HIGHER EDUCATION IN VARANASI & ATTITUDE OF STUDENTS FOR CHOOSING THE COLLEGE

CHAPTER 1- INTRODUCTIONThis project attempted to investigate aspects of the lifestyles, expectations and attitudes of students for choosing college. These emerged as under-researched areas during the earlier survey of literature on student retention which was carried out for the Student Affairs Committee. In addition, they were not currently the subject of extensive investigation elsewhere within the institute.

Education plays an important role in the development of a nation. Education is a very important part of economy. It is said to an investment in human being. Perhaps this is the reason that every nation tries his best to develop the strategy of education.

Education – Primary Right:

Education is the primary right of every child in a democratic society. We have made a law to provide free and compulsory education up to the age of fourteen i.e. up to middle standard level. An uneducated man can neither be a good citizen nor good parents. He is ignorant and superstitious. Deprived of knowledge, he falls in the darkness of ignorance and becomes a victim of evil social practices. The problem of drop-outs at primary level is quite serious poor parents force their children to stay at home and look after younger kids. Some are compelled to work as child laborers in homes, shops restaurants and factories. More community centers and adult education centers have to be opened to educate man and woman who were deprived of the fruits of education during their formative years. Our aim should bet to provide education to all the people of India.

It is a very important question in the field of education what type of education should be given? This is a reality that ours means of education are limited but our needs are unlimited. So it should be decide that which type of education should be given. So national policy of education 1986 has announced the system of education. There have been many proposals for the introduction of education in school. Some of them have been tried success and are going on well.

The objectives of the project were to present a realistic and up-to-date of student characteristics, to identify aspects of these which might make students vulnerable to withdrawal or failure, and to identify the sort of student ‘best practice’ which fosters success and which could form the basis of efforts to support students who are at risk of dropping out.

A questionnaire was sent to students, requesting information about their family background, accommodation, part-time work, study habits, attitudes, expectations of institute and experiences during their course of study. A small number of students were also interviewed in greater depth on these topics. In order to compare staff perceptions of students with the picture that emerged from the students themselves, a questionnaire was circulated to staff and several staff were interviewed about their view of students.

CHAPTER 2Literature review: central topics

A literature review was undertaken to provide context for the experimental findings. This indicated that it is important to consider the whole student experience when investigating student satisfaction and retention. Studies of student retention rarely identify one single factor as explaining withdrawal, and where such simplistic answers are proposed, they are rarely reliable. A recent development in the retention literature is a focus on ‘what goes right’ for successful students, and on ways of building this information into retention activities.

Two conflicting strands of argument emerge over the discussion of ‘student’ rather than ‘institutional’ factors in explaining student withdrawal. One states that students with similar personal circumstances and academic experiences can show radically different levels of satisfaction and retention, and that therefore it is wise to look at ‘individual’ factors such as preparation and motivation. The other condemns this sort of approach as ‘victim blaming’, convenient only for the institutions which can then evade their responsibilities. Instead, institutions should examine themselves in order to explain retention rates. Most realistic studies of retention, not surprisingly, combine these approaches.

One ‘individual factors’ which has been identified is academic preparedness for institutes. Well-prepared students have realistic expectations about course content,

required study skills, teaching methods and aspects of non-academic life, such as social contacts and finance. In particular, an appreciation of the need for independent learning skills and good personal time management seem to be important. Where students are badly prepared, it is possible to overcome this through induction activities and study support. However, these efforts require individual contact and a willingness on the part of the student to engage with the process. Both of this require institutional resources and a basic level of student motivation.

Feedback and ‘student centred learning approaches’ are also valuable in supporting student satisfaction and retention. For these to work well it is essential that students and staff agree on academic values and on the definition and purpose of activities and assignments. Dialogue and mutual respect between students and staff are needed. This academic integration is essential, but also resource-intensive, especially with current staff:student ratios.

A number of practical factors in the student experience are identified as crucial to retention. One of these is accommodation, with several studies noting that students who live in institute accommodation show better levels of achievement, satisfaction and persistence than those who live at home or in privately rented housing. This is presumably because Halls of Residence offer an opportunity to build an academic and social community where the institute experience is central to most members.

The literature on student characteristics and attitudes is small. One important point which emerges from this is the enormous diversity of the student population, and the unreality of talking about ‘students’ as if they were a uniform group. Many authors suggest that the range of beliefs about institute among students has increased in recent years, with some showing a high level of academic orientation and motivation, and others feeling disengaged and alienated, or attempting to get as many marks as possible for as little effort.

Student self-perceptions have been investigated in a number of studies. Again, these are very diverse. In general, students tend to lack a discourse around skills and education in general; it can be difficult for them to reflect effectively on their educational experience. Often student perceptions of their institute experience are influenced as much by their expectations and beliefs as by what they actually do or encounter. This is particularly true of workload.

Some work on the experience of non-traditional students has been undertaken in relation to widening participation efforts. Again, an enormous diversity emerges here. Some studies find that non-traditional students are more likely to thrive in universities where elements of their social integration have been effectively addressed, inside and outside the classroom. Others proposed that teaching methods and even course content may need to be modified to make universities truly inclusive. First-generation

students are identified as being especially vulnerable because they lack the informal support and information networks offered by graduate parents, siblings and friends.

Student motivation is mentioned in several studies as a key factor in retention. It has been investigated by several researchers, who have examined both ‘long term’ motivations for institute entry (e.g. career aspirations) and ‘short term’ motivations which will determine the effort put in to day to day tasks on a course. Both carer prospects and subject interest are important in motivating students to go to institute in the first place, although the former seems to be named by more students. Overall, motivations which might be paraphrased as ‘learning for learning’s sake’ are rarer, although many student state these.

Motivation, on a day to day basis, will be determined by the ‘meaning’ which students attach to individual tasks and to the academic enterprise as a whole. It will also be influenced by their levels of satisfaction with all aspects of the course, from inherent interest in the subject through relations with lecturers to satisfaction with teaching methods and facilities. Types and timing of assessment can also have an effect on motivation. In general, students who have confidence in their own abilities will show higher levels of motivation.

One of the biggest challenges to student retention is the emergence of the ‘strategic student’, who sets out to minimize effort and maximize results. This attitude, and the need to cater for this group of students in an age of quality management and performance evaluation, may contribute to reportedly rising levels of academic staff dissatisfaction.

Interaction with students, and the resultant student integration, is made even more difficult where there are gaps in ‘culture’ between staff and students, or where staff and students have different underlying but unspoken assumptions about HE.

CHAPTER 3

EDUCATION IN VARANASI

India Education has the wide varieties of Education System and divides into 3 big sections like primary education, secondary education and higher education.

Classification of Indian Education System:

1. Primary Education:

In the policy 1986, a law is made to provide free, compulsory education up to the age of fourteen i.e. up to middle standard for example : reading, writing, simple mathematics and some knowledge about our country and society, these are some basic concept of education. Also all these are some basic needs to become a good citizen and to get higher education. This is a fact that the investment in the primary education proves very beneficial in future. So our government gives very importance to primary education.

2. Secondary Education:

After giving the knowledge about the basic concept of education, secondary education should also be given. There is no need that this type of education should be given to all. This type of education includes vocational education. Our government has established some training centers to give this type of education.

3. Higher Education:

Higher education is a very important part of a development nation. This type of education is given in colleges, universities and in training centers. It also includes technical education. But it should be given to a few people.

Thus we want to give the primary education to all, secondary education to some people. Means of education should be divided according to primary, secondary and higher education. Thus secondary and primary education should be quantitative and higher education should be quantitative.

Higher education in India starts after the higher Secondary or 12th standard. While it takes 3 years for completing a B.A., B.Sc or B.Com pass or honors degree from a college in India, pursuing an engineering course would take four years and five years (with six months of additional compulsory internship)for completing a bachelor of medicine or bachelor of law degree. Postgraduate courses generally are of two years duration. But there are some courses like Master of Computer Application (MCA) that are of three years duration. For those who cannot afford to attend regular classes for various preoccupations can pursue correspondence courses from various Open Universities and distance learning institutes in India.

BENEFITS OF DEVELOPMENT OF EDUCATION

The benefit of development of education is not reachable to the common peoples. It is reachable only to some special persons or rich people. All this is because only of commercial legation of education. A class of some selfish categorical teachers has been introducing in the field of education. But it is very necessary the teacher and educated person should be more responsible and liable to spread their educational knowledge to the poor students and masses. They should not pay their special attention to some special class students and rich persons. They should try their best to educate the poor students, children and adults. The benefits of education should be reachable to the each and every education willing person.

In the last, we can say that an uneducated person can neither be a good citizen nor a good parent. He is ignorant and superstitions. Deprived of knowledge he falls in the darkness of ignorance. Thus education is a very necessary part of our life. Education is right for every child so education should be provided to all.

EDUCATION SYSTEM IN VARANASI:

As far as Varanasi is concerned, it is one of the oldest cities of the world holding a high place in virtue of education. Education is primary of every child in a democratic society.

Education is the future of our country. It is distressing to find that during all these years of our independence we have been merely dabbling in schemes and projects, in new-fangled ideas mostly borrowed from the west, merely setting up commission after commission at the cost of lacs or rupees and let matters rest at that. The drive, the initiative, the dynamic vision necessary for radical reforms in the sphere of education is lamentably conspicuous by their absence. We have allowed matters to drift aimlessly, instead of setting down to grapple with momentous issues. The result has been disastrous. A life less, mechanical system of teaching in overcrowded schools and colleges imposed by far from competent teachers on students whose only interest is to get through examination, has been the bane of our education. We have completely forgotten the simple yet vital truth that the aim of education is first to build up character in the widest sense and then to impart knowledge.

Here, an educated man is called upon to master more than one language. An educated Indian requires the mastery of an international language. The educated Indian should be able to read and write in many languages.

CHAPTER 4

VARIOUS INSTITUTES IN VARANASI

SMS VARANASI

SHEPA, Varanasi

BHU, Varanasi

KIT, Varanasi

MAHATMA GANDHI KASHI VIDYAPEETH, Varanasi

SANSKRIT VIDYALAYA, Varanasi

CHAPTER 5

CONCEPT OF THE STUDY

The plan for this Survey of Student Attitudes, arose out of the Survey of Background Literature on Student Retention which was presented to the SAC in March 2004, and out of my work with students in the School of Informatics between 2001 and 2003. From this work, three crucial issues for student retention emerged. These are as follows:

Student expectations of institute. Several studies argue that students may leave institute if their expectations are unmet, or turn out to have been unrealistic. This was a common theme in the ‘exit interviews’ carried out in the School of Informatics, and researchers at a wide range of institutions report similar findings. It is also proposed that students’ reported experiences of institute may relate at least as closely to how it compares to their expectations as to what they actually encounter.

Student motivation. The word ‘motivation’ arises in many discussions of student retention and student life, but there is surprisingly little research on how motivation can be supported. There is even some confusion over precisely what is meant by the term. However, it is almost certainly true that this is an important factor in determining student experiences and decisions about whether or not to continue with a course. In the first place, low motivation is frequently cited by students who are opting out of coursework or attendance, or considering withdrawal. In addition, a repeated finding in the literature is that withdrawing students include many ‘reactive entrants’ to higher education, who can be assumed to have relatively low levels of certain kinds of motivation. A key task may be the differentiation of different types of motivation, and of the ways in which these can be fostered among students.

Student lifestyles and student experiences. Both of the above issues can be seen as closely related to Tinto’s well-established thesis that students who achieve a good degree of academic and social integration (or an exceptionally high degree of one or the other of these) are the least likely to withdraw from higher education unless they are affected by a serious external crisis.

I have explored these in relation to the notion of ‘culture’ around higher education, both within the institution and in the wider society in which individual universities and the higher education system exist. This can be seen to underlie the three central concerns of this project. Student expectations will be shaped by the complex and conflicting cultural status of universities in modern British society. Their experience when confronted with the reality of a particular institution will form their decisions about how to proceed with their higher education, and the same is probably true of their levels and types of motivation. And if we are to examine their involvement and

integration with an institution, it is essential that the culture of that institution is understood. It is inevitable, even desirable, that staff and students in a changing and diverse institution such will have different ideas about what a institute is and what it should offer to, and expect from, its students and staff. However, underlying cultural beliefs are rarely articulated, and differences which are not recognised, acknowledged and managed can lead to problems of communication and practice. This report attempts to provide some framework for discussion of this matter.

I did not investigate any of the following matters in detail, because they are the subject of extensive work by other groups within the institute: guidance tutoring, orientation and induction, recruitment and pre-entry activities, student finance, part-time employment, diversity issues. Inevitably, however, many of them have arisen ‘in passing’.

LITERATURE REVIEW

A substantial quantity of literature on the topics considered in this study was surveyed in the first report submitted to the SAC, and this has not, for reasons of space, been re-examined here. However, I have included references where parts of that report are particularly relevant.

There is a large literature on student retention, but writings student expectations of HE are surprisingly few. This is noted by some of the authors cited in the first report, e.g. Ozga and Sukhnandan 1998, Martinez 2001, Roddan 2002. Many students who withdraw state that ‘the course isn’t what I expected’ or draw attention aspects of their academic or social lives which come as a surprise. However, it is difficult to find much work on precisely what students do expect. Where this exists, it may relate only to particular sections of the student community (e.g. mature-age students, students from low-participation neighbourhoods), or even to young people who have decided not to enter higher education (e.g. Payne 2003), sometimes on the basis of very mistaken beliefs.

Student attitudes and experiences, however, are reasonably well documented by the many surveys of student satisfaction which are now established. Students are asked to report on [their perceptions of] teaching quality, their workload, levels of difficulty, availability of academic and non-academic support, their interest in the subject, the teaching methods and materials they encounter, and their experience of assessment. Their views on accommodation, student union facilities, ICT and library provision and of their financial welfare are also sought. All of these are now examined in a national student survey, but they have long been a key part of departmental and institutional reviews in many institutions.

It is, therefore, relatively easy to find ‘percentage scores’ indicating the proportion of students in an institution who are ‘very satisfied’, ‘satisfied’, ‘neither satisfied nor dissatisfied’ etc. with the elements of institute life considered salient within the standard survey design, and this information is, of course, invaluable in setting policy within an HEI or the HE system. However, it is far harder to find information about precisely what a student means when s/he evaluates aspects of their institute experience. Is a ‘good’ seminar session one which students will be unable to appreciate fully without some preliminary reading, and in which they are required to take part in activities where they engage with the tutor and their peers? Or is it one where they can exercise their personal choice to turn up entirely unprepared and write down an occasional sentence without having to think too hard? Is a ‘good’ lecture one in which the student learns only things which s/he believes are directly relevant to a future career, or one in which potentially interesting concepts or skills of which s/he has never even heard are introduced? The growing literature on ‘excellence’ and ‘professionalism’ in HE teaching defines these qualities, but students may not always share their criteria1.

