3.3 effectiveness of retention strategies at southampton solent university

Click to edit Master title style

Student RetentionAt SSUFrom research presented for the MA in Professional Practice, March 2016

24 June 2016


Rationale• As a teaching university with an emphasis on widening

participation, student success should be at the heart of what we do

• But observations over years at exam boards reveal a situation where a significant proportion do not ‘get through’• Students frequently fail in numerous areas

• The head of a former school had commented that there were a wide variety of approaches and good work going on in the area; when asked ‘what works?’ he said he didn’t know…


What we think we know• SSU is really good on widening participation so we have a

high proportion of students from non-traditional backgrounds

• This presents problems, because students do not enter university with the skillsets they need for success

• In spite of this we do well in supporting our students to succeed

• Raising application criteria would result in better student outcomes

• Help which is tailored to the individual student is the key to reducing student drop-out


Widening participation – myth no 1

Widening participation indicator

England average

Sector best

Southampton Solent University

Position/ 121

University of Southampton

Position/ 121

Entrants from state schools 89% 99.7% 97.1% 33rd 86% 83rd

Social class 4 to 7 32.8% 54.4% 36.5% 52nd 22% 100th

Low participation in HE neighbourhoods 10.9% 27.9% 14.7% 27th 8.1% 70th

• While we do well in relation to widening participation compared to many HEIs, we are not particularly outstanding…• For low participation neighbourhoods, for example, 11 HEIs have

participation rates over 20% compared to our 14.7%• So SSU does well, but not exceptionally well, on

widening participation


Student success – SSU compared to other HEIs• According to HESA statistics from 2012/13 (the last year statistics

were available at the time of writing the literature review) SSU had the 13th worst progression rate in England (out of 123 HEIs), with 11.8% of students failing to progress.

• This compares to 11% in the previous year• However HESA have generated a benchmark relating to entry

qualifications and subject studied• For SSU the benchmarks are 10.1% overall, 8.8% for young entrants and

14.5% for mature entrants

• Relating SSU to HEIs with a similar benchmark should give a more representative comparison• The study considered the HEIs with a benchmark of 10.1% +/- 1%

Click to edit Master title styleStudent progression at Level 4• Overall we are in the worst third for overall progression

relative to benchmark +/- 1%• Mature students do better than benchmark (14.0% compared to

14.8%)• Young entrants do much worse – 11.2% compared to 8.8% - only

3 comparable HEIs perform worse than SSU• This suggests that the main problem is with young

entrants


Student success – myths 2 and 3• The cause of our poor progression rates is the

skillset of our students• The statistics do not suggest evidence of this• 5 comparator institutions perform better than benchmark;

we perform significantly worse• SSU has a good record in relation to student

progression, given the nature of our students• The stats mentioned above do not support this perception• The problem is particularly bad for young entrants


Raising standards – myth no 4• Simply raising credit points of entrants would raise student

success rates• An overall increase in entry standards would raise our

benchmark, and given that we perform worse than benchmark already, a decision like this would need to be taken with care

• Widening participation is something SSU is proud of; it’s a key element of our USP as an HEI• From SSU mission statement:

We are dedicated to the pursuit of excellent university education that enables learners from all backgrounds to become enterprising citizens and responsible leaders, while also promoting economic and social prosperity for the communities we serve


Summary of literature findings – myth no 5• Most recent research is the HEA sponsored “What Works” research

• Phase 1 published in 2012; phase 2 is ongoing• This supported the conclusions in the rest of the literature…• To gain real momentum in relation to student success, the

institution needs to focus on policies that work for whole cohorts, not to focus on the individual student at risk • One of the projects that formed part of What Works dropped the individual

approach because it proved ineffective

• It is, therefore, likely that the focus on the individual ‘at risk’ student is exactly the wrong approach to improving student success


Three levels in addressing the issue• Level 1 focus: What the HEI is

• Student outcomes can be predicted quite accurately from a knowledge of the student demographic

