What Works? Student Retention and Success Change Programme

Report
What Works? Student Retention
and Success Change
Programme
2013-2016
Institutions involved
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Birmingham City University
Bournemouth University
University of Chester
University of Glasgow
Glasgow Caledonian University
University of Gloucestershire
Newham College of Further Education
Newman University College
University of Salford
St Mary's University College, Twickenham
Staffordshire University
University of Ulster
University of Wolverhampton
York St John University
funded by the HEA and Paul Hamlyn Foundation
Ulster team
• CORE TEAM
– Professor Ian Montgomery (Dean, ADBE)
– Roisín Curran (Project Manager)
– Grainne Dooher (Quality Assurance Manager)
– Dr Aine McKillop (Faculty T&L Coordinator)
– Catherine Rosborough (student)
• Plus seven discipline teams representing all
faculties and campuses (see hand-out)
funded by the HEA and Paul Hamlyn
Foundation
Ulster Business School
Discipline Team
Accounting (p/t @ J)
Accounting (f/t @ J)
Dean Coulter, Greg McGrath, Helen
Fee, Helen Foster, Heather Keanie,
Justin Magee, Stephen McNamee,
Ronnie Patton, Michael Pogue and
Judith Wylie
Student Partners: Sarah Tans, Brian
McArdle, James Irwin, Amanda
Potsworth and Andrew Ellis
School T&L Coordinator
Claire McCann
Social Sciences
Discipline Teams
Law (M)
Alice Diver
Law (J)
Amanda Zacharopoulou
Arts
Discipline Team
Creative Technologies (M)
Paul Moore, Greg O'Hanlon, Paul
McKevitt, Brian Bridges ,Mark
Cullen and Terry Quigley
Faculty Rep.: Lisa Fitzpatrick
Student Partners:
Year-1: Brandon McCann, Aislinn
Mullin
Year-2: Conor Hanna, Marana
McLoughlin
Year-3: Tiernan McAlister, James
Programme
Sponsor
McSparron
PVC (Teaching & Learning) /Chair
RIWG
Denise McAlister
Core Team
Programme Director
Ian Montgomery
Project Manager
Roisín Curran
Student
Catherine Rossborough
Data Analyst Manager
Grainne Dooher
Senior Lecturer
Aine McKillop
Programme Administrator
Elaine Fairweather
Life & Health Sciences
Discipline Team
Mental Health Nursing (M)
Iain McGowan, Deirdre
McNamee
Oonagh Carson, Ursula
Chaney
Brian
funded by
theMcGowan
HEA and Paul
Student Partners
: Gary
Foundation
Rutherford and Elaine Cooke
Art, Design & the Built Environment
Discipline Teams
Building Engineering Materials (J)
Mark Hamill
Student Partners : Karl Lines, Abdulsalam Darwish
and Siofra McAleer
Construction Engineering Management (J)
Karen McPhillips & Clare McKeown
Building Surveying (J)
Ken Boston
Student Partners : Grant Bartley and James
Haveron
SCOBE T&L Coordinator
Michaela Keenan
Textile, Art Design & Fashion (B)
Alison Gault & Hazel Bruce, Barbara Dass, Janet
Coulter and
Stephen King
Student Partners : Kirsty Riddle, Sophie Rathfield,
Daryl Jones, Tara Marzuki, Alice Blackstock and
Helen Murray
Computing & Engineering
Discipline Team
Computing (C)
Michaela Black, Adrian Moore
&
Janet Allison
Hamlyn
Aim
• The aim is to improve student
engagement, belonging, retention and
success during the first year through to
completion in your institution building on
the learning from the What works?
Programme through the HEA Change
process, and to evaluate the process and
impact of change.
funded by the HEA and Paul Hamlyn Foundation
Objectives
1.
2.
3.
4.
Use the learning from the What works? programme,
institutional data and institutional review to identify strengths
and challenges and priorities for change at the strategic and
course/programme level .
Improve the strategic approach to improving the
engagement, belonging, retention and success of students.
Implement or enhance specific interventions in the areas of
induction, active learning, co-curricular activities in three
selected discipline areas.
Evaluate the impact of the changes in both formative and
summative ways, drawing on naturally occurring institutional
data, bespoke student surveys and qualitative methods such
as telephone or face-to-face interviews with staff and
students.
funded by the HEA and Paul Hamlyn
Foundation
Key Principles
1.
2.
3.
4.
Change must be informed by the What works findings,
notably interventions in years 2 and 3 should be in the
academic domain (induction, active learning and cocurricular engagement).
Senior managers must be actively engaged for institutional
change to be effective.
Students must be actively involved in the process of change.
A commitment to the collection and analysis of data and
evaluation are central to the wider success of the
programme, for which funding is provided. Teams should
design their interventions to ensure that impact can be
analysed both qualitatively and quantitatively.
funded by the HEA and Paul Hamlyn
Foundation
What Works? Key findings
1.
2.
3.
4.
At the heart of student retention and success is a strong
sense of belonging in HE for students. This is most
effectively nurtured through mainstream activities that all
students participate in.
The academic sphere is the most important site for
nurturing belonging.
Specific interventions cannot be recommended over and
above each other. Rather the institution, department and
programme should all nurture a culture of belonging.
Student belonging is an outcome of: supportive peer
relations; meaningful interaction between staff and
students; developing knowledge, confidence and identity
as successful HE learners; and an HE experience which is
relevant to interests and future goals.
funded by the HEA and Paul Hamlyn
Foundation
Change Programme details
• 3 + years (3 years implementation;
additional year to measure impact).
• 16 institutional teams, with a core team
and 3 discipline-level teams.
funded by the HEA and Paul Hamlyn
Foundation
Overview of each year
• Year 1 (2012-13): identify strategic issues and discipline
courses/programmes; implement changes at the strategic
level; plan pilots at discipline level. Activities: start-up meeting,
institutional visits, thematic workshops, residential, action
plan.
• Year 2 (2013-14): implement strategic level changes and
introduce discipline-level changes, and contribute to the
formative and impact evaluation processes.
