Track and Connect: Increasing First Year Student Engagement, Retention and Success at the University of Sydney

Track and Connect: Increasing First Year Student Engagement, Retention and Success at the University of Sydney     Dr Sophia Barnes, Student Retention...
1 downloads 0 Views 210KB Size
Track and Connect: Increasing First Year Student Engagement, Retention and Success at the University of Sydney     Dr Sophia Barnes, Student Retention Coordinator Grace Macalpine, Transition Support Officer Ana Munro, Program Manager, STAR Team The University of Sydney

Abstract In 2012 Student Support Services staff at The University of Sydney, in consultation with Counselling and Psychological Services (CAPS) and faculty academics, piloted an early intervention strategy to increase student engagement and retention. Track and Connect was designed in response to a study undertaken by the University’s Planning and Information Office, which identified a range of demographic factors that may indicate risk for early attrition among first year undergraduate students at our institution. The program facilitates contact, monitoring and service referral to students identified using demographic markers and ontime assessment and engagement data as at-risk of withdrawal from a key first‐year subject. Contact is made by trained senior students at key decision points throughout the semester. This paper takes a reflective approach to identifying emerging trends in the four semesters that the program has run to date, assessing strengths and considering areas for refinement and expansion. Keywords: Retention, transition, attrition, student experience, success

Introduction   The University of Sydney is dedicated to increasing the number of low socio-economic status (SES) and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students participating in higher education, and to facilitating access and support for these and other under-represented populations at our institution. Forsyth’s recent historical study of The University of Sydney’s admission policies and strategies traces a decades-long shift in the accessibility of Australia’s oldest tertiary institution (Forsyth 2014). The University’s Strategic Plan for 2011-2015 highlighted widening participation of non-traditional students and increased diversity in student populations as a priority (UoS 2010, pp. 36-39). The University has subsequently strengthened and adapted alternative entry pathways and access scholarships in response to this initiative (UoS 2014). However, Tinto (2009) has noted that many students who achieve entry to university are unprepared for the academic demands of tertiary study. Focusing on access is not enough; as Devlin (2010) argues, there needs to be a corresponding focus on building confidence, skills and resilience to encourage student retention and achievement after admission to higher education. Developing programs which are targeted toward engaging and retaining non-traditional students and promoting diversity is an important strategy for the University because, as the White Paper observed, “research evidence shows that low SES students achieve academic outcomes similar to other students, provided they complete their course” (UoS 2010, p.38). In 2011, Student Support Services (SSS) and the Planning and Information Office (PIO) at the University of Sydney conducted an Early Attrition Analysis (EAA) to identify demographic factors that may contribute to early attrition in the first year undergraduate student population (UoS, 2011). The Analysis found that over 550 undergraduate first year students leave tertiary study prior to the HECS Census date, a significant number considering the cost and effort that goes into student recruitment. This previously uncounted ‘early attrition’ showed students entering via alternative pathways, students who are first-in-family (FIF) to attend university, rural and/or remote students, students with a disability, international students and students from low socioeconomic backgrounds were most susceptible to withdrawing from their studies within the first year at our institution. In 2012 staff in SSS, in consultation with Counselling and Psychological Services (CAPS) and faculty academics, responded to this data with the development of Track and Connect, an early identification and intervention strategy for ‘at-risk’ first year undergraduate students. The program was based on contemporary best practice examples and research into student transition and retention in higher education. Its aim was to increase student retention in identified first year units of study with traditionally high levels of withdrawal and failure. In 2013 Track and Connect was redeveloped from an opt-in pilot to become an opt-out support program, a refinement that garnered endorsement from the participating faculties and became the preferred model for future cycles. 1