There is a small but growing literature, however, which takes a more discursive approach to student lifestyles and the ‘student experience’2, and to student attitudes towards their role and their universities. The relative rarity of such studies may arise partly because, if they are to include sufficiently exploratory interviews, they risk either being prohibitively expensive to undertake, or of using too small a sample to qualify their conclusions as truly representative. However, I have examined some of the work which does exist.

1 I was brought up forcibly against this sort of question during my last years as a lecturer, when one student graded my lectures as ‘unsatisfactory’ and explained that this was because ‘the lecturer was too enthusiastic’. A colleague at another institution, who regularly received an aggregate assessment from her students indicating that she was an outstanding teacher, received poor assessments from two students who said she ‘didn’t tell us enough and expected us to do too much for ourselves’ in seminars.

2 Andrew Shipton’s work, at the Institute of Northumbria, is an outstanding example.

One fact which emerges clearly from this work is that it is almost completely meaningless to talk about ‘students’ as a uniform group. The student body is now so large and diverse that even among the apparently homogenous ‘young post-A-level’ group there is an enormous variety of aspiration, interest and attitude to almost every aspect of student life. ‘Diversity’ exists not only between groups such as UK and overseas, able-bodied students and students with disabilities, students from different ethnic groups, ‘young’ and ‘mature-age’ students or even ‘advantaged’ students and those from low participation neighbourhoods and/or poor homes. A rich complexity of factors determines what an individual brings to institute and what she or he will get out of it. Two dimensions of diversity which I decided to examine in the questionnaire are ‘student generation’ and choice of academic subject; one which emerged as more important than I had anticipated was gender.

The exception to my complaint about the paucity of materials is in the area of finance, where a number of extensive studies on students’ financial attitudes as well as their circumstances have been carried out in recent years. This is reported in a separate report presented today.

Another area where it proved difficult to find a great deal of secondary reading was student motivation. This is partly because the literature on human motivation in general is fairly small. Where it does exist it relates largely to ‘compelled’ activities such as paid work (there is a large literature on employee motivation), which does not translate particularly easily to the case of students whose work is largely unsupervised and essentially elective. The work on student motivation is also problematic because of the special complexity in this area with regard to motivations which may be distant (e.g. future employment prospects) and/or vague (e.g. ‘a good job’ or ‘a well-paid job’). However, what is essential for student retention and satisfaction is a way of motivating students immediately to take a full part in their course of study. In addition, the motivation of students to work hard is perhaps uniquely subject to factors which are outside the control of their tutors.

Many theorists, from Aquinas on, have written about what the ‘culture’ of a institute is, and what it should be. A full survey of this literature would be far beyond my remit or ability, but I have addressed three of the issues which are particularly important for student retention.

The first is the potential for mismatches, largely tacit, in the beliefs of [some] students and [some] HEIs, or sections within these, about what a institute is and/or should be. Where these arise, it is unlikely that students will engage in behaviours which foster

their success within the institution, and it may be difficult for the institution to offer appropriate support to the student. The literature on this topic includes a discussion of ways in which there may be a particular danger of such mismatches in the era of ‘widening participation’.

A second concern is the status of fee-paying students as ‘customers’ of the institutes. This is a highly controversial piece of terminology, which Sir Howard Newby described as ‘extreme’ in 2001 but which by 2003 was used with little qualification in the White Paper The Future of Higher Education. In Varanasi, a strident debate continues over whether students should be called, and treated as, customers, and there are signs that a similar situation may arise in the UK. My concern was to examine some of the implications of this language and the expectations which its use may engender in students, administrators and academics.

The third issue, related to both of the above, is the way in which the wider society regards higher education and helps to shape the expectations which students bring to institute. Like the previous ones, this is potentially controversial. It is also difficult to find ‘hard evidence’, because the problem is rather precisely that uninformed opinions rather than hard evidence are what is under discussion. Nevertheless this is an important matter because it is at the root of many student attitudes, and also attitudes among the general public to HE policy.

CHAPTER 6

APPROACHES OF STUDENTS

2:1 Student perceptions and the student experience

2:1:1 Holistic approaches to the student experience

Elements of the student experience –teaching quality, social relationships, satisfaction with the physical environment, practical details of organisation etc. – are often discussed as if they are quite distinct from one another. Such a separation is a practical necessity in the management of a institute or department, but it does not reflect the reality of student life. A common perception among researchers who work

with the narratives of individual students is that apparently discrete aspects of their experience actually bleed into one another. Where the student is considering withdrawal, this may mean that the reasons for leaving are unclear to the researcher and possibly also to the student him/herself. Different – sometimes radically different – rationalisations can emerge on different occasions, or in conversations with different people, and the outcome of a ‘tick box’ questionnaire can contradict entirely the account offered in an interview. For example, one student who had gone into great detail about his dislike of course content and of his privately rented accommodation concluded the discussion by saying ‘of course, it would all have been fine if I hadn’t been so worried about money all the time’. Another realised that her unhappiness with the physical environment of the institute diminished her enjoyment of lectures whose content she in fact considered ‘fascinating’, while a third identified his reason for ‘not making friends’ as being rooted in an unwillingness to commit to a subject about which he felt highly ambivalent.

In addition to this, students have been shown to evaluate their overall experience, and to make their decision about whether to stay or to leave, on the basis of a complex ‘cost-benefit analysis’ (LS1, 20). Some of the factors involved will be extremely practical ones, such as quality of organisation on a particular course, ease of commuting to campus, and using institute facilities such as IT and libraries. Others will be harder to define, such as ‘teaching quality’, coherence of curriculum, and social integration. Most importantly, both of these groups will be mediated by the attitudes and expectations brought to institute by the individual student, as well as their personal interests, tastes, and stage of development. For students who decide to leave, something arguably ‘goes wrong’ in the balance between these disparate elements, while it can be assumed that those who stay find a path through the complexity that in some way ‘works’ for them. It may work exceedingly well, as it did at the end of the first year for the students interviewed in this project, or it may just about come out alright, as seemed to be the case at some earlier stage of their careers.

One solution to this complexity which emerges in recent work on student retention is to research students who do not withdraw alongside those who depart. In other words, researchers have increasingly chosen to look at the range of factors which make up the student experience for all students, in an attempt to see ‘what goes right’. For a long time, the potential of a strong retention strategy to improve the experience and achievement of all students has been noted by organisations such as Noel-Levitz. Rather less positively, many student advisers who work in this field have noted that the extent of their success is very difficult to measure, because it is impossible to know whether a particular individual actually would have dropped out.

Where ‘stayers’ are investigated alongside ‘leavers’, their characteristics turn out to be remarkably similar. This approach is remarkably new in the field of student retention, as Christie et al (2004) note in their article comparing students at two very different Scottish institutions, Heriot Watt and Glasgow Caledonian Universities. They suggest that the reasons for withdrawal should be sought as much in the way students experience their circumstances as in the circumstances themselves, because ‘similar circumstances [may] become unbearable for one student but not for another’ (2004, 618).

In this report, I have borrowed extensively from the methodology used in this study.

Christie et al (2004) found that among their subjects, no single reason emerged as being particularly important in tipping the scales towards a decision to leave. The most common factor named was the rather vague ‘problems with course’, although this was cited by less than a quarter of students who withdrew. The physical environment of the institute ranked surprisingly high, although this may relate to the rather unusual situation at the two institutions surveyed: one is situated on a small and isolated campus, while the other occupies several large, somewhat anonymous buildings in one of the shabbier parts of a busy city centre. After this came ‘lack of motivation’ (see below), financial pressures and family problems. Fewer than 10% of students mentioned health or housing issues, and the offer of a job proved crucial for a only a very small number3 (Christie et al 2004, 622). Christie et al (2004) note that students will usually under-represent their own academic difficulties (623), which can also be assumed to play a part.

In an earlier work, Thomas (2002, 423) describes many of her subjects as having external circumstances (financial hardship and long part-time working hours) appear to make them extremely vulnerable to withdrawal. However, their interviews show them to be satisfied and committed students who are unlikely to leave institute. A similar group are described by Winn (2:5:11, below).

There appear to be two crucial (and related) ingredients which operate as an antidote to a potentially poisonous mixture of external forces. Neither of these is entirely within the control of the institute, but neither is entirely outside it. One – the more

3 Christie et al noted some interesting differences between ‘advantaged’ and ‘disadvantaged’ students who left, with the former group citing course or motivational problems more frequently than the latter (25% as opposed to 18% for course problems, and 17% rather than 15% for motivation). This contradicts some ‘standard approaches’ to the characteristics of widening participation students (LS1, 34-6), although it is similar to the findings of both the questionnaire and the staff interviews used in this project.

difficult of the two to describe and to foster – is undoubtedly student motivation, which is discussed in 2:5 below. The other is the oldest chestnut of all in student retention literature, the extent to which the student feels that s/he belongs within their institute, their course, and higher education itself. If a student feels comfortable, welcome and happy in these places, then s/he is unlikely to elect to leave them. If external circumstances threaten that sense of belonging, then the student’s first response will probably be to protect it rather than to hasten its loss. Additionally, s/he is likely to engage in a set of behaviours which match and support their identity as a student, such as effective study and regular attendance.

Christie et al (2004) highlight the importance of this latter type of factor:

… the extent to which the decision to continue in the face of financial (and other) difficulties is intrinsically related to the quality of relationships with other students, tutors and support staff, and the extent to which students feel they “belong” to the institute.

Christie et al 2004, 633

They suggest that if relationships are good and the student’s feeling of belonging is strong, practically any ‘bad’ circumstance can be ameliorated. Christie et al also point out that their work reinforces Tinto’s view that curriculum and social life are inextricably linked in the experience of students. Breen (1999, 3), identifies four dimensions of ‘quality’ in teaching and learning (curricula coherence and sequencing, development of critical perspective in students, connecting learning material to other disciplines and levels of ‘inclusiveness’ of student minorities), but also points out that the ‘attitudes, beliefs and values’ of students are essential. These will themselves be among the elements of the student which undergo ‘transformation’ at institute (‘… in addition to “pure knowledge”, social norms and values are an important part of the conceptual framework of academic disciplines,’ Breen 199, 3). In other words, for student identification to be truly achieved, they need to engage with these internal aspects of higher education as well as the more obvious externals.

Grayson (2003) suggests that a similarly holistic approach underlies effective induction, describing the assumptions underlying successful American first year curricula as follows:

‘… with student pre-college traits (e.g. high-school grades) held constant, coursework and curricular patterns, positive classroom experiences, and positive out-of-class experiences (that collectively can be viewed as institutional experiences) contribute to various learning outcomes such as the development of analytic, communication, personal, organising, math and computer skills; and the acquisition of subject matter expertise’

Grayson 2003, 411-412

Many writers link this strand in the retention literature to Tinto’s work. Braxton et al (2000, p.570) quote his view that social integration must occur in the classroom, which operates as the ‘gateway’ to the college. Similarly, Jansen (2004, p. 413) points out that curriculum organisation is given relatively little attention in discussions of retention, despite Tinto’s insistence on its importance. This strand of argument strengthens the case made in LS1 that it is important to integrate social and academic experiences for students, a position which is also supported by the student interviews reported below.

In this project, I have used the experiences of ‘retained’ students to investigate factors relating to student retention. I have also examined correlations between aspects of the academic and non-academic experiences of students.

2:1:2 Academic preparedness and study skills

Many writers stress that this is one area in which the expectations which students bring to institute are absolutely key. Breen suggests that the problem is widespread, and that it relates both to general study skills and to the student’s relationship with the culture of the particular academic discipline which s/he enters:

It is plausible that many students enter Higher Education with ill-conceived ideas of what it really means to study their discipline in their chosen institute. If this is taken to be true, then a discrepancy exists between expectations (and motivations) and experiences, this will undoubtedly lead to withdrawal, failure or the development of inappropriate approaches to learning.

Breen 1999, 13

This is a useful restatement of the importance of a good level of student preparedness for institute (LS1, 17, 56-8, 93). Perhaps this factor explains the high levels of retention among Thomas’ subjects, despite the relatively high levels of disadvantage experienced by some of them. Thomas found that among her interviewees, ‘… the majority… felt academically either “quite well” or “very well” prepared to study in HE’ (2002, 434).

Thomas suggests that this is an area in which the institute can address uncertainties:

Even students who were not well prepared for HE in a traditional sense (i.e. with high A level scores) seemed to feel supported by inclusive teaching and learning approaches, which is responsive to the varying levels of academic preparedness.

Thomas 2002, 434

The key terms here are ‘inclusive’ and ‘varying’. Several authors, including Andrew Shipton in his work at the Institute of note that when lectures are perceived as being ‘too easy’ or as repeating material or techniques which students had encountered at A-level, there is a danger that the more knowledgeable, confident or able individuals may get bored.

A related trend was noted in the School of Informatics. Here, students took a first year course which was intended to allow them to learn computer science even if they had no former experience whatsoever in this field. In practice, while some undergraduates were in this position, a number had previously studied in the field at levels from GCSE to A-level or even HND. A few of these students elected to miss lectures during the first semester because they felt that they had ‘already done’ the work covered in these. This sounds reasonable, but during the second semester they began to miss lectures in subjects which were new to them, and several of these apparently well-qualified students later withdrew or failed units. Students who feel that the course is going ‘too slowly’ for them may cease to attend and thus develop poor study habits, or fail to integrate.

Thomas’ equation of ‘preparedness’ with A-level score is not unquestionable. A student who does well at A-level may have acquired excellent study skills. Alternatively, s/he may have been very effectively prepared by a highly supportive secondary school, without having acquired a strong ability to learn independently. The willingness to take responsibility for one’s own learning is an essential part of

institute study, and helping students to acquire the skills and confidence to do this is key to both satisfaction and retention.

In this project, I examined student expectations and beliefs about independent learning.

Approaches to teaching which encourage students to undertake ‘active learning’ are often recommended as increasing student satisfaction, and also promoting a good understanding of subject material. Braxton et al (2000, 571) quote evidence that ‘active learning enhances student knowledge and understanding of course content’. Their caution against identifying ‘academic integration’ with ‘active learning’ is wise; it is easy to imagine a student who feels ‘academically integrated’ but whose approaches to learning are actually quite passive (consider the analogy of an avid viewer of Match of the Day who has not kicked a football for a decade). However, the reverse is probably a much safer position to adopt. A student who is encouraged to participate in classes which use ‘active learning’ techniques will almost per force encounter a degree of academic integration.

