researchdirect.westernsydney.edu.au7054/... · ii - ii - ii improving the retention of first year...

i - i - iI m p r o v i n g t h e R e t e n t i o n o f F i r s t Y e a r S t u d e n t s P a g e i

IMPROVING THE RETENTION OF

FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

GRAHAM BISHOP

A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the

Degree of Master of Engineering (Hons)

University of Western Sydney

2007

ii - ii - iiI m p r o v i n g t h e R e t e n t i o n o f F i r s t Y e a r S t u d e n t s P a g e i i

IMPROVING THE RETENTION OF FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

Graham Bishop, UWS

M.Eng Thesis 2007

Abstract

The thesis compares student attrition rates in two UWS Schools for 2004 and 2005. It

analyses possible reasons why students discontinue and identifies strategies and

approaches to improving the quality of the teaching and learning environment for these

students. The thesis focuses on the retention of first year students in the School of

Engineering at the University of Western Sydney.

Low retention rates are costly to the university, leading to inefficient use of resources,

failure to fulfil student aspirations, and intervention between the university and the

student. In each chapter, the thesis addresses student retention, satisfaction and

performance and the interrelation between them and outlines the measures taken by the

School of Engineering to improve these measurements for students commencing in

2006 and proposes many recommendations for further improvements in subsequent

years.

Each chapter addresses these issues by following the student pathway, commencing

with the student leaving High School and entering their chosen university and course of

study. At each stage, the relevant issues are addressed which have a direct or indirect

impact on student retention, satisfaction and performance. Use is made of reports and

papers published by universities and organisations, as outlined in the Literature Review.

The research questions provide data through the results obtained from surveys.

Typical Retention Rates are 75% for UWS, 81% for the Sector, 76% for the New

Generation Universities (NGUs) and 62% for the School of Engineering on which this

research is focussed. This thesis confirms the research from many countries that closely

links student retention with the quality of teaching and learning. Key issues are:

• a sound first year student orientation and welcome by staff; encountering

efficient, effective and accurate student administrative systems;

iii - iii - iiiI m p r o v i n g t h e R e t e n t i o n o f F i r s t Y e a r S t u d e n t s P a g e i i i

The introduction of a more effective and tailored orientation program in

2007 attracted, at UWS School of Engineering, 92% attendance and

greater awareness by the students of their study program and the

available support services;

• having student queries responded to promptly and effectively;

The introduction of a First Year Coordinator in 2007 proved to be well

received, with a significant number of students having prompt responses

to their queries, as compared with previous years;

• clear expectations management about services and key academic issues like

assessment;

the marketing of UWS Engineering programs was addressed in 2006 and

2007, with an expansion of the marketing program operated for feeder

schools and improved awareness of student expectations prior to entry:

an ongoing exercise;

• having committed, accessible, responsive and capable teaching staff;

the accessibility and responsiveness of teaching staff to first year student

issues, as outlined in this thesis, is being addressed in 2007;

• receiving prompt and helpful feedback on their learning;

an issue being addressed by the First Year Teaching Team as an essential

element of the teaching and learning process; together with:

• effective use of an appropriate selection from a myriad of learning strategies

and resources which give emphasis to active learning, practice oriented learning,

peer supported learning and self-managed learning; supported by a reliable

infrastructure and support systems; and

• consistently encountering staff that are responsive and committed to giving

service to student support.

Results suggest the following recommendations for improving the retention of first

year students.

Involve staff in retention measures

Streamline pre-enrolment information

Keep all student promises – e.g. in Unit Outlines and assessment plans

Identify high-risk students early

iv - iv - ivI m p r o v i n g t h e R e t e n t i o n o f F i r s t Y e a r S t u d e n t s P a g e i v

Cater for poor UAIs and maths/science

Minimise administrative barriers

Appoint a first-year mentor/coordinator

For First year Student Orientation, the student’s first exposure to the UWS

campus,

• Aim for 100% attendance

• Ensure user-friendliness

• Address student expectations

• Address aims of the Orientation program

• Ensure all key staff easily available

• Avoid information overload

• Regularly review and modify the program on an annual basis

• Ensure full academic-administrative liaison

Ease tutorial registration and offer instant online interactive timetable

confirmation

Streamline induction information on a CD or a School web site

Adopt a team approach to teaching First Year Units

Consider alternative peer-mentor models

Strengthen academic mentoring

Ensure staff consultation availability

Regularly encourage prompt attendance and submission of assignments – a

study discipline

Address travel problems

Address campus facilities

Promote learning skills awareness

Encourage students to seek help and

Follow up all student queries.

Graham Bishop

Associate Lecturer

School of Engineering

v - v - vI m p r o v i n g t h e R e t e n t i o n o f F i r s t Y e a r S t u d e n t s P a g e v

University of Western Sydney

[email protected]

May 2007

vi - vi - viI m p r o v i n g t h e R e t e n t i o n o f F i r s t Y e a r S t u d e n t s P a g e v i

Table of Contents

Table of Figures x

Table of Tables xii

Preface xiv

Acknowledgments xv

Glossary xvi

Chapter 1 Introduction 1

1.1 The Problem Statement 1

1.1.1 A perspective on the problem 2

1.2 Thesis aim 4

1.3 Student retention 5

1.3.1 Definitions 5

1.3.2 Student retention at UWS 7

1.3.3 The cost implications of student retention 9

1.3.4 The scale of the student retention issue 9

1.4 Discussion 16

Chapter 2 Literature Review 17

2.1 Models of Student Retention 18

2.1.1 Institutional approaches 18

2.2 Studies of Transition 20

2.3 Key factors influencing student retention 24

2.3.1 Student age 25

2.3.2 Language and cultural background 25

2.3.3 Student gender 26

2.3.4 Goal commitment 26

2.3.5 Family and peer support 27

2.3.6 Living at home or residential 27

2.3.7 Course expectations/characteristics 28

2.3.8 Course specialisations 28

2.3.9 Travel 29

2.3.10 Administration 33

vii - vii - viiI m p r o v i n g t h e R e t e n t i o n o f F i r s t Y e a r S t u d e n t s P a g e v i i

2.3.11 Improving academic advice 33

2.3.12 Provision of transition subjects/units 34

2.3.13 Early feedback and advice 35

2.3.14 Student engagement 35

2.3.15 Collaborative learning and student engagement 39

2.3.16 Social integration 41

2.3.17 Teaching pedagogy 41

2.4 Effective interventions 42

2.4.1 Peer mentoring 44

2.4.2 Common timetabling of groups/learning communities 45

2.4.3 Developing an online community 45

2.4.4 Developmental subjects/units 46

2.4.5 Conflicts with employment 46

2.5 Summary 53

Chapter 3 Research Methodology and Design 54

3.1 A review of the instruments used to test the effectiveness of the

methods to improve first year teaching 54

3.2 Internal surveys 55

3.2.1 The 2005 (Enrolment) and 2006 (Orientation) UWS surveys 56

3.3 Research participants 59

3.4 Materials 59

Chapter 4 Transition to university – Student retention issues 65

4.1 Introduction 65

4.2 Student personal, family and social issues 65

4.3 Student UAI scores and ability in mathematics and science on entry 69

4.4 Choosing a university and course advice and welcome 74

4,5 Students at risk 75

4.6 Discussion 78

Chapter 5 Orientation and settling in – Students retention issues 82

5.1 Introduction 82

5.2 Arriving at university 82

5.3 The enrolment process 83

viii - viii - viiiI m p r o v i n g t h e R e t e n t i o n o f F i r s t Y e a r S t u d e n t s P a g e v i i i

5.4 The role of orientation week 85

5.4.1 Step 1 – The 2005 orientation program 86

5.4.2 Step 2 – Reviewing the 2005 program 87

5.4.3 Step 3 – Reviewing the 2006 program 88

5.4.4 Future orientation programs 91

5.5 An institutional approach to transition and the orientation program 92

5.6 IT Access 97

5.7 Administrative issues such as fees, MyUWS and account registration 98

5.8 Seeking help and support – staff communications and accessibility 99

5.9 Discussion 100

Chapter 6 Teaching and Learning – Student retention issues 102

6.1 Introduction 102

6.2 Teaching and learning activities 103

6.3 Curriculum design for the first year 104

6.4 Class timetables, laboratory sessions, tutorials etc. 104

6.5 Monitoring learning activities 105

6.6 A UWS survey on learning activities 112

6.7 Student motivation and workload 116

6.8 Meeting the deadlines 118

6.9 Advice and welcome from senior staff 119

6.10 The peer mentor scheme 122

6.11 Student Support Service, counselling 124

6.12 The campus 127

6.13 Staff communications and accessibility 129

6.14 Discussion 131

Chapter 7 Progression – Student retention issues 134

7.1 Introduction 134

7.2 Student retention data 134

7.3 Exit surveys 140

7.4 Progression to other universities 142

7.5 Discussion 143

Chapter 8 Conclusions, Recommendations and Future Work 145

ix - ix - ixI m p r o v i n g t h e R e t e n t i o n o f F i r s t Y e a r S t u d e n t s P a g e i x

8.1 Issues to be addresses by UWS 150

8.2 What measures can be made to retain them ? 151

8.3 A final word 152

Chapter 9 References 154

Chapter 10 Appendices 192

Appendix 1 DEST Tables of Higher Education attrition and enrolment rates 193

Appendix 2 Notes to accompany DEST Tables of attrition data 207

Appendix 3 Questionnaires to Students regarding (1) Enrolment October 2005 209 and (2) Orientation March 2006 Appendix 4 Orientation Program 2006 222

Appendix 5 Factor Analysis for CEQ Good teaching Scale 1999 226 Appendix 6 Analysis of Mathematics entry and exam data for UWS 228

School of Engineering students 2005

Appendix 7 The UWS College 3-semester program 235

Appendix 8 Report of the Group reviewing enrolment 2005 237

Appendix 9 “First Year Central” website Checklist 242

x - x - xI m p r o v i n g t h e R e t e n t i o n o f F i r s t Y e a r S t u d e n t s P a g e x

Table of Figures

Chapter 1

Figure 1.1 A Student Services notice board displayed at UWS 4

Kingswood campus during the first semester

Figure 1.2 The Process of giving first year students support at UWS 8

Figure 1.3 A Comparison between the drop out rates in the two 13

UWS Schools for the 2004 cohort

Figure 1.4 Graphical representation of the Chi-squared results 15

Chapter 2

Figure 2.1 Tinto’s Model Pathway for University Students – 1975 19

Figure 2.2 Tinto’s Model Pathway for University students – 1993 19

Chapter 4

Figure 4.1 UAI scores for 2006 School of Engineering entrants 69

Figure 4.2 Results from a survey of ‘high risk’ students at UWS 77

Figure 4.3 A diagrammatic Summary of the Student at Risk Survey 79

Figure 4.4 A summary of the proposed actions for Students At Risk 80

Chapter 5

Figure 5.1 The QUT Transition Plan for 2008 93

Figure 5.2 The RMIT Student Transition Plan 94

Figure 5.3 The Deakin University Timeline 95

Figure 5.4 The UWS Transition Plan 2008/9 96

Chapter 6

Figure 6.1 UWS CEQ [Course Experience Questionnaire], 2003 to 2005 106

Figure 6.2 UWS CEQ Student perceptions of Quality, Spring 2004 112

Figure 6.3 Comparison between CEQ student satisfaction data with the 115

School of Engineering retention data, 2003, 2004 and 2005

Figure 6.4 AUSSE results for academic advising 120

Figure 6.5 Scores measuring the quality of academic advice 120

Figure 6.6 Student measures of quality of their educational experience 121

xi - xi - xiI m p r o v i n g t h e R e t e n t i o n o f F i r s t Y e a r S t u d e n t s P a g e x i