The development of Track and Connect incorporated an environment scan of documented intervention strategies undertaken at other domestic and international institutions. These included the Early Alert Program at the University of New England; the Student Success Program at the Queensland University of Technology; the JumpSTART Program at Curtin University, and the First-Year Experience Programme at Auckland University of Technology (Nelson and Creagh, 2013). JumpSTART was ultimately selected as the structure most readily adaptable to Sydney’s institutional needs due to its demonstration of the effectiveness of contacting students who are not maintaining satisfactory progress at key points throughout semester. The development of the Track and Connect program from this inception point saw further refinements of evidence-based practice and focus added to the STAR Team’s early intervention model, to differentiate our strategy from others in several distinct ways, including: • The initial use of an academic buoyancy tool, the Motivation and Engagement Scale (MES) developed by University of Sydney academic, Professor Andrew Martin, to guide individual, tailored support for students participating in the program (Martin 2012), alongside the rigorous research into best practice done by internationally renowned Teaching and Learning academics, Professors Sally Kift and Victor Tinto; • Scheduling student contact at key decision making points of the semester (e.g. before HECS Census date) so that callers can provide timely advice and information as a ‘call to action’ for students that can effect appreciable change, from a failure to a success trajectory; • A requirement that targeted units of study would be identified by faculty stakeholders as historical ‘stumbling blocks’ to student progression, allowing the direct effects of the intervention to be reflected in completion rates; • The use of demographic factors identified in the EAA to initially profile students enrolled in participating units as ‘at-risk’ at commencement of semester. One additional marker flagged through engagement or assessment data (i.e. non-attendance; failure of assessment task) would then place them in the priority intervention group for direct contact, increasing the contact rates for those of highest risk. Rather than focusing on progression, like existing institutional processes which identify students who have already failed a unit, Track and Connect is a preventative measure, identifying students at risk of discontinuation early in semester and linking them to available resources, personal support and academic assistance through individualised, appropriate and timely advice. The program aims to send the message that it is good to ask for help sooner rather than later, and that there are skills that can be developed to ensure students thrive in their studies rather than just survive. These skills can then be transferred to other units studied by the student, improving their overall success and progression through their university career.

  Program Methodology

  Track and Connect aims to transform the student experience by bridging the gap between student and staff expectations and helping students source support to navigate academic concepts, institutional terminology and policies from the beginning of their university career. Recent research on learning analytics and optimum student progress in the first year of tertiary study identifies the first 2-6 weeks as the crucial timeframe in which students engage and connect, or conversely, disconnect with their tertiary institution (Brown and Evagelistis 2011). Therefore, in participating units of study the use of demographic information and other at-risk trends identified by faculty, such as a lack of assumed prior knowledge (e.g. Advanced Mathematics for maths-based disciplines) allows early identification of students who may be at higher risk of withdrawal. Throughout the semester, faculties provide relevant, on-time data about academic results, tutorial attendance and Learning Management System (LMS) access, which are combined with the demographic variables to generate priority ‘at-risk’ student lists for contact at the three key decision making points throughout semester: 1. Week 4 – HECS Census date, the last date for students to withdraw from their studies without financial or academic penalty; 2. Week 7 – Discontinue Not Fail (DC) date, the last date for students to withdraw from their studies without academic penalty; 3. Weeks 11-13 – Examination preparation, the last time for students to seek help and reach out to their lecturers or unit of study coordinators for assistance before their final assessment. Contact at these points allows students to proactively influence their outcome within the unit of study, whether through accessing academic assistance, support services, or faculty advice relating to their likelihood of success and options for withdrawal and re-enrolment once the student feels better prepared. An undergraduate student in a large, compulsory first-year unit contacted in Semester 2, 2013 commented: [My experience at university] feels like … there isn’t enough personal attention [or the] level of support I would have expected. This [program] has been so helpful. 2