The problem with trying to get students to be proactive about their studies, inside and outside the classroom, is that both students and staff need to ‘buy into’ this approach. Chan discusses ways of fostering ‘autonomous’ learning approaches in language students, and suggests that for these to be adopted, students need to understand what needs to be learnt and why (Chan 2001, 286). In other words, they need not just to know that they need to do ‘loads of study’. They need to have a sense of what it would be like to be able to do something, or have a strong knowledge of a subject. They also need to grasp the components of learning this.

Chan (2001) suggests that is only achieved via an explicit, and ongoing, dialogue about what actually constitutes learning, so that students understand what they are supposed to be doing, in a very precise and subject-specific way, as well as how they are to do it. On their own:

autonomous learning experiences do not automatically turn dependent learners into autonomous ones. Frequent consultations with the students over the approach to their autonomous study are thus necessary… [and] … regular student-teacher dialogue

Chan 2001, 294

One difficulty here is the lack of a register in which to discuss ways of learning4. Stephenson 2003 (LS1, 89-90) found that the school pupils with whom she worked were more or less unaware that study itself requires techniques. When asked ‘how do you learn?’, they either offered very concrete responses (‘I go to school,’ ‘my teacher tells me things,’), or they repeated the content of lessons which they had attended. Nevertheless, they found the subsequent exploration of actual learning techniques and processes fascinating.

The common element in both Chan’s and Stephenson’s approaches is small-scale contact and discussion between students and teachers. The ‘individual’ element in Chan’s description, below, indicates that this may well be something that can only be developed if there is at least some element of one-to-one contact while the discourse itself is being developed. As with many other measures which have the potential to increase student satisfaction and retention, this could prove quite unrealistic to implement given current levels of resource.

Nevertheless, there are ways in which this discourse can be initiated within the existing imperatives for higher education. Chan’s account of learner autonomy is as follows:

Learner autonomy is essentially concerned with decision making on the learner’s part… the locus of control and responsibility lies in the hands of the individual learner… the autonomous learner accepts responsibility for his/her own learning, is able to take charge of the learning, determine objectives, select methods and techniques and evaluate what has been acquired. He/she is expected to be able to make significant decisions about what is to be learnt, how and when… assuming greater responsibility for his/her learning… the autonomous learner establishes a personal agenda for learning… He/she (with or without the teacher’s help) is expected to be actively involved in the setting of goals, defining content and working out evaluation mechanisms for assessing achievement and progress

Chan 2001, 285

This is a specific and individual account of a specific and individual process, but the skills described are actually very similar to some of those whose importance is stressed in works on the development of employability among undergraduates, and in

4 Writers on students in ICT disciplines have observed a similar absence of a discourse around ‘skills’ among sixth-formers, who tend to confuse skills with knowledge.

related discussions of lifelong learning. The PDP is a particular case where such reflection is required.

This might be a site where students could be encouraged to reflect on their own learning behaviours, and also to value these for their potential contribution to future employment and promotion prospects.

2:1:3 Student attitudes to feedback

One area of students’ academic experience where there is a potential for dialogue with academic staff is in the feedback which they receive on their assignments. The questionnaire results demonstrated the enormous importance of feedback to students, but it is also a highly problematic issue.

In the first place, the actual reference of the term is rather ambiguous. Feedback might be little more than a mark, an indication of the level of performance attained by a student at one particular point in their course. Students certainly use do grades as feedback, or an indication of ‘how I’m doing,’ and as such the grade constitutes a powerful means of communication between the student and the institute. Treating grades in this way is one way in which a student can use an assessment as a tool in their learning. There is a stronger, and more satisfactory, element of feedback where the student is offered some discussion of grades with a personal tutor or the lecturer who marked their work.

Feedback becomes a more practical part of the learning experience when it involves some discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of assessed work, perhaps with advice about how the student can improve their performance, and hence their grade, in subsequent assignments. Finally, there is formative feedback, where a piece of work is undertaken primarily in order to obtain the tutor’s comments and a grade is either purely indicative, or entirely absent. Less formal ‘formative feedback’ might include a discussion of how well the student demonstrates his or her skills and knowledge in tutorials, seminars or practicals.

There is also the problem of precisely what feedback is meant to do. In a study at my previous institution, a high number of students agreed with tutors that the comments

written on essays (including formative ones) were intended to help students to develop skills in analysis, expression and argumentation. A small number, however, voiced the opinion that writing an essay which would not be allocated a mark was ‘a waste of time when you could be doing something you get a mark for’. One of these students described her understanding of the purpose of comments on an essay as follows:

… you do what the tutor tells you, and then if you can hand in a second draft you get more comments, and then you can use those to perfect that essay even further, and then you’re sure you’ll get the best mark you can.

The student’s focus in her course was simply on gaining marks, rather than on gaining the skills which would allow her to achieve better marks. This is not an unusual confusion (see 2:5:8 below), but it makes it extremely difficult to encourage students – and by extension, staff – to ‘buy into’ the process of formative feedback.

Higgins et al (2002) note that tutors may disagree on what constitutes feedback, and may also be cynical about whether students actually use it (2002, 56). Offering full and useful feedback to all the students in a seminar group is time-consuming, and it would be unreasonable to expect lecturers to put a lot of time into this if students seem unlikely to use the feedback well – or at all. The depressing experience of handing carefully marked essays back to a group of undergraduates who glance at the grade and then stuff the papers into a folder is all too common among academics.

It will surprise few lecturers to read that the students interviewed by Higgins et al had a reasonable concept of what constituted ‘good feedback’. Most of them wanted tutors to offer comments as well as grades, and they were aware that these comments should refer to the ‘strengths and weaknesses’ demonstrated in their work (2002, 58). However, they were less clear about how they could use this feedback. The attitudes and behaviours reported in the study show a marked contradiction; while 97% read their tutor’s comments, and 82% maintained that they ‘“paid close attention”’ to the feedback they receive, the majority said they spent less than fifteen minutes on it. This might arise because students believe that the marks for these particular assignments are already fixed. If so, then what is missing is once again a discourse around the usefulness of feedback in gaining generic subject or learning skills, and in building up a sound knowledge of one’s subject area as well as performing well in one particular task.

Formative feedback is recognised as an extremely valuable learning tool, and there is an exciting strand of research, led by Mantz Yorke (LS1, 114-5), which argues that it can contribute very effectively to student retention. Higgins et al note various practical difficulties; it is difficult to deliver where tutors have heavy workloads, in order to be effective it requires a ‘fast turnaround’ of student assignments, and where comments are too vague or too negative it may be of little use or even counter-productive (2002, 55). In addition, the methods which are most quickly delivered (e.g. number grids or tick-box pro formas) are often the ones to which students respond least readily, or find hardest to interpret.

Ridley (2004, 99) also interviewed tutors who found that their students did not respond well to these methods. One of the difficulties is that by their very nature, such documents use rather vague wording; Ridley’s example is an item which assesses students’ ability to ‘access, interpret and evaluate information from electronic sources’ (2004, 101). Students may find it difficult to relate such general points to the particular piece of work which they have submitted, or to their own assessment of their abilities.

Here too, dialogue seems to be essential. Specifically, students who have progressed through the school system in an atmosphere where ‘getting marks’ is a priority may need some time and support to adjust to a setting in which submitted work is regarded as a tool to be used in a learning process, rather than an end in itself (informal discussion with several tutors suggests that mature-age students who have experience of Access courses are often more receptive to the idea of formative feedback than students who enter directly from school).

Formative feedback will work best were students feel that they are developing their own learning in partnership with the institute, a situation which is similar to the one which will support independence in learning. Its benefits are least likely to be felt where students adopt an essentially transactional approach, in which they provide the ‘right’ answers and in return are given the ‘right’ marks.

Again, students should be engaged in an explicit discourse about the purpose of feedback within their development as subject specialists and skilled graduates. Formative feedback should be used where possible.

2:1:4 Student attitudes to teaching and learning

Teaching and learning, more than any other part of the student experience, is an area where the institute can control the input to the student experience. A great deal of discussion in the student retention literature suggests that if students are offered ‘student centred’ approaches in the classroom and other aspects of their academic course, they will enjoy it more and prove less likely to withdraw. However, once again the attitudes of students to the experience offered to them is crucial. Johnson (LS1, 17) discusses the problem that ‘student centred’ teaching can be unpopular with certain students who lack motivation or confidence, because students who are placed at the ‘centre’ of their learning experience need to work hard and consistently. Even very willing students can have difficulties with the transition from school teaching methods and assumptions to the ones they encounter at institute.

It would be a mistake to assume that ‘student centred’ approaches have only become widespread in higher education since the introduction of teacher training for institute lecturers and a discourse around teaching methods in the tertiary sector. Despite the tone of some discussions of this subject, in many departments the lecture has formed only a part of the teaching strategy. Seminars and tutorials, where students are encouraged to discuss, analyse and engage with concepts, have always been at least as important if not more so (in other words, in their day-to-day jobs ‘lecturers’ might more appropriately have been termed ‘tutors’). Often such teaching methods incorporated oral and written formative feedback on student work.

These sessions provided the type of individual, concept-driven instruction which is essential to higher education (and which many employers of graduates expect their recruits to have experienced). They were a practical reality while student numbers were relatively small, but as staff:student ratios become similar to those found in secondary schools it may be difficult to maintain characteristic institute teaching methods, and ways of reproducing these for larger number will need to be found.

Prosser et al examined a substantial body of research on ‘the relation between student perceptions of the learning context, approaches to study in that context and the quality of the learning outcomes…’ (2003, 35). Unsurprisingly, they found a consensus that exposure to a particular type of teaching methods can, over a period of time, shape student approaches to learning:

Student-focussed conceptual change approaches to teaching are associated with deeper approaches to learning and teacher-focussed information transfer approaches to teaching are associated with surface approaches to learning… consonant and coherent patterns of relationships (surface approaches with perceptions supporting surface approaches, and deep approaches with perceptions supporting deep approaches) were related to lower and higher quality learning outcomes respectively.

Prosser et al 2003, 38

This is good news for lecturers who adopt ‘student focussed conceptual change approaches’ in their classes and lectures. However, students do not arrive at institute as blank slates; they may have surface approaches to learning which are strongly engrained because of, or despite, the learning environments they have previously experienced. Changing these in the twelve weeks of the first semester is a considerable challenge for the institute, especially in the absence of a well-defined discourse around how teaching and learning happen.

A further problem is indicated by Prosser et al’s research; students who report surface approaches are likely to have a whole cluster of negative experiences around their institute studies. In the same classes:

students who reported adopting surface approaches… perceive the teaching to be poorer, the goals and standards to be less clear, the workload to be too high and the assessment to be testing reproduction… [they] were shown to have poorer quality understanding of key concepts and to be performing less well on tests of achievement. On the other hand, students who reported adopting deeper approaches and who perceive the teaching to be better, the goals and standards to be clearer, the workload to be not too high and the assessment to be testing understanding were shown to have higher quality understanding of key concepts and to be performing better on tests of achievement.

Prosser et al 2003, 38

Such students are therefore likely to be relatively unwilling to engage with the institute’s attempts to support their transition to more useful learning patterns. The research carried out by Dooley backs up the view that prior learning experiences are ‘salient’ for student behaviours once in higher education (2004, 232). He found that students were capable of learning to learn in ‘ways that are considered conducive to

quality outcomes’ but that they will often prefer low quality approaches if they have learnt that these bring rewards.

Once again, the establishing a discourse around learning and demonstrating the value of this to students emerges as a priority.

Some of the characteristics of ‘low quality approaches’ include a strong focus on the acquisition of information rather than of concepts, a nervousness about learning to read or reproduce ‘academic language’, and a dislike of handling ambiguity. Ridley (2004, 98 – 102) addresses some of these issues, which can be regarded as additional aspects of student integration. A student who feels that they do not ‘belong’ in a institute or a particular subject may well feel uncomfortable – like a foreigner who has not yet acquired fluency in a second language – interpreting or adopting the register of the institution or the discipline. Providing an environment in which such learning is supported, and where students realise that these are things which can be learnt, is an important part of integration. (This issue returns in the discussion of widening participation below, 2:4).

2:1:5 Tutor-student relations and the student experience

There is ample evidence that regular contact between staff and students is absolutely fundamental to student retention: one-to-one interactions in teaching situations, organised social contact and guidance tutoring are all elements of this. LS1 contains detailed discussion of the literature on this point, which is reiterated throughout the work on the student experience; for example, Thomas points out that student motivation rises when tutors appear to ‘care about’ students and their learning (2002, 432), while Taylor and Bedford list ‘student-teaching staff interaction’ factors (2004, 384). Thomas gives several examples of the sort of interaction which is valuable outside the classroom:

Students seem to be more likely to feel that they are accepted and valued by staff if lecturers and tutors know their names and exhibit other signs of friendship, are interested in their work and treat students as equals… [they appreciate] “the fact that you can call staff by their first name is a major thing”… “we can get hold of lecturers at any time”.

Thomas 2002, 432

Students who are accepted on ‘first name’ terms by their lecturers, and who have easy and informal access to staff, are likely to be well integrated into their department, and it is unquestionable that this sort of atmosphere will be conducive to both satisfaction and retention among students. The difficulty in achieving it, however, is less likely to come from the attitude of some academic staff members and more likely to arise from the reality of modern staff-student ratios. This point is rarely made in the literature, and where it appears it is often dismissed because ‘we cannot change the economic reality of modern staff-student ratios’. And yet, it is difficult to remember the names of all the students in several first year seminars of twenty or more as well as those in senior years, to be in a position where any of the many students one teaches can ‘get hold of [one] at any time’, or indeed to treat a group of a hundred or more students collectively as ‘equals’.

This commentary is not intended to add to the hand-wringing over the state of higher education, but it is important that the immovable reality of current student numbers is factored into the search for ways to provide satisfactory personal contacts and support for students.

2:1:6 Accommodation and retention

The correlations between type of accommodation and student retention which were observed in this project (9:5) are by no means unusual. Practically every study which has examined this variable has come to a similar conclusion. Some Institutes had experienced particular problems with integrating students living at home, and that at the Institute of Sunderland, retention rates for students living at home are lower than those for students living in Halls of Residence (2001, 42). Thomas (2002) also regards student space as crucial to both satisfaction and retention.

By contrast, retention is highest in the collegiate system of Durham Institute, and a great deal of this may be attributable to the high levels of integration and ‘belonging’ offered by this. It is certainly true that Durham found little or no variation in retention rates between students from different social classes or with different A-level scores who lived in the colleges in the city.

