Predicting progression using informal indicators during transition

1. Predicting progression using informal indicators during transition Chris Keenan Learning and Teaching Fellow Bournemouth University

2. This session will: • Look at behavioural data to investigate what can be learnt about the correlation between engagement during transition to HE and a student’s potential to proceed • Explore further 5 sets of data 2008-2012 • Attempt some understanding of the findings • Provide opportunity to discuss implications

3. Starting Points • By 2001-2 I was already linking transition and induction experience • had realised that if a student was already experiencing a problematic transition into HEthen a poor induction experience could tip them into leaving • Set up Stepping Stones 2HE in 2002 as a discipline focused mechanism to ease transition to HE, bridge transition, provide and integrate social and academic learning opportunities

4. Problem with timing • Difficult to track engagement of students in the first few weeks of Year 1. • Registers, non submission of assignments, often provide early indicators • But, by the time the information is available it is often too late • I am making the argument that it is possible to identify a correlation between early engagement (in transition phase) with potential to progress • But, the problem is, what can we do with this data

5. First four weeks • Conversation with Dr Randy Swing • Conducted a retrospective study of a cohort of 79 students I was teaching 2007-2008 • Collected registers for the first four teaching weeks • I identified 28 students with more than one absence in the first four weeks as high risk of early withdrawal or exam failure • Exam Board: 16 of those 28 were referred to repeat at least one unit; 2 were fail/withdraw; 2 had left before the exam board; 8 proceeded • Initial thoughts: perhaps this is the holy retention grail!

6. In 2008 I repeated the study with the new intake of the same degree programme this time 83 students • High entry rate students • Collected registers teaching weeks 8 Oct-29 Oct • Applied same crude criteria - this time 17 students with four or more absences during first four teaching weeks were identified

7. I identified 17 students • All of them had a long tutorial session with me in November when they received their first assignment back • I expressed my concern • One student said he appreciated the wake up call • At the exam board: - 7 of them were referred in one or more units - 2 were fail/withdraw - 3 withdrew before the exams - 5 progressed safely • Similar findings as last year, tutorial had not made significant difference – high grade intake • What was going on? • What was the data telling me?

8. In 2009 repeated exercise with a different cohort n=209 • Analysed attendance during 6 October - 21 October and identified any student with 4 absences as high risk of early withdrawal/failure • Identified 26 students – when I checked progression, 20 of those students had left

9. In 2010 repeated study with engineering students– found similar results • Again, even when risks were identified to students there seemed to be little change on their outcomes • Difficult to find out what was going on

10. In 2011 I conducted a more in depth study with engineering students. I ran the whole induction week before formal teaching. During induction week (ie before “contamination”: teaching, practices, procedures, etc) I monitored attendance at every induction week activity including campus tours, ice breakers, etc.

11. Findings: • 92 students: 2 repeaters not included. • 90 students • Enhanced transition support, more keep warm communication, pre-enrolment activities, themed lectures in induction week, involvement of Peer Assisted Learning leaders • This time, I checked for any absence from both: any induction week session AND any absence in first week of teaching • During induction week 40 students with any absence at all were contacted by myself or one other colleague to check how they were getting on • Two said they were waiting for “proper” teaching to start, effectively isolating themselves • 26 of the 40 had absence in first week of teaching • Outcomes: have not had exam board yet but so far 15 of that group of 26 have left

12. What can be concluded: • Self fulfilling prophecy? • How can this be addressed when students are counselled but still don’t change • Started looking at the psychology • What is basis for students’ decision making? • Judgement making • Risk taking • Reality of novel experience vs over-generalised notions • Open up to discussion?

13. Brain development – newer thinking areas (frontal lobes) slower pace of development – 25 years • Psychological distance • Trade-off between immediate gratification and long term goals • Problem: similar to development of motor skills: adolescent gets used to trying out new neural networks – risk taking, sensation seeking, more emotionally influenced behaviour in late teens and early twenties

14. Implications for a new first year pedagogy • Pascarella: late development of higher order capacities associated with cognitive control suggests that college students may need more direct guidance and instructional scaffolding to help acquire necessary skills • Abandon “induction week” move immediately into week one teaching (eg at University of Greenwich) • Underpin with developmental transition approach

15. Learning and Teaching strategies • During developmental transition phase – first year: • Engage in discussions about expectations • Assess and make connections to students prior knowledge and experience • Engage students in challenging and meaningful tasks

16. My emerging conclusions • Need to re-frame first year curricula • Need a new pedagogy for first year experience • Need to have fresh thinking for freshers