• Year 3 (2014-15): continue to implement strategic and
discipline level changes, and contribute to the formative and
impact evaluation processes.
• Year 4 (2015-16): contribute to the formative and evaluation
processes and the dissemination of outputs.
funded by the HEA and Paul Hamlyn
Foundation
Built
Environment
funded by the HEA and Paul Hamlyn Foundation
Built Environment
• Historically been significant amount of large shared
modules within Built Environment
– some decoupling over recent years; however, examples
remain.
• Programmes were selected on basis of significant
number of modules that can & are shared between
programmes & significantly within semester 1 , year 1
- resulting in:– Larger student cohorts
– Arguably - loss of programme/student group identity?
– Less opportunities for students from individual
programmes to form friendships – consequences for
belonging?
– Less opportunities to be taught directly by dedicated core
team members infunded
some
by the cases
HEA and Paul Hamlyn
Foundation
Context
3 Programmes involved:1. BSc (Hons) Building Surveying
2. BSc (Hons) Building Engineering & Materials
3. BSc (Hons) Construction Engineering &
Management
• Focus – INDUCTION
– Programmes developing specific activities focussing
upon tailored induction and embedding extended
transition.
funded by the HEA and Paul Hamlyn
Foundation
Our Aims for INDUCTION:
Driven By What Works:Effective Inductions
•
•
•
•
•
Provide information
Inform expectations
Develop academic skills
Build social capital
Nurture sense of
belonging
What Students Want?
• Have opportunities to make
friends
• See course induction
timetable in advance
• Understand nature of
teaching and learning & be
reassured that they will
cope
• Understand how the course
will benefit them in the
future
• Have a timetable that fits
around other commitments
funded by the HEA and Paul Hamlyn
Foundation
Built Environment
Strategic Approach
• All programmes moving to induction of year 1
undergraduates to week 0
• Provides the underpinning for the
implementation of Built Environment
Discipline Team Plans as:– Staff can concentrate efforts solely on effective
and tailored induction
– All core staff can be involved
– More focussed group activities, trips etc
– Stripped back in order to place emphasis upon
and promote ‘Just in Time Teaching’
funded by the HEA and Paul Hamlyn
Foundation
BEM & CEM
Tailored Induction & Enhanced Transition
• Programmes interrelate & module change within 1 programme
directly affected other
• CEM - Particular problem – semester 1, year 1 no modules taught
by core team members & where student group were on own as
programme cohort
1.
Week 0 Tailored Induction
2.
Introduction of Transition & Study Skills Module in Semester 1
on both programmes – led by Course Director
– BEM – semester 1
– CEM – across semesters 1 & 2
• promote on-going induction & transition
• Include changes course team practices – also library intros; careers
etc
funded by the HEA and Paul Hamlyn
Foundation
Building Surveying
Year 1
Tailored Induction &
Embedding Transition
-
Week 0 Tailored
Induction
-
Extended Induction
activities within existing
modules/programme
Year 2
Active & On-Going Embedded
Transition
Large numbers direct entry students
into year 2
• 1 day intensive welcome/welcome
back induction –group based
• On-going induction activities
focussing on belonging & managing
expectations
• Embedded 2 modules with
significant amounts group work &
modules interrelate
• Groups selected to ensure
integration of existing & new
students
– Aid effective peer learning & to help
manage expectations of income
funded by the HEA and Paul
Hamlyn
students
Foundation
Challenges
• Timetabling – the move to week 0 induction
• Student recruitment/participation
– Critical to the development of the programme and
to build ethos of students as partners
– Timing may have been a factor?
• Driven by Course Directors but as its
induction success will rely on active
involvement of core team
funded by the HEA and Paul Hamlyn
Foundation
Computing
funded by the HEA and Paul Hamlyn Foundation
Computing
Martin McKinney
Michaela Black
Adrian Moore
Janet Allison
New for Computing 2012-13
• Group Mentors Influencing and Embedding the Curriculum
• Group mentors (final years) became part of teaching
team - join the community of practice
• Interviewed applicants
• Induction training session
– Including curriculum design workshop
• Periodic review sessions
– Feedback students experience and progress
– Continue curriculum design workshops to enhance
sessions
• Review student feedback via quiz (77 respondents)
Proposals from Group Mentors
• Split up large group assignment
– Smaller practice group assignments which are linked
– Smaller groups
• Leaders design range of group assignments
– Real world problems
– Teaching group review and approve
• White boards in all tutorials
– Improve problem solving and sharing good practice
• Student groups design and create quiz questions for
tutorial
Did you find the Group Structure a helpful
support resource for starting University?
0
5.33
Strongly Agree
49.33
Agree
Disagree
45.33
Strongly Disagree
What aspects did you find the Mentors most useful with?
(You can select more than one option)
100
86.67
90
80
70
60
50
40
44.00
38.67
37.33
30
20
14.67
10
2.67
0
Studying at
University in
general
Studying
General
Skills for team
concepts in problems with
work
Java
year 1
transition to
University
Team work
issues
None
Which aspects of the Group Support Model did
you find the most useful? (You can choose more
than one)
80
70
73.33
68.00
65.33
68.00
60
50
40
30
20
10
4.00
0
Peer Support
Making New
Friends
Developing
Team Skills
Travel
Together
Having a
mentor
Did you find the first practice mini-group assignment
useful for starting the second larger version?
1.33 0.00
Strongly Agree
48.00
50.67
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Did you find the smaller Group Size model beneficial
for the group assignment?
0.00
1.33
17.33
33.33
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Unanswered
48.00
2013-14 and Beyond
• Incorporate a more sense of BELONGING for the
students leaders and the students in year 1
