The first year in UK higher education:
experiences and departures
Mantz Yorke
Lancaster University
CHEER, University of Sussex
28 April 2008
The importance of the first year experience
FYE involves transition in which the demand on students
may be quite different from their previous experience
The main reason for leaving university was the vast contrast
of teaching styles between university and college. […]
Male, U21, Humanities, Pre-1992 university
FYE connects with other themes of importance, such as
- employability
- assessment (especially formative)
- student success generally
- retention
Origins of the UK FYE study
Study of non-completion for HEFCE (1997)
• Pre-dated Labour’s 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
Co-directed by Bernard Longden (Liverpool Hope University)
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
The UK FYE study
Phase 1
Spring 2006
Survey mid-1st year
9 subject areas
23 institutions
Phase 2
Spring 2007
Survey of
‘withdrawn’
at/before end
acad yr 05-06
All subject areas
25 institutions
The UK FYE study
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
• 7109 valid responses
Phase 2: questionnaire survey, postal
• 462 valid responses
Methodological issues – Phase 1
• Sampling across spectrum v. HEIs high in WP (political)
• Up to 3 broad subject areas per HEI (9 varied areas in all used)
• Negotiation with HEIs (and in some cases departments)
• In-class completion to maximise response (large classes best)
• Needed lecturers’ support
• Paper-based survey, allowing reasonable coverage (but < US; Aus)
• Required c20mins to complete (piloted)
• OMR scannable, save for qualitative comments
• Return in sealed envelope to ensure anonymity
• Reporting: no institution or individual identifiable
• Ethics: use of BERA Guidelines
Methodological issues – Phase 2
• Same HEIs, plus 2 that asked to be involved in Phase 2
• ‘Non-completers’ necessitated a postal survey
• Survey based on one used in mid-1990s, allowed comparisons
• OMR scannable, save for qualitative comments
• Relied on HEIs to address and mail out surveys (DPA issues)
• Mail to all ‘non-completers’, irrespective of subject area
• Return of surveys direct to Project Team, prepaid envelope
• Reporting: no institution or individual identifiable
• Ethics: use of BERA Guidelines
There are always trade-offs: no questionnaire is perfect
Including qualitative data
• Illustrative, not representative
• Partial (both senses?) quotations
• Easier for some to engage with
• Prompts questions such as ‘Does this reflect what we find?’
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
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
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
Headlines from Phase 1 (ctd)
Demographic-related findings (b)
Less positive re teaching/learning …………….
Lower confidence in study skills ………………
Less likely to cope with academic demand ….
More likely to say resources are inadequate ..
Less likely to say staff are friendly ……………
Less likely to make friends ……………………..
More likely to worry about finance ……………
L; NW
L; NW
NW
L; NW
NW
NW
L
L = Lower socio-economic status; NW = ‘Not white’
These are, however, relatively small variations on the
general run of findings
Why did students leave?
Seven groups (factors) of influences
• Quality of academic aspects of experience
• Inability to cope with academic demand
• Wrong choice of programme
• Dissatisfaction with resources
• Finance-related, including part-time employment
• Unhappiness with location
• Problems relating to social integration
Why students leave: Programme not as expected
The timetable was so much heavier than I expected – over
18 hours a week, which was a lot more than my other friends
and was far too much. I was studying [Language] and
History of Art joint honours and presumed it would be equal
amounts of both disciplines but I hardly spent any time doing
History of Art which I enjoyed more.
Why students leave: Wrong choice, etc
I had no idea what I wanted to do so I thought better try
university in case I regretted not going. I made some good
friends so stayed the whole year but I realised in the summer
that I didn't want to make a career out of what I was studying.
I didn't see the point in getting even deeper into debt for
something I wasn't sure I really wanted.
I wanted to do economics but did not get a place as I didn't quite
get the required grades. I was offered Computer Science and as
I really wanted to attend [University] I thought I would try it .
But it did not [suit] me and [University] would not allow me to
change courses so I had to move to a different uni.
Why students leave: Poor staff/student contact
I felt quite isolated in terms of studying. Lecturers spoke
during lectures and then would leave the room, with no time
for questions.
During my entire first year I never once met my personal tutor.
There seemed to be no interest in students’ personal needs.
