Improving Student Retention in Higher Education

The Role of Teaching and Learning

Glenda Crosling, Liz Thomas, Margaret Heagney

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2008
• ISBN:
  9781134149766
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Improving Student Retention in Higher Education provides a practical, curriculum-based response to the current situation in higher education, where participating students emanate from a range of backgrounds; international and lower socioeconomic backgrounds, mature aged students, students with disabilities as well as those for whom higher education is the first family experience.

Underpinned by research indicating that students are more likely to continue with higher education if they are engaged in their studies and have developed networks and relationships with their fellow students, this book presents best practice examples of innovative and inclusive curriculum, from a range of countries.

Chapter 1
Introduction

Student success and retention

Glenda Crosling, Liz Thomas and Margaret Heagney

Introducing retention and success

In recent times, a significant concern in higher education (HE) is the retention of students in their studies. Institutions worldwide are under pressure to reduce the rates of students ‘dropping out’, and develop new and innovative means that encourage students to continue (Thomas and Quinn 2003). For instance, in all parts of the UK, institutions’ progression and completion rates are measured via two performance indicators by the Higher Education Funding Council, and institutions are penalized financially for low rates of student retention. Similarly, in Australia, student retention is one of seven institutional indicators of quality teaching and learning utilized by the federal government for the allocation of teaching and learning performance funding. It is also one of four indicators used to assess institutions’ equity performance, to which special funding for the institution’s equity activities is tied.

This pressure for retention emanates from the recent, momentous changes in higher education worldwide which have resulted in the movement from an elite system of HE educating a small and limited number of the society, to a ‘massified’ (Trow 1973) one where large numbers of students attend higher education. This has been accompanied by an expansion in the number of students from previously under-represented groups who now attend higher education. These changes have impacted on the HE system in interrelated ways (Radford 1997). A major impact is the dramatic transformation of the composition of the student body because of economic imperatives for a more skilled workforce in the competitive global world. At the same time, governments are now concerned with the quality of the education provided in HE and have put in place quality assurance measures. The increasingly competitive HE global market also means that the institution’s reputation is reflected in the quality of the graduates. In this setting, student drop out from study has become an issue of concern because of the implications for the quality of the programme and the graduates, including the degree that programs can cater for students from diverse groups (Crosling & Webb 2002).

The now diverse student population includes students from different ethnic groups and non-English-speaking backgrounds, international, lower socioeconomic backgrounds, mature aged students, students with disabilities, as well as those for whom higher education is the first family experience. Higher education can be an alienating experience for such students in that their backgrounds, previous educational experiences and needs may result in gaps, or even chasms, between the students’ educational expectations, and those of their institutions and teachers. While discontinuation rates for students from diverse backgrounds can be high, it cannot be assumed that discontinuation occurs because of the students’ lack of ability or motivation. For instance, Given and Smailes (2005:4), in their study at the Northumbria University in the UK, found that students who were of mature age and the first of their family to attend higher education had the ‘academic abilities and motivations that are required to study successfully at HE level’.

Defining retention and rates of retention

There are differing definitions of retention and rates of retention across countries. For instance, in the USA, retention refers to the proportion of students who enroll and remain at a particular institution, while persistence rates refer to the proportion of students enrolled at one institution who transfer and remain enrolled in another college. USA studies show that 51 per cent of students who begin university study in the United States complete their degree within six years within their first institution, and another 8–12 per cent will eventually earn their university degrees via transfer to another institution (Tinto 2002:1). Similarly in Australia, it has been estimated that approximately 20 per cent of students do not complete their courses. However, a new study of students who began a Bachelor’s Degree at Australian universities in first semester 2004 counted students who transferred to other institutions not as drop-outs, but as retained in the system. It suggested that the actual drop-out figure could be close to 10 per cent, depending on the proportion of students who follow through their intention to re-enroll later (Long, Ferrier & Heagney 2006). In Sweden five years’ study is seen as completion, rather than a focus on graduation.

