Is the first year experience of full-time HE

1
Is the first year experience of full-time
HE different for disadvantaged students? Mantz
Yorke Lancaster University mantzyorke_at_mantzyorke.p
lus.com European Access Network Conference NUI
Galway, 27-29 June 2007
2
The general plan

1. The First Year Experience Survey a brief
   outline
2. The importance of the first year experience
3. Characteristics of institutional types (Phase 1)
4. Some further data from Phase 1 (on-course, 1st
   year)
5. Some data from Phase 2 (non-returners to 2nd
   year)
6. Concluding comments

3

• The importance of the first year experience
• It involves transition in which the demand on
  students
• may be quite different from their previous
  experience
• In addition to the access dimension, it
  connects with
• other themes of importance, such as
• - employability
• - assessment (especially formative)
• - student success generally
• - retention

4
Origins of the UK FYE study

• Study of non-completion for HEFCE (1997)
• Pre-dated Labours 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

5
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 both
• subject areas and institutions, to inform both
  policy
• development and quality enhancement activity
• Bernard Longden of Liverpool Hope University is
• co-director of the study

6
The UK FYE study
Phase 2 Spring 2007 Survey
of withdrawn at/before end
acad yr 05-06 All subject areas
23 institutions
Phase 1 Spring 2006 Survey mid-1st year
9 subject areas 23 institutions
7
The UK FYE study choices
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
8
Sampling (Institutions as in early 2005)
Post92 universities Colleges
Pre92 universities
Allied to Med
Bio Sci
Psychology
Computer Sc
Eng Tech
Social Studs
Bus Admin
Humanities
Creative AD
Some colleges subsequently became universities
9
Responses
Sent out to HEIs c20,000 Distributed in
HEIs Far fewer, but not known Returned
7,442 Blank 314
Jocular/offensive 5 Yea-sayers
(?) 8 Middlers 6 Usable
7,109 Completion rate of
returns 95
10
Institutional characteristics

• Limitations in the analyses
• Students resident in the UK
• One substantial but atypical institution
  excluded
• in the relevant bar charts
• Marked differences between Pre-1992 Universities
• and Post-1992 Universities/Colleges

11
(No Transcript)
12
(No Transcript)
13
(No Transcript)
14
(No Transcript)
15
Health warnings

• Data are not claimed to be representative
• But the spread of institutions makes them
  suggestive
• Even with a reasonably large number of responses,
• the numbers in analytical groups become quite
  small
• and hence reliability is weakened
• Some collapsing of data has had to be
  undertaken

16
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

17
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
  is
• differentially related to socio-economic
  grouping
• those from lower SEGs are more likely to take it
  up

18
(No Transcript)
19
(No Transcript)
20
(No Transcript)
21
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

22
Headlines from Phase 1 (ctd)
Demographic-related findings (b) Less positive
re teaching/learning . L NW Lower
confidence in study skills L NW Less
likely to cope with academic demand .
NW More likely to say resources are inadequate
.. L NW Less likely to say staff are friendly
NW Less 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
23
Digging a little deeper
24
(No Transcript)
25
Noticeable differences, by SES Management/prof
background compared with supervisory etc.
backgrounds

• Students from supervisory etc. backgrounds were
• less confident about studying in HE
• less happy with HEI facilities for working on
  their own
• less happy with travelling
• less likely to find their institution to be as
  expected
• less engaged with the social side of HE
• more concerned with finance, PT jobs and
  balancing
• commitments

26
(No Transcript)
27
Noticeable differences, by Ethnic Group

• Chinese more likely to have done expected
• background reading
• White less likely to have done wider reading
• White more likely to claim they are developing
• independence in learning
• White more likely to say staff are friendly
• White more likely to enjoy the social side of HE
• Black/Black British more confident that they will
  get
• a graduate-level job

28
Noticeable differences, by Accommodation

• Institutional accommodation
• enhances friendship, socialisation
• gets least in the way of academic study
• is much better for travel to HEI (home is worst,
• other private accommodation is in between)
• but correlates with less recognition by academic
  staff
• Home and other private accommodation relate to
• greater motivation to study
• greater satisfaction with accommodation
• greater worry over finance

29
74 of students provided a written comment

• Best features of the first year experience
• New friends
• Academic matters
• Social side of HE
• Worst features of the first year experience
• Workload and time management
• Assessment and feedback
• Teaching
• Learning-related
• Finance

30
Why do students leave? Top reasons
Yorke, 1999 Wrong choice of prog
39 Lack of commitment 38 Financial
problems 37 Prog not as expected 37 Teaching
didnt suit 31 Lack of acad progress 30 Needed
a break 28 Prog organisation 27 Lack staff
support 24 Teaching quality 23 Prog not
relev/career 23 Emotion, health probs 23 Stress
re programme 22
31
Why do students leave? Top reasons
Yorke, 1999 FYE Phase 2,
2007 Wrong choice of prog 39 Prog not as
expected 44 Lack of commitment 38 Wrong choice of
prog 40 Financial problems 37 Teaching didnt
suit 39 Prog not as expected 37 Lack of pers
engaget 36 new Teaching didnt suit 31 Lack
staff contact 36 Lack of acad progress 30 Lack of
acad progress 35 Needed a break 28 Prog
organisation 34 Prog organisation 27 Lack of
commitment 31 Lack staff support 24 Financial
problems 29 Teaching quality 23 Teaching
quality 29 Prog not relev/career 23 Instn not as
expected 28 Emotion, health probs 23 Prog not
relev/career 27 Stress re programme 22 Quality of
feedback 26 new
32
Why do students leave? Top reasons
Yorke, 1999 FYE Phase 2,
2007 Wrong choice of prog 39 Prog not as
expected 44 Lack of commitment 38 Wrong choice of
prog 40 Financial problems 37 Teaching didnt
suit 39 Prog not as expected 37 Lack of pers
engaget 36 new Teaching didnt suit 31 Lack
staff contact 36 Lack of acad progress 30 Lack of
acad progress 35 Needed a break 28 Prog
organisation 34 Prog organisation 27 Lack of
commitment 31 Lack staff support 24 Financial
problems 29 Teaching quality 23 Teaching
quality 29 Prog not relev/career 23 Instn not as
expected 28 Emotion, health probs 23 Prog not
relev/career 27 Stress re programme 22 Quality of
feedback 26 new
33
Straws in the wind

• Numbers in the following groups are small
• Ethnicity (other than white)
• Declared a disability
• and hence comparisons are particularly tentative

34
Ethnicity particular reasons for leaving

• Other than white more likely to mention
• Aspects of teaching quality
• Programme organisation
• Contact with academic staff
• Aspects of institutional resourcing
• Lack of personal support from family, partner
  etc.
• Financial problems
• Demands of employment whilst studying
• Travel difficulties

35
SES particular reasons for leaving

• Students from supervisory etc. backgrounds
• more likely than those from professional/manageria
  l
• backgrounds to mention
• Programme difficulty and Lack of engagement
• Teaching quality
• Class size
• Lack of study skills
• Library / learning resources
• Stress
• Lack of personal support from family, partner
• Financial problems

36
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

37
Concluding comments

• Surveys are insufficient to solve an
  institutions
• problems
• Data from surveys should be seen primarily as
• analogous to formative, rather than
  summative,
• assessments
• They do however help to pinpoint where further
• investigative (often qualitative) and
• developmental activity might most profitably
• be undertaken