• Embed work from Peer to Peer Support Project
and Transition +model
• Pedagogic Methodology:
[Jane Andrews & Robin Clark (Aston University)]
– Using Communities of Practice or focus of
improvements
– Implementing iterative cycle of curriculum design
workshops and reflective sessions using feedback and
focus groups
Recruit Student Members
Student Induction
August 2013
September 2013
Shortlist of members;
4 students selected for the
Curriculum Project
Interview questions and
scores
Student Project Induction Students project induction Students will be provided
Session with 2012-13
and training complete
with feedback from the
Feedback
various HEA workshops
highlighting what works.
We aim to introduce the
students leaders to Peer to
Peer Support Project and
Transition + model
presented by Jane
Andrews & Robin Clark
(Aston University)
September
2013
September 2013
First Curriculum Reflection
& Design Workshop Phase 1 -
September
2013
September 2013
Students
Phase 1 of 2013-2014
Recommendations for
curriculum design for
Curriculum Design - Phase action within module
1
Embed phase 1 curriculum
designs into module
September 2013
December 2013
New curriculum design;
Phase 1 Reflection &
Review Workshop 1
October 2013
October 2013
Reflection on success of Amendments to curriculum
new curriculum design and design
review any necessary
changes that must be
incorporated.
Phase 1 Reflection &
Review Workshop 2
October 2013
October 2013
Reflection on success of Amendments to curriculum
new curriculum design and design
review any necessary
changes that must be
incorporated.
with some inclusion of
student BELONGING
using the Transition
+model
Enhanced student
engagement with new
design
Certain priorities for the
School and Faculty will be
used to prioritize the
generated
recommendations if too
many new designs or
adjustments
Engagement will be
assessed in a number of
ways: lecture contribution,
resource engagement
online, attendance,
Second Curriculum
Reflection &
Design Workshop Phase 2
October 2013
October 2013
Phase 2 Reflection
& Review
Workshop 1
November 2013
November 2013
Phase 2 Reflection
& Review
Workshop 2
December 2013
December 2013
End of semester
review at
student/staff/mento
r level
December 2013
January 2014
Prepare a paper of
of the two phases
highlighting the
focus of change,
the reviews and
the overall
enhancement of
the adaptions
January 2014
February 2014
Following reviews of Phase Phase 2 of 2013-2014
1 - Students
curriculum design for action
Recommendations for
within module
Curriculum Design - Phase 2
Reflection on success of
new curriculum design and
review any necessary
changes that must be
incorporated.
Reflection on success of
new curriculum design and
review any necessary
changes that must be
incorporated.
Feedback from all active
parties:
students/staff/mentors
Certain priorities for the
School and Faculty will be
used to prioritize the
generated recommendations
if too many new designs or
adjustments
Amendments to curriculum
design
Amendments to curriculum
design
Review of Phases 1 and 2 of This review process will use
2013-14 curriculum design a combination of online
questionnaires and focus
groups with
staff/students/mentors
We would hope that some of
student cohort will have that
sense of belonging and can
actively engage with leaders
prior to curriculum design
phase 3
Research paper highlighting This paper will reflect on the This paper will highlight the
the practices introduced to process to date and present process of incorporating
address certain cohort
current findings in relation students into curriculum
issues concluded with
initiatives embedded. It can design, staged reviews and
overall reflections and final then act as a indicator for
amendments needed and
review data from all parties phase 3 in semester 2.
the final data collection from
all parties involved including
engagement data and sense
of belonging
Law
funded by the HEA and Paul Hamlyn Foundation
Law-Rationale for involvement in
the programme
• The LLB degree runs on two campuses
(Magee and Jordanstown). Incoming
students must achieve high level entry
tariff points but fail rates in some year 1
modules are high. Variation in NSS scores
(student satisfaction) existed between the
two programmes (2012-13) but was
generally high.
our plans for change - area of focus
• Focus is on induction (embedding ‘belongingness’) with the addition
of a pre-arrival, pre-induction activity for freshers, tied to overall
induction programmes.
• Students will be sent out a case to download from an open access
legal database (bailii.org) and be required to read it carefully, make
notes (500 word summary/analysis) and prepare for Q & A and
discussion, in small groups, with their Studies Advisor
• This will serve as both ‘ice-breaker’ and tie in with the ‘Amazing
Brains’ and ‘PASS’ induction activities as useful preparation for
studying/reading law and doing legal research at degree level
including e.g. court visit in semester 1 and required reading of case
law across all other law modules
• Any students who are unsure of whether the LLB is their best
degree choice, should also be able to gauge fairly quickly whether
they have made the correct choice.
Our vision for the next three years
• PASS leaders will engage with incoming law students in
supporting them through week zero induction activities and
extended induction throughout the year
• Social networking/online support to continue e.g. ‘UUM
Facebook’ page which currently exists – new students are
encouraged to log on to this to meet their fellow law students
and avail of pre-induction and semester-time opportunities
e.g. to socialize, join study groups, buy 2nd hand books, vote
for student reps, volunteer for law-related activities (e.g. CAB,
Law Centre, charitable fund-raising events)
• Frontloading of skills development at Jordanstown across all
Law programmes with dedicated workshops on learning legal
skills in weeks one and two (pilot 2013 intake)
Nursing
(Mental Health)
funded by the HEA and Paul Hamlyn
Foundation
Enhancing Belonging and Identity in
Mental Health Nursing
Iain W. McGowan