I did NOT enjoy my experience what so ever, due to the lack of
support from staff. I was never introduced to my personal
tutor and felt like a number – not a person in a new
[overwhelming] environment. Not one of my tutors spoke to
me as an individual …
Why students leave: Finance
Found it very difficult to maintain employment & academic
study. The more I wanted to progress at Uni – the more money
I needed – so needed to work more to get more money – I
received no grants.
I had a lot of debt so had to work a lot of hours to meet my
outgoings. This in turn effected my attendance in class.
[…]
I would love to go back to university but I still have financial
difficulties.
Why students leave: Social integration issues
Issues around being a mature student in an environment
geared towards school leavers.
I … didn’t settle into my accommodation and I only connected
with one of my flatmates. Conflict of interests – I felt peer
pressured into partying every night when I didn’t want to.
Coupled with being homesick, I couldn’t stay.
I felt that living at home excluded me from a lot of the ‘student
life’ that I wanted to experience.
Some sub-analyses featuring
aspects of access
Students’ prior knowledge
Those with lower levels of prior knowledge
indicated consistently stronger influences on
leaving, compared with their better-informed peers
The difference was particularly marked in respect of
their levels of commitment and of financial concern
Access-related findings: some comparisons
A caveat:
Numbers in the following groups are small
• Ethnicity (other than white)
• Declared a disability
and hence comparisons are particularly tentative
Ethnicity: particular reasons for leaving
‘Other than white’ more likely to mention
• Aspects of teaching quality
• Contact with academic staff
• Programme organisation
• Aspects of institutional resourcing
• Lack of personal support from family, partner etc.
• Demands of employment whilst studying
• Travel difficulties
• Financial problems
SES: particular reasons for leaving
Students from supervisory etc. backgrounds
more likely than those from professional/managerial
backgrounds to mention
• Teaching quality
• Class size
• Lack of study skills
• Library / learning resources
• Programme difficulty and Lack of engagement
• Stress
• Lack of personal support from family, partner
• Financial problems
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
Have things changed over time?
The pattern of findings is pretty consistent
1997
2007
6 Factors
48.5% of variance
7 Factors
60.9% of variance
Quality of experience
Inability to cope
Unhappy with social environment
Wrong choice of programme
Finance-related
Dissatisfaction with resources
Quality of experience
Inability to cope
Wrong choice of programme
Dissatisfaction with resources
Finance-related
Unhappy with location
Problems re social integration
Why do students leave? Top reasons
Mid-1990s
Wrong choice of prog
Prog not as expected
Lack of commitment
Financial problems
Teaching didn’t suit
Inst’n not as expected
Lack of acad progress
Needed a break
Prog organisation
Prog not relev/career
Emotion, health probs
Lack staff contact
Lack staff support
Teaching quality
45
45
41
36
35
31
29
28
27
23
23
22
22
22
The numbers are
the percentages
of respondents
indicating that the
reason was ‘very’
or ‘moderately’
influential on their
departure
Colour coding
Black: low institutional capacity to affect
Purple: moderate institutional capacity
Blue: institution should be able to affect
Why do students leave? Top reasons
Mid-1990s
Wrong choice of prog
Prog not as expected
Lack of commitment
Financial problems
Teaching didn’t suit
Inst’n not as expected
Lack of acad progress
Needed a break
Prog organisation
Prog not relev/career
Emotion, health probs
Lack staff contact
Lack staff support
Teaching quality
AY 2005-6
45
45
41
36
35
31
29
28
27
23
23
22
22
22
Prog not as expected
Wrong choice of prog
Teaching didn’t suit
Lack of pers engage’t
Lack staff contact
Lack of acad progress
Prog organisation
Lack of staff support
Lack of commitment
Inst’n not as expected
Teaching quality
Financial problems
Prog not relev/career
Quality of feedback
48
42
42
39 new
36
35
34
34
32
31
31
29
27
26 new
Have (8 selected) influences changed over time?
Influence (ranked)
Mid-1990s
left
2005 poss
leaving
2006-07
left
Wrong choice
1=
1
2=
Programme not as expected
1=
2
1
Lack motivation / commitment
3
4
7
Finance
4
8
8
Teaching issues
5
3
2=
Lack of academic progress
6
7
5
Programme organisation
7
5
6
Lack of contact with staff
8
6
4
What help does theory offer?