Figure 6.7 Measures of the correlation between the overall score 122

and the AUSSE scales

Figure 6.8 Hours per week spent on extracurricular activities 127

Chapter 7

Figure 7.1 Pattern of Student Discontinuation School of Engineering, 136

2003 cohort


2004 cohort


2005 cohort


2006 cohort

xii - xii - xiiI m p r o v i n g t h e R e t e n t i o n o f F i r s t Y e a r S t u d e n t s P a g e x i i

Table of Tables

Chapter 1

Table 1.1 Comparison of attrition figures 2

Table 1.2 Analysis of student discontinuation, 2003 to 2007 11

Table 1.3 Comparison between student discontinuation for two schools 14

for the 2004 cohorts

Chapter 2

Table 2.1 Student responses to their perceptions for enrolling 1994-2004 (%) 30

Table 2.2 Reasons for considering deferring, 1999-2004 (% of students) 31

Table 2.3 Reasons for considering deferring, 1999 – 2004 32

Table 2.4 Key findings from chapter 2 47

Chapter 3

Table 3.1 Summary of UWS surveys and performance reports 61

Chapter 4

Table 4.1 Student responses to the 2006 Survey that relate to the 66

pre-enrolment process

Table 4.2 Analysis of Maths and Science HSC Qualifications 2006 72

Table 4.3 Questionnaire responses to the October 2005 survey 74

Chapter 5

Table 5.1 Review of UWS 2005 enrolments 83

Table 5.2 Student feedback on orientation activities 87

Table 5.3 Student responses to the 2006 Survey on orientation 89

Table 5.4 Summary of responses to the Telephone Survey, 2005 and 2006 98

Chapter 6

Table 6.1 UWS CEQ data 106

Table 6.2 UWS CEQ responses 108

Table 6.3 data breakdown of the CEQ data by UWS College 109

Table 6.4 Comparison between CSTE and UWS responses 110

Table 6.5 Perceptions of teaching 1994 – 2004 113

xiii - xiii - xiiiI m p r o v i n g t h e R e t e n t i o n o f F i r s t Y e a r S t u d e n t s P a g e x i i i

Table 6.6 Satisfaction with course of study 1994 – 2004 114

Table 6.7 Percentage of FT and PT students and income generation 117

Table 6.8 DEST student income data 1994 – 2004 118

Table 6.9 DEST, How students spend their weekday time, 1994 – 2004 130

xiv - xiv - xivI m p r o v i n g t h e R e t e n t i o n o f F i r s t Y e a r S t u d e n t s P a g e x i v

Preface

This thesis has a number of interconnected threads and analysis. The following chapters

outline is presented for ease of following the structure of this thesis.

Chapter 1 defines the terms ‘student retention’ and its alternatives, followed by an

overview of the research methodology and the research questions being addressed by

this thesis. The Student Pathway is introduced, from which the elements of the student

process is analysed and potential student drop-out identified.

Chapters 2 provides a literature review which describes previous research into student

retention, from the early 1970s to the present day. Literature from the University of

Western Sydney together with research carried out at other universities was reviewed, in

relation to student transition from school to the university and through the first year.

Methods of data monitoring and analysis are introduced, with an emphasis on the

School of Engineering at UWS.

Chapter 3 describes the instruments and methodology used to obtain the data, research,

surveys and other information necessary for the research hypothesis.

Chapters 4 to 7 describe the research results obtained from the four key phases of the

Student Pathway, including a summary of the measures discussed by the UWS School of

Engineering in May 2005:

Chapter 4 Transition to university

Chapter 5 Orientation and settling in

Chapter 6 Teaching and Learning

Chapter 7 Progression

Chapter 8 gathers the conclusions from preceding chapters and, from them, formulates

recommendations and measures to improve student retention: many being successfully

applied in this and other universities. Consequently, although the thesis primarily

focuses on data gathered from the years 2003 to 2006, occasionally the reader is brought

to 2008/9 since certain recommendations have been addressed at UWS.

xv - xv - xvI m p r o v i n g t h e R e t e n t i o n o f F i r s t Y e a r S t u d e n t s P a g e x v

Acknowledgements

Sincere gratitude goes to a number of people and, in particular, my Supervisors: Professor Steven Riley Former Head of School of Engineering, UWS Dr. Surendra Shrestha Associate Head of School of Engineering, UWS Mr Bruce Campbell Head of Program, B.Eng, UWS

The research would not have been possible without my employment as a Teaching

Fellow for the duration of the research by Professor Steven Riley, former Head of the

School of Engineering. This enables direct contact with many hundreds of first year

students on whom part of this research was focussed. Also, access to the facilities, data,

the student cohorts and staff of the university was greatly eased by the support of the

Head of School.

I am also indebted to the personal support and encouragement given by my co-

supervisor Associate Head of Engineering, Dr Surendra Shrestha who guided thoughts

and provided inspiration throughout the two year period.

My second co-supervisor, Bruce Campbell, Head of Programs in the School of

Engineering, provided wisdom and support throughout the period and shared many of

the concerns which influenced the measured levels of student retention.

I also wish to pay a tribute to the staff of the UWS Student Services Unit who shared

with me the planning of Peer Mentoring Training and orientation, the Office of

Planning and Quality who provided retention and other university data and IT,

laboratory and support staff who provided support in their respective areas.

Finally, sincere thanks for my wife, Celia, who provided love and encouragement

throughout the research and writing of the thesis; including the many times where

Microsoft Word or other program required extensive expertise.

Graham Bishop

xvi - xvi - xviI m p r o v i n g t h e R e t e n t i o n o f F i r s t Y e a r S t u d e n t s P a g e x v i

GLOSSARY AQLC Academic Quality and Learning Committee (UWS)

AUQA Australian Universities Quality Agency

Callista The UWS Computer Database

Census Date The date by which University fees have to be paid

CEQ Course Experience Questionnaire

CEQuery Course Evaluation Query exercise

CIT Computing and Information Technology

CSHE College of Social & Health Sciences

CSTE College of Science, Technology & Environment

CSTE College of Science, Technology and Environment at UWS

DEST Department of Education, Science and Training

EFTSL Effective Full-Time Student Load

EIDP Engineering and Industrial Design Practice

First Year

Central The UWS web site for new students

GDS Graduate Destination Survey

GPA Grade Point Average

GTS Good Teaching Scale

GWS Greater Western Sydney

HECS Higher Education Contribution Scheme (Australia)

HELP Higher Education Loan Program

HOPNET Head of Programs Network

HOS Head of School

HSC Higher School Certificate

ICT Information and Communication Technology

ID Industrial Design

IPP Introduction to Professional Practice (now EIDP)

MyUWS The UWS student computer system

NGU New Generation University

Orientation The initial information and advice program to new students

OAR Office of the Academic registrar

PASS Peer Assisted Study Sessions

Peer Mentor Students from 2nd year and above who support students

xvii - xvii - xviiI m p r o v i n g t h e R e t e n t i o n o f F i r s t Y e a r S t u d e n t s P a g e x v i i

PG Postgraduate

RET Regional Entry Test

SEA School of Environment and Agriculture [up to December 2005]

SEID School of Engineering and Industrial Design [up to December 2005]

SFT Student Feedback on Teaching

SFU Student Feedback on Unit

SSS Student Satisfaction Survey

STAT Special Tertiary Admissions Test

Tafe Technical and Further Education

TILT Tracking and Improving Learning and Teaching

UAC Universities Admissions centre

UAI Universities Admission Index (Australia)

UG Undergraduate

UniTrack A scheme for studying individual university units

UTS University of Technology Sydney

UWS University of Western Sydney

WebCT The UWS interactive [teaching] computer system

Improving the Retention of First year Students Page1

1 Introduction

“Student retention is one of the most widely studied areas in higher education…The result has been

an ever more sophisticated understanding of the complex web of events that shape student leaving and

persistence… But for all that, substantial gains in student retention have been hard to come by…

More importantly, there is much that we have not yet done to translate our research and theory into

effective practice.”

Vincent Tinto

This thesis addresses the issue of why a significant number of students in the School of

Engineering at the University of Western Sydney choose to discontinue their studies during,

or at the end of, their first year. The consequence for many of the students is major

interruption to their education and career development and loss of esteem. The

consequences for the University are wasted resources and damage to the image of the

institution. The problem is substantial, and not solely restricted to Engineering

This chapter states the problem of retention for Engineering at UWS, the consequences for

the institution and the students, and the research questions that arise. The research

methodology is explained.

1.1 Problem Statement

This thesis addresses the following questions, with particular reference to the School of

Engineering at the University of Western Sydney:

Why are students dropping out ?. When do they drop out ? and What measures can be used to retain them ?

The hypothesis of this thesis is that student retention can be improved.


A number of strategies to improve student retention in the School of Engineering are

examined. One aim of this thesis is to assess the effectiveness of the measures taken to

address this problem of retention, analysing the scale of this problem, its causes, and the

effectiveness of different strategies. In addition recommendations are presented for

associated improvements in student satisfaction and performance.

1.1.1 A perspective on the problem

A comparison between Attrition Rates for UWS, for the UWS School of Engineering and

for the Sector over nine years is shown in Table 1.1. These figures adopt the DEST

definition of attrition as described in section 1.3.1; namely those students who withdraw

before the census date.

Table 1-1 Comparison of Attrition figures

Attrition rates for commencing bachelor undergraduates 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2002 2003*

UWS 31.8 23.1 24.2 23.1 24.1 27.7 25.2 21.3 20.0 Engineering 41.3 33.2 31.1 33.1 30.3 32.1 33.4 31.2 28.4 Sector 28.7 21.7 21.4 21.4 21.0 20.3 20.1 19.0 19.0 * Calculated as 100 – inverse of the attrition rate (from DEST 2004, DEST 2005)

The interest in retention at UWS, while of concern, was heightened by a report in 2005

which led to high profile retention campaigns which included the School of Engineering.

Areas needing improvement were indicated in the report and other UWS surveys (First

Year Exit Survey, 2004). The campaign to address the attrition rate was led by the Office

of Planning and Quality and, and in the School of Engineering, by the Head of School. It

was overseen by the UWS Recruitment and Retention Standing Committee. The target of

the campaign was to lift the retention rate to above the NGU benchmark by 2008.


The School of Engineering has a long-standing interest in improving retention rates.

Measures taken by the School of Engineering to improve teaching and learning for students

commencing in 2006 are outlined in this thesis and assessed. Measures to address student

retention by the university Student Support Services are also described, one being the display

or posters such as that illustrated in Figure 1.1 which is displayed to students before census

date in order to encourage dissatisfied students to seek help before ‘walking’.

For clarification, is should be noted that the School of Engineering was formerly the School

of Engineering and Industrial Design between 2001 and 2006, and prior to that the School

of Civic Engineering and Environment between 1998 and 2000.

Student retention, satisfaction and performance and the interrelation between them are

examined in this thesis. Each chapter reviews the issues of retention by following a

generalised student pathway, from the student in High School selecting their university and

course of study to their entry to UWS via UAC, and follows them through their first year in

the School of Engineering at UWS. At each stage, issues affecting retention are addressed

(Fig 1.2).


Figure 1.1 A Student Services notice board (Displayed at UWS Kingswood campus during each first semester)

1.2 Thesis aim The aim of the thesis is to examine the factors affecting the retention of first year students,

including student performance, level of student engagement and degree of satisfaction:

followed by an assessment of the measures to improve student retention. The Engineering

and Agriculture courses offered at UWS are examined, as a means of identifying whether

Engineering had particular issues affecting retention. The thesis also investigates the cost

implications of student drop-out in terms of wasted or reduced resources for the university

and the failure of discontinued students to meet their personal aims.


The thesis considers students who have enrolled into first year courses and their progression

to second, third and subsequent years.

1.3 Student retention

1.3.1 Definitions

Definitions of retention or attrition rates can differ amongst national and international

organisations, universities, faculties or schools. Care has to be taken when comparisons are

made between the relevant data published by such institutions. For some organisations,

students are assumed to have ‘dropped out’ or discontinued if they have decided not to

proceed to the second year of their degree course whereas, in other organisations, it is

assumed that they have dropped out if they do not proceed beyond a census date: 31st March

or 31st August of the year of enrolment in Australia. This section outlines the different

methods used to define student retention or, as some organisations prefer, student attrition.