To some extent, it is possible that factors which mean a student chooses to live in institute.

CHAPTER 7

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Primary Data

Student interviews

12:1 General characteristics of student interviewees

The response to the request for student interviewees was disappointing. Relatively few students agreed to be interviewed, and of those who did a number gave invalid telephone numbers or did not respond to requests. In the end, six interviews were carried out, three in person and three by telephone. Students who requested a telephone interview all asked for this to be made to a mobile phone rather than a land-line.

Three of these students lived at home (in two cases the parental home, in one independent of family), and three lived in Institute’s halls of residence. Four were studying in the other and two inXX, and all but one were male. Although very few mature-age students returned the questionnaire, two of the students who were interviewed were over 24, and categorised themselves as mature-age students. Three had part-time jobs. Two of the students with part-time work lived at home, the other in a Institute’s hall of residence, and all were working an average of 15 hours per week.

In the interviews, students were not asked to identify their generation or to discuss ‘social class’. However, in four cases they self-identified voluntarily as both first-generation and working-class (in each case they did so while discussing student finance).

Any request to students to take part in this sort of exercise will inevitably risk some risk of self-selection. Just as those students who return questionnaires often tend to be the least satisfied, those who will happily give up half an hour of their time to talk to a member of institute staff tend to be those who feel more positive towards the institution. While the ‘dissatisfaction’ effect does not seem to have been strong in relation to the questionnaire, all six of the students interviewed appeared to be highly

satisfied students who had enjoyed their courses. They also were all academically successful, having passed into their second year with no referrals. They were not asked to disclose their actual marks, but in the course of the interviews several mentioned these; all fell into the upper second or first-class bands.

This group of students provide a very valuable opportunity to see ‘what went right’ for individuals who are highly satisfied with their first year and have achieved academic success. This is the sort of experience which a successful retention programme should attempt to extend to all students. In fact, the ‘good experience’ which these students had had was remarkably similar in each case, and related closely to their study behaviours and attitudes to their courses. Therefore, it can be regarded as offering a helpful ‘template’ for a successful student lifestyle.

One of the very positive outcomes from the interviews was the real enthusiasm with which all of the students talked about their experience of institute in general and their course in particular. At several points their positive tone became emotional, even joyful, when they reflected on their first year. The topics which most frequently elicited this sort of response can be regarded loosely as relating to types of student ‘transformation’. One was the opportunity to learn new things and become good at things which the student had previously not encountered, or had thought s/he was bad at, and the other was the opportunity to immerse oneself in the new social milieu of institute. These students at least are revelling in the ways institute can change them; none felt that s/he was being asked to become ‘a different person’.

12:2 Preparation and transition

12:2:1 Course choice

All of the students interviewed had taken a great deal of trouble over choosing their course, and preparing for institute in general. This almost certainly accounts for at least some of their high levels of satisfaction. None had been content to take the advice of their teachers, college tutors or careers advisers without doing some further research on their own initiative.

All but one of the students had attended an institute open day, either general or related to their specific programme. The feedback on open days was very positive, with students stressing the importance of ‘getting a feel for the place’. The student who had

not been to an open day stated that some things would have been much easier if s/he had been able to do so, and noted that s/he felt ‘lost’ in the physical environment of the institute and the city in the first few weeks. As well as ‘obvious’ aspects of the usefulness of open days, the students drew attention to the helpfulness of having the chance to see what lecture theatres, computer rooms and tutors’ offices actually look like. One pointed out that the teaching spaces are often the things which are most different from anywhere they have been before, and that having an idea of the scale, décor etc. of these made the first few days less intimidating.

The two mature-age students had used the Access Guidance Centre to take ‘taster’ courses in order to test out whether their initial decisions about which subject to study had been right for them. Both were enthusiastic about the provision offered. One student found that his/her instincts had been correct, and applied for the course which s/he had first considered. The other realised that the course for which s/he had intended to apply did not fit his/her interests and career aims as closely as s/he had thought. S/he was able to select a different course instead. In both cases these students found that as well as a clear idea of course content, the Access Guidance Centre courses had helped them to adjust to institute teaching methods and study skills.

Two of the ‘young’ students had friends who had previously taken the courses on which they themselves were now enrolled, and who had provided invaluable help, telling them precisely what they would study, and pointing them towards aspects of the school-institute transition which might be challenging. Hearing about these matters from a friend had ‘helped a lot’; one student stated that ‘you got the straight story’. S/he had found the combination of honesty and reassurance from someone who had ‘done it and survived’ very helpful.

One student had received exceptionally good preparation and guidance at sixth-form college, where pupils who planned to go on to higher education had been offered special classes at the end of the academic year in which they were set ‘institute style’ assignments which were marked by teachers as if they were being assessed as part of an HE course. The teachers also explained in detail some of the differences between institute and school teaching methods and study skills. This student found that these classes helped enormously with the first few weeks at college, and reported that his/her transition had been very comfortable. S/he was aware that some of his/her peers had been ‘shocked’ by the difference between institute and their previous education.

All of the young students had read prospectuses very carefully indeed. One described reading in detail the materials offered by different institutions, comparing the range of modules on different programmes, and thinking about ‘what they would really include’. Another explained that s/he had ‘thought very hard’ about what the brief module descriptions actually mean, and a third stated that s/he had been put off certain other institutions because course descriptions were ‘too vague’ and did not include module lists or short accounts of module content.

12:2:2 What came as a surprise? Academic factors

The short answer to this question is ‘not very much’. The previous section explains why course content did not surprise any of the students to a great extent. In a few cases the depth of technical content surprised students, who had not realised from the module descriptions just how much mathematical, technical or statistical material they would have to cope with.

Where this was mentioned, students described a range of initial responses. Two of them stated that they had initially felt demotivated because they felt that they would not do particularly well in units where they were required to show a high level of technical or mathematical proficiency; another stated that a unit of this sort was ‘a shock, but not a bad one’, because it offered the opportunity to learn something new and develop problem-solving skills.

The other students came to a similar conclusion, but in each of their cases the factor which made the difference was a particularly helpful tutor who had encouraged them to overcome their initial worry. In one case this had been in response to the student’s poor attendance; when the tutor spoke to him/her, this conversation was used as an opportunity for reassurance. In all cases the students reported working rather harder on units which surprised them in this way, and in all cases they stated that they had eventually enjoyed these units as much as or more than the ones they had expected to find easy or interesting. In one case a student had chosen second year options in the area which had initially appeared most surprising and challenging.

These students were asked whether they objected to having to learn things which they had not expected to encounter, or whose relevance to their careers they did not immediately recognise. In all cases, their attitude was that they had come to institute to find out new things, and that even where they could not see the immediate use of a module, in the words of one student they ‘just got on with it’. One student recalled being unsure of the practical use of a module at first, but realising its purpose after ‘looking at all my course together’ and finding out more about careers in his/her field.

Two students said that the first year had proved less difficult than they had expected overall. One of them stated that ‘well, it’s institute, isn’t it – you expect it to be really difficult when you come here’. The other student in this situation attributed the apparent ‘easiness’ of this course to his/her own assiduous efforts to prepare. Neither had found themselves bored. They had either chosen to concentrate hard on those modules which did seem more difficult, or to find out more about topics which interested them particularly strongly. One attributed the unexpected ‘easiness’ of the first year course to the quality of the teaching which s/he encountered, stating that ‘I had really good tutors who explained things clearly and didn’t use jargon’.

All of these students said that the academic induction they had received had been very useful in making the transition to institute. One student described the induction programme and first few weeks’ lectures as ‘a good way of starting and adapting to how to learn at institute’. Another felt that the teaching at the beginning of the course had been good because ‘with the subject you haven’t got any choice but to be thrown in at the deep end’.

One student mentioned in particular some classes/sessions in which students had been encouraged to ‘reflect on your own experience’ of learning and on what had been learnt so far. Two students said that they valued the formation of friendships with other students on their courses, because this offered a ‘sounding board’ for course discussion, solving problems and for exploring ideas.

12:2:3 What came as a surprise? Non-academic factors

While students felt well-prepared for the academic side of their institute lives, some of the non-academic aspects proved more problematic. Two (both living away from home) drew attention to the sheer size of the campus and of Newcastle: ‘it’s a massive place and it can be intimidating’, in the word of one. The other said that s/he needed a better map than the one provided. However, another student said that something which s/he really liked about institute was the size. The diversity of institute and of students was mentioned by two students as something which had surprised them and which they liked very much because it was interesting and ‘prepares you for living in a very diverse society’.

The lack of a strong ‘clubs and societies’ culture was mentioned by two students. While all the young students and one mature-age student (the other did not mention the Union at all) felt the Student Union was ‘very good’ as a social centre, these two students had expected to find more societies, and more active ones. They were both friendly with students from Newcastle Institute, and compared their experience of this aspect of student life with theirs.

Two students were surprised that their Schools did not offer formalised opportunities to socialise with other students from their courses. One stated that students from his/her year had begun to organise course-based social events themselves (with encouragement and support from staff), and said that this would have been very useful indeed when they were freshers. The experience of students at other universities was noted as a model here. Another student said that a coffee party for students on his/her course had been a very good event because it was informal, quiet enough to hold conversations, and academic staff and turned up and chatted.

Two students (one living at home and one in halls) said that the freedom they encountered at institute came as a surprise. The student who lived in halls said that it was odd ‘being on your own and having your own space’ at institute, but that once you got used to this it was enjoyable. The student who lived at home had been used to having a more rigid schedule ‘outside’ the house, and also, of course, to having more regimentation in how to organise study time. In neither case was freedom considered by the student as essentially problematic; overcoming the problematic aspects was regarded as quite enjoyable. Another student spoke of the ‘independence’ offered by institute as an entirely positive characteristic.

One of the mature-age students said that the immaturity of some of the young students was rather a shock after several years in the workforce.

12:2:4 Transition

All of the students interviewed had been thoroughly looking forward to both the academic and the social life at institute. One said that s/he viewed the academic opportunity as ‘a chance to really get into something’. Another said that after being ‘at school and sixth form with the same people for seven years [s/he] wanted the

diversity… I was really looking forward to it… it’s great that you have to get to know people from all over the place’.

The single most helpful factor in the transition to institute study was support from tutors. All of the students interviewed stated that for the most part they had received highly satisfactory teaching and in addition had felt able to approach individual members of staff for help. Only two students had used Student Services in relation to specific difficulties: in both cases they had found this provision extremely accessible and very helpful.

12:2:5 Financial reality

Discussion of finance was the only area in which the generally positive tone of these interviews was lost. I had not planned to raise this issue, because it is dealt with in the accompanying report, but in fact four of the six students talked about it at length, and one of the others mentioned it.

It was raised, in each case, in response to the question about which aspects of institute came as ‘an unpleasant surprise’. As the discussion above suggests, very little in the academic and social lives of these students was both unexpected and unwelcome, but their experiences around money were almost all negative.

One student drew attention to the differences between ‘living at home with your parents when a job’s for pocket money’ and his/her situation at institute, where the job essentially paid for hall fees and ‘essentials’. Another stated that s/he had been alright for money because s/he had ‘been sensible’, but stated that s/he had friends who had ‘struggled’ financially, some of whom had decided to leave institute. Two others attributed their lack of a financial ‘crisis’ to their own organisation and planning ahead; again, it had been difficult at times and had been a source of stress. Just one student in this group stated that budgeting for him/herself had been a major problem. S/he did not have a part-time job, and had found living on the loan to be more difficult than expected. In the end, things had appeared ‘critical’ and the student had approached his/her father for small loan as well as being helped out by his/her ‘mates’ (one other student mentioned that s/he had lent money to a friend).

Two difficulties with finance emerged. The first is a simple lack of information before arrival. While most of these students had a general idea that they would be hard up, the phrase ‘the reality of it’ recurred in several interviews. This ‘reality’ involves

seeing one’s bank balance dwindle, having to make hard choices between items, being faced with an occasional unforeseen bill and/or cutting back on ‘inessentials’. None of these, in itself, is necessarily a ‘hardship, but they are not necessarily part of the experience of a teenager coming from a home where financial crisis had been avoided, even if life was not luxurious. Students may also have experienced what one interviewee in the School of Informatics described as the ‘rabbit in the headlamps’ experience. He had been well aware of what a student budget would look like, and how it would relate to his loans and grants, but explained with considerable embarrassment that there is all the emotional difference in the world between a theoretical knowledge of this and ‘when it’s real money’.

In particular, the lack of clear advice and specific advice on budgeting seems to cause difficulties. The transition from living with parents to having to pay one’s own way and organise one’s own money is mentioned by students either as a hurdle which they personally have over come or as something which for them (or their less organised friends) precipitated a major crisis. A student who managed this well described very specific help from his/her [non-graduate] mother on how to organise a budget which includes termly, monthly and weekly items. The student who had had to borrow informally stated that it was the problem of organising finance on different scales which made things very hard. His/her strategy in future would be ‘to set a target… of how much I need and work everything out from there’.

All of the students with part-time jobs said that these were essential for them to pay their way in basics such as rent, bills and food supplies. None of them regarded their part-time job as a source of money primarily for a social life or ‘extras’. As noted above, four of these students self-identified as ‘working class’, and all of them were aware that there were many better-of students whose parents paid for a great deal, and who could sustain a much higher standard of lifestyle. Students whose parents were paying for a few items expressed guilt over this.

All four of the students who self-identified as coming from working-class homes stated that they would not have come to institute if they had anticipated the levels of debt which will become normal under the 2006 funding arrangements. None of them was willing to consider these as a form of ‘graduate tax’. What concerned them was not the relatively high earnings threshold for repayment, or the size of the repayments themselves; it was the fact that ‘you’d have that much debt’ in the first place.

Four students stated that their decision to go to institute might or would have been different had the 2006 arrangements been in place. One stated that even as things

stood, s/he ‘nearly didn’t come’ because of the levels of debt involved; this student stated that s/he was managing his/her lifestyle very carefully so as to minimize debt. Another stated that ‘if I’d known what the money would have been like I’d definitely have thought again,’ and another said that the hardest part of the decision to come to institute had been over the money. In this student’s case, the decision to go when s/he did was made partly on the basis of the introduction of higher tuition fees to be payable by students.

The student who probably demonstrated the highest level of academic orientation in his/her interview was adamant about his/her views on the impact which 2006 funding arrangement would have had on his/her entry decision:

I wouldn’t have gone if I’d had to pay those fees. That amount of debt is impossible. You know you’re going to be in debt after institute, but… I just couldn’t put myself in that kind of debt.

Secondary Data

The secondary data, I collected from the books and internet. These helped me a lot in the analysis of my project.