All students enrolled in a participating unit are emailed at each call point with information and links to University support services and tailored faculty-based assistance. Those identified as ‘at-risk’ are called at these points by senior students who are selectively recruited and trained by the STAR Team in consultation with CAPS. This telephone interview method connects students with peers who can relate to their concerns and captures qualitative information about any factors that may be impacting the student’s studies; tailored support and advice can then be offered by the callers to combat challenges. While all communications are generated centrally through SSS, faculties are consulted for their input on the final product and are expected to provide additional support through referral if students report academic concerns during contact. De-identified responses recorded by the callers are provided in summary to faculties so they have immediate feedback, can see the impact of the program in relation to their students’ progression, and have the opportunity to proactively respond to any trends or issues raised by students. Literature on retention, attrition and the first year experience in higher education shows that the early actions performed by an educational institution can enhance or constrain students’ persistence or engagement within the university environment (Tinto 2005; Thomas 2012, p.8). These actions include institutional commitment and resources devoted to programs that enhance persistence, as well as the articulation of institutional expectations, with high expectations leading to high achievement (Tinto 2012; James et al 2009). The provision not only of academic but also personal and financial support is important to student success (Tinto 2005; Adams et al 2010, p.4). Likewise formative early feedback has been shown to enhance student engagement with the learning environment (Tinto 2005; James et al 2009, p.28). The Track and Connect program either directly incorporates or facilitates each of these key institutional actions, and is also informed by Kift’s transition pedagogy for first year learning. It is diverse and student-focused, scaffolds learning support and success and engages students by showing they are important as individuals to the university. It allows for immediate feedback to students and staff, and is evidence-based with constant monitoring and evaluation to ensure the program’s success (Kift 2008). Track and Connect is an embedded program that operates within the learning environment to transform student experience. Its personalised approach, pro-active provision of support and incorporation of faculty collaboration has led to consistent and cohesive implementation across a range of disciplines, while taking into account the uniqueness of each cohort.

 

Results The evaluation of the Track and Connect program in Semester 1, 2013 found that the redeveloped program had a noticeable impact on student retention across all the target subjects (across a comparable time period to the pilot in Semester 2, 2012). Overall attrition lowered from 19% in 2012 to 7% in 2013; in particular, withdrawal prior to the HECS Census date dropped from 15% in 2012 to 3.5% in 2013, suggesting that at-risk students were being engaged and supported through the program and persisting at university. There was also an improvement in student success year on year, with a higher percentage of students receiving passing grades: 73% in 2013 compared to 67% in 2012. The dissemination of promising results in 2013 to the First Year Working Group and The Senior Executive Group (Education) spurred the formation of the Retention Working Group that endorsed the University-wide implementation of Track and Connect in 2014. Acknowledgment of the program’s early success also led to the creation of the STAR Team in 2013, and propelled the expansion of Track and Connect from 2 subjects in 2 faculties with a pool of 882 students in 2012; to 7 subjects across 4 faculties with 4775 students in 2013; to 24 subjects across 9 faculties for a total of almost 8000 students in Semester 1 2014, including introducing implementation in first year postgraduate and intensive mode-of-study subjects. The program’s targeted, early intervention strategy coheres with Tinto’s emphasis on early action to strengthen retention, cited above (Tinto 2005). The preventative benefits of the program model were noted by a key staff member in the Faculty of Science, who said: The direct connection to our 'at risk' students in week 4 was extremely powerful. The next morning, I had a string of face-to-face conversations with students who we had failed to connect with using the normal tools. In each case, we were able to devise a plan for getting back on track or were able to frankly discuss their options. It was very significant that almost all of these students didn't need to be contacted again. The procedure of identifying students who were slipping behind early was very valuable; we were able to sort out what were fairly small issues before they escalated into big ones.” At the time of writing Track and Connect has run over four full semesters, and is underway in a fifth; and as the program has developed and expanded each participating faculty has been able to individualise the program to meet their own objectives and desired outcomes. These include reducing absent fail rates, increasing 3

submissions of assessment tasks, raising retention across degree programs and achieving high student satisfaction scores. Due to the flexibility of the program in both application and evaluation, it is possible to draw the measure of success through a range of qualitative and quantitative data. However, the overarching qualitative measure has been the feedback from students regarding the value of the personalised peer-to-peer support delivered through the program. A trained student staff member making calls to identified students said: “As a student who wasn’t aware of support systems offered by the Uni in my first year and had to actively seek them out; knowing other students were bound to be in a similar position is what first drew me to the program. I’ve had students feel completely overwhelmed and cry on the phone, as well as those that are very stoic but once you offer them information on support systems, are keen to know more. Regardless of their different individual circumstances, all students I’ve spoken to have ended the call feeling more confident than they started. One particular thing I’ve noticed is that there’s almost a stigma around seeking help, especially with first year students keen to be independent and figure things out on their own, but Track and Connect goes a long way in normalising accessing support, whether it be financial aid, study skills, or encouraging contact with their tutors and lecturers.”