According to DEST (Department of Education, Science and Training and Higher Education

Council) the Student Retention rate is a measure of the proportion of students in a particular

year who neither graduate nor continue studying in an award course at the same institution

in the following year (DEST, 2004). The Retention rate provides one measure of the

proportion of students who ‘drop out’ from one year to another. The converse ‘rate’ is the

Attrition rate. The sum of the retention rate and the attrition rate for the same cohort of

students in any year totals 100%. The retention rate normally includes those students who

choose to stay at a university and do not leave a course at one university and enrol the next

year at another university. Those who leave their course of study and return later to the

same university are defined as not having retained their university enrolment, i.e. they

contribute to the attrition rate.

Sometimes other terms are used to describe attrition, such as student ‘drop-out’ or

‘withdrawal’ or ‘discontinued’ and so on. However, within the University of Western Sydney

database “Callista”, UWS defines Discontinue as “the withdrawal of a student from a unit


attempt. The process of discontinuing a Student’s Course and/or Unit Offerings is carried

out in the Student Course Attempt and Student Unit Attempt blocks of the Student

Enrolments form. Discontinuation is the ending of a Student Enrolment in a course or unit

other than by completion. The Discontinuation of a Student’s Course Attempt will

automatically discontinue any associated Unit Attempts. Discontinuation is usually initiated

by a student indicating that they wish to exit the course or unit but may be initiated by the

institution by way of an encumbrance for, for example, failing to pay fees or failing to

progress academically”.

Thus, a discontinuation rate registered on Callista is not necessarily equivalent to an attrition

rate defined by DEST.

DEST defines the first year crude attrition rate (DEST, 2004) as “the proportion of

students in a year who neither graduate nor continue studying at the same institution in the

following year”. For example, the 2002 figure refers to the proportion of 2002 students who

neither graduate nor continue studying at the same university in 2003. Students who enrol at

another institution in the following year will be counted in those that have 'dropped out', as

will those that deferred. In addition, DEST provides figures for commencing students and

for those new to higher education where a student is classified as a commencing student

“in relation to a particular course”. A commencing student is one who “has enrolled for

the first time to undertake a particular higher education course at a particular higher

education institution in the reference year”. Students new to higher education are defined

as those “commencing undergraduate students who have never commenced a higher

education course prior to the first enrolment in the current course”.

This thesis uses two definitions of retention rate. Firstly, ‘actual discontinuations’ when

analysing the discontinuation of first year students month by month in the UWS Schools, as

illustrated in Figure 1.3 and defined by the UWS Callista database. The discontinued students

may have withdrawn, transferred from their course or failed their studies and so are

registered as having opted out of university study. When annual UWS figures are compared

with other institutions the second definition, the DEST definition of attrition and retention

as described above is used.


1.3.2 Student Retention at UWS

The model used in this study to assess the factors influencing attrition comprises a Student

Pathway, illustrated in Figure 1.2, where students progress from school, with expectations

and aspirations and then enter university with a UAI (Universities Admission Index) score

and HSC (Higher School Certificate) passes. The university offers a first year orientation

program which precedes the first year of study. Chapters 4 to 7 follow the student through

each element of the pathway in order to identify issues which may influence the retention of

students.

The model of the Student Pathway (Figure 1.2} illustrates the process for a student as they

transfer from school to first year at UWS. It can be seen that a student in High School

follows a pathway which incorporates three phases:

Transition – discussed in Chapter 4

Enrolment and orientation – discussed in Chapter 5

Teaching and Learning – discussed in Chapter 6 and

Progression – discussed in Chapter 7.

Chapter 2 reviews the literature on research into student retention. Chapters 4 to 7 outline

the measures taken by universities, including UWS and the School of Engineering, to

provide the necessary support and effective learning and teaching, so that the student

successfully proceeds to year 2.

The point in the pathway when students decide to drop out depends on the individual

student and their personal circumstances. For some students a major failure by the university

or their personal situation is all that may be needed to withdraw from classes: whereas, as

will be shown, for many students the decision to withdraw is influenced over a period of

time by a significant number of minor factors, not all of which are university-related.


Figure 1.2 The process of giving 1st year student support at UWS

Pre- Entry Student First Year Transition

Acceptance + Enrolment

School & Peers Ability Career aspirations University information Family Finance

Application To UWS via UAC + UAI SCORE

University Orientation Programme Welcome Academic Advice Student Services School support Library support MyUWS Account

Pre-entry Screening for Literacy & Maths Bridging and other needs

Orientation

Accommodation and Personal needs

Travel needs

Financial needs

University Fees

First Year Teachers Academic Mentors Peer Mentors E-mails/messages/WebCT Student Services Support Student Association/ Campus Activities Assessment Program

PROGRAMME OF STUDY Class timetable, lectures, tutorials, laboratory sessions t

Staff accessibility and Support

SSS, SFU Surveys etc.

THE PROCESS OF GIVING 1st YEAR STUDENT SUPPORT AT UWS

Stu

dent

E

xpec

tatio

ns

Literacy & Mathematics Bridging if required

PROGRESSION

Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7


1.3.3 The cost implications of student retention.

For every undergraduate student who discontinues from UWS, the University loses $13,000

(2006 figure) which, if 1520 students discontinue in one academic year, totals a loss of $79

million for the duration of the student’s degree course. In addition, a viable class size is 16

per group, smaller classes become vulnerable and under the threat of closure resulting in

reduced staffing levels and threats of redundancy. In small classes resources are not being

used at maximum efficiency and so the University specifies minimum student numbers per

group and per course. Finally, the student is not able to meet their expectations and

aspirations if they choose to discontinue, particularly if they leave in their first year because

they are dissatisfied with the course or some aspects of the university.

The portfolio of courses in both Schools reviewed in this thesis (Engineering and Natural

Sciences) altered in 2005 and 2006 following a rationalisation of degree programs and the

introduction of a common first year for most undergraduate students. Consequently, great

care has been taken when comparing data from the two years and the two schools.

If a student withdraws prior to the HECS cut-off date there is no financial penalty to the

student or the School, except for the investment in time and resources for the period up to

31st March or, for the Spring term, 31st August, so attrition statistics are normally confined to

students who withdraw after the HECS cut-off date.

1.3.4 The scale of the student retention issue

For student enrolments, 2003 to 2006, Table 1.2 shows the numbers of students

discontinuing each month over the five year period for the various cohorts of enrolled

students, for the School of Engineering at UWS. The patterns of discontinuation illustrated

in these figures are relatively consistent for the years shown and highlighted in Figure 1.3

where student drop out is analysed for the two schools.


As an example, in Figure 1.3, for the 2003 cohort of 414 students,

37 discontinued prior to March 2003 [Census date] 9%

An additional 43 discontinued prior to August 2003 [Census date] 10.75%

An additional 2 discontinued during Semester 2, 2003 0.5%

An additional 55 discontinued up to March 2004 [Census date] 13.75% :

[34% to 31.3.04]



An additional 37 discontinued prior to March 2005 [Census date] 9%

[49% to 31.3.05]

Similar analyses were carried out for the 2004 to 2007 cohorts and the discontinuation

percentages calculated as set out below:

The corresponding data for these cohorts is found in Chapter 7.


Table 1-2 Analysis of Student Discontinuation, 2003 to 2007 at UWS School of Engineering * Engineering and Industrial Design Courses only

Student Numbers Discontinuing: Student Cohort 2003 [414] 2004 [425] 2005 [353] 2006 [420] 2007[423] (Figure 7.1) (Figure 7.2) (Figure 7.3) (Figure 7.4) Month ↓ Numbers of students discontinuing, each month ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ [Accumulative percentages]

↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ January 0 0 0 2 0 February 2 4 1 6 10 March 35 [9%] 24 [6.5%] 19 [5.6%] 32 [6.5%] 27 [8.7%] April 0 0 2 1 2 May 1 9 3 4 June 0 1 0 1 July 18 6 7 10 August 24 [19%] 13 [13.4%] 12 [12.5%] 17 [11.8%] September 2 1 0 0 October 0 1 1 2 November 0 0 0 1

December 0 [19.8%] 2 [17.1%] 0 [14.7%] 1 (the numbers in bold concur with the summary figures earlier in this section}

January 12 [2004] 14[2005] 15[2006] 16[2007] February 25 32 32 23 March 18 [34%] 18 [29.4%] 15 [30.3%] 29 [23.5%] April 0 0 0 0 May 1 1 0 June 1 1 0 July 8 16 14 August 9 [37.7%] 7 [35.3%] 6 [36%] September 1 0 1 October 1 2 2 November 0 1 1 December 1 1 1 January 26[2005] 28[2006] 23[2007] February 8 10 2 March 3 [49 %] 0 [45%] 12 [45%] April 1 May 0 June 0 July 5 % total student drop-out from start August 6 of course up to each census date September 9 shown in brackets, March and October 0 August November 0 December 0 January 78[2006] February 3

Illustrated in Figure 1.3 and analysed in Table 1.3


Table 1.2 shows a fluctuation of discontinuation at the first census point where students leave

for a number of reasons, as discussed in chapters 2. Discontinuation in August, between

semester 1 and semester 2 shows a gradual decline over time. This thesis discusses the

measures and factors which contributed to this decline in attrition or, conversely,

improvement in retention.

A similar reduction is seen in December and thereafter. Table 1.2 shows that the periods

when the majority of students discontinue are

(a) the period prior to census dates of 31st March or 31st August of each year

and

(b) the period prior to commencement of year 2 when either students transfer to

alternative universities or, if they fail their examinations, they terminate their studies or repeat

their course, or selected units, in the subsequent year.

In Table 1.2, the total student enrolments are seen at the head of each column. The numbers

dropping out per month are seen in each column, with percentage drop-out [as a percentage

of the original enrolments] at the census dates. Consequently, for 2003, for example, the

enrolment of 414 is reduced by 0 in January, 2 in February and 35 in March, so that 37 drop

out by the 31st March census date which is 37/414 = 9% of the cohort; leaving 377 students

to proceed beyond 31st March.

When comparing between the two UWS Schools, Engineering and Industrial Design and

Environment and Agriculture, for the 2004 cohorts over the academics years 2004 and

2005, a pattern of accumulative student discontinuation over two years was measured, data

being extracted from the UWS database of student enrolments and illustrated in Figure 1.3.


1st year Student Drop-out 2004 - SE

0

4

29

0

9

1

6

15

10

12

18

32

21

01 1

16

9

01

00

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Jan-04

Feb-04

Mar-04

Apr-04

May-04

Jun-04

Jul-04

Aug-04

Sep-04

Oct-04

Nov-04

Dec-04

Jan-05

Feb-05

Mar-05

Apr-05

May-05

Jun-05

Jul-05

Aug-05

Sep-05

Oct-05

Nov-05

Stu

dent

s Disco

ntin

uing

1st Year Student Drop-out 2004 School of Environment & Agriculture

0

6

37

0

5

1

16

12

02 2

4

47

23

7

0 02 2

0 0 0 0 00

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Janu

ary

Feb

ruar

y

Mar

ch

Apr

il

May

June

July

Aug

ust

Sep

tem

ber

Oct

ober

Nov

embe

r

Dec

embe

r

Janu

ary

Feb

ruar

y

Mar

ch

Apr

il

May

June

July

Aug

ust

Sep

tem

ber

Oct

ober

Nov

embe

r

Dec

embe

r

2004 2005

Stu

dent

s D

isco

ntin

uing

Figure 1.3 Comparison between the student drop-out rates in the two UWS schools for the 2004 cohort [Engineering and Industrial Design [above] and Environment and Agriculture [below]

2004 cohort Enrolment

School of

Engineering

School of

Environment

and

Agriculture

Semester 1 Year 1

Semester 2 Year 1

Semester 3 Year 2

Semester 4 Year 2

Census Dates

Improving the Retention of First year Students Page 14

Table 1-3 The comparison between student drop-out in the two schools for students entering in February 2004.

