Staying There: Transition and the First Year
Support Services in the First Year
Technology in the context of student integration
Characteristics of an induction programme
A survey of the literature carried out for the Responding to Student Needs Theme found that an 'ideal' induction programme would:
- be strategically located within the higher education institution and managed by an authority that has the power to bring about change and drive policy on matters related to support for first-year students
- address the academic, social and cultural adjustments required of students
- provide time-relevant targeted information
- provide early validating experiences
- be inclusive of all student groups
- address special needs of particular groups
- make academic expectations explicit
- include teaching staff at a personal level
- develop required computing skills and e-learning skills
- recognise existing skills/experience
- recognise different entry points to HE
- be inclusive of students' families
- be student-centred rather than university-centred
- be an integrated whole
- be part of an ongoing extended programme
- be evaluated, with findings communicated to relevant stakeholders.
Further details, including a diagram of induction and a case study of Monash University's induction programme
In a variety of forms and with different names, learning communities are seen as important in preparing students for Higher Education.
The idea of creating a group dynamic to aid learning is widespread. Such ‘Learning communities’ may be created through summer schools, or placing all of one subject cohort in the same Hall of Residence (‘Learning-living communities’), but they have in common Schroeder’s essential four elements of effective learning communities: involvement, investment, influence, identity
The need for, and effectiveness of an integrated student support network is extensively examined. Core strategies using Krause’s Coordinate, Communicate and Connect are explored. Existing systems often appear to be predicated on administrative convenience rather than usability. Full details.
Looking from the student’s perspective, support needs to be both concentrated and integrated. There is often an unhelpful distinction at present between academic and non academic units, and it is argued that administrative staff need more training in working with students. Procedural, functional and geographic consolidation can be achieved using the bullet points detailed here.
Research shows that students’ views on support services provision differ considerably and are frequently conflicting. Another issue is how to get students to access support even when they know it is available. The idea of students acting as peer support to other students within Student Support Services is explored in a case study of the University of St. Andrew’s SupNet programme.
Krause’s Coordinate, Communicate and Connect idea is explored in more detail diagrammatically here, showing the elements of institution-level development processes in first year HE initiatives in Australia.
The growth of large-scale institutions that employ large numbers of specialist professionals has also spawned some diseconomies, especially as far as some individual students are concerned.
The Enhancement Themes offer some ideas on ways in which a more individualised and empathetic approach may be developed for students. The Themes also recognise the impact on colleagues dealing with student issues.
The Responding to Student Needs Theme argued that the importance of support services in the First Year demand that resources are disproportionately distributed in that direction. There was also a recognition of the need to coordinate the approach between and across services, faculties, departments, student associations and students (here and here) and that cross unit employment might be a way forward (here and here). Another suggestion was that the Change Academy or Ed Dev units could be used as cross fertilizers of ideas and practices .
A further suggestion was the introduction of US style media centres that combine library, technology, study and training facilities with students employed in support roles such as student technology assistants and library assistants.
The impact of technology in the context of student integration into HE is explored in a number of places.
In particular the challenges created by large-scale campuses and the increasing use of email and other technological ‘solutions’ to handling large numbers of students have resulted in a reduction in staff-student interaction. However, on-line application and registration have eased accessibility to some facilities and VLEs have helped in communication issues. More details: here, here, here and here.
The benefits of close staff-student interaction are made increasingly difficult on large campuses and with the different life styles of today’s students. There is also an increasing tendency towards subject silos as cross department contact lessens – partly because of increased use of email. The use of VLEs is suggested as a means to providing a seamless service and counteracts feelings of isolation in students.
It is suggested that the ‘roundtable groups’ are used as a way of furthering technology initiatives within institutions. Such groups would be made up of academic staff, technology professionals, students and librarians (more details here, here and here).
One of the benefits of technology quoted is the growing availability of on-line application and registration, which allows easier access to facilities such as the library
Although first year retention is not the direct focus of any of the Enhancement Themes, it is inevitably touched on in a number of places. The need to raise awareness of student support and retention as an academic institutional issue and carry out constant auditing and evaluation of the offer is emphasised. Full details
The Themes' material offers useful suggestions as to ways of improving retention rates. These ideas include telephoning students early on to check on progress and using attendance as an early indicator of integration, and acting on that information. There is also the issue of the lifestyle change required in moving to HE and the ‘expectations gap’ between what students expect and what they actually get when they arrive. Full details.
It is argued that there is a need to raise awareness of student support and retention as an academic institutional issue and carry out constant auditing and evaluation of the offer in order to ensure that what is called the ‘expectations gap’ between what students expect and what they actually experience is closed.
The critical importance of personal tutor support in the early days, which is the most likely drop-out time is emphasised, but the student / tutor communication throughout the year is also considered vital. Research shows that the use of telephone calls to at risk students in the 6th week of the first semester resulted in higher average marks and retention rates (Volp et al, 1998.)
Another suggested method is to feed back attendance and engagement as evidence of developing dynamic risk factors. The difference between intrinsic and dynamic
risk factors are discussed, the former being those that the student arrives with and the latter being those that develop as the student moves into university life (more details here and here).