Some relevant theorists or users of theory
Dweck (1999): self-theorising
Pintrich & Schunk (2002): motivation
Bandura (1997): self-efficacy
Flavell (1979): metacognition
Sternberg (1997): practical intelligence
Salovey & Mayer (1990): emotional intelligence
Biggs & Tang (2007): constructive alignment in pedagogy
Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick (2006): formative assessment
Bourdieu & Passeron (1977): cultural and social capital
Tinto (1993): departure from HE
Academic
experiences
Pre-entry
attribute
s
Intentions,
goals,
commitments
Social
experiences
I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
Intentions,
goals,
commitments
Departure
decision
After Tinto, 1993
Adventitious
happenings
Psy of
Indiv
Instit’l
context
Broader
society
Theory in this area is complex
My ‘take’ on theory is that we should be aware of it,
but not fall into the trap of assuming simple causality
between ‘intervention’ and student response.
There are simply too many variables in play
(student behaviour is said to be ‘overdetermined’ by theory).
‘… students change in holistic ways and that these changes have their
origins in multiple influences in both the academic and non-academic
domains of students’ lives.’ Pascarella & Terenzini 2005, p.603.
Knowing what we do, we can only seek to ‘bend the
odds’ in favour of student success.
Some challenges facing UK institutions in mass HE
• Institutional approach
• Curriculum design
• Pedagogy for student engagement
• Dealing with the part-time employment issue
• Staff development
Institutional approach
• Sustained visible commitment to student learning
• Managing expectations
• Institutional and departmental leadership
• Institutional structures and practices
• Emphasis on 1st year in resource allocation
• Celebration of pedagogic achievement
• Learning space (‘active learning’; ICT)
Chart 1: 18-20 year-olds from 2005-06 to 2020-21
Bekhradnia, 2006)
2050.0
2000.0
Thousands
NB The ‘demographic dip’
after 2011 (from
2100.0
1950.0
1900.0
~250,000
1850.0
1800.0
1750.0
2005- 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- 2016- 2017- 2018- 2019- 202006
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Curriculum design
• FYE: early start on academic study
• Formative assessment
• Curricular interconnectedness
The holistic nature of learning suggests a clear
need to rethink and restructure highly
segmented departmental and program
configurations and their associated curricular
patterns. Curricula and courses that address
topics in an interdisciplinary fashion are more
likely to provide effective educational
experiences than are discrete courses
accumulated over a student’s college career in
order to produce enough credits for a degree.
Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005, p.647
Curriculum design (continued)
• FYE: early start on academic study
• Formative assessment
• Curricular interconnectedness
• The problem of learning outcomes
• Risk-taking in study, or playing safe?
• The valuing of collaborative learning
• Employability
Pedagogy for student engagement
• ‘Active learning’
• Generating a ‘buzz’
• Social engagement
With striking consistency, studies show that
innovative, active, collaborative, and
constructivist instructional approaches shape
learning more powerfully, in some forms by
substantial margins, than do conventional
lecture-discussion and text-based approaches.
Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005, p.646
Pedagogy for student engagement (ctd)
• ‘Active learning’
• Generating a ‘buzz’
• Social engagement
• Student networking
• Formative assessment (again)
• Supporting development of personal attributes
and qualities
• Staff-student interaction
Student part-time employment
• Blurring of FT and PT study: implications for
- curriculum design
- funding
- performance indicators
• Exploiting part-time employment:
- drawing on student experiences
- awarding credit
- being bolder?
Staff development
• Using the institutional working group
• Bringing part-time appointees into the loop
Close to a third (30 per cent) of seminars in old universities
are taught by non-academics. The figure in new universities
is much lower (8 per cent).
Bekhradnia et al (2006)
• Academic leadership
What makes an institution successful?
Common themes from the literature
• Commitment to student learning…
• … and hence student engagement
• Management of student transition
• Curriculum seen in terms of social engagement
• Appropriate curricular structures
• Emphasis on importance of FYE (incl. resourcing)
• Monitoring and evaluating, and acting on evidence
• Academic leadership (though in some cases implicit)
You might want to look up …
the reports of the First Year Experience Project
which are on the Higher Education Academy website
and can be accessed via
www.heacademy.ac.uk/ourwork/research/surveys/fye
The reports contain a number of references to the wider literature,
though these references are by no means exhaustive