Why Mental Health Nursing?

High attrition rate (13.6%) in comparison to faculty (7.4)
Attrition
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Annual cost- £99 million

High student satisfaction rates (90%+, NSS)
Attrition
Why people leave
 Personal
 Finance
 Childcare
 Academic
 Module failure
 Lack of identification or belonging
 Content not obviously related to area of study
 Professional
 Practice learning experiences
BSc (Hons) Nursing (Mental Health)
Total cohort circa 250 (200 adult & 50 mental health)
5 groups of 50 (40 adult & 10 mh)
Year 1
Generic Modules
Care,
compassion and
Communication
Introduction to
Professional
Nursing
Biology,
Psychology,
sociology
Shared Modules
Evidence based
Care
Fostering Safe
and Holistic Care
Person Centred
Adult Nursing
Person Centred
Mental Health
Nursing
Enhancing belonging and identity

Pre-induction

Induction

Mental Health Nursing specific activities

Semester long induction
Outcomes
 Increased successful completion of year 1.
 Increased student reported sense of belonging and
identity.
References
• Building student engagement and belonging in Higher Education at
a time of change: final report from the What Works? Student
Retention & Success programme
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/retention/What_wor
ks_final_report.pdf
• HEA Retention and Success Resources
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/retention-and-success
• Student retention and success change programme: Implementing
and evaluating the impact of the ‘What works?’ programme
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/change/SRS_1213/SRS_info
funded by the HEA and Paul Hamlyn
Foundation

similar documents