School of

Engineering and

Industrial Design

Cohort = 396

students

School of

Environment and

Agriculture

Cohort = 407

students

Students

discontinued

by

Accumulative

Number dropping

out

Corresponding

Percentage

Drop Out

Accumulative

Number dropping

out

Corresponding

Percentage

Drop Out

31 March

2004

33 8% 43 10 %

31st

December

2004

68 17% 85 21 %

31st March

2005

139 35% 162 40 %

31st

December

2005

161 40% 166 41 %

Table 1.3 illustrates the comparison between student drop-out in the two schools for students

entering in February 2004. The correlation between the results from the two schools were

statistically compared and the Chi-squared test applied for the four dates chosen:


Table 1-4 Chi-Square test applied to the results of Table 1.3

31/3/2004 31/12/2004 31/3/2005 31/12/2005 Total

8 17 35 40 100

8.49 17.92 35.38 38.21

School of

Engineering

and

Industrial

Design

0.028 0.048 0.004 0.084

10 21 40 41 112

9.51 20.08 39.62 42.79

School of

Environment

and

Agriculture 0.025 0.043 0.004 0.075

Total 18 38 75 81 212

Chi-Sq = 0.311: DF = 3: P-Value = 0.958

For 3 degrees of freedom and an assumed significance level of 1%, Chi-Squared = 11.34 so if

the student drop-outs are independent of the UWS school, •2 > 11.34.

f(•2)

•2

Figure 1.4 Graphical representation of the Chi-squared results

0.01

11.34


As, therefore •2 = 0.311 < 11.34 then the attrition patterns are very similar.

Reasons for discontinuation, in addition to examination failure, are explored in chapters 4 to

7.

1.4 Discussion

This chapter introduced the problems associated with student attrition, and the consequences

for the University of Western Sydney and the students., The pattern of student attrition was

demonstrated, with one third of first year students in the School of Engineering at UWS

dropping out by March of the second year and one half [of the original cohort] dropping out

by the following March. Analysis suggests that the attrition pattern and rates are not unique to

engineering although the retention rate in the School of Engineering remains higher than

many other UWS schools.

The responses to the research questions raised in this chapter and the general questions: “Why

are students dropping out ?”, “When do they drop out ?” and “What measures can be made to retain them

?” are addressed in the following chapters.


2. Literature Review

“We have genuinely sought to …connect specific programs and practices for students to institutional

actions that provide support for the faculty and staff directing those programs and practices”.

Vincent Tinto

All universities, in Australia and elsewhere, consider student retention seriously. They measure

retention levels in any year and within each course and they compare retention data among

schools or faculties and among universities. There are many reasons why a high retention rate

is preferred and this chapter explores the issues associated with retention and the reasons for

its significance.

The University of Western Sydney, like all universities, is aware of the consequences of

student attrition and they regularly monitor it and apply strategies to address it. Considerable

research has addressed the reasons for student attrition, as identified in the Pathway of Figure

1.2, Numerous measures have been proposed to improve retention. This chapter briefly

reviews the reasons and measures, the effectiveness of some measures and the success of

others. However, Higher Education is not a stable environment and the effectiveness of many

measures to improve retention are not consistent; they are greatly influenced by internal and

external factors such as budgets, political influences, changing personnel and changing

cultures.

Tinto and recent researchers such as Cuseo (2002), Engstrom and Tinto (2001)and Krause

(2005) regularly refer to the influences of the student’s family, prior qualifications and the

teaching and learning process on student retention. DEST (2004) reviewed student’s attitude to

university over time and concluded that the pathway to university has a significant influence on

attrition. The reasons for students coming to university have remained stable over time. There

has been little change in the considerable number of students who have a very uncertain start at

university: generally through a combination of factors, which can include lack of accurate initial

information, poor course choices, failure to get their first choice, or unrealistic expectations of

the amount of work and time involved in university study. 20% of the 1999 first year student

cohort hoped to change to a different course after their first year, and, as in 1994, about 30%

seriously consider deferring during their first semester (DEST, 2004).

Transition problems can be devastating for individuals and their families, and can result in

enormous social and economic waste (Pargetter, 1995). Considerable research has been carried


out into transition and retention issues but the findings are not always consistent and are often

based on international studies. In USA, for example, an open-door policy applies to university

entrance which differs from the selective procedure in Australia and elsewhere.

2.1 Models of student retention

There exist a number of models of retention, dating from the mid 20th century; some of the

more influential models are referred to in the following sections.

Student retention is a result of a complex relationship between students and the teaching and

learning environment. First year retention rates remain a priority for Australian universities.

The Commonwealth Government has included retention and progression rates and student

experience data on its list of indicators for funding of higher education. “The consequences of

the massive and continuing exodus from higher education are not trivial, either for the

individuals who leave or their institutions” (Tinto, 1993). Over the last three decades attrition

rates have remained largely unchanged at 23% -25% across the higher education sector in

Australia (DEST, 2004). The first year of higher education is of great importance since nearly

one third of first year students in Australia indicate serious intentions of leaving study (Krause

et al, 2005) and first year is where the majority of departures occur (Price et al, 1991; Yorke,

2001). First year has been recognised as the key to many students’ experiences of and later

success in higher education (McInnis, 2001; Tinto, 1993).

2.1.1 Institutional approaches

Early theories on transition were based in psychology, focusing on individual personal

characteristics. From the mid- 1970’s the emphasis shifted to sociological factors, and more

recently it has focussed on the institutional context and the students’ integration. Tinto’s

(1975) conceptual model, based on Durkheim’s (1961) suicide theory and Spady’s (1970)

model of the student dropout process, is the most widely recognised and tested.

Tinto (1987, 1993) synthesised much early research on the theory of student drop-out,

emphasising the role of the institution and social/academic integration of students, particularly

the interaction between the students’ attributes, skills and dispositions and the institution’s

academic and social systems.


Related studies include those of Stahl & Pavel (1992), Brewer’s (1992) life-task model,

Carpenter & Fleishman (1987), Eaton and Bean’s (1993, 1995) model of attrition based on

attrition/avoidance behaviour, Azjen and Fishbein’s (1975) model (c.f. Koslowsky 1993), and

Pascarella’s (1982) general model for assessing change. Cabrera et al. (1992, 1993) examine

empirically ‘the convergent and discriminant validity’ of Tinto’s model such as those seen in

Figures 2.1 and 2.2.

Figure 2.1 Tinto’s Model Pathway for University Students – 1975

Figure 2.2 Tinto’s Model Pathway for university students - 1993


Tinto’s model, where students’ departure was found to be primarily related to isolation and

social exclusion, has been confirmed by a number of researchers; e.g. Allen and Nelson

(1989), Halpin (1990), Christie and Dinham (1990), Grossett (1989), Boyle (1989), and others.

However, Neumann and Neumann (1989) found it a poor predictor, though possibly useful

for residential students, as reflected by Pascarella et al. (1983) but add that ‘the concepts of

person-environment fit, social integration, and institutional commitment operated differently

in the commuter institution’. Pascarella (1982) added that such theories are more consistent

with "theoretical expectations in the residential and liberal arts samples than in the two- or

four-year commuter samples."

Bean and Metzner’s (1985) and Bean’s (1980, 1982, 1985) theories and models of student

departure, which emphasise the influence of the external environment more than social

integration factors, are particularly applicable to non traditional students.

2.2. Studies of transition

Many studies have been carried out on the issue of transition into University from High

School and through other entry routes Studies include:

• USA - Tinto, Pascarella, Terenzini, Astin etc, Gutierrez-Marquez (1994) (10,000 students), Gillespie and Noble (1992);

• Canada - Sarkar (1993), Sweet (1986), Anderson et al. (1994); and • UK – Goldstein, Thomas, Rabash, Raudenbusch etc., Hadley & Winn (1992), Gramlich &

Greenlee (1993);

Student retention is complex and varies according to several factors and their interaction. This

is evidenced in Calderon’s (1997) large-scale Monash comparison of student progress-rates

where he identifies the stereotypical successful student in terms of personal characteristics

such as gender, socioeconomic status and school background, and shows that these vary by

School/faculty. Following Clarke et al. (1994), variables identified as relevant in the literature

are grouped in categories, as described with reference to the Student Pathway of Figure 1.2:

In the literature attrition is often equated with student withdrawal from the institution in

which they are enrolled. Price, Harte and Cole (1991) however, identified three main

categories of withdrawal:

• internal attrition: which refers to students who transfer between courses within the same

institution. These students are not lost to a particular institution, but still contribute to

course attrition in institutional and national statistics;


• institutional attrition: which refers to students who leave the institution in which they

commenced their university studies, but then continue at another university. These

students are not lost to the university system, but appear as course attrition in

institutional and national statistics; and

• systemic attrition: which refers to students who withdraw from a university and do not

re-enrol in that or another university. These students are lost from the university

system and are recorded as course attrition in university and national statistics.

Students who interrupt their studies by taking leave from their course are also likely to be

counted in the attrition statistics, particularly if they interrupt their studies across years or for

an entire calendar year. Since attrition calculations do not differentiate between those on leave

and those who withdraw, students categorised as ‘intermittent’ can contribute to increased

attrition rates; namely those who leave and then return at a later date. When and if, they return

from leave a statistical counter effect is observed, by decreasing attrition (or increasing

retention rates) through adding to the size of the continuing student population.

There is a range of perceptions in the higher education community concerning institutional

attrition, in some cases being viewed as a negative and in others as a positive outcome. Highly

prestigious institutions, for example, may assume that high rates of attrition are an inevitable

consequence of maintaining the competitive academic conditions upon which their

reputations depend (Lenning, Beal and Sauer, 1980). In this context, high attrition rates may

not be perceived as a problem, but rather as a form of quality assurance and hence as a

positive educational outcome for the institution. Alternatively, some people may enrol in a

course with the intention of completing only a selection of subjects to reach specific personal

or professional goals. In such cases, withdrawal can be viewed as a positive outcome, at least

from the student's perspective. Withdrawing to take up an employment opportunity can also

be considered as a positive outcome.

Attrition is usually associated with negative effects:

• Loss of confidence and self esteem which can have serious implications for any

subsequent study or career path that they may wish to pursue (Lam, 1984);

• A social loss in terms of the withdrawal of people who do not, as a result, achieve

their potential; their talent is 'wasted', and society does not achieve benefits that would

be generated by their further education;


• A waste of institutional resources spent on students who withdraw when limited

funds could have been devoted to other students;

• The damage attrition can cause to the reputations of courses and institutions by

bringing into question the relevance of the courses, the quality of teaching, and the

adequacy of the institution's student services and support facilities; and

• Attrition can be seen to compound other problems associated with falling enrolments

and the consequent difficulties institutions may experience in planning and budgeting

for their programs, with ramifications for institutional funding (Ewell, 1984; Price,

Harte and Cole, 1991).

Attrition is commonly investigated in terms of course and institutional loss. At UWS, for each

full-time equivalent student who discontinues, the university loses around, in 2006, $13,000

per year. As such, two attrition-related matters require further discussion. These have been

referred to as the 'year out' and the 'goal fulfilment' issues (Ewell, 1984). The crux of the 'year

out' issue is that university students are displaying increasingly complex patterns of enrolment.

A conventional but outmoded view assumes that young people complete year 12, enrol in an

undergraduate degree the following year at a university and graduate 'on time' after three to

five years of uninterrupted full-time study. However, the Australian student population is

becoming increasingly diverse and students are becoming more flexible in their pathways

through and between post-compulsory education, employment and training. Combining full-

time study with periods of part-time study and paid work is increasingly common amongst

students. Furthermore, intermitting studies, to take a period of leave to travel, earn money, or

for other personal reasons, is also becoming more common. Students who take leave usually

intend to resume their studies but, while many of them may graduate eventually, this may not

necessarily be from the university in which they were originally enrolled. Such students may

thus appear as institutional attrition but are not lost to the system and their temporary

withdrawal can be viewed from a positive perspective.