• We can’t change outcomes without a change of demographic

• Benchmarks are based on this• Level 2 focus: What the student does

• It’s all about student engagement; if we can identify non-attenders and turn them round, we can solve the problem

• Level 3 focus: What the HEI does• Interventions need to be embedded in the core curriculum

and be geared to all students• Encompasses organisational policy and management

activity


Research approach• Interviews carried out with staff responsible for student

progression in two of the former schools from two different faculties in the previous university organisation

• Both heads of school were interviewed• Also staff members with responsibility for level 4 students as

course tutors/progression tutors etc• The aim was to identify:

• What the school policy was and how well this was disseminated• What was actually happening ‘on the ground’• Whether there were any theoretical underpinnings to policy and how well

this was understood• Approaches were compared with actual progression statistics


Summary of research findings• Nobody interviewed had any knowledge of recent

research in the area• Policy is geared around what we think we know

rather than adopting an evidence-based approach• The literature review, especially the statistical breakdown

of HESA data demonstrates that what we think we know is substantially wrong

• BUT everyone involved cares deeply about their students and is passionate about helping them to succeed


Pockets of sound practice• Most respondents were doing some things right,

examples include:• Interviewing students to ensure a good fit to course• Pre-start activities/social networking

• Changes had been made on a piecemeal basis to address specifically identified problems, for example:• Provision of a ‘studio pack’ for students to purchase early

in the course so that they would not be disadvantaged by running out of money later


Areas of concern• Widespread lack of knowledge about how well different

courses are doing – despite this information being readily available• My sincere thanks to the Information Office for their very timely

assistance with this• Lack of consistency between courses and with

recognised good practice because of a lack of evidenced understanding

• One Academic Leader (in the small number interviewed) suggested a mixture of encouragement and threats was an appropriate approach…


Characteristics of sound approaches

• Mainstream• Proactive• Relevant• Well-timed and in a suitable format• Collaborative• Monitored


Conclusions• Caring isn’t enough

• no evidence that any tutors failed to care, if caring is expressed through being concerned about student outcomes

• Evidence-based approach is more important; the most effective courses are where academics actively review the gaps in their strategy, and put actions in place to address these

• Prescription or reflection• One size does not fit all

• Essential to recognise differing needs of differing groups• “the problem of poor retention will not be fixed by

micromanagement or by edict”


Any Questions?


Recommendations• Working group to develop a university-wide

approach• Looking at areas that need to be cohesive, e.g. providing

student support with problems, whether finance, residential, mental health. Ensuring support is available in a timely manner.

• Providing guidance, but not policy or procedures, to staff with responsibilities for recruitment, retention, course development, pastoral care, student support and so on.

• Find out what works at other comparable HEIs• Forum for sharing good practice• Effective dissemination of ‘What Works’


Recommended reading• ANDREWS J, CLARK R and THOMAS L, 2012; Compendium of effective practice in higher

education retention and success; York, Higher Education Academy• Higher Education Statistics Agency 2015a; Table T3a - Non-continuation following year of

entry: UK domiciled full-time first degree entrants 2012/13; accessed 14/4/15 at https://www.hesa.ac.uk/pis/noncon

• Higher Education Statistics Agency 2015Bb; Table T1a - Participation of under-represented groups in higher education: UK domiciled young full-time first degree entrants 2012/13; accessed 2/3/15 at https://www.hesa.ac.uk/pis/urg

• National Audit Office; 2007; Staying the course: The retention of students in higher education. Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, HC 616 Session 2006-2007. London: The Stationery Office

• THOMAS L 2012; Building student engagement and belonging in Higher Education at a time of change: final report from the What Works? Student Retention & Success programme. London: Paul Hamlyn Foundation

• THOMAS L and HILL M, 2013; Briefing report on the What works? Student retention and success change programme; Higher Education Academy, accessed 30/3/15 at http://www.lizthomasassociates.co.uk/student_retention.html

https://www.hesa.ac.uk/pis/noncon

https://www.hesa.ac.uk/pis/urg

http://www.lizthomasassociates.co.uk/student_retention.html