CHAPTER 8

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

To know about the education system in Varanasi.

To suggest improvement in the present education system of Varanasi.

CHAPTER 9

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

This section is the comparison analysis of Varanasi’s position in the field of Education on Uttar Pradesh.

1. Education Inputs

The education inputs depend on the public expenditure on education. The Table 1 shows the public expenditure of the seven countries. Public expenditure in the year 2001, maximum Public expenditure per student with the percentage of GDP per capita is spending by India. In the year 2008 also Varanasi spend maximum. But maximum public expenditure on education that is percentage of GDP spend is by Noida and minimum by Mirzapur.

Table 1- Education Inputs

Country Public Expenditure per student

Public Expenditure on education

% of GDP per capita % of GDP % of total governmentexpenditure

Tertiary

2001 2008 2001 2008Allahabad 25.7 22.5 4.6 -Lucknow 57.0 32.6 4.0 -Ghaziabad 90.1 - - -Noida 90.8 61.0 3.8 -Varanasi 60.7 50.1 5.4 17.6Mirzapur 26.2 27.6 5.4 11.7Azamgarh 27.0 23.5 5.6 14.4

90.8 61 3.8 -90.1 - - -57 32.6 4 -

25.7 22.5 4.6 -2001 2008 2001 2008

Tertiary expenditure% of GDP per capita % of GDP % of total

governmentPublic Expenditure per student Public Expenditure on education

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

VaranasiMirzapurAzamgarh

2. Public Expenditure on Education

Table 2 shows that public expenditure on education. It also shows the percentage of GDP and % of total Government Expenditure on education. According to the table, among all the countries, India spends the lowest on education in the year 2005. In the year 2000, Ghaziabad had spent the lowest and Varanasi had a better position in spending on education. In the year 2005, 2000 and 1990, India had spent very less percentage of GDP on education, lower than other countries except China. China had spent the lowest in these years.

Table 2- Public Expenditure on Education

Country

2010 2005 2000 1990% of GDP

% of totalGovernmentExpenditure

% of GDP

% of totalGovernmentExpenditure

% of GDP

% of totalGovernmentExpenditure

% of GDP

% of totalGovernmentExpenditure

Allahabad

4.5 - 4.7 13.3 4.5 12.7 5.1

15.0

Lucknow

4.0 - 4.0 12.0 4.4 - 3.5

-

Ghaziabad

- - 1.9 13.0 2.3 12.8 2.5

9.3

Noida 3.9 10.7 2.8 12.7 3.9 11.2 2.9

10.4

Varanasi

5.3 17.9 5.6 18.1 5.1 - - -

Mirzapur

5.6 12.5 4.6 11.4 4.7 - 5.3

13.6

Azamgarh

5.3 13.7 5.7 17.1 5.6 12.3 6.5

20.1

Country

Allahab

ad

Lucknow

Ghaziab

adNoida

Varanasi

Mirzap

ur

Azamgar

h0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Series1Series2Series3Series4Series5Series6Series7Series8Series9

3. Participation in Education

Participation in tertiary education can be checked by Gross Enrolment Ratio. GER The gross enrollment ratio (GER) or gross enrollment index (GEI) is a statistical measure used in the education sector and by the UN in its Education Index. The GER gives a rough indication of the level of education from kindergarten to postgraduate education –. Table 3 shows gross enrolment ratio in tertiary education. According to the table, GER of U.P. is increasing at a very slow rate. Ghaziabad’s GER is increasing every year tremendously. Allahabad is always in the top in GER. So steps must be taken by the government to increase GER. As GER is the lowest among all six cities.

Table 3- Participation in Education

Country Tertiary - Gross Enrolment Ratio

1990 2000 2010Allahabad 25 63 73Lucknow 11 17 24Ghaziabad 2 7 22Noida 5 10 11Varanasi - 15 15Mirzapur 19 60 59Azamgarh 56 73 82

Country

Allahab

ad

Lucknow

Ghaziab

adNoida

Varanasi

Mirzap

ur

Azamgar

h0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Series1Series2Series3

4. Rankings in Global Competitiveness Report Related with Higher Education System

The World Economic Forum has, for the past 30 years, played a facilitating role in this process by providing detailed assessments of the productive potential of nations worldwide. The Report is a contribution to enhancing the understanding of the key factors determining economic growth and to explaining why some countries are more successful than others in raising income levels and opportunities for their respective populations; hence it offers policymakers and business leaders an important tool in the formulation of improved economic policies and institutional reforms. The Report

contains a detailed profile for each of the economies featured in the study as well as an extensive section of data tables with global rankings covering over 100 indicators.

The Global Competiveness Index (GCI) captures this open-ended dimension by providing a weighted average of many different components, each of which reflects one aspect of the complex concept that is competitiveness. Global Economic Forum group all these components into 12 pillars of competitiveness: The 12 pillars of competitiveness are as follows: Pillar-1: Institutions, Pillar-2: Infrastructure, Pillar-3: Health and primary education Pillar-4: Macroeconomic stability Pillar-5: Higher education and training Pillar-6: Goods market efficiency, Pillar-7: Labor market efficiency, Pillar-8: Financial market sophistication, Pillar-9: Technological readiness, Pillar-10: Market size, Pillar-11: Business sophistication, and Pillar- 12: Innovation.

Table 4 shows the overall rank based on the above mentioned pillars. Accordingly, India is comparatively at a very low position. The score in the table lies in between 0-7. So score of Varanasi is continuously decreasing since last 3 years. Noida & Azamgarh have shown improvement in the scores and hence improvements in ranks.

Table 4- Rankings in Global Competitiveness

Region 2009-2010 Rank and Score

(out of 133 countries)

2008-2009 Rank and

Score (out of 134)

2007-2008 Rank and

Score (out of 131)

2006-2007 Rank and

Score (out of 131)

Allahabad 2(5.59) 1(5.74) 1(5.7) 1(5.8)Lucknow 13(5.19) 12(5.30) 9(5.4) 2(5.6)Ghaziabad 15(5.15) 18(5.20) 19(5.2) 16(5.2)Noida 29(4.74) 30(4.70) 34(4.6) 34(4.6)Varanasi 45(4.34) 45(4.41) 44(4.4) 35(4.5)Mirzapur 49(4.30) 50(4.33) 48(4.3) 42(4.5)Azamgarh 56(4.33) 64(4.13) 72(4.0) 66(4.1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90

2

4

6

8

10

12

Azamgarh 56(4.33) 64(4.13) 72(4.0)

Azamgarh 56(4.33) 64(4.13) 72(4.0)

5. Human Development Index

The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) introduced a new way of measuring development by combining indicators of life expectancy, educational attainment and income into a composite human development index, the HDI. The breakthrough for the HDI was the creation of a single statistic which was to serve as a frame of reference for both social and economic development. The HDI sets a minimum and a maximum for each dimension, called goalposts, and then shows where each country stands in relation to these goalposts, expressed as a value between 0 and 1.

The educational component of the HDI is comprised of adult literacy rates and the combined gross enrolment ratio for primary, secondary and tertiary schooling, weighted to give adult literacy more significance in the statistic. Since the minimum adult literacy rate is 0% and the maximum is 100%, the literacy component of knowledge for a country where the literacy rate is 75% would be 0.75; the statistic for combined gross enrolment is calculated in a analogous manner. Table 10 shows the ranks of all seven cities of U.P

Table 5- Human Development Index

Rank Country/Region 1995 2000 2005 2010

3 Allahabad 0.894 0.934 0.949 0.962

12 Lucknow 0.919 0.931 0.942 0.951

16 Ghaziabad 0.89 0.929 0.931 0.946

70 Noida 0.723 0.753 0.789 0.800

81 Varanasi 0.634 0.691 0.732 0.777

121 Mirzapur 0.731 0.745 0.707 0.674

128 Azamgarh 0.521 0.551 0.578 0.619

Coun

try/

Regi

on

Alla

haba

d

Luck

now

Ghaz

iaba

d

Noid

a

Vara

nasi

Mirz

apur

Azam

garh

Rank 3 12 16 70 81 121 128

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Series1Series2Series3Series4

CHAP 10

BASIS OF QUESTIONNAIRE

Primary research

The primary research for this project took place in three phases.

Student questionnaire

During the summer of 2004, a questionnaire was posted to 306 UK students who had enrolled as first years in September 2003 on selected courses in Newcastle Business School and the School of Informatics. Both continuing and withdrawn students received the questionnaire and were invited to complete and return it. It was accompanied by a pre-paid envelope and a letter explaining the project and the conditions of anonymity for students who chose to participate. A total of 65 returns were received, all of which were usable. This represents a response rate of just over 21%. While hardly overwhelming, this is similar to the rate received in a number of DfES studies and published articles which have used survey instruments of a similar size to the one employed here. A shorter questionnaire might have yielded more responses, but it would not have been possible to obtain the range of information and correlations which were available. Therefore, the decision to use a relatively long questionnaire seems to be justified.

The questionnaire, of which a copy is included in Appendix One of this report, was six pages long. It was designed to elicit four sets of information: basic demographics, a picture of day-to-day student lifestyle (e.g. attendance and study habits, part-time employment patterns), reasons for entering the Institute and a profile of the student’s experience, expectations and attitudes regarding higher education. The questions used a multiple choice format, with the option of one-word or very brief answers in a few cases. Subjects were invited to make ‘additional comments’ on a final page, but very few in fact decided to do this.

The demographic questions sought the following information:

Subject of study Transfer status: did the student initially enter Institute on the course which

they were studying at the end of the first year? Age Sex

Type of entry qualification (e.g. A-levels, VCE, HEF ect) Accommodation during the first year Student generation: did the student’s father, mother, sibling[s] or other close

relatives and/or close friends from school/college attend institute Occupation of both parents

The questions on student lifestyle sought the following information:

Number of hours in different study activities Did tutors suggest a sensible number of hours for students to spend in private

study, and if so, how long was this? How much private study did the student undertake in a typical term-time

week? Reasons why the student either did or did not follow tutors’ advice on private

study. Attendance levels in each semester Reasons for non-attendance if attendance fell below 75% at any point Part-time work status Hours spent in part-time work in a typical term-time week Type of part-time work undertaken Average number of days on which student attended at their campus in term-

time Length of typical commute to campus

The questions on reasons for entry sought the following information:

motivations for choosing to enter higher education motivations for choosing to attend Institute motivations for choosing the particular course on which student was studying did student consider withdrawing or transferring at any point? if student did not withdraw or transfer after considering doing so, why was

this?

In all cases where students were asked to nominate reasons for their choices or habits, they were invited to tick ‘all which apply’, although in the case of reasons for entering HE/ their course they were asked to nominate one of these reasons as the most important.

The next section measured student adjustment and satisfaction with the first year of their course. Students were invited to indicate their adjustment to the academic demands of their course in general, and then to indicate their adjustment to specific aspects of this such as managing one’s own time and working independently, understanding course rationale, and working consistently. They were also asked to indicate their level of social adjustment, their feelings about the physical environment of the institute, and the level of pressure which they felt over financial matters. In addition, the questionnaire measured their satisfaction with the rate at which they

were expected to become ‘independent learners’ and institute timetables. Four final questions asked about how well they felt lecturers explained topics on their courses, how ‘approachable’ they felt lecturers to be, and required students to judge whether academic demands and workloads on their courses were too hard, too easy or ‘about right’. The aim here was to compare student judgements with the behaviours and expectations reported elsewhere on the questionnaire.

The section on expectations examined the extent to which students felt that school or college had prepared them for institute, and asked specifically about the extent to which their expectations had been accurate or otherwise in the following areas:

workload academic demands making friends interest in the course academic and non-academic support contact with individual staff study habits required at institute, including independent learning course content academic staff and teaching methods

The final section attempted to measure more general student beliefs and attitudes, e.g.:

interest in the subject and ‘academic orientation’ motivation and willingness to study student identity ‘instrumentality’ of approach enjoyment of the course and the institute experience

The results of the questionnaire were analysed using SPSS software.

1:3:3 Interviews

Students were invited to take part in interviews over the telephone or face-to-face. These were semi-structured interviews which addressed the main themes of the questionnaires. Interviews were tape recorded and subjected to a discourse analysis. No attempt was made to re-code the interviews for analysis with SPSS, as the aim here was to gather more subtle impressions and narratives.

The student response to the request for interviewees was poor, and in the end only six interviews were possible. By coincidence, the students involved were all academically successful and reported a high level of satisfaction with their academic and personal experience at institute. The interviews proved exceedingly helpful to the project,

because it was in each case possible to identify the approaches to institute entry and first year study contributed to this satisfaction, and possibly also to excellent academic performance. In other words, these are students from whom we can learn ‘what went right’ – especially because all of them stated that at some point in their first year they had seriously considered withdrawing from institute.

Seven interviews were carried out with members of academic staff. These also provided some helpful materials, in particular with regard to the issues of widening participation and the extent to which students undergo ‘transformation’ while at institute.

No. of Interviewees-100 (Sample size)

Q1. Is Varanasi good for Higher education?

Yes No Average57 8 33

Yes No Average0

10

20

30

40

50

60 57

8

33

Series1

INTERPRETATION:- 57 % say that Varanasi is good for higher education.

Q2. Fee structure for higher education matters?

Matter Doesn’t matter Average63 29 8

Matter Doesn’t matter Can’t say

Average0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70 63

29

8

Series1

INTERPRETATION:- Fee structure does matter in higher education.

Q3. Why do you take higher education in Varanasi?

Fee Distance Availability39 44 17

Fee Distance Availability0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

39

44

17Series1

INTERPRETATION:- 44% believe that distance is more important than fee for choosing a college/institute.

Q4. Are you aware about samaj Kalyan?

Yes No81 19

Yes No0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

81

19

Series1

INTERPRETATION: 81 % are aeware of SAMAJ KALYAN.

Q5.After completing education what will you prefer to do?

Job Ph.D. Teaching Business72 13 7 13

69%

12%

7%

12% JobPh.D.TeachingBusiness

INTERPRETATION:- 72 % of the students want to do job after education, few want to pursue higher studies i.e. Ph.D. and some want to go in businesas.

Q6. Which Institute will you opt for HE?

Kashi IT BHU SMS RSMT Others10 71 12 0 7

10%

71%

12%

7%

Kashi ITBHUSMSRSMTOthers

INTERPRETATION: 71 % of the students believe that thay will want to take admission in BHU due to various factors.

Q7. Which of the following is a more job oriented course?

MBA MCA M-Tech M.Pharm Others18 0 6 68 8

MBAMCAM-TechM.PharmOthers

INTERPRETATION:- In the present scenario majority of the students think that the most job oriented course is M-Pharma.