The issue referred to as 'goal fulfilment' is more complex. Some students may withdraw

because they feel that their studies are not helping them to attain their goals. This can be

perceived as a negative reason for withdrawing. However, other students withdraw for more

positive goal-related reasons, as mentioned earlier. A student may have no intention of ever

finishing a degree program having enrolled in selected subjects for personal or professional

interest, to assist career progression or perhaps to gain entrance to another university (Roberts


1984). Thus some students who withdraw do so because they have met their goals, while

others redefine their goals or identify other means of achieving them.

Australian literature tends to focus on two areas of study. Firstly the pre-entry phase and

selection criteria for the universities: secondly, the pass rates and retention rates of students.

West (1985) investigated the first category through the effects of three pre-entry

characteristics of performance of students entering Monash University from high school in

1975, 1980 and 1982. He investigated the type of school, father’s occupation and the

student’s country of birth. The author concluded that students who undertook most of their

secondary education in government schools performed better at the end of their first year at

university than students with the same selection score from independent schools. The father’s

occupation and country of birth played minimal significance in these results for each of the

three years being investigated.

Lewis (1994) analysed the results of over 10,000 students enrolled at the University of

Wollongong between 1990 and 1993 with the aim of investigating the effects of the

university’s access and equity schemes on student performance. The study concluded that

female students who had attended government schools, together with older students,

performed significantly better than the average student. However, the performance of

students from non-English speaking backgrounds and indigenous students was lower than the

average.

Killen (1994) concluded that there were a number of factors influencing success, as measured

by pass rates

• The motivation of students;

• Their approach to studying; and

• Their cultural expectations.

He conducted interviews with staff and students and the factors seen as significantly affecting

student performance were

• Student self motivation;

• Effective study techniques;

• Family support; and

• Enthusiastic lecturers.


2.3 Key Factors influencing Student Retention

This review of the factors influencing retention follows those identified in the pathway model

presented in Fig 1.2. The key factors identified in the literature review can be grouped as in

the following list. Each of these factors has been identified by researchers and higher

education institutions as contributing to student retention. These factors are reviewed in

detail in the following sections:

Transition phase

• Student age

• Language and cultural background

• Students at Risk

• Student gender

• Goal Commitment

• Family and Peer Support

• Living at Home or Residential at the university

• Course Expectations

• Course specialisation

• Transition from School

Pre-entry phase

• Administration

• Academic advice

• Provision of Transition subjects/units

Orientation phase

• Early Feedback and Advice

• Student Engagement

• Collaborative Learning and Student Engagement

• Social Integration

Student First Year phase

• Teaching/Pedagogy

• Effective Interventions

• Peer Mentoring

• Common timetabling of groups


• Developing an online community

• Developmental subjects/units

• Conflicts with employment

2.3.1 Student Age

"Mature age" students are sometimes included in retention statistics, a category which often

but not necessarily includes students without "normal entry" qualifications (see McClelland

and Kruger, 1993) and who may enter from TAFE or using Advanced Standing. With

increasing alternative entry pathways to higher education, a variable based on entry type is

more appropriate in such cases. Maturity is suggested as a factor in student success: hence the

argument for deferring university studies for a year after secondary school. Linke et al. (1985)

found that 5000 deferring South Australian students generally perceived deferring as "valuable

personal experience with relevance also to their ability to cope with subsequent studies" but

also that such deferring acts as a filter, deterring female non-metropolitan students from

entering higher education (Evans, 2000).

Farabaugh-Dorkins (1991) in a study of adult (over 21 years) freshmen, found dropping out

most correlated with intent to leave, GPA and goal commitment. Age appears to have little

predictive power in some studies for success (e.g. McClelland & Kruger, 1993, Kuh & Vesper,

1991); or persistence (e.g. West et al. 1986 and Gillespie & Noble, 1992). However, Clarke and

Ramsey (1991) found age correlated with performance in most institutions and courses.

Siegfried and Walstad (1990) indicate that age has a positive effect on performance in

economics. Shah and Burke’s (1996) national Australian study using input-output analysis

found that commencing students aged 18 to 20 years have the highest chance of completing a

course, and that the difference in probabilities varies with the commencement of age.

2.3.2 Language and Cultural Background

Language and cultural background have been identified as potential factors in student

retention. One indicator of ethnicity which is sometimes used is a Non-English Speaking

Background (NESB) (Winefield et al., 1990). Australian research appears clearer. Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) students have been consistently reported as being less

successful (McClelland & Kruger, 1993) and less persistent (Abbott-Chapman et al., 1992).


Asian students tend to enter (Winefield et al., 1992) and to persist (Abbott-Chapman et al.

1992; West et al. 1986) in tertiary education disproportionately, but to have more problems

with their institutions, their courses and with not being academically prepared (West et al.,

1986)

2.3.3 Student Gender

Clarke et al. (1994) considered that results where studies suggest that gender can predict

performance (Benson, 1991; Murray-Harvey, 1993; Tutton & Wigg) or persistence (Gutierrez-

Marquez 1994), can be attributed to confounding factors and methods of analysis, and that

any interpretation must avoid being simplistic. For example, Abbott-Chapman et al. (1992)

found attrition risks greatest for able females, while West et al. (1986) found different

motivations for dropping out by gender, but no quantitative differences. Elsworth and Day

(1983) found females less likely to take courses offered to them from choices of secondary

subjects in science, or based on their perceptions of career advantages. Pascarella & Terenzini

(1983) found an overall indirect gender effect on persistence through initial institutional

commitment, but separate analyses revealed that different male and female behaviour could be

explained differently.

2.3.4 Goal Commitment

Students' goals for tertiary study are an important factor in persistence, as shown by Mutter

(1992) , Preston (1993, )Webb (1989) and Sarkar (1993). Such goals appear to have a direct

effect (Gillespie and Noble, 1992; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1983; Allen & Amaury, 1995) or an

indirect effect (Munro, 1981; Bean, 1985; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1983). The influence appears

to vary: greater during the earlier years (Bean, 1985); more direct for females but essentially

indirect for males (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1983). Warwick-James (1994), using a national

longitudinal data base, found that a clear career goal was correlated with retention, whereas

Lewallen (1993) found no evidence that students who were undecided about a choice of

career or major study area had a greater potential for non-persistence.

Munro (1981) found students’ goals appear to be strongly influenced by their perceptions of

their parents' attitudes and goals for their tertiary education. Munro (1981) demonstrated that

self-esteem indirectly influences performance through institutional commitment and

satisfaction with academic activities, etc. Students' stated intention is consistently the strongest


predictor, whether of persistence (Bean 1982, 1985; Cabrera et al., 1993) or dropping out

(Farabaugh-Dorkins, 1991). Nordquist (1993) also found gender expectations and family

background strongly related to student withdrawal.

2.3.5 Family and Peer Support

Family support influences students’ commitment to the institution and course satisfaction

(Cabrera, Nora & Castaneda, 1993) and is an important factor in persistence for a small

sample of waverers (West et al., 1986), though West found that a few withdraw because of the

difficulty of combining study with family commitments and needs. Terenzini (1992) noted that

families can be either a supportive asset or a source of stress as relationships change. Parental

encouragement relates more to satisfaction for males (Bean and Vesper 1994).

West et al. (1986), Pascarella & Terenzini (1983), Mutter (1992) found that peer support and

relationships enhance persistence of students both directly and, from Cabrera et al. (1993),

Munro (1981), Pascarella & Terenzini (1983), indirectly, although Gillespie and Noble (1992)

and Kuh and Vesper (1991) found that it was not a significant predictor of persistence. The

support of friends was more relevant for females, whereas academically-oriented factors were

more influential in males’ decisions (Pascarella and Terenzini, 1983 and Bean and Vesper,

1994). School friends were a facilitating or a complicating transition influence depending on

whether they attended the same institution or not.

Financial matters generally appear to have a small but significant effect on persistence either

directly (e.g.Webb, 1989), or indirectly via goal commitment (Cabrera et al., 1990), or not at all

(Gillespie and Noble, 1992). Withdrawers gave financial problems as the most important

reason in West et al. (1986) and third reason in Abbott-Chapman et al. (1992). West et al.

(1986) found that, compared to withdrawers, those who persevere relied on casual

employment more than on family financial support.

2.3.6 Living at Home or Residential

Rural students, according to Elsworth and Day (1983) are more likely to decline tertiary place

offers. This could be related to a financial support factor. A location variable can also be

relevant where home postcode is often used as an indicator (McClelland & Kruger, 1993).

West et al. 1986 found significant number of students attributing finance for deciding to

withdraw or transfer to an institution nearer home and social integration is a factor. Tinto


(1987) found `external community pivotal to off-campus students’. Terenzini and Pascarella

(1982), after controlling for other characteristics, found the residence unit context appears to

relate to persistence among males but not females. Any analysis of overseas versus local

students may be confounded by this factor.

2.3.7 Course Expectations/Characteristics

A mismatch between prior expectations and actual experiences was found to be a significant

reason for withdrawing by Abbott-Chapman et al (1992). West et al. (1986), Braxton (1993),

Power, Robertson and Beswick (1986) found that low commitment and withdrawal were often

the result of inadequate counselling and decision making about university courses. King (1992)

also stressed the central role of academic advising on retention. Glass and Garett (1995) found

that orientation courses improved retention, as did Sendman (1991) for the third, but not the

first, semester, but did not result in significantly higher GPAs. Terenzini et al. (1993) found

that faculty involvement was important in orientation. They also found a need for parents’

involvement. Other studies include Frost et al. (1991), Upcraft et al. (1995), Price et al. (1992),

Clarke and Ramsey (1990).

A perceived lack of relevance was found to be a significant factor in dropping out in some

Australian studies (Abbott-Chapman et al, 1952, West et al, 1986). Overseas, Bean (1982,

1985) found course ‘utility' a significant indirect predictor of persistence, and Kuh and Vesper

(1991) found that student effort related to the practical values associated with courses.

2.3.8 Course Specialism

Findings sometimes vary according to the discipline area, which can also relate to prerequisite

knowledge. Success in science subjects is better predicted than in the humanities by the total

ASAT test (Everett and Robins, 1991) and by performance in relevant school subjects

(McClelland and Kruger, 1993). Shah and Burke’s (1996) input-output analysis found that

Engineering students have the least chance of completing their degree whereas the majority of

Law and Medicine students completed.

2.3.9 Transition from School

Student performance, from the limited literature available, is clearly related to their own

concepts of their academic ability (Wilhite, 1990, Murray-Harvey, 1993 and Watson, 1988) in

mathematics). Watkins (1986) and colleagues focussed on aspects of students’ personalities


and attitudes, study approaches to student learning and adjustment to the nature of

institutions and different faculties disciplines and learning environments.

A significant number of students who voluntarily withdrew from full-time study cited

unsatisfactory study skills and a lack of important pre-requisite knowledge as reasons (West et

al. 1986). Studying and learning approaches at tertiary level appear to be strongly influenced by

practices at secondary school level (Ramsden 1991, Ramsden et al. 1989) and a mis-match may

create problems (Evans, 2000).

A DEST (1999) report showed that despite widespread and concerted efforts to improve the

links between school and university, it is still the case that about one-third of the students who

go direct from school to university do not feel they were ready to choose a course, and two

thirds are of the view that they were not well-prepared for university study. However, there

are some indications that the gap between school and university noted in the 1994 survey may

not now be so wide. More students in 1999 found university study more fulfilling than school

(61 per cent) and fewer felt it was more demanding than school (57 per cent). Students have

relatively realistic expectations about the amount of new material they will experience at

university; they both expect and find a significant amount of such material. (DEST,1999)

What emerges from a CEQ [Course Experience Questionnaire] study carried out by UWS in

2004 is how important it is to be consistently alert to students’ expectations right from the

moment of their first contact with a university, then during orientation and finally in each class

as the course gets under way. Key expectation ‘hot spots’ identified in the study include

clarifying expectations for assessment, making explicit what services are and are not available,

noting the key university rules affecting student progress and life at the institution, when staff

can and cannot be accessed, providing sound academic advice and informing students about

what to do when something goes wrong.

