in 2004-05 to 92% in 2007-08.

32


[We] learn how others are feeling about the course and how they are getting on. The atmosphere is relaxed and friendly and that helps everyone have a voice, which is important for those who wouldn’t speak up in a lecture.

Made me feel… that there were people to talk to if needed.

I feel it is a great system to get to know your academic advisor and this makes me feel more involved in the Life Science department. 33


34

Fundraising, Childhood Studies

Implementation Collaborative fundraising for children’s charities.

Mainstream Initially small scale fundraising in class.

Proactive Activities chosen to maximise engagement, including of mature students with children.

Relevant Children’s charities selected to be relevant to curriculum area.


Throughout the year. Promoted in class by staff.

Collaborative Students work together. This has evolved to larger scale activities outside of the class.

Monitored* It is not compulsory, but up to 200 students involved in mini Olympics 2011.

35


Outcomes Interviews and focus groups with students and staff and analysis of institutional data

Peer relations Students are spending more time on campus and working together across levels.


Students got to know members of staff.

Developing capacity

Provided students with experiences to inform studying.


Shared interest in children, and likely to want to be employed in related sector.

Sense of belonging

Created cohort identity and a sense of belonging.

Retention & success

Improved attainment. Progression from level 1 to level 2 increased from 85% to 93%.

36


“…most of the students aren’t spending enough time at the University, they were coming in and going out and we want to encourage more social integration and more of a sense of community.” (Staff)“They really do try and get you to do it. They do lots to get people involved. The lecturer who runs it stops you and questions us on why you’re not doing it.” (Mature student) “Because of the relationship between the 2nd year students and the 3rd year students we see the 3rd year students preparing students for their transitions into their final year, especially making them aware of the expectations and how to manage their time.” (Staff)“Sense of belonging has been increased and you can develop a better relationship with teachers as well as other students. It also shows that we generally care about children and that is why we do the Childhood Studies course.” (Student)

37

Peer mentoringImplementation Centrally co-ordinated, implemented

by academic schools, opt-out model.Mainstream Operates in all academic schools for

all students.Proactive Opt-out. Relevant The emphasis is on social

integration, but matching students and situating in the academic sphere makes it more relevant.


Begins on arrival and extends throughout the first year.

Collaborative Emphasis on creating peer networks. Groups of 5 students to one peer guide.

Monitored Yes.

38

Peer mentoringOutcomes Survey of mentors and mentees.Peer relations 85% had received general peer

guide support with social integration.


31% had been encouraged to seek help from staff.

Developing capacity

71% had received support via small group or individual meetings.


Mentors: 78% increased communication skills and 75% increased leadership skills.

Sense of belonging

19% said the scheme had been important in their decision to choose Bangor.

Retention & success

Higher rates of retention than benchmark and national average.

My Peer Guide made sure I was comfortable from the moment my parents left.

He made us feel as if we fitted in with the students of the 2nd and 3rd years.

She was very helpful when asked questions and thorough with the personal advice given.

My Peer Guide helped people through all year and helped point us in the right direction whenever we needed her.

The peer guides talked to us about the modules, helping us decide … they were like, “Well do you want exams or do you want like assignments to do?” And if we said that, “Well like I’ll do this one because …” they helped us choose. And also they told us which lecturers are nice and stuff like that.

39

Peer mentoring

40

• Discuss interventions or approaches that you are familiar with that would have helped the student you discussed earlier.

• Be prepared to feedback to the group one intervention that might have helped and why.

40

Group activity

1. Institutional commitment demonstrated through leadership and institutional documents.

2. A priority for all staff; all staff responsible for R&S.3. Staff capacity: through accountability, recognition,

support and development and reward.4. Student capacity: through clear expectations,

purpose and value; development of skills; and providing opportunities.

5. High quality data to monitor curriculum performance.

6. Monitor student behaviour.7. Partnership with students and staff.

41

Strategic implications

Contact details:[email protected] works? Reports and compendium of effective practice

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/what-works-retentionChange programme http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/change/SRS_12-13/SRS_Call

Other HEA retention and success resourceshttp://www.heacademy.ac.uk/retention-and-success 42

Thank you

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/what-works-retention

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/what-works-retention

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/change/SRS_12-13/SRS_Call




http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/retention-and-success

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/retention-and-success

Professor Liz Thomas, Higher Education Academy & Edge Hill University, UK

Documents

student noncontinuation

centrality of students

percentage of students

noncontinuation rates

completion rates

average noncontinuation

average completion rate

high continuation