 

Institutional Impact   Faculty Buy-In

  The Track and Connect program offers appreciable benefits to the University as a whole, and to the individual student. It has had a noticeable impact on students in participating subjects experiencing ongoing academic difficulty, who receive relevant and timely contact at the intervention points. This contact enables them to connect with faculty and central resources and support mechanisms, steering them towards successful progression. A Faculty of Science academic said: Key to the success of the initiative was the use of relevant indicators. The closeness of the relationship between the [STAR] team and the academics meant that we were talking to the right people and could give them the right advice, at the right time. Although the program targets tiers of flagged students, it also caters for student cohorts more broadly by providing general information via email about options for seeking help if they experience academic or personal challenges. The substantial expansion of Track and Connect in 2014 attests to the quantifiable efficiencies achieved through the program to date. Faculty of Engineering & IT staff commented: We very much welcome this type of union of academic teaching and student support. Academic staff often feel that any new student support mechanism means additional work and responsibility, but the [Track and Connect] program takes this extra workload out of our hands. The program is premised on collaboration and consultation with participating academics, and recently members of the STAR Team have begun conducting information seminars for interested staff with the aim of increasing faculty buy-in. We have seen an encouraging level of interest from first year coordinators in the Humanities since our recent expansion of the program beyond the pilot faculties. Faculty-based Student Support staff members have collaborated to facilitate this expansion.

  Mutual Economic Benefits

    Based on the average cost of an undergraduate degree and taking into account the rate of first year undergraduate attrition identified by the EAA, the financial impact of annual attrition can be estimated at over $7 million each year. In addition, the Hobsons Retention Project report (Adams et al 2010) estimated the average investment made by a University to recruit an individual undergraduate student is approximately $14 000, adding to the potential loss to the University in sunk costs and income. As an indication of the cost benefit of the program, the total costs of the Track and Connect program for this year are offset by the savings arising from retaining 1.5 students to completion of a three year Bachelor degree. Financial savings are also made by students who successfully pass their unit of study, avoiding fees for failed and repeated units as well as associated living costs due to the time extension required to complete their degree.

  Recognition The program was awarded the University of Sydney’s prestigious Vice-Chancellor’s Award for Support of the Student Experience in 2014 for its proven success in engaging at-risk students, particularly those in equity

4

cohorts; improving retention and success in traditionally high-attrition units of study, and providing social and economic benefits to both the University of Sydney and its students.

Discussion Demographics     At the time of writing we are awaiting full reports from Semester 1 2014, but initial indications suggest that the expansion of the program into new disciplines with idiosyncratic modes of teaching and learning introduces new factors for the STAR Team to consider. The program’s initial success took place in the Engineering, Business and Science faculties and it has since expanded into several Humanities subjects. Looking forward, the team needs to consider whether differences in pedagogical methods will require program refinements. These include what assumed knowledge or academic competencies are necessary for these units; what kinds of diagnostic assessments or engagement data are representative of student comprehension, engagement and progress; and whether other demographic factors – such as language proficiencies – may be particularly relevant. With postgraduate units also recently included in the program, there may be a need to gather data indicating factors that can influence attrition for this cohort, potentially by commissioning a pan-University Early Attrition Analysis of postgraduate students by the PIO; or through the development of a survey investigating student perceptions of the factors influencing their retention and success, such as competing priorities like full time work or carer responsibilities. The team anticipate several longitudinal studies to determine why the program seems to be effective in influencing students. Over time, we would like to investigate the relative efficacy of individual demographic factors in determining success in student retention, through the analysis of differences between retention rates in Track and Connect and non-Track and Connect units of study. Alongside the evaluation of existing ‘flags’ there is room to consider factors other than those highlighted in the EAA, such as language proficiency and study load; as well as the relative relevance of these factors at different stages in the semester. Initial analysis shows that often the students flagged and contacted early in the semester do not reappear on later priority lists. The team would like to drill down into contact data to determine whether those contacted across the semester support demographic indicators or whether the majority of first year students, irrespective of economic status and educational experiences, are likely to struggle during their transition to University. We have recently developed a short survey for students participating in Track and Connect to gather qualitative data on student responses to and impressions of the program. In the long term we would also like to gather data on the ongoing impact of Track and Connect participation on a student’s academic career. This could take the form of a survey given to Track and Connect students who remain enrolled in senior years, to gage their perception of the influence the program had on their engagement and resilience, with an academic follow-up using students’ Weighted Average Marks (WAM). At the time of writing we also expect that the implementation of the proposed Federal Budget will have an impact on student retention patterns as students face potentially significant changes to the costs of higher education.