Student / Institution negotiation model (Ozga and Sukhnandan, 1998) suggests that drop out results from a failure of both parties: students who fail to fit academically or socially and a poor choice of institutions resulting from ‘misinformation’. Similarly Cook suggests it’s the challenge of moving from one lifestyle and learning style to a more independent one that some find it more challenging than others and offers four principle influencing factors associated with transition: academic and social integration; lack of preparation; lack of realistic prior expectations of higher education and personal characteristics. Similarly the work of McInnis and James (1995, 2000) identified 4 factors that influence integration: academic adjustment; geographic adjustment; administrative adjustment and personal adjustment.
Curriculum issues figure extensively in the Themes’ literature.
The curriculum should reflect a set of academic expectations that each institution will require of its students (see also ‘Getting There’). It should therefore be strategically planned, facilitate student engagement with peers and staff and encourage active, collaborative learning. It should also include ‘hidden elements’ such as employability, learning how to learn, working in teams etc.
Peel talks about developing a set of expectations that each institution should be encouraged to develop. These are:
- appropriate strategies for identifying and predicting key transition problems among its incoming student population, and students most likely to be at risk
- mechanisms to ensure the routine collection, analysis and dissemination of quantitative and qualitative information concerning incoming students' attitudes, skills, approaches to learning, adjustment difficulties and expectations of tertiary education
- appropriate mechanisms for addressing problems related to specific teaching and learning environments, where units with undergraduate teaching responsibilities are required to identify and develop both existing and feasible teaching, administrative and student support initiatives for improving students' successful transition to university learning
- appropriate mechanisms for addressing institution-wide transition issues, so that relevant administrative services - with responsibilities for the provision of realistic and accurate information to prospective students, orientation, student services, academic and teaching development, and other related activities - are required to identify and develop specific strategies for improving and monitoring the planning and delivery of services
- feedback and monitoring mechanisms incorporating students, teaching staff, teaching area support staff and administrative service staff, to allow for ongoing re-evaluation of transition problems and of the initiatives and strategies described above
- appropriate mechanisms for collecting and assessing relevant documentary evidence in key areas (including student learning outcomes and satisfaction; course transfer, amendment and withdrawal; changes in assessment practices; academic staff development; and rates of retention, progress and completion) by which institutions can report on the implementation of their own objectives, assess the effectiveness of their strategies for identifying, addressing and monitoring transition issues, and make further strategic responses.
There is also an argument in favour of developing a strategic, broadly based view of the first year learning experience that facilitates student engagement with peers and staff and encourages active, individualised and collaborative learning using ICT as appropriate.
It is important that the first year curriculum includes ‘hidden’ elements such as employability, learning how to learn, working in teams etc.. This requires getting all the relevant stakeholders engaged, including employers. Further details on other key lessons and issues that the Employability Enhancement Theme uncovered.
The role and function of personal tutors is highly variable across the sector, but all universities retain them in some form or other.
The traditional form of one-to-one personal tutoring is in decline as increasing student numbers have made it uneconomic. There are also considerable differences in what tutors are expected to do: in some institutions they are concerned solely with academic aspects, in others pastoral and in some, both. Nevertheless, whatever the differences in their specific roles, all universities retain them in some form or other. More details here, which includes research evidence on the effectiveness of student support.
Academic support that is provided ‘just in time’ is explored in the Flexible Delivery Theme and both that Theme and Responding to Student Needs emphasise the value of PDP in relationship to personal tutoring (more details, here, here and here).
Assessment in the first year is examined in terms of its role as a formative, diagnostic instrument.
There is an appeal to ensure that the types of assessment are designed to fit different types of students, especially those from less conventional backgrounds.
There is a strong argument in favour of early, formative assessment that is essentially diagnostic (more details here and here). Such a scheme is widely applied in maths courses, which use results to determine ‘at risk’ students. Further details on diagnostic tests and the assessment of risk.
The idea that assessment has to be ‘congruent’ with the backgrounds and aspirations of an increasingly diverse student population is explored in detail here.
Student feedback should be sought early on, perhaps through ‘mini questionnaires’ issued mid semester.
Such questionnaires need to be more sophisticated than is often the case, asking deeper and more searching questions of the data.
It is argued that the ubiquitous end-of-module questionnaire can come too late to trigger constructive action, and so fail to offer the responsiveness that is the hallmark of effective quality assurance and quality enhancement. Mid-semester min-questionnaires or mechanisms to strengthen and coordinate informal and incidental feedback from tutors and lab demonstrators may be more effective.
Furthermore, it is important to be more sophisticated in the analysis of questionnaires. For instance, by monitoring student background and prior knowledge of the subject. It could be that 50% of students are ‘satisfied with pace of lectures’, but what if 40% of those who were not, were from non English speaking backgrounds? Similarly, what of the performances of those with different qualifications in the subject? Measuring their results may reveal important lessons for the future (more details). Whatever the case, it is crucial to evaluate any changes that are introduced.