Student perceptions are important DEST (1999). The DEST (1999) study showed differences

in perceptions when students were considering discontinuation or deferring their studies [see

Appendix 1 for the DEST Tables of Higher Education attrition and enrolment rates and

Appendix 2 for the accompanying notes]. Table 2.1 shows an extract from the DEST (1999)

study of significant differences.


Table 2.1 Student responses to University perceptions

Question Not considered Considered

Deferring % Deferring %

Know the occupation I want 62 42

Clear why I came to university 76 45

Difficult adjusting to university

Style of teaching 30 44

Academic staff approachable 65 45

Hope to change to different course

Satisfied students 85 15

Dissatisfied students 58 42

[DEST,1999 Transition from secondary to tertiary: a performance study]

Thus, the expectations of university versus what actually happens, is important in establishing

whether a student completes or abandons the course and university. Table 2.1 shows that

those students who are clear on their expectations and are satisfied are less likely to consider

deferring.

Students need to feel welcomed into the university. A feeling of being welcomed is developed

through the initial contact and through the induction programs that engage students as

individuals, as beginners to university study, and do not simply overload them with

information. Transition programs of various sorts can be very helpful to students’ adjustment

to higher education (Peat et al, 2001). A sense that the student belongs to an academic

community needs fostering and does not simply happen by chance.

Queensland University of Technology introduces students to the university by delivering the

outreach QUT Start program (Nelson, 2006), one subject per semester, as an insight into

university-style teaching. Prospective students mix, primarily in the evenings, with university

students and each school has appointed a School Guidance Counsellor who liaises with the

university First year Coordinator and the parents. The program helps to reduce the stigma

attached to university entrance and the units studied can form part of the student’s degrees

when they enrol after leaving school.


The results of a 10 year survey of the factors and reasons for students enrolling in University

(DEST, 2004) showed the trends and patterns summarised in Table 2.2. The data shows the

percentage responses for each year, ranging from ‘not important’ to ‘important’, for the

cohorts: 1994, N=4 028; 1999, N=2 609; 2004, N=2344. In general terms, the reasons for

enrolling are listed in order of importance.

Table 2.2 Reasons for enrolling 1994-2004 (%)

Reason Not important

Important Undecided

Studying in a field that really interests me

1994 1999 2004

0 1 1

6 3 4

94 96**1 95

Improving my job prospects

1994 1999 2004

5 4 6

11 10 11

84 86*1 83*2

Developing my talents and creative abilities

1994 1999 2004

6 6 6

20 21 19

74 73 75

To get training for a specific job

1994 1999 2004

9 9 9

18 17 17

73 74 74*3

The expectations of my parents or family

1994 1999 2004

52 51 44

23 26 26

25 23 30** 2 3

* significant at .01 ** significant at .05 1 Denotes significant change 1994 to 1999. 2 Denotes significant change 1999 to 2004. 3 Denotes significant change 1994 to 2004. (DEST, 2004)

Significant change is evident between 1994 and 2004 for parental expectations. When asked

about reasons for considering deferring, the following data was obtained (Kraus et al., 2005)

where the cohort sizes, n, are 840 and 638 and the general reasons for deferring are listed in

order of importance. (Table 2.3)


Table 2.3 Reasons for considering deferring, 1999-2004 (% of students)

(1999, n=840; 2004, n=638)

not relevant

Neutral important/ very imp.

Emotional health 1999

2004 42 36

12 12

46 52

I wanted to change courses 1999

2004 47 45

11 13

42 42

Financial reasons 1999

2004

55 46

11 15

34 39

I thought I might fail

1999 2004

48 51

15 13

37 36

University wasn’t what I expected

1999 2004

45 48

19 24

36 28

I disliked studying

1999 2004

43 46

19 27

37 27

Physical health

1999 2004

64 62

10 11

26 27

Problems with daily travel

1999 2004

71 70

10 11

19 19

Paid work commitments

1999 2004

71 78

8 10

21 12

Family commitments

1999 2004

75 73

9 10

16 17

I found employment

1999 2004

82 83

8 7

11 10

(DEST, 2004)


2.3.10 Administration

Bean (1982, 1985) found that the opportunity to transfer to another university directly

influenced persistence, and West et al. (1986) found that 15% of withdrawers indicated

that the administrative arrangements of the institution were too inflexible.

2.3.11 Improving academic advice

There is evidence that retention can be increased by the active provision of advice to first year

students about their programs of study (course advice, subject/unit selection, course transfers,

withdrawal etc) (Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005). Apart from anything else, there is a well-

established association between retention and out-of-classroom contact with staff (Cuseo,

2003).

Cuseo (2003) is a strong advocate of so-called intrusive advising:

“…institutions should deliver academic support intrusively—by initiating contact with

students and aggressively bringing support services to them, rather than offering

services passively and hoping that students will come and take advantage of them on their

own accord. Academic advisors are in the ideal position to “intrusively” connect

students with academic support professionals, who can provide students with timely

assistance before their academic performance and persistence are adversely affected by

ineffective learning strategies.” (Cuseo, 2003)

Active advising of this type is commonly associated with a central advising service staffed by

specialist advisors. In the US, academic advising is often shared between academics in the

faculties and specialist advisers in an advising centre. Typically, the latter provide a service for

a subset of students, such as first-year students and those on academic probation, while the

former advise students in later years. In four-year public colleges and universities in the US,

this “split model” is the dominant organisational model (Pardee, 2004).

There are some resonances here with the Field of Study Advisor (FOSA) model associated

with the Personalised Access and Study (PAS) initiative at Victoria University. The advising

centre in this case was the Centre for Commencing Students (CCS) and the FOSAs were

higher education academics and TAFE teachers who were, in effect, seconded to the CCS for


a limited time to provide a specialised academic advising service for students across the

sectors, but only at the time of enrolment.

Implemented at UWS, the “split model” might use specialist advisors based in a central unit to

provide academic advice to students throughout their first year, while course coordinators

provide advice for later years.

2.3.12 Provision of transition subjects/units

Over 90% of US colleges responding to a recent survey, including research intensive

universities, reported offering “first year seminars” in the form of subjects/units designed to

assist the transition of students into higher education (Barefoot, 2003). These seminars vary

considerably in content and approach but are mostly designed as formal units emphasising

extended orientation or “college survival”. In the US they are most commonly offered as 1

credit hour subjects, which equates to 50 minutes of in-class time per week plus 1.5 hours per

week of out-of-class work (roughly equivalent to a 2 credit point unit at UWS). However,

some colleges offer first year seminars that are 2, 3, 4, 5 or even more credit point subjects.

Academic advising is often built into first year seminars, as is the related area of career

planning. The courses are typically taught by both academics and student services

professionals (National Resource Centre for The First-Year Experience and Students in

Transition, 2004). Collaborative learning approaches are also a key feature of these courses.

While some first year seminars are offered as electives and therefore may be taken by those

who are likely to succeed, there is consistent evidence that participation in these programs is

associated with increased retention and completion. However, it is not clear whether these

positive effects are directly or indirectly related to the seminars (Pascarella and Terenzini,

2005).

2.3.13 Early feedback and action

Poor academic progress is probably the best “red flag” warning of potential attrition (Cuseo,

2004). Early feedback to students on their academic progress coupled with appropriate action

to assist them increases retention (Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005). An effective early feedback

system requires early assessment tasks, timely and helpful feedback, and appropriate action to

support those who either do not submit at all or submit sub-standard work.


Evidence from the UK Open University suggests that email contact from a central service can

improve assignment submission rates, though telephone contact from the student’s tutor may

be more effective (Simpson, 2003). Whatever delivery system is used, the style of the message

is important – “It needs to be short, be informally written, be attractive, address the students

concerns and feelings directly, and give appropriate encouragement” (p78).

Over half of US colleges report mid-term grades to academic advisors and to a central office,

as well as to the students themselves (Barefoot, 2003). This allows a coordinated institutional

follow up to those with poor results but would require a degree of central reporting that is

likely to be unacceptable at UWS, where the tradition is that only final grades are released. In

most instances at Victoria University, grades for individual assessment tasks do not go further

than the subject/unit team.

2.3.14 Student engagement

The motivation and academic orientation of students has been found to be a significant

predictor of performance and persistence by Hughes and Wyld (1986), Abbott-Chapman et al.

(1992), and West et al. (1986).

Siegfried and Walstad’s (1990) survey of economics students indicated study effort was

positively related to student performance, whereas their earlier study (Siegfred and Fels, 1979)

did not. Tay (1994) found that preparation for class, and Romer (1993) found that attendance

at class, were important for the final performance of students.

The interventions he proposed therefore tended to de-emphasise those based in the classroom

and to focus instead on the development of community in student residences and in extra-

curricular contact between staff and students. However, more recently his attention has turned

to other institutions, including non-residential colleges serving “commuting students” and

community colleges offering two-year sub-degree programs and vocational training (Tinto,

1993). In these settings, which are much closer to those of an Australian University, he accepts

that students are mostly only on campus to attend classes and that academic and social

engagement in the classroom is therefore much more important than what happens outside of

it (Tinto, 1995; 1997; 2003).


Amongst others, Yorke is critical of Tinto’s earlier model, mainly for its lack of emphasis on

choice of course, geographical distance from home town, personal health and student learning

experience , though he sees it as more relevant for part-time students than full-time students

(Yorke, 1999). Braxton (1995, 2002) and his colleagues have reviewed the empirical validity of

Tinto’s theory and concluded that while there is strong support for many of its propositions in

residential colleges and universities, this is not so in commuter colleges and universities. They

paint a picture of the commuter institution that is familiar to us. It is a place that students

attend by balancing many other day-to-day commitments, including family and work. It is not

their primary social focus; family, friends, and colleagues off campus are much more

important socially. They describe the campus environment as follows:

“Competing time demands minimize social involvement at commuter institutions, as

students devote their campus time to academic pursuits of attending class, meeting

with faculty, or fulfilling degree requirement…Students spend their time efficiently on

campus, hurrying to class and leaving afterwards to be at the next place that requires

their presence, often work or home. An aerial view of the campus might resemble a

transportation centre, with frequent arrivals and departures of cars, buses and other

vehicles. The various forms of rushed comings and goings create a “buzzing

confusion”…Amid this activity, the daily schedule of meeting times provides order.”

They propose a modified theory for such institutions that emphasises an institutional

commitment to student welfare and a focus on the development of academic communities in

the classroom. As Tinto has also concluded, the focus in commuting institutions has to be on

academic integration rather than on social integration. The only real site for improving

student-student interaction and teacher-student interaction is the classroom, so what goes on

in the classroom has far greater impact on student attrition than in the traditional residential

university. Thanks to the work of Tinto(1982), Astin(1977), Pascarella(1982) and

Terenzini(1993) and others, there is a growing emphasis on student engagement in North

American universities. This is exemplified by the widespread use of instruments to measure

student engagement at an institutional level, such as the National Survey of Student

Engagement (NSSE) (National Survey of Student Engagement) and the Community College

Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) (Community College Survey of Student Engagement

2004). Associated with the NSSE is the DEEP (Documenting Effective Educational Practice)

project, where 20 institutions with high levels of student engagement measured by the

National Survey for Student Engagement were investigated to explore why they performed so


well (Kuh et al, 2005). The challenge lies in engaging students who see study as just one of the

many activities that they need to juggle in their lives. As McInnis (2003) puts it:

“The new realities of the student experience largely concern change in priority

students now give to their time at university. We have observed in Australia recently

that students increasingly expect university to fit with their lives rather than vice versa.

For academics from any generation, this is often perplexing and frustrating. The

students appear to be less engaged with university generally and with study in

particular…. Undergraduate students now have many more choices about when,

where, and what they will study, and how much commitment they need to make to

university life.

