EDUCATIONAL EXCLUSION IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN FINLAND.

A Risk of Drop-Out or a Voluntary Departure?

Juhani RautopuroReseacher

Finnish Institute for Educational Research, Univesity of Jyväskylä

Vesa KorhonenAssistant professor

School of Education, University of Tampere

NETWORK 10: HIGHER EDUCATION, NERA 2011

Some background for the research

• Massification (universalisation) of the universities

– Doors open for more manifold and different aged students– Finland: massification in 1970’s (exceeding 15 % limit), nowadays

universalisation (”an offer” for 85 %)

• Bologna process (since 1999, Sorbonne)– Harmonisation in EU: uniform degree structures, the introduction

of the dimensioning systems of studies and the European dimension of the quality assurance (The Ministry of Education and Culture, 2010)

– Connection between education and requirements of working life tightened (London Communiqué 2007; Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve Communiqué 2009)

Consequences of massification and Bologna process

• Staff: larger amount of students, splintered tasks, continuing pressure into ”outcomes”

• Students: instrumental attitude to education

• Higher education: In Finland, for example, the degree structure is mainly based on a dual system in accordance with the Bologna process (started at the autumn of 2005 in all Finnish universities and polytechnics).

Definitions

• There are several concepts meaning giving up or interrupting/prolonging studies :– Drop-out or voluntary withdrawal from studies

(opt-out)– student departure– non-continuing students– non-completion

Low engagement and integration to studies?

• Engagement and/or integration to studies have been examined with very many kinds of concepts and emphasis(see more Lähteenoja 2010).

• Central is the force of academic and social integration and their interaction from the point of view of the student retention (Tinto 1996; Tinto & Goodsell-Love 1993)

– Academic integration means matters which are related to the

academic studying environment and to the scientific community like academic performance, academic skills and interest in the studying field.

– Social integration means social relations in studying communities and personal contacts to academic and scientific communities

State of art in Finland• In Finland the discussion about the non-committed students is

connected to the weak integration into the studies. Non-committed students are a clear risk group from the point of view of the delays and drop-outs in higher education (Mäkinen, Olkinuora & Lonka 2004; Litmanen, Hirsto & Lonka 2010).

– Among Finnish university students non-committed orientation is quite common (an average 27 %). It appeared that easy entrance and opportunism were more typical motives for non-committed group of students than for study- or work-life oriented students.

– The weakest commitment was found in humanities (34,4 %) and natural sciences (35,4 %).

– The non-committed students considered the change in the study field or the withdrawal from the studies more often than the other students .

Some facts (Higher education in Finland)

• Season 2007/2008: almost 40 000 students (7,5 %) interrupted their studies and about 6 % interrupted studies aiming to a degree totally (Statistics Finland, 2010)

– Higher education: – in Finnish universities a little bit over 5 % (nearly 8000) students

interrupted their studies for good.)– Nearly one out of hundred switched the sector of education

• Students enrolled 2003 in Finnish universities (situation at the end of 2008):

– about 2 % was with no degree and not continuing studies in any institute

– about 4 % was in working life without a degree– about one out of 500 (0,2 %) was unemployed without a degree. – approximately 25 % completed Master’s degree

Data and analyses

• Student register data– University of Helsinki– University of Jyväskylä– University of Tampere– Tampere University of Technology

• Students studying according to Bologna– “tabula rasa” students

• Mostly statistical analyses– descriptive statistics– description of associations

The way things are going…

Jyväskylä

(n = 4775)

Helsinki

(n = 9090 )

Tampere

(n = 3577)

Tampere TtY

(n = 2717)

“Total zero”

“No bachelor 7 yrs”

“Perhaps bachlor 7 yrs”

”Bachelor, perhaps master 7 yrs”

”Master 7 yrs”

195 (4,1 %)

480 (10,1 %)

129 (2,7 %)

916 (19,2 %)

3055 (64,0 %)

334 (3,7 %)

906 (10,0 %)

265 (2,9 %)

2092 (23,0 %)

5493 (60,4 %)

286 (8,0 %)

579 (16,2 %)

130 (3,6 %)

710 (19,8 %)

2967 (52,3 %)

40 (1,5 %)

344 (12,7 %)

93 (3,4 %)

664 (24,4 %)

1576 (58,0 %)

Percentages of 7-year ”lead time

” for master graduates 2001-002

61 %

57 %

61 % 41 %

This means that….

• In average

– One out three will not get a master’s degree in defined time frame (7 years)

– One out of six will not get even a bachelor degree

Let’s look a little bit closer (Tampere)

• Statistically and practically significant association between study achievements and

– Gender– female more likely to graduate (76 % vs. 66 %)– male more likely not to get even bachelor degree (30 % vs. 21 %)

– Faculty– most obvious graduation in Faculties of Medicine (89 %) and

Economics (71 %)– most unlikely (not even bachelor) in Faculties of Information

technology (51 %) and Economics (26 % !!!)

– Age (enrolment)– youngest (20 yrs and younger) most likely to graduate (79 %), students

starting at the age group (25 – 30) most likely not to get even bachelor degree (46 %)

Let’s look a little bit closer (Tampere), cont.

• Information given by logistic regression (odd ratios)– Risk of prolonging studies increases when enrolment

age increases– There’s an interaction between gender and faculty for

the risk of prolongin studies– Also interaction between faculty and enrolment age– Also interaction between faculty and duration of

studies– Also interaction between enrolment age and

duration of studies

Let’s look a little bit closer (Tampere), cont.(questionnaire, preliminary results)

The “slow ones”

Hours

(Contract)

Hours

(Self-study)

Hours

(information

retrieval)

Hours

(Contemplation/

thinking)

N Valid 51 51 50 51

Mean 10,6 9,7 3,5 5,4

Median 8,00 10,0 2,0 4,0

Std. Deviation 9,6 7,7 4,1 5,3

Minimum 0 0 0 0

Maximum 40,0 35,0 20,0 20,0

Percentiles 5 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

10 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0

25 4,0 4,0 1,0 1,0

50 8,0 10,0 2,0 4,0

75 15,0 15,0 4,0 10,0

90 20,0 20,0 7,8 11,6

95 37,0 24,6 14,5 20,0

Let’s look a little bit closer (Tampere), cont.(questionnaire, preliminary results)

The “slow ones”

• More or less agreed– ”My motivation has dismished or flaged” (29 %)– ”I have had difficulties to adapt myself to requirements

(planning and fulfilling) of university studies” (47 %)– ”I have felt harmful stress” (47 %)

• Some obstacles in studies– Panic disorder– Social fobia– Seasonal depression – Returning from a lonf sick leave– Pregnancy

Let’s look a little bit closer (Tampere), cont.

• About one out of three of the ”slow ones” (not even bachelor) were not in student register after one year– Statistically significant difference between male and

female (36 % vs. 24 %)– Statistically significant difference between faculties

(range: 40 % in ICT, 8 % in medicine)– No statistically significant differences between

departure and age groups (enrolment)

Final conclusions• The special worry is the generality of weak engagement to studies

and completion of studies on normative schedule – The examination brings out the generality of the weak engagement to studies also after the

Bologna reformations (compare non-committed students in Mäkinen et. al 2004)– Approximately 1/3 of students will not complete their studies in 7 years time frame

• The connections of the slow progress of studies to the interrupting risks have not been widely studied earlier

– Our observations give clear references from the fact that the slow start in studies anticipates delays and risks for the interrupting of studies

• From institutions perspective, all this may assume a better self-understanding of organisational arrangements and a deliberate review of the risks of exclusion (delays, drop-outs) and how to overcome these (with repair or preventive work)? (Korhonen 2011)