Extended Induction Tutorials for ‘At-Risk’ Students

Mark Huxham
Napier University

(Click on the title to access as a PDF document)

SUMMARY

Biology students at risk are identified through the completion of a diagnostic test, which is based on the characteristics of early leavers. Those students identified as being at risk are offered the opportunity to attend a series of tutorials – Biology plus. The tutorials were evaluated by focus group meetings and by comparing the performance of the “at risk” group who attended the tutorials with a group of peers. Students found the tutorials friendly and helpful. None of those who attended dropped out but non-attendance remained the greatest risk factor for failure. The diagnostic test and an exemplar set of tutorial topics are appended.

INTRODUCTION

How best to support our students, and ensure that they succeed academically and socially at university, is a question that has received much attention at Napier University in the last decade. In common with most of the HE sector, the expansion in student numbers combined with pressures from funding councils has meant that attrition rates have become a focus for concern. In addition to such external pressures, staff accept a moral and academic duty to do their best to support students, which therefore generates internal concern to address retention issues.

In 2002/3, 11% of students entering first year study (all programmes combined) at Napier withdrew (‘dropped out’) during the year. An additional 15% did not pass sufficient modules to allow them to continue to the next year. The reasons for withdrawal and failure during the first year are complex. Research at Napier by the University’s Student Retention Project has shown that entry qualifications have a major effect; students with six or more Highers are four times more likely to succeed in first year than those with one Higher (Johnston, 1998). However, this factor interacts with others such as age (older students performing better), family expectations (pressure from family members to attend university being a negative factor) and hours of paid work during term time (with students working more than 16 hours per week at particular risk). Anecdotal evidence from colleagues with long experience of teaching first year students suggests that many of the students withdraw in the first few weeks of the new semester. Such evidence concurs with research highlighting the importance of the transitional period for students entering university. Davies (1997) suggests that a relative lack of confidence in the quality of support provided at classroom level might be the crucial factor distinguishing students that choose to withdraw from those that, despite having similar backgrounds, stay and succeed. Hence good academic and personal support is crucial during the first few months of a student’s university experience.

In the School of Life Sciences, this support has long been provided by a year tutor system. In addition, a system of induction tutorials was piloted in 2001/2002. It allocated small groups of students to individual members of staff in the School. Groups met weekly for the first 5 weeks of term to allow students to get to know academics and to discuss personal and academic issues. These tutorials had mixed success; they were of limited use to some groups because the staff and students concerned lacked the time or because the staff were not involved in first year teaching and so could not provide direct academic support. A different system was therefore implemented, and has run for the last three years. This aims to focus support on students identified as ‘at risk’ of withdrawing, and uses staff already heavily involved in first year teaching and support. This report discusses these extended induction tutorials – called ‘Biology Plus’ tutorials – and evaluates their effectiveness.

RELEVANCE TO THE STAR GUIDELINES

At its outset the STAR project researched, produced and published a set of guidelines based on the causes of student attrition and which pointed the way towards possible good practice. The STAR guidelines relevant to this case study are 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 and 2.5.

2.1 Induction activities should familiarise students with the local area, campus and its support services.
2.2 Induction activities should highlight students’ academic obligations and the obligations of the staff to the students.
2.4 Induction events should provide the foundations for social interactions between students and the development of communities of practice.
2.5 Induction activities should promote the development of good communication between staff and students.

Cook, et al. 2005

THE PRACTICE

The School of Life Sciences recruits approximately 100 students each year into the first year of the Biological Sciences suite. Since 2001, all new students have been asked to complete a ‘guidance questionnaire’ during induction week. This asks for basic factual and contact information, as well as for details of appropriate qualifications. For two of these years, an extended questionnaire was used based on research conducted by Napier University Student Retention Project, which led to the production of a diagnostic tool for the identification of students ‘at risk’ of withdrawal (Johnston, 2000). The tool consists of a questionnaire with 14 questions, with each possible answer carrying a score (Appendix 1). The sum total of scores allows the classification of the respondent into three broad categories of ‘risk’, with low scoring students being those most vulnerable. Two of the questions on the original questionnaire, relating to hours of academic study per week and whether the student had considered changing programme, were not relevant to students in induction week and so were omitted. The remaining questions score the following factors (in decreasing order of importance; shared numbers have equal weightings): 1) academic qualifications 2) age 2) hours of paid employment 3) family expectations 4) whether a motivation for enrolling in H.E. was to avoid full time employment 5) term time accommodation 5) desire to do a particular course 6) whether the university was chosen because it was convenient to home 7) whether the student worries about having sufficient money 7) the length of commuting time to university.

The questionnaires were used to identify the 16-20 students likely to be most at risk of withdrawal each year. These students were contacted by letter, and asked to attend a weekly ‘biology plus’ tutorial, consisting of a group of around 10 students, starting in the first week of the semester, lasting one hour and running for 10 weeks. Each group of 10 students were allocated to a single member of staff, who ran all the tutorials for that group. Attendance was monitored and non-attending students were contacted by phone or post. Tutorials mixed academic support, tied to the teaching occurring that week, with more general support and discussion about adapting to university life. Example tutorial topics are given in Appendix 2.

The tutorials were evaluated in two ways. First, an external facilitator was invited to run an hour-long focus group with six of the students involved in the first year of the project (who volunteered their time). This session explored the students’ experiences of and attitudes to the support tutorials, and reported these anonymously. Second, a group of ‘control’ students, with relatively low questionnaire scores but who were just above the threshold for inclusion in the tutorials, were selected each year. The mean marks obtained in first semester modules were compared between ‘control’ and ‘treatment’ groups.

RESULTS

1 Attendance

Attendance was high initially, but tailed off during the term. In total, 50%, 57% and 45% of the selected students attended ³ 50% of the sessions in 2001, 2002 and 2003 respectively – these students are subsequently referred to as ‘regular attendees’. Between 1 and 3 students did not attend a single session each year, despite being reminded by phone calls and letters.

Non-attendance was an important indicator of risk. For example, 63% of those students who attended 1 or no sessions in 2003 either withdrew from or failed their first semester. No regular attendees failed or withdrew.

2 Evaluation