(McInnis 2003:1).”

McInnis (2003) writes here about Australian students in general but his emphasis on

negotiated engagement that meets student needs while ensuring that learning is effective is

particularly germane to institutions like UWS.

Price, Harte and Cole (1991) carried out a study into student attrition at the Northern

Territory University, examining students who enrolled in 1988, 1989 and 1990 and who did

not re-enrol the following year. Over 2000 students were identified with a 23% response.

The study concluded that the most consistent reasons for withdrawing over the three years

were

• Employment “I could not cope with full-time work and study”

• A personal decision – unspecified

• Family commitments

• The course: “I was dissatisfied with the course teaching”

Less important reasons included

• Health

• Academic preparedness and

• Finances linked to fees, accommodation, living expenses and employment.

With regard to awareness of the implications of student retention across the university,

suggested strategies for monitoring and reducing attrition suggested by Price et al (1991) are

• The introduction of ongoing exit surveys for students who do not re-enrol

• A review of computer programs which monitor admissions and other data


• A review of information material to provide university advice and offerings

• Reviews of academic support programme, staff development, education facilities

(including the library), timetabling and after-hours facilities.

Sharma and Burgess (1994) examined undergraduate students who withdrew from Swinburne

University of Technology in 1993 (850 students, a 43% response). At least 30% of

respondents identified the reasons for withdrawing as:

• Lack of motivation

• Enrolment related matters

• Study workload

• Failure in exams

• Financial situation

• Dissatisfaction with the learning environment and

• Having enrolled in the wrong course.

It was evident that actions taken to improve pass rates appeared to reduce attrition rates and

that external issues such as employment conditions and personal and family situations

influenced student’s decisions.

Further studies by Power, Robertson and Baker (1987) and also by Price, Harte and Cole

(1991), concluded that universities can reduce attrition in the initial years by implementing

programs to

• Provide assistance to potential students to make more informed choices about

university study

• Help students to become better motivated by demonstrating the relevance of the

course to their educational goals, thereby increasing their commitment to study

• Develop study skills that are relevant to university study and

• Provide a university environment which is more empathetic to the needs of a more

diverse population

• Provide a mentoring program (which he called Faculty-Student Mentoring) and

• Providing a caring role for the many students who do not have this at home.

Cuseo (2002) suggested eight ‘Roots of Attrition’ and their associated remedies:

• academic underpreparedness

• academic boredom


• transition- to-higher education adjustment difficulties

• uncertainty about educational or occupational goals

• irrelevancy

• isolation

• incompatibility and

• low commitment

Research on mentoring indicates (Cuseo, 2002) that it has a positive impact on the personal

professional development of young adults. Links have been established between student

mentoring and student retention (Campbell & Campbell, 1997). In 2003 UWS published an

evaluation report on Peer Mentoring and found that control groups show that students who

received mentoring had higher retention rates than those who did not.

The quality and style of mentoring is significant if students are to benefit. Mentors should,

according to Cuseo (2002), be more mature than the students, have interpersonal skills, be

willing to commit time and have a good knowledge of the campus, with academic advisers who

are accessible, approachable and helpful in providing guidance. The mentor potentially acts as

• Advocate

• Cheerleader

• Coach

• Confidante

• Friend/Colleague

• Guide

• Resource and referral agent and

• Role model for the student.

2.3.15 Collaborative learning and student engagement

Collaborative learning is in essence an approach that seeks to engage students in their own

learning though, for example, project-based learning. As was discussed in the previous section,

student engagement appears to be a critical means by which educational institutions can


reduce their attrition rates. Briefly, the principles informing this approach to teaching and

learning are: students working collaboratively (in pairs or groups) to achieve shared learning

goals; the view that learning occurs when students and teachers work together to create

knowledge; and that the process of learning, as much as the content of teaching, is what

produces deep learning (Barkley, Cross & Major, 2005; Matthews, 1996).

On the strength of an exhaustive review of the American literature, Pascarella and Terenzini

(2005) highlight the place of collaborative learning as a strategy for preventing attrition thus:

“Researchers during the 1990’s produced a substantial body of evidence on

approaches to teaching that either did not exist in earlier decades or

were…nascent…Two important themes woven through many of these new

pedagogies concern active student engagement in learning and teaching and learning in

collaboration with faculty and peers.”

Pascarella and Terensini (2005) also summarise evidence suggesting that collaborative learning

tends to improve knowledge retention and provides opportunities for students to then act as

‘teachers’ for their own peers. They go on to suggest that this kind of interaction with peers is

“probably the most pervasive and powerful force in student persistence and degree

completion” (Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005).

The association between retention and the adoption of collaborative learning within

institutions is clearly related to the generally positive outcomes generated for students

involved in collaborative learning including; improved grades; better attitudes to learning;

higher satisfaction with their courses and their teachers; and better interaction with teachers

and peers (Barkley et al, 2005). These are the same student experiences, not surprisingly, that

have consistently been associated with lower attrition rates (Tinto, 1997; Polesol et al, 2004;

Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005). As Panitz points out, a student centred approach lies at the

heart of the distinction between collaborative learning and other closely associated approaches

to learning. There are many ways and means of creating interactive environments in which

students take more responsibility for their own learning and that of their peers. However,

what works best is determined, to a large extent, by the characteristics of the local student

population and of the institution (Panitz, 1996).


Finally, collaborative learning approaches are premised on principles like embracing cultural

diversity and acknowledging the disparate background communities that learners bring with

them to education, and draws on these to promote engagement with the educational process

(see Bruffee, 1999; Barkley et al, 2005). This is particularly important at UWS.

2.3.16 Social Integration

Stage (1987) and Bean (1985) found that degree of social integration matched the level of

academic integration. Student’s perception that academic and administrative staff provide for

their personal and social needs appears to positively influence persistence both directly and

indirectly, particularly for females (Bean & Vesper 1994, Pascarella & Terenzini, 1983,

Pascarella et al.,, 1986, Cabrera et al. 1993, West et al,. 1986). Munro (1981) and Allen and

Nelson (1989) found these qualities influenced institutional engagement.

The literature on mentoring is reviewed by Jacobi (1991), and Muckert et al. (1996). Nordquist

(1993) found mentoring relationships had the greatest impact on academic and social

integration and a significant impact on student retention. Life on campus and extra curricular

activities appear to enhance student integration (Christie & Dinham, 1990). Other relevant

studies include Astin (1993), Tinto (1995), Kuh (1993, 1995), Astin (1993) (for counselling,

support services), Nordquist (1993), Braxton et al. (1995) and Eaton & Bean (1995).

2.3.17 Teaching/Pedagogy

The level of student satisfaction with the teaching and learning activities provided by the

institution has been found to predict persistence, both indirectly by Bean (1985) and directly

by West et al. (1986) (where withdrawers cited little encouragement or enthusiasm) and by

Abbott-Chapman et al. (1992). The latter’s sample of withdrawers ranked this factor as the

fourth most important reason, also citing uncaring and uninterested teaching staff, an

unsuccessful or inadequately supportive tutoring system, large and impersonal classes, and

poor facilities. Important aspects of teacher behaviour were identified by Care (1995) in a

qualitative Canadian study of distance education nurses. Elliott’s (1992) interviews identify a

link between behaviour of faculty and student persistence.

Persistence is slightly higher and performance better for first-year students in learning

communities than in traditional classes. Collaborative learning has been discussed by Tinto


(1993), Tinto & Love (1995), and ‘freshman interest groups’ by Tinto & Goodsell (1993,

1994), Tinto & Russo (1994), Tinto et al. (1994), Tinto (1995).

Douglas and Suloch (1995) suggested their results provide some basis to evaluate the

effectiveness of methods of teaching. Their results support the importance of homework, and

indicate that homework and class attendance are similar in production of good grades. In

surveys of economics education, Siegfreid and Fels (1979) found that class size and textbooks

are not significant for performance, and Siegfried and Walstead (1990) found that a good

match between students’ learning style and instructors’ teaching style had positive effects, but

both found that having a graduate student instructor was not relevant. Tay (1994), in a

relatively controlled experimental environment, found that effects relating to the type of

instructor (graduate assistant, tutor, lecturer, foreigners) were significant in performance for

Economics in Singapore, and suggests that the contrary US findings of Watts and Lynch

(1989) resulted from language ability, not cultural effects.

2.4 Effective interventions

There is no shortage of recommendations for interventions aimed at improving retention.

Lists of proposed interventions exist in many reports (e.g. Martinez and Munday, 1998;

Pargetter, et al, 1998; Martinez, 2001; McInnis et al, 2000; Krause, et al, 2005). An abbreviated

list provided by Martinez (2001) includes the following:

• improving advisory services

• recruiting with integrity

• paying particular attention to the early stages of courses

• tutoring which is focused on student progress

• monitoring and follow up of poor attendance

• early identification of under-performing students or students who are ‘at risk’

• early diagnosis of student requirements for basic skills and provision of appropriate

support

• the development of a curriculum framework appropriate for a college’s intended

students

• mechanisms to maintain or improve student motivation including parental

involvement, peer support and prizes and ceremonies


• target setting allied with formative assessment and feedback

• improvements to teaching.

At the same time, Martinez (2001) observes, “there are no ‘magic bullets’, ‘single solutions’,

‘one best way’ or ‘golden rules’”.

What is certain is that reduction in attrition requires a co-ordinated university-wide approach.

Tinto provides the following three principles for effective retention programs (Tinto, 1993):

1. Effective retention programs are committed to the students they serve. They put

student welfare ahead of institutional goals;

2. Effective retention programs are first and foremost committed to the education of

all, not just some, of their students; and

3. Effective retention programs are committed to the development of supportive

social and educational communities in which all students are integrated as competent

members.

Similarly, Braxton and Hirschy (2005) propose the following general guidelines:

1. College and university administrators and faculty members should embrace a

commitment to safeguarding the welfare of the student and

2. The decisions and day-to-day actions of college and university administrators and

individual faculty members must resonate with the missions, goals, and values

espoused by their college or university.

Policy settings that focus on developing an institutional commitment to not only treating

students with respect but also engaging them in university communities are important. This, as

Braxton and Hirschy (2005) make clear, applies to both general and teaching staff. Tinto, too,

advocates an integrated university-wide approach and is dismissive of the “add-a-course” or

“bolt-on” approach, such as introducing a single First Year Seminar as an elective subject/unit

for first year students. However, he places particular emphasis on building student

engagement into classrooms by the use of collaborative learning strategies such as problem-

based learning (Tinto, 2003). This is particularly important, as Braxton and Hirschy (2005)


point out, at commuting institutions, where students are typically only on campus for classes

or to access specialised facilities.

While comprehensive retention programs guided by an overarching policy will include the

provision of a range of support services, such as general orientation programs, student

counselling and financial assistance, it is what happens in the classroom that is likely to have

most impact on student retention in commuting institutions. In broad terms, the challenge is

for teachers to make the most of relatively brief periods of face-to-face contact with students

on campus by building a sense of community in these face-to-face sessions that can then be

reinforced in online activity between classes. At the same time, students need to be provided

with scaffolded support as they develop the skills of independent learning.

The interventions that follow must t be elements within the context of an integrated transition

program rather than as stand-alone interventions.

2.4.1 Peer Mentoring

Structured peer assistance/mentoring, such as in the Supplemental Instruction (SI) or PASS

[Peer Assisted Study Sessions] (Kelly and Gardiner, 1994) model for “historically difficult”

subjects/units, has improves student retention, student progress and degree completion

(Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005). Mentoring is particularly effective for academically under-

prepared students (Arendale, 2005). SI or PASS sessions focus on helping students to master

content while developing effective learning strategies. The sessions are regularly-scheduled,

voluntary, informal review sessions led by a student or a pair of students who have succeeded

in the subject/unit in a previous year. In these collaborative learning sessions, participants

compare notes, discuss readings and prepare for assessment tasks.