Students who change universities, or drop out temporarily, are not included in UK studies. It is estimated that one student in six leaves without completing (House of Commons Select Committee on Education and Employment 6th Report, in Thomas et al. 2003:87). Retention of students in higher education is estimated to be 20 per cent in the Netherlands, 26 per cent in Sweden, while in Canada 25 per cent of full-time students and 59 per cent of part-timers do not complete their courses (Thomas & Quinn: 2003).

Variation in completion times impacts on the determination of retention rates. Although completion legitimately takes a long time (McInnis et al, 2000:6), there is far less flexibility in the determination of completion in England and Wales, where students who do not complete their studies in four years are classified as ‘non completers’. In Germany, the standard university degree course is nine semesters long, but most students take more than twelve semesters to complete a degree (Schnitzer & Heublein 2003:2). While there is this cross-country variation, it is important to identify the factors which affect students’ completion times, such as adequacy and specificity of student support.

Students and retention

Factors have been identified that impact on retention and thus encourage students to continue with their studies, rather than dropping out. The rate of drop-out is thus affected by the absence of these factors. One vital aspect for students’ continuation is their experience of university, and this refers to their engagement and productive learning (Scott 2005: xiii). While student engagement has academic and social dimensions, academic engagement is reflected in students’ attending classes, their active and interactive involvement with staff and fellow students, and with learning resources (Tinto 1975; Scott 2005). Students also need to experience their learning as challenging, and communication with staff needs to be formative for their learning. Teaching and learning approaches that assist students to interact with their classmates and staff providing them with feedback on themselves as students and on their approaches to their study create a climate where students feel ‘legitimated’ and supported (Coates 2005; cited in Scott 2005:5), and encouraged to continue. While there are certainly students who discontinue their studies because of a mismatch between their aspirations and interests and those offered by their course, a climate that involves students and provides feedback on their study efforts means that they are more likely to study successfully, and the experience of success in study cannot be ignored as a significant element in students’ continuation.

Another influence on students’ academic engagement and continuation is the characteristics of current ‘school-leaver’ students, who are, for instance, accustomed to computers as an integral part of their lives, and electronic communication. Thus, students most likely will have expectations of their educational experience that differ from those of previous generations. Traditional teaching forms, perhaps more teacher-and information transmission-focused, may not ‘connect’ as effectively with current day students, for whom life is permeated with images, computers and more constant and perhaps instantaneous communication.

Social engagement occurs through students developing networks and relationships with fellow students (Tinto 1975; Toohey 1999). In previous times, these may have developed merely by the fact that students experienced a sense of belonging in that their backgrounds and experiences were like those of their fellow students. As, in general, students in higher education had middle-class backgrounds and family experience of HE, they would also be more likely to have understandings of higher education that corresponded with those of the institution (Bourdieu 1988). Formerly, students may have established friendships and networks through membership of cultural and interest clubs and societies on campus. However, as they bear more of their education costs and their income supports remain low, students are spending longer hours in paid employment; more than 70 per cent of full-time students in Australia are employed for approximately 15 hours per week (Long & Hayden 2001).The outcome is that students are spending less time on campus, and therefore are less likely through traditional means to engage and develop networks.

If students are to continue with their studies, institutions need to recognize their needs and provide them with a reasonable chance of succeeding in their studies. An example of the importance of this is seen in the work in the US of Osbourne, Gallacher and Crossan (2004). They state that the study performance of minority group students is related to how marginalized they feel within the institution. As we have mentioned earlier, efforts to ‘legitimate’ and support students are thus linked to study success, and to rates of retention. Boylan (2004:103) also highlights the benefits that arise not only for the individual students with success in their studies, but also for society in general. Students from diverse backgrounds bring to their studies a range of perspectives and backgrounds that provides a richness not only for the curriculum, but for campus life in general (Edwards, Crosling, Petrovic-Lazarevic, & O’Neill 2003). In Boy...