  Administration       With the program’s expansion the cost and time investment made to train new casual student callers and the attendant increase in administrative work, has indicated a need to streamline systems and schedules. The program is still in its early days as we begin to build up data year on year, undertaking longitudinal analysis and consolidating our methodology. An immediate challenge for the project is to improve the relevance and reliability of demographic information and contact details. Many students, particularly international students, do not provide up to date local contact details, which hinders their participation in the program and thereby the reliability of the data gathered. Another issue may be that the student callers have previously phoned students during business hours and sometimes experienced low answer rates. The team has recently extended the call hours to 7pm in an attempt to capture students who may be at work or in lectures until 5pm, and is considering further optimisation of calling schedules. In Semester 2 2014 faculty collaboration has been increased through the use of pro forma to allow unit coordinators to plan their assessments prior to semester, to ensure the data provided at each call point is as indicative as possible of the students’ current engagement status. In order to make Track and Connect more 5

visible to all students from the beginning of the semester, members of the STAR Team gave short (5 minute) introductory presentations at the beginning of lectures early in semester for participating classes, with the support of the academics involved. This strategy was intended to ensure that no student experienced unnecessary anxiety over a call from Track and Connect.

Teaching  and  Learning     The usefulness of formative assessment as a diagnostic tool not only for retention initiatives like Track and Connect that blend proactive and reactive approaches, but also for engagement more generally, has been widely demonstrated (Black & Wiliam 1998; Marzano 2006; Nicol & Macfarlane 2006). Given the usefulness of formative assessment in providing meaningful early engagement data, we need to consider its relative effectiveness and applicability in different disciplines. Diagnostic assessment may itself rely on assumed knowledge, so the absence of final year of secondary study prerequisites for any units at The University of Sydney has implications for retention programs in negotiating a fit between students and courses. Strategies to aid students in finding the course that is right for them during the period of enrolment and the crucial early weeks which follow – such as an explicit articulation of assumed knowledge in specific courses – may be an area of enhanced collaboration between the retention team and participating faculties. There is the possibility that some key ‘stumbling block’ units may precipitate an opportunity to explore options for students who are experiencing significant difficulty with the workload. In these cases the purpose of Track and Connect could potentially expand to include supporting students in making more appropriate course selection, rather than dropping out altogether. Preliminary analysis also suggests that the feedback provided to participating faculties by Track and Connect may be having an unforseen impact on course delivery, enabling coordinators to address components of the learning experience consistently reported by students as particularly challenging. Long-term investigation into this effect would enable further enhancement and refinement of the program. The STAR Team are also currently in discussions with staff at the University of Sydney Library to investigate opportunities for collaboration. Library data on student utilisation of library resources – both on-site and digitally – could potentially be correlated with quantitative data on student engagement and qualitative data on student awareness of library resources and services.

Conclusion   The Track and Connect program is currently in its fifth cycle, having delivered promising early results and incorporating a steadily increasing level of faculty participation. In keeping with the program’s stated aim of improving student retention and success, particularly among non-traditional student cohorts, we are engaged in ongoing refinement and expansion of the program’s methodology, delivery and reporting. Looking forward to the collection of longitudinal data as the program continues, we intend to investigate further several key variables in the program’s efficacy. These include the relative influence of various demographic factors and the role of the program’s feedback-loop structure for teaching and learning, as well as the streamlining of the program’s administration. We anticipate that a longer-term analysis of the Track and Connect program’s impact will contribute to a growing body of research on student retention and transition strategies in higher education in Australia and internationally.