Q8. Most of the time students know about the institutes by?

Newspaper Radio Its students other18 0 6 76

NewspaperRadioIts studentsother

INTERPRETATION: Majority of the students say that thay come to know about an institute through other sources like the internet.

Q9.How much placement important for you?

Agree Highly Agree Disagree Highly disagree

Can’t say

41 39 9 5 6

41%

39%

9%

5%6%

AgreeHighly AgreeDisagreeHighly disagreeCan’t say

INTERPRETATION:-About 80% believe that placement facility of a particular institute can decide about the number of admission in the institute.

Q10. How much is fee structure important for you?

Agree Highly Agree Disagree Highly disagree

Can’t say

30 33 19 11 7

30%

33%

19%

11%

7%

Agree

Highly Agree

Disagree

Highly disagree

Can’t say

INTERPRETATION: 33% highly agree to the fact that fee structure plays a major factor for choosing the college.

Q11. How much is infrastructure of any institution important for you.?

Agree Highly Agree Disagree Highly disagree

Can’t say

40 33 09 11 7

40%

33%

9%

11%

7%

AgreeHighly AgreeDisagreeHighly disagreeCan’t say

INTERPRETATION:- 40 % believe that infrastructure of the institute is a limiting factor for seeking admission to it.

Q12. Is distance important for you?

Agree Highly Agree Disagree Highly disagree

Can’t say

42 34 09 11 4

42%

34%

9%

11%

4%

AgreeHighly AgreeDisagreeHighly disagreeCan’t say

INTERPRETATION:- For majority of the students distance plays an important factor while choosing the college.

Q13. Is qualification of faculty important for you?

Agree Highly Agree Disagree Highly disagree

Can’t say

58 28 08 2 4

58%28%

8%

2%4%

AgreeHighly AgreeDisagreeHighly disagreeCan’t say

INTERPRETATION:- 58 % i.e. majority of the students think that qualification of the faculty is a must while checking the college for the purpose of admission, while a few percentage also think that faculty qualification cannot be a deciding factor.

Q. 14 Is background of college important for you?

Agree Highly Agree Disagree Highly disagree

Can’t say

38 47 7 3 5

38%

47%

7%

3%5%

AgreeHighly AgreeDisagreeHighly disagreeCan’t say

47% of the students believe that background of the college plays an important factor while choosing the particular college.

Q 15. Do you think medium of education should be in English?

Agree Highly Agree Disagree Highly disagree

Can’t say

40 38 15 3 4

40%

38%

15%

3%4%

AgreeHighly AgreeDisagreeHighly disagreeCan’t say

INTERPRETATION:- For majority of students English medium of education is a must, bur for some it is not necessary. 38% highly agree to it that medium of education should be English.

CHAPTER 11

Experimental findings

Demographics

Respondents were all e students on large-intake courses; around half came from each school. The vast majority were ‘young’ rather than mature-age, and slightly more men than women returned the questionnaire. Almost all of the students who responded held A-levels as their primary entry qualification. Just over 40% lived at home, and around the same number owned Halls of Residence or shared flats.

The majority (almost two thirds) were first-generation students, i.e. neither parent had attended institute. Around 35% came from family backgrounds which were professional or managerial, 13.8% from skilled non-manual backgrounds, and 30% from skilled manual, semi-skilled or unskilled backgrounds (the latter group was very small). Second-generation students with older siblings were far more likely than first-generation students with older siblings to state that these siblings had participated in higher education.

Women tend to report lower levels of social and, to a lesser extent, academic confidence than men, despite their slightly higher levels of academic adjustment and satisfaction.

First generation students report slightly higher levels of academic orientation and subject interest than second generation. There is some evidence that they are less likely than first generation students to enter reactively. However, first generation students feel considerably less well-prepared for institute by their schools/colleges than second generation students.

Students who live in Halls of Residence are better attenders than students who live at home, and show considerably stronger academic adjustment.

Study behaviours

Although students on all of these courses had been given advice on a ‘sensible’ number of hours to spend in private study, over 25% stated that they had received no such advice. Among students who stated that they had received advice, the vast majority (over 4/5) stated that they had not followed it. The average number of private study hours reported was just over 8 hours a week, although individual reports varied enormously. More than 50% of students claim to spend less than 10 hours a week in private study, but 8% claim to spend over 20 hours a week working independently.

Women spend slightly longer in private study than men, averaging 8.45 hours as opposed to 7.32. All of the students who report no study at all in a normal week were male, and far more men than women do less than 5 hours in a normal week. However, all of the students who do 20 or more hours a week are male. 72.2% of students who do ten hours a week are female.

The most common reason for not studying was believing that one was doing enough, followed by lack of motivation (both named by over 50% of students who did not do the recommended number of hours). Part-time work was named by around 20% of students.

Attendance among these students was generally good, but falls off through the academic year. At the beginning of the academic year 91.9% claim to attend over 75% of timetabled sessions. This falls gradually to 53.2% of students at the end of the second semester. The main reason for non-attendance was ‘long gaps between classes’ (named by more than 2/3 of students).

Responses cluster in this section. Students who disagree with the item ‘in general, I only did the minimum amount of work that was required of me’ were likely to report higher private study hours and attendance; the reverse was also the case. Overall study behaviours and measures of adjustment tend to be related, with students who report more effective study behaviours also showing higher levels of academic and social adjustment. They also tend to have had more accurate expectations of institute and stronger academic orientation.

Part-time work

Just under half of the students (49.2%) stated that they had had a part-time job during term-time. The average working week during term-time was 14.4 hours, and most jobs occupied between 10 and 20 hours each week. 60% of women worked, compared

with 45% of men, but women with jobs worked slightly shorter hours, with an average working week of just over 12 hours as opposed to 16.5. Students living at home, first-generation students and student from lower social classes (based on occupation) were significantly more likely to have a part-time job. Students with part-time jobs tended to be either very good or very poor attenders.

Entry and progression

Students were asked to separate the reasons why they decided to go to institute, reasons for choosing the Institute, and reasons for applying to their particular course.

Reasons for going to institute

General job prospects were the most frequently named reason (85.9%), closely followed by the ‘self esteem’ reason of simply wanting to achieve a degree. Subject interest was named by 53.8%, and general enjoyment of studying by 37.5%. Just over 25% named family influence. Around 20% said that no one reason had been most important; for those who named a particular reason as paramount, the most common was job prospects.

First-generation students were significantly more likely than second generation students to name subject interest, and second-generation students were significantly more likely than second-generation to name family influence. Students who agree that the wishes of their family were important in their decision are less likely to agree that subject interest played a part, suggesting that they may be reactive entrants.

Reasons for choosing the Institute

The fact that the institute offered a particular course was the main reason (65.6%). This was followed by a cluster of reasons named by between 30% and 45% of students, including the reputation of a particular School or course, the reputation of the city, the reputation of the institute, and a desire either to leave home or to live at home.

More women name school or course reputation; more students from professional/managerial and semi-skilled or unskilled backgrounds state that they chose partly because they wanted to leave home. All of the students from lower social class backgrounds who state that they chose the particular institute in order to live away from home are in part-time work.

Reasons for choice of degree programme

Subject interest is named by 83.3% of students, followed by the desire for a well-paid job (68.3%) and/or a particular kind of job (50.8%). Almost 50% of students stated that no one reason was most important; where a primary reason was mentioned, subject interest was most frequently cited (23.8%), followed by the prospect of high earnings (14.3%).

Persistence

All of these students have progressed to their second year, but 25% state that at some point in the first year they seriously considered dropping out, and 31.3% considered transferring to a different course. Poor attenders, those from backgrounds other than professional/managerial, and students living at home are all more likely to have considered leaving.

Adjustment

Students generally feel that they have adjusted well to the academic demands of institute, although only 25% ‘strongly agree’. 70.8% feel that the level of academic demand on their course is ‘about right’, and just under 20% believe it was ‘too hard’. Judgement of academic demand levels associates significantly with feelings of adjustment to the academic demands of institute. Students who feel that they have adjusted well to the academic demands are more likely to feel that they can understand the rationale for the content of their course. Social adjustment is very high, and there is a significant association between social integration and academic integration. Strong social integration was significantly related to good time management. Feelings of belonging and overall enjoyment were high among these students.

High satisfaction with teaching quality also emerges, and the majority feel that lecturers are approachable. Students who are satisfied with one of these factors are significantly more likely to be satisfied with the other. Judgement of ‘academic demands’ is also significantly related to judgement of ‘approachability’. Students’ feelings about their lecturers relate closely to their feelings about their studies.

Students generally believe they have acquired good time-management skills, but are less likely to express confidence about their consistency of work throughout the first year, although a large minority state that they did work consistently. Most feel that they have become good at working independently, and that their workload is ‘about right’. Assessment of the level of academic demands is significantly related only to independent working skills, and not to either consistent work habits or time

management. Estimates of the appropriateness of workload correlated significantly with perceptions of workload and academic demands. Students who found it difficult to see a clear rationale for course content were also more likely to perceive their workload as being too heavy.

Over half agree that they ‘sometimes felt pressurised by financial worries’. Students who feel well adjusted to their social life are significantly less likely to agree, and students who feel that they are under financial pressure are significantly less likely to agree strongly that their lecturers are approachable and to show other signs of poor academic integration.

Expectations

Institute workloads were a surprise to the majority of students surveyed. Expectations about academic demands were slightly more accurate, and expectations of course content were generally good. Students had a fairly realistic picture of academic staff, and a reasonable picture of the teaching methods they would encounter. In general, only very small numbers had had ‘very accurate’ or ‘very mistaken’ expectations.

Students had reasonably accurate expectations of the amount of academic support they would encounter at institute, but expectations of non-academic support were more accurate. Students had, however, rather over-estimated the amount of contact with individual academic staff. Most felt fairly well-prepared for the need to be independent learners at institute. Almost a third of students find that their course is more interesting than they had anticipated.

Ease of making friends was the area in which their previous perceptions had been least accurate. Just 36.9% found that making friends was about as easy as they had expected before they arrived. 18.5% found it a bit harder, and 9.2% found it much harder. By contrast, 24.6% found that it was easier, and 10.8% found that it was much easier. The levels of social anxiety among incoming students appear to be quite high.

A large minority of students are very satisfied with school or college as a preparation for institute. 12.3% feel their previous institution was a ‘very good’ preparation for HE, and 32.3% feel it was ‘good’. A less satisfied 32.3% feel it was ‘about adequate’, and 20% state that it was ‘poor’. Just 3.1% feel they had ‘very poor’ preparation from their previous studies.

Overall, accurate expectations are consistently associated with good adjustment and satisfaction. Expectations and satisfaction with experience show correlations in specific areas, such as workload, time management, social adjustment and teaching methods. However, students’ expectations of academic interactions with staff, rather than of the personal qualities of staff, seem to determine their perceptions of staff

approachability. Students generally feel quite well prepared for institute, although the majority feel that their preparation was acceptable or adequate rather than very good.

Attitudes

Students express very high levels of interest in their courses; few are bored. Responses to items designed to measure intellectual orientation and satisfaction are high, but a high number also agree that they would prefer to study ‘only’ topics which they believe to be relevant to their future careers, suggesting preference for ‘just in time’ rather than ‘just in case’ learning.

Around 45% agree that their usual working pattern involves doing ‘the minimum amount of work which is required of me’, but almost 40% reject this ‘strategic’ position.

Motivation

The majority report some problems with motivation. Over 50% agreed/strongly agreed with the item ‘I often found it difficult to get motivated to work on my course’. 20% disagreed/ strongly disagreed. Gaining high marks, as opposed to just passing, emerged as extremely important, and under 10% disagreed or felt non-committal about the statement ‘I need to know how well I’m doing in order to feel motivated to work’. Surprisingly, in the light of the high levels of subject interest expressed elsewhere in the responses, the item ‘I often find my course boring but will stick with it because I want a good job’ elicited agreement from almost 50%. Around 35% disagreed. More students agreed than disagreed that ‘inherent ability is the biggest factor in academic success at institute’, but the majority preferred not to express an opinion on this item.

Motivation appears to have different sources for different students. The main source of strong motivation to engage in day-to-day academic tasks is subject interest. Many students state that they are motivated to ‘stick with’ their course, even if they find it dull, in order to get ‘a good job’. However, this does not seem to translate to hard work on a day-to-day basis for many students. The vast majority state that they need to know ‘how they are doing’ in order to feel motivated to work. Students who achieve high day-to-day motivation seem to have higher levels of subject interest, academic orientation and confidence. They also show better adjustment and more realistic expectations of institute.

There is no association between agreement that getting high marks, rather than just passing, is important (nearly all students agreed with this item) and doing more than the minimum amount of work required. Many students seem to want high marks on the minimum of effort.

Student characteristics and entry choices

Students who state that they make the decision to go to college/institute because they are interested in studying a particular subject show overall more effective study behaviours, levels of academic orientation and adjustment, and higher motivation and satisfaction. All of these relate to subject interest at the point of the decision to enter HE rather than just at the point of choosing a course. Students who mention academic reasons (e.g. an enjoyment of studying and learning) at the point of HE entry have higher academic orientation and motivation.

Instrumental reasons for course/institute entry do not correlate with poor study behaviours, motivation or adjustment unless this is the most important reason. Students who enter the institute or course because of its reputation seem to work harder and to feel more strongly committed to the institution.

Students who are influenced by their teachers to enter HE or to enter a particular course are not particularly likely to show the problematic characteristics of reactive entrants. However, students who state that family influence was important in their decision may exhibit some of these, especially if their older siblings have entered institute as well.

Students who consider leaving

Students with the following characteristics were more likely to have considered leaving institute:

living at home parental occupation in a lower socioeconomic category (possibly relating to

financial hardship, see below) gender (women were more likely to consider leaving, although this correlation

was not significant) generation (first generation students were more likely to consider leaving,

although this correlation was not significant) absence of subject interest at the point of entering HE absence of subject interest at the point of course choice unclear career aims course choice on the basis of attraction to the course title desire for a well-paid job as the most important reason for course choice poor attendance, low private study time low motivation poor academic adjustment/integration poor social adjustment/integration low academic orientation

Student interview feedback

Interviews were carried out with a small number of highly motivated and satisfied students. It was possible to glean from these interviews some of the characteristics which had helped them gain a very positive experience of institute:

thorough research before choosing their course research and preparation for the experience of institute, building realistic

expectations willingness to reflect on their own academic and social experience at institute. excellent academic and pastoral support from tutors, including use of electronic

resources excellent teaching; enjoyment of both traditional lectures and interactive sessions strong and consistent independent study habits and excellent time management proactive and outgoing approach to building their social lives at institute

Sources of dissatisfaction for these students included:

lack of course-based social activities (some students only) presence of ‘strategic students’ financial hardship, especially unexpected financial hardship

These students were all highly motivated to work. Some of the sources of their motivation were:

high levels of subject interest career aspirations growing confidence in their academic ability (‘worry’ was an initial problem for

some) personal satisfaction and ‘bettering’ one’s own performance intellectual growth and learning new things excellent teaching and good relations with lecturers

These students expressed very similar ideas about the purpose of a institute. This was regarded as a combination of vocational preparation for work, intellectual stimulation and growth, and personal development and the chance of a ‘institute experience’.

Time pressures caused by balancing very diverse elements, in particular the need to earn money, social life and academic workloads, was noted by many. For some students academic work appears to be the lowest priority and for others it is paramount.

Tutors felt that most students do not gain a useful set of study skills for HE from their previous educational experience. Problems were noted with areas such as:

time management and identification of priorities independent working problem-solving skills logical and conceptual work, structuring arguments communication skills, in particular sustained writing and report writing

reading, note-taking and listening some aspects of social and interpersonal skills

While students can improve their generic skills, most staff found that the single most important factor in this area was the placement year, after which students learnt to treat their institute course in a ‘professional’ way.

Overall, students who took a ‘transactional’ approach to their studies were identified as a particular source of frustration. These are students whose approach to higher education might be summed up as ‘you give us the information, we give it back to you and you give us the marks’. They do not wish to engage with the subject or undergo any kind of intellectual ‘transformation’.

Some staff were aware of the presence of ‘strategic students’, and also of a small number of students who feel that if they are ‘paying’ they have ‘a right to pass’.

Staff felt that levels of motivation vary enormously. Most had observed an improvement in motivation as the course continues. Sources of motivation were identified as subject interest, career goals (which were seen as motivation to pass rather than to work hard for most students), fear of failure and desire to perform well, and good relations with tutors. Lack of confidence was mentioned as a demotivator by a few staff, but was generally underestimated. Feedback was not mentioned as a motivator.

Overall, staff felt that it was difficult to encourage students to engage in the ‘personal development’ aspect of their institute experience, although this is probably the most valuable element both for students and for employers of graduates.

Reflections

most students are very satisfied and have enjoyed their institute experience staff like their students and are strongly committed to providing excellent

teaching and learning students feel fairly well adjusted to their academic and social lives at institute students do relatively little private study, and attendance falls through the academic

year poor attendance relates to low motivation, lack of integration and risk of

withdrawal staff have a fairly accurate awareness of student lifestyles but would like more

information and more accurate information about these a relatively high number of students state that they sometimes lack motivation demotivators include: lack of interest, a failure to connect employment goals

with current tasks (especially where future goals themselves lack clarity),

‘worry’, lack of confidence in one’s abilities, time pressures, unclear or undefined priorities and poor study habits.

low motivation is in a vicious cycle with poor study habits, lack of enjoyment and integration, and a failure to engage with personal development aspects of the course

a number of students are ‘reactive’ entrants to institute; they are vulnerable to failure and/or withdrawal

a number of students take a ‘strategic’ approach to their course; this puts them at risk of failure/withdrawal and disrupts the learning of other students, in particular making it difficult to use ‘student centred’ teaching methods

reasons for entry shape student behaviour; students who decide to go to institute because of interest in a particular subject are more likely to persist and be satisfied

realistic expectations lead to a more satisfying experience and better adjustment

perceptions of institute are shaped by the relationship of expectations to experience

many non-traditional students are highly motivated and have strong study habits

staff feel positive towards non-traditional students female students are in general less confident (academically and socially) than

males students who live in halls of residence have better adjustment, attendance and

persistence than students who live at home student perceptions of staff approachability relate at least partly to the

academic support available the ‘financial reality’ of student life surprises many students staff and at least some students share a view that the mission of the institute is

to offer both vocational training and intellectual growth through personal development

staff worry that some students do not engage with personal development activities and favour a ‘transactional’ approach to learning

staff are aware of enormous diversity in the attitudes and lifestyles of students self-management, prioritisation, note-taking, listening and directed reading, written and verbal communication, problem-solving, conceptual work, and reflection and report on their own learning. Staff also worry about the development of ‘transactional’ approaches to learning

staff note that generic skills improve throughout the course and especially during or after work placements.

student confidence is often low and students would benefit from more feedback on their progress and interaction with staff

staff and students may bring different ‘unspoken’ assumptions to the institute; a lack of ‘communication’ may be responsible for some difficulties\

CHAPTER 12

Recommendations

strong support for more small-group and/or one-to-one staff/student contact, including tracking of individual student progress

formal routes to individual academic support address issues of poor motivation consider introducing activities similar to those of work placements early in the

course consider ways of discouraging transactional approaches to learning and

engaging students with generic skills and personal development activities examine ‘good practice’ among students and look at ways to extend this

through the student population attempt to engage all students in subject interest early on, including those for

whom this is not a high priority at entry encourage students to develop clear personal goals throughout the course actively relate future employment to current studies, again early on in the

course help staff gain clear picture of student lives integrate realistic information about student lives into planning of

administrative procedures such as timetabling build in ongoing feedback early in the course make staff aware of ‘underlying’ demographic factors, e.g. gender differences

and ‘class’ differences in part-time work take-up. attempt to reproduce some of the ‘hall of residence experience’ for students

living at home (e.g. facilitating and accommodating study groups, offering ‘out of class’ spaces, etc)

manage student expectations before entry and during the course recognise and manage the specific difficulties of ‘reactive’ and ‘strategic’

students, including their impact on the learning experience of other students note that these latter groups are defined by attitude/approach, not

demographics facilitate dialogue between staff and students as a central activity of the

course; ensure that all students participate in this

CHAPTER 13 Conclusion

This report offers a ‘snapshot’ of some of the lives, attitudes and experiences of some students looking out for Higher education. What emerges is encouraging and positive; the majority have thoroughly enjoyed their institute experience and the academic component of this in particular. They are generally well adjusted to their lives at institute, although relatively few claim very high levels of adjustment. In general, staff like their students, and are impressed by their efforts at institute and by the maturity which they achieve as they progress through their courses. Staff are aware of the difficulties which students face and sympathetic to these. Lecturers are concerned to provide an excellent learning experience for their students, and help them get the most out of their course, in terms of enjoyment, academic development and preparation for work.

However, there are some genuine problems. One is a genuine gap in motivation among at least some students. Specific groups are especially vulnerable to this, but it appears to affect a broad range of students at some time or other. Various factors cause this: a lack of interest, a failure to connect employment goals with current tasks (perhaps because these future goals themselves lack clarity), ‘worry’ and lack of confidence in one’s own abilities, time pressures, unclear or undefined priorities and poor study habits. Low motivation operates in a vicious cycle with poor study habits, lack of enjoyment and integration, and a failure to engage with the personal development aspects of the course which are fundamental to a higher education experience.

One group of students who are unmotivated are those whose entry to institute has in some way been ‘reactive’, i.e. they have chosen to enter HE because of pressure from family, teachers or peers or because it seems to be a ‘natural progression’ after school. Getting these students to engage with the institution and develop good study habits is a challenge; they are especially vulnerable to drifting away from behaviours which support their learning and ultimately from institute itself.

Another problem is the presence of ‘strategic students’, who set out to do as little work as possible in order to get through their course. If they manage the inherent risks of their strategy well, they may persist and pass, but there is a danger that they may fail or withdraw. Even where they achieve a measure of success, strategic students are unlikely to have a good experience in HE, and their presence is annoying, even demotivating, to students who are interested in their course and work hard. This is partly because the success of strategic students implies a devaluing of the institute places which hardworking students make sacrifices to keep, and partly because they make it difficult for all students to get the most out of student-centred teaching methods which many favour.

In general, the reasons which inform students’ entry decisions will influence their behaviours once they are in HE. Students who decide to go to institute because of interest in their subject, whether or not this is accompanied by instrumental aims, are likely to show a cluster of characteristics which predict academic satisfaction and retention. Where students do not have clear subject interests and/or career goals, they are more likely to encounter difficulties.

Successful students are also likely to have realistic expectations of their course and their institute experience as a whole. Students with realistic expectations report higher levels of adjustment and satisfaction once at institute, while those whose expectations turn out to have been mistaken in a particular area will find adjustment in that field more difficult, and are less likely to be satisfied. In addition, perceptions of aspects of the institute experience appear to have more to do with how the reality measures up to student expectations than with that reality itself. For the most part, reports of

satisfaction and experience relate to expectations and not with programme (students on the same programme will have had broadly the same actual experience).

It appears that successful, academically oriented students are just as likely – if not more likely – to be ‘non-traditional’ students and/or those who might be considered as ‘successes’ of the widening participation initiative. Contrary to the situation described in some national reports, academic staff on the courses examined at any institute have extremely positive attitudes towards the quality of these students. This may contribute to the success of the institution in meeting both its retention and widening participation targets.

There are some correlations between adjustment, attitude, study behaviours and persistence decisions and various demographic factors. Women seem to have lower levels of academic and social confidence than men, although their academic adjustment may be slightly better. Students who enter with qualifications other than A-levels show slightly worse academic adjustment and orientation. Mature-age students seem less likely to consider leaving, and first-generation students seem to have slightly higher academic orientation and subject interest, although they are slightly more likely to consider leaving.

The most important demographic factor appears to be accommodation. Students who live in Institute of Institute Halls of Residence are better attenders and show overall stronger academic orientation, enjoyment and satisfaction. This is probably because it is considerably easier for them to integrate into the institution, and also practically simpler for them to attend lectures and use academic and social facilities.

Relations between students and staff seem to be reasonably good. Students generally feel that staff are good teachers and are approachable; however, student perceptions of staff ‘approachability’ appear to relate closely to their expectations about the availability of academic support. The ‘personalities’ of academic staff seem to be a secondary issue.

For many students, the financial realities of institute life are harsh, and the students interviewed, despite excellent overall levels of preparation, found that this came as a surprise. The impact of debt on recruitment is outside the remit of this project, but it is worth noting that several of the interviewees stated that the prospect of owing the sums of money which will become the norm after 2006 would have been a serious deterrent or an outright bar to their entering HE.

Staff and students appear to have a similar set of priorities for the mission of the institute; vocational preparation, general intellectual development, and personal development in generic skills, ‘institute experience’ and individual transformation. However, it is possible that the views of the student interviewees represent those of only a minority of the students population. Staff felt that for many students the personal development aspect of institute is ‘squeezed out’ under current constraints of time and finance. They also suggested that for many students this is a very low

priority, at least until the final year once they have developed a more mature and professional attitude during a placement year.

Staff generally have a fairly accurate picture of student characteristics and lifestyles. However, some said that they would like more information about these, and there were areas where many staff did not know a great deal about students. In general they slightly over-estimate student motivation, but under-estimate the importance of gaining high marks and also of knowing ‘how one is doing’ to students. Staff are aware that there is an enormous range of different attitudes and lifestyles among their students.

Staff are concerned about certain student attitudes and abilities. In particular, they feel that incoming students are weak in self-management and prioritisation, and various basic generic skills, e.g. note-taking, listening and directed reading, written and verbal communication, problem-solving and conceptual work, and reflection and report on their own learning. Staff also worry about the development of ‘transactional’ approaches to learning, which make it difficult to engage in student centred techniques, deep learning or problem solving.

Some staff and students are also concerned about the development of a ‘customer’ approach from a minority of students as they begin to perceive that they are paying more for their education, and about the detrimental effect on teaching and learning which this may have.

Students often lack confidence in their own abilities, and may not relate working hard to gaining the high marks which they crave. This may relate to poor study skills, or to the lack of opportunities for individual encouragement and feedback from academic staff. It may also arise because students are often inclined to believe that success at institute is determined by ‘inherent ability’, or by performance before they enter institute. A disturbing number prefer to believe that they ‘just can’ or ‘just can’t’ do certain things, and find it surprising (and encouraging) when they realise that they can actually learn things. Again, this relates to a belief in transactional learning rather than transformation through learning.

Many students lack a discourse or dialogue to discuss elements of their institute experience. Often, the institution and its staff may work on the basis of different fundamental but unspoken assumptions about the purpose of the institute, and some of its core activities, from those employed by the students. The need for a dialogue around various aspects such as skills, employability, personal development and the purpose of HE emerges from this study.

What sorts of activity are suggested by these findings? In the first place, it provides yet another argument for building in more opportunities for staff: student contact in small groups or one-to-one interactions. Both staff and students were clear about the value of this; it was seen as encouraging and motivating, and staff were clearly

committed to this element of their work. It is valued even where the contact is offered through the creative and prompt use of electronic resources. And it is facilitated by an important message from the data which should not be lost among the various less cheerful ones; staff and students do want to cooperate in the work of the institute, and hold fundamentally positive attitudes towards each other.

Importantly, offering students academic contact on a personal basis seems to be what determines their view of staff as approachable or otherwise. This is extremely encouraging because it offers a much more concrete – and reasonable – way of improving staff-student relations than the rather vague exhortation to lecturers to ‘be nice to students’. Of course, it would be absurd to argue against any initiative of this latter sort. However, it is often frustrating for academics to be told that they must ‘really care’ about their students, or to imply that certain kinds of personality have a better chance of offering ‘excellence’ in education. Advising staff on frequency and type of professional interaction is considerably simpler than offering advice on what constitute appropriate emotions.

Poor motivation among students needs to be addressed. It is not simply the fault of staff who fail to enthuse their students. Some students arrive at institute with relatively little interest in their subject, and even where they bring a level of subject interest this is does not always translate into a willingness to put the work in. ‘Student centred teaching’ can encourage some students to participate more in their own education, but it is impossible to centre one’s teaching very effectively on students whose inclination is to place themselves at the margins. Specific problems with motivation were identified by staff. The ‘transactional’ approach to education is one symptom of this, and another is an unwillingness to develop generic skills and to engage in the personal development involved in education.

Many staff felt that the placement year was key to improving both generic skills and motivation. This may occur partly because going on placement helps students to clarity their career goals, and to see the link between all aspects of their course and future employment. If they perceive that report writing, prioritisation of their time and problem solving are essential in the workplace, they have a greater incentive to work on these than if they have simply been told to do so by a ‘teacher’. In addition, students who develop these abilities in the workplace can find that a job is more interesting when it is done in a professional way.

The workplace incorporates some of the elements which students themselves say they find motivating. Jobs have an inherent element of constant and ongoing feedback on

‘how you’re doing’; if one is underperforming, this will often be picked up very quickly while good performance will be noted and sometimes rewarded. In addition, students whose placement work means that they work in a team will experience ‘subject-based’ integration of the sort for which universities strive.