References Adams, T, Banks, M, Davis, D & Dickson, J 2010, ‘The Hobson’s Retention Project: Context and Factor Analysis Report’, paper presented at the Australian International Education Conference 2010, Sydney. http://www.aiec.idp.com/pdf/2010_AdamsBanksDaviesDickson_Wed_1100_BGallB_Paper.pdf Black, P, & Wiliam, D 1998, ‘Assessment and classroom learning’, Assessment in Education: Principles, \ Policy and Practice, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp.7–73. Brown, C & Evagelistis, Y 2011, ‘Flag and Follow: A whole of institution approach to early identification and intervention for students potentially at risk’, paper presented at the First Year in Higher Education Conference, Fremantle. http://www.fyhe.com.au/past_papers/papers11/FYHE-2011/content/html/sessions.html Coates, H 2010, ‘Getting First Year Students Engaged”, AUSSE Research Briefing, Vol. 6, No.1, http://research.acer.edu.au/ausse/6/

6

Devlin, M 2010, ‘Non-traditional university student achievement: Theory, policy and practice in Australia’, Keynote Address 13th Pacific Rim First Year in Higher Education Conference: Aspiration – Access – Achievement, Fremantle. http://fyhe.com.au/past_papers/papers10/content/pdf/Marcia_Devlin_keynote_4.pdf Forsyth, H 2014, ‘Expanding higher education: institutional responses in Australia from the post-war era to the 1970s’, Paedagogica Historica: International Journal of the History of Education, DOI: 10.1080/00309230.2014.929592. James, R, Krause, K & Jennings, C 2010, ‘The First Year Experience in Australian Universities: Findings from 1994 to 2009’, Centre for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Melbourne. Kift, S 2008, ‘The next, great first year challenge: Sustaining, coordinating and embedding coherent institutionwide approaches to enact the FYE as “everybody’s business’, paper presented at 11th First Year in Higher Education Conference, Hobart. Martin, A J 2012, The Motivation and Engagement Scale (12th Edition). Sydney, Australia: Lifelong Achievement Group (lifelongachievement.com). Marzano, R J 2006, Classroom Assessments and Grading that Work. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Nelson, K & Creagh, T 2013, Case Studies 1, 3, 5 and 7. A good practice guide: Safeguarding student learning engagement. Brisbane, Australia: Queensland University of Technology. Nicol, D J & Macfarlane‐Dick, D 2006, ‘Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice’, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp.199-218. Thomas, L 2012, ‘What Works? Facilitating an effective transition into higher education’, Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning, Vol. 14, Special Issue Winter 2012-13, pp. 4-24. Tinto, V 2012, ‘Enhancing student success: Taking the classroom success seriously’, The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 1–8. -——— 2009, ‘Taking student retention seriously: Rethinking the first year of university’, Keynote address presented at the FYE Curriculum Design Symposium, Brisbane. http://fyecd2009.qut.edu.au/resources/SPE_VincentTinto_5Feb09.pdf -——— 2005, ‘Taking student success seriously: Rethinking the first year of college’, paper presented at the Ninth Annual Intersession Academic Affairs Forum, Fullerton, USA. http://fdc.fullerton.edu/events/archives/2005/051/acadforum/Taking%20Success%20Seriously.pdf The University of Sydney 2014, ‘Access Sydney – Alternative Pathways’, accessed 7 August 2014. http://sydney.edu.au/future-students/domestic/undergraduate/access-sydney/ -——— 2011, ‘Early Attrition Analysis: A quantitative analysis of all commencing undergraduate students, using enrolment data from 2009–2011’, paper presented by The University of Sydney Planning and Information Office and The University of Sydney Student Support Services. -——— 2010 ‘The University of Sydney White Paper 2011-2015’, accessed 27 July 2014. http://sydney.edu.au/strategy/docs/white_paper_2011-15.pdf

7

Suggest Documents