Building some of these elements into the early stages of a course would be a very useful strategy. However, the workplace has several distinct advantages over the institute for doing so, and for engaging students with these activities. In the first place, attendance at work is compulsory, and instead of the situation where ‘nothing happens to you if you don’t do the work’, something does happen to employees who do not show up or who fail to do their job. In addition, students spend more time, and more consistent time in their workplace, rather than perhaps 16 or 18 contact hours spread out over the week. A placement offers all students some of the advantages of the Halls of Residence. And students in the workplace are almost forced to undertake the activity of meeting and dealing with new and diverse people which some staff stated was a low priority for unmotivated students. Communication and interpersonal skills are fundamental to day-to-day survival.

Perhaps both staff and students can learn from ‘student good practice’ of the sort described by the interviewees. Staff were careful to point out that, although they spent more time in their interviews talking about the worse students, they were aware that many were hard-working, motivated and had good study skills. It is entirely understandable that these students who are ‘getting things right’ did not occupy a great deal of the discussion, as they are in one sense ‘unremarkable’; the course is set up to work for students like them. However, it is interesting that we know relatively little about the habits, interests and priorities of ‘excellent’ students in the modern institute. Identifying and sharing good practice is a standard technique in staff development; could this be extended to our students as well?

‘Trapping’ or encouraging subject interest at an early stage is important here. There is a discourse of institute entrance which focuses on career goals to the exclusion of this, and it appears that students who enter without at least some attachment to the subject are vulnerable to poor study habits and adjustment, and also to withdrawal. Building subject interest from scratch for these students – rather than simply assuming that everyone on a course has an attachment to their field – is important. This may be achieved partly through regular and precise careers activities from the very beginning of the course, because it makes the link between classroom activity and the desired job.

Another aspect of student good practice which can be fostered by the institution is clarity of personal goals and their relation to study. This appears to be one of the motivating factors for students on the highly specialised vocational courses which have been mentioned above.

To encourage better motivation, and facilitate student work in general, staff need to have a clear picture of day-to-day student lives. Overall staff do not seem to hold highly inaccurate beliefs, but there are some misconceptions and a real staff hunger for clear information about what life is like for all of their students. Staff and students also feel that this sort of ‘realistic’ picture might be helpful in some administrative areas, e.g. timetabling.

Some of the student priorities identified, most importantly ongoing feedback, could be used in boosting motivating and possibly also effective study behaviours such as good time management and attendance. Where students fail to take up opportunities for formative feedback, this might be supported by the sort of ‘dialogue’ discussed below.

It would also be useful for students to know about some of the less ‘obvious’ aspects of student opinion and lifestyle. One finding from this project which would probably come as a surprise to many staff is the lack of confidence among many female students; the knock-on effects of this in student representation and possibly also achievement are not known.

One area in which it might be possible to extend student ‘good practice’ is in helping students who live at home to enjoy some of the advantages conferred by accommodation in Halls of Residence. In particular, this would involve providing spaces where it is pleasant and easy to spend academic or social ‘down time’ on campus. The informal study groups used by students might be facilitated by provision of small spaces which are reasonably quiet but do not require ‘library like’ silence, and where it is possible to spread out one’s work and have a cup of coffee. Gaps between lectures might be spent on campus if students could go somewhere warm, comfortable and – ideally – smoke-free where they can sit down for an hour or so without having to spend money. And providing more social events around courses would help provide a institute community for students living at home. All of these require large resources of time and money, but would probably be appreciated by many students.

Managing student expectations from before entry and during the first year (at least) is extremely important in helping students to enjoy their course and to adjust well. The strong relationship between expectations and adjustment/satisfaction is also important when the new emphasis on surveys of student satisfaction is considered.

All of the above activities will have some impact on the specific problems caused by two groups of students who are vulnerable to withdrawal or failure, the ‘strategic’ and the ‘reactive’ groups. An awareness and acknowledgement that a minority of students

do fall into these categories is important, as is the development of some measures to support their learning and to help them get more out of their institute experience than might have been the case (or, indeed, their intention).

It is not really practical ‘just to leave them’. Strategic students clearly damage the quality of classroom experience for all students (especially where tutors try to use interactive and student-centred techniques); their decision to follow their institute career in this way is not something which harms only them. In addition, the behaviours of these groups may have worked at a time when staff: student ratios were low and staff had the time to put in the effort with individual students which would ensure that they engaged sufficiently with their course to pass. As students are required to be more proactive in ‘owning’ and managing their own learning, reactive and strategic students are going to find it harder to ‘survive’ at institute.

Very importantly, these are groups of students defined not by any demographic factor, but by their attitudes and approaches to study. There is some evidence that these may relate weakly to some demographic factors. For example, mature-age students rarely fall into either category (for obvious practical reasons); both Kneale’s study and this one suggest that more men than women are ‘strategic’, and there is evidence that first-generation students are less likely than second to be ‘reactive’ entrants. However, there are plenty of highly motivated young, male and/or second generation students who come to institute with a love of their subject and a determination to work hard, and a number of strategists and reactive entrants will be female and/or first generation.

All of these issues are related to the theme of ‘unspoken’ assumptions about the institute on the part of both staff and students, and to the need to open a dialogue in which both sides can voice these. This is not easy. Dialogue, and the formation of a shared discourse, needs time and space, and is best achieved in small groups rather than in the larger classes and impersonal fora which are becoming more common in higher education. Students who have grown used to a ‘transactional’ approach to learning in school may be unwilling to put in the additional time and thought needed for this process; such a resistance has been mentioned by several staff. However, active participation in a dialogue is an effective way for staff and students to learn more about each other and reinforce the academic community.

Several priorities for staff-student dialogue have been noted in this project. The nature of learning, skills, feedback and motivation are all areas of interest for both students and staff. As students reflect on their experiences and enhance their own learning,

staff can find out more about the individuals whom they teach and can shape teaching methods and organisation towards this group. Once again, discussion and active exploration is a more effective way to help students understand the mission of the institution in areas such as feedback and generic skills acquisition; there is something of a contradiction in expecting them to believe things in these areas because they have just been told that it is true.

If institute is a place where students are encouraged to take part in a dialogue, this will crucially establish the fact that it is different from school. However good secondary schools are at their job, it is different from that of a higher education institution. Whether dialogue is regarded as an old-fashioned function of intellectual development or a modern generic skill for the adaptable, creative, problem-solving professional (or, as most of the staff and students interviewed would probably argue, as a bit of both), it is something that definitely belongs in a institute, and which students will not only enjoy, but need.

Some of the tensions around institute teaching, such as the difference between transactional and transformational learning, can be explored here. The nature and ethics of transformation can be discussed, where these are a source of anxiety or simply unknowns for students. It is also a place where students can reflect on the variety of sometimes bewildering experiences. Students can learn more about the purpose of the subject skills and knowledge which they are acquiring, in relation to their relevance in the outside world and to individual career goals. They can also gain generic skills of reflection, report, analysis and communication. A dialogue would encourage students, to paraphrase one of the student interviewees, to think about ‘this sort of thing’. It might also help them, to paraphrase one of the staff, to ‘dream’.

CHAPTER 14

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bibliography

Adams, J (2004). Developing the Quality of Instructor Service to Students (QISSTM) Questionnaire. Paper presented at the 4th Annual Lilly North Conference on College Teaching, Central Michigan University, September 2004

Ahmad, F (2001). Modern traditions? British Muslim women and academic achievement. Gender and Education 13 (2). 137 – 152

Archer, L, Pratt, S D and Phillips, D (2001). Working-class men’s constructions of masculinity and negotiations of (non) participation in higher education. Gender and Education 13 (4). 431 – 449

Aston, L and Bekhradnia, B (2005). Non-completion at the University of North London and London Guildhall University: A case study. Higher Education Policy Institute, London

Bland, D (2004). Crossing the line: A study of peer influence on students from low-income backgrounds in transition from school to university. Paper presented at the Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Brisbane 2002

Boulton-Lewis, G M, Wilss, L and Lewis, D (2003). Dissonance between conceptions of learning and ways of learning for indigenous Australian university students. Studies in Higher Education 28 (1). 79 - 89

Braxton, J M, Milem, J F and Sullivan, A S (2000). The influence of active learning on the college student departure process: towards a revision of Tinto’s theory. Journal of Higher Education 71 (5). 569 – 590

Breen, R (1999). Student motivation and conceptions of disciplinary knowledge. Paper presented at the HERDSA Annual International Conference, Melbourne, Australia, July 1999

Broadbent, C (2002). Stop the bus I want to get off: Academics coping in a time of uncertainty. Paper presented at the Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Brisbane 2002

Chan, V (2001). Learning autonomously: the learners’ perspective. Journal of Further and Higher Education 25 (3). 285 – 300

Chatterton, P (1999). University students and city centres – the formation of exclusive geographies. The case of Bristol, UK. Geoforum 30. 117 – 133

Christie, H, Munro, M and Fisher, T (2004). Leaving university early: exploring the differences between continuing and non-continuing students. Studies in Higher Education 29 (5). 617 – 636

Cook, A and Leckey, J (1999). Do expectations meet reality? A survey of changes in first year student opinion. Journal of Further and Higher Education 23 (2). 157 – 171

Corcoran, P (2002). Students and universities: a dysfunctional relationship. Paper presented at the ATEM/AAPPA Conference, Canberra, August 2002

Despaul, P A E G, Reis, HT and de Vries, M W (2004). Ecological and motivational determinants of activation: studying compared to sports and watching TV. Social Indicators Research 67. 129 - 143

Dooley, K (2004). Pedagogy in diverse secondary school classes: Legacies for higher education. Higher Education 48, 231 - 252

Grayson, J. Paul (2003). The consequences of early adjustment to university. Higher Education 46, 411 – 429.

Halbesleben, J R B, Becker, J A H and Buckley, M R (2003). Considering the labor contributions of students: An alternative to the student-as-customer metaphor. Journal of Education for Business 78 (5). 255 – 257

Hannan, R and Jimmieson, N (2002). The relationship between extra-role behaviours and job burnout for primary school teachers: A preliminary model and development of an organisational citizenship behaviour scale. Paper presented at the Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Brisbane 2002

Higgins, R, Hartley, P and Skelton, A (2002). The conscientious consumer: reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning. Studies in Higher Education 27 (1). 53 – 64

Jackson, C (2003). Transitions into higher education: gendered implications for academic self-concept. Oxford Review of Education 29 (3). 331 – 346

Jansen, E P W A (2004). The influence of the curriculum organisation on study progress in higher education. Higher Education 47, 411 – 435

Jones, R and Thomas, L (2001). Not ‘just passing through’: Making retention work for present and future learners. Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning. 3 (2).

Kember, D (2004). Interpreting student workload and the factors which shape students’ perceptions of their workload. Studies in Higher Education 29 (2). 165 – 184

Kneale, P (1997). The rise of the “strategic student”: how can we adapt to cope? in Facing up to Radical Changes in Colleges and Universities ed S Armstrong, G Thompson and S Brown. London: Kogan Page. 119 – 130

Lindblom-Ylänne, Sari (2003). Broadening an understanding of the phenomenon of dissonance. Studies in Higher Education 28 (1). 63 – 77

Lizzio, A and Wilson, K (2004). First-year students’ perceptions of capability. Studies in Higher Education 29 (1), 109 – 128

Macdonald, J (2002). “Getting it together and being put on the spot”: synopsis, motivation and examination. Studies in Higher Education 27 (3). 329 – 337

McShane, K (2002). Academics’ metaphors and beliefs about university teaching and learning. Paper presented at the Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Brisbane 2002

McWilliam, E and Taylor, P G (2002). Danger and grieving in the university. Paper presented at the Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Brisbane 2002

Mäkinen, Jarkko, Olkinuora, Erkki and Lonka, Kirsti (2004). Students at risk: students’ general study orientations and abandoning/prolonging the course of studies. Higher Education 48, 173 – 188

Mann, S J (2001). Alternative perspectives on the student experience: alienation and engagement. Studies in Higher Education 26 (1). 7 – 19

Miller, R B, DeBacker, T and Greene, B A (1999). Perceived instrumentality and academics: the link to task valuing. Journal of Instructional Psychology 26 (4). 250 - 260

Prosser, M, Ramsden, P, Trigwell, K and Martin, E (2003). Dissonance in experience of teaching and its relation to the quality of student learning. Studies in Higher Education 28 (1). 37 – 48

Rhodes, C and Nevill, A (2004). Academic and social integration in higher education: a survey of satisfaction and dissatisfaction within a first year education studies cohort at a new university. Journal of Further and Higher Education 28 (2). 179 – 193

Ridley, D (2004). Puzzling experiences in higher education: critical moments for conversation. Studies in Higher Education 29 (1). 91 – 107

Seifert, Timothy L. (2004). Understanding student motivation. Educational Research 46 (2). 137 – 149

Sharrock, G (2000). Why students are not (just) customers (and other reflections on Life After George). Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 22 (2). 149 – 165

Silver, H (2003). Does a university have a culture? Studies in Higher Education 28 (2). 157 - 169

Smithers (2004). Learn for joy not just jobs says new minister. The Guardian 24 September 2004

Sullivan, A (2001). Cultural capital and educational attainment. Sociology 35 (4). 893 – 912

Reay, D, David, M and Ball, S (2001). Making a difference? Institutional habituses and higher education choice. Sociological Research Online 5 (4).

Rosovsky, H (1990). The University: An Owners Manual. Norton and Co.: New York.

Taylor, J A and Bedford, T (2004). Staff perceptions of factors related to non-completion in higher education. Studies in Higher Education 29 (3), 375 – 394

Taylor, M (2004). Generation neXt comes to college: meeting the postmodern student. Higher Learning Commission Collection of Papers, USA. Available at www.taylorprograms.org

Thomas, L (2002). Student retention in higher education: the role of institutional habitus. Journal of Education Policy 17 (4). 423 – 442

UFNE (2001). Student Retention, Support and Widening Participation in the North East of England. Universities for the North East, Newcastle.

Unite/HEPI (2005). The Student Experience Report 2005. HEPI, London.

wa Mwachofi, N, Strom, M, Gilbert, P and Cohen, H (1995). Reflections on the student as customer metaphor. Teaching forum, University of Wisconsin.

Winn, S (2002). Student motivation: a socio-economic perspective. Studies in Higher Education 27 (4), 445 – 457

Wyshe Hirst, E (2002). Engaging heterogeneity: tertiary literacy in new times. Paper presented at the Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Brisbane 2002

85

86