In North American universities, peer assistants have many roles, including as “rovers” in

learning commons (University of Guelph, 2005) and as IT assistants (Kuh et al, 2005). There

is evidence not only that peer assistance programs such as SI or PASS can reduce attrition, but

that students who are employed on campus as peer assistants are more likely to persist in their

studies (Astin, 1993). Thus, while paid work is initially associated with increased attrition, paid

work on campus is associated with reduced attrition.


2.4.2 Common timetabling of groups/learning communities

In North America the term “learning communities” is used for an approach involving block

timetabling of two or more first year subjects/units so that groups of students can work

together across these subjects/units (Shapiro and Levine 1999). In the US, one subject/unit

may be a basic skills developmental unit (e.g. in writing or mathematics) or the subjects/units

may be thematically linked. Most learning communities involve some team teaching across the

subjects/units involved and have a strong emphasis on collaborative learning. There is

evidence that such approaches in first year have a positive effect on retention into second year

(Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005).

In essence, learning communities aim to reduce student isolation by providing membership of

a relatively small group of students who learn collaboratively across subjects/units. At its

simplest, this approach ensures that students are in the same tutorial group for two or more

subjects and, at its most complex, a cross-disciplinary team of academics teach all of the core

subjects/units in a semester or even an entire academic year around an interdisciplinary theme.

There are resonances here with problem-based learning (PBL), where subjects/units are often

integrated and organised around cross-disciplinary problems.

2.4.3 Developing an online community

One of the key features of the DEEP institutions, identified by the National Survey of

Student Engagement team, was that they focused on developing an online community as a

means for strengthening student engagement with the university (Kuh et al, 2005).

Universities such as George Mason University in Washington, which has over 50% transfer

(articulating) students, use technology to extend the sense of community developed in

collaborative learning activities in face-to-face teaching.

As well as supporting collaborative learning, online technology such as WebCT or Blackboard

allows assessment tasks to be submitted electronically. This not only makes assessments more

convenient for commuting students but also allows efficient monitoring of “red flag”

behaviours by teachers and other academic advisers. Kuh et al (2005) stress that developing

online community does not happen simply by providing the technological infrastructure. It

also requires teaching staff and other academic advisers to rethink the links between face-to-

face learning and online learning so that each reinforces the other. User support is particularly


important and a number of the DEEP universities make considerable use of student

assistants, who act as helpers and trouble-shooters for both students and teaching staff.

2.4.4 Developmental subjects/units

There is evidence that well-designed developmental (once called remedial) subjects focussing

on the development of basic mathematical and writing skills can reduce attrition and improve

progress for under-prepared students (Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005). Such programs are

more likely to be effective if they are taken in the first year of study, where they can

significantly boost both progress and persistence (Weissman, Silk and Bulakowski, 1997).

Programs specifically designed for academically under-prepared students are common in

North American higher education (especially in community colleges), where they are seen as

playing an important role in supporting access to higher education. In a recent survey of 1,000

US colleges and universities, approximately 80% reported offering developmental maths and

developmental English subjects. Almost all community colleges offered such subjects/units

but over 50% of research universities also reported offering developmental subjects/units

(Barefoot 2003).

2.4.5 Conflicts with Employment:

Perhaps the most striking difference between the 1994 and 1999 responses (DEST, 2004) is

an increased proportion of students who are enrolled full-time and engaged in part-time work,

and an increase in the average number of hours students are employed. There has been a 9 per

cent increase in the proportion of full-time students who work part-time, and a 14 per cent

increase in the mean number of hours they work.

These findings are endorsed by research results described in chapters 5 to 7.

2.5 Summary

The following table 2.4 summarises the key findings from the Literature Review where

significant findings and statements are made. In the following chapters, each element of the

Pathway is described and the results of research outlined, to assess whether student retention

is seen to have improved.


Table 2.4 Key findings from chapter 2

Pathway Phase Comments Reference

Transition from School

• Student age • Maturity can be a

factor

• Age can correlate with

performance

• 20 year old highest

chance of completing a

course

McLelland and Kruger,

1993

Siegfreid and Walstad,

1991

Shah and Burke, 1996

• Language and cultural

background

• ATSI students less

successful

• Asian students tend to

persist but institutional

problems raised

McLelland and Kruger,

1993

Winefield et al , 1992

• Student gender • Attrition risks greater

for females

• No significant

differences

Abbott-Chapman et al,

1992

West et al, 1986

• Goal Commitment • Students’ goals

influenced by

perceptions of parents

Munro, 1981

• Family and Peer Support • Parental

encouragement related

more to males

• Support of friends

greater significance for

females

• Withdrawers said

finance was a key

Bean & Vesper, 1994

Pascarella & Terenzini,

1983

West et al, 1986



factor

• Living at Home or

Residential

• Rural students gave

finance as reason to

decline tertiary place

• Residential study more

appealing to males

Elsworth & Day, 1983


1982

• Course Expectations • Mismatch between

prior expectations and

actual experiences –

reason for withdrawing

• Inadequate prior

counselling

• Orientation improved

retention

• Academic advising

improved retention

• Perceived lack of

relevance


1992

West et al, 1986

Glass & Garett, 1995

King, 1992


1992

• Course specialism • Engineering students

least chance of

completing: Law

students most chance

Shah & Burke, 1996

• Transition from School • Withdrawal due to

unsatisfactory study

skills and pre-requisite

knowledge

• DEST 1999 study

showed students now

see gap between

school and HE less

significant

West et al, 1986

DEST, 1999

Peat et al, 2001



• Transition programs

lead to students feeling

welcomed

• QUT outreach

program provides

insight into university

style teaching

Nelson, 2006

Pre-entry into Uni

• Administration • Withdrawers indicated

admin. too inflexible

Bean, 1982, 1985

• Academic advice • Retention increased by

active…. Academic

advice

• Association between

retention and out-of-

class staff contact


2005

Cuseo, 2003

• Provision of Transition

subjects/units

• Transition assisted by

‘first year seminars’

• Participation increases

retention

Barefoot, 2003


2005

Orientation

• Early Feedback and

Advice

• Poor academic advice

leads to potential

attrition

• Regular e-mail contact

can increase retention


2005

Simpson, 2003

• Student Engagement • Motivation and

academic orientation

is significant predictor

of performance and

Hughes & Wyld, 1986



persistence

• Competing time

demands minimize

social involvement….

Students hurrying to

class…. Buzzing

confusion

• “I could not cope with

full-time work and

study

• “I was dissatisfied with

the course teaching”

• “academic

underpreparedness,

boredom….

• “academic advisers

who are approachable”

Braxton & Hirschy, 2005

Price, Harte and Cole,

1991

Price, Harte and Cole,

1991

Cuseo, 2003

Cuseo, 2002

• Collaborative Learning

and Student Engagement

• Learning occurs when

students work

collaboratively

• Collaboration prevents

student attrition

Barkley, Cross, Major,

2005


2005

• Social Integration • The degree of social

integration matched

academic integration

• Mentoring

relationships had a

great impact on

student retention

Stage, 1987

Jabobi, 1991

First Year Teaching

• Teaching/Pedagogy • The quality of teaching Bean, 1985



and learning has been

found to predict

persistence

• Uncaring and

uninteresting staff

……fourth most

important reason for

withdrawal

• Class size and text

books are not

significant for

performance…

students’ learning style

and instructors’

teaching style had

positive effects


1992

Siegfreid and Walstad,

1990

• Effective Interventions • Improved advisory

services…attention to

early stages of

courses…tutoring on

student progress…

early identification…

• There are no magic

bullets, single

solutions, golden rules

• What is important is a

coordinated university-

wide approach

• What happens in the

classroom is likely to

have the most impact

on student retention

Martinez, 2001

Tinto, 1993

Tinto, 1993



• Peer Mentoring • Supplemental

Instruction or PASS

has been shown to

improve student

retention

• Paid work on campus

is associated with

reduced attrition

Kelly & Gardiner, 1994

And

Kuh et al, 2005

Astin, 1993

• Common timetabling of

groups

• Team teaching across

subjects/units have a

string emphasis on

collaborative

learning…. Positive

effect on retention


2005

• Developing an online

community

• Technology is used to

develop collaborative

learning…

Kuh et al, 2005

• Developmental

subjects/units

• Developmental

subjects involving

basic mathematics and

writing skills can boost

progress and

persistence

Weissman, Silk and

Bulakowski, 1997

• Conflicts with

employment

• A 9% increase in full-

time employment of

HE students 1994 to

2004 and 14%

increase in the hours

they work

DEST, 2004

This literature review has reinforced the idea that improving retention is not a simple exercise

and that there are no “magic bullets”. The review demonstrates the multitude of factors that

influence retention. It is evident from the review that the factors are inter-related, which


means that separating the influence of factors will be very difficult and likely impossible with

the data set available for the School of Engineering at UWS. The review also flags a warning.

Namely, that an improvement in retention may not be related to an action, at least in a direct

way, and so “proving “the effectiveness of an intervention strategy may be problematic.

Finally, there are several models that related to student retention. This thesis will concentrate

on the Tinto model as it appears to be the one most commonly used and comprehensive. This

does not mean that it is the only available model nor that it is valid in all circumstances.

However, it is a starting point to make sense of the data available from UWS and to provide

some structured analysis to discerning and examining the more important factors in the

answering the question, “what works”.

The following chapter presents details of the analytical methods, the methodology and the

data available for this study.


3 Research Methodology and Design

The aim of this chapter is to outline the ways by which the hypothesis and the

research evidence relating to this thesis was collected and tested. The hypotheses are:

• The retention of first year students can be improved and

• Measures can be introduced which can improve retention.

In order to prove the hypotheses, the research

• Collected and analysed UWS and other data

• Identified the student pathway, from High School through to the second year

of study, focussing on

o The transition phase

o The enrolment and orientation phases

o The learning and teaching phase

o The progression phase and

o The student social environment.

• Identified areas where improvements might be made to improve retention

• Used statistical methods to test the hypotheses and generally examine the data.

3.1 A review of the instruments used to test the effectiveness of the methods to

improve first year teaching

The research for this thesis comprised:

1. Data Collection. Initially from the University of Western Sydney where patterns of

student retention were identified and analysed. The data included two significant

surveys conducted, specifically for this thesis, in 2005 and 2006, where student

responses to the enrolment and orientation phases were collected, under university

conditions and within university ethics policy. These surveys included the collection

of data on student background and entry qualifications. Such data were not available

within UWS-conducted surveys. Data was also collected from DEST and from other

institutions and compared with that for UWS. From these data, the significance of

measures to improve student retention was examined and compared with conclusions

identified within the Literature Review.


2. Collection and analysis of CEQ data in UWS surveys. The university Office of

Planning and Quality regularly issue CEQ data, as tabulated in Table 3.1 where

qualitative data are stored in areas of ‘good practice’ & ‘those requiring improvement’.

Results at the course, College and University level are included in each College’s

annual course report and were used to analyse student retention in this thesis.

3. Acquisition of papers, reports, analyses and surveys from UWS and other institutions

and organisations where prior research into elements of the hypothesis had taken

place, results published and conclusions drawn.

4. Locally collected data and surveys conducted within the School of Engineering at

UWS where student data was immediately available for analysis: in order to test

elements of the hypothesis and to assess whether local measures had improved student

retention

5. Attendance at conferences where papers and reports on elements of the hypothesis

were presented and published.

3.2 Internal Surveys

Many measures to address student retention have been applied in universities: the literature

review in chapter 2 explored a significant number, many focussing on student background and

the transition of students from school to university. Consequently many surveys are carried

out by universities, including UWS, where the effectiveness of local measures are tested and

decisions made about their long-term future. All the UWS surveys, which include the UWS

conducted surveys as well as the specific surveys of this thesis, were conducted within the

requirements of the Human Research Ethics Policy, formulated by the associated Committee

(HREC). The two surveys conducted for this thesis were approved by the ethics committee.

Each survey was submitted to the committee and approval obtained before issuing to

students. Subsequently, feedback was submitted to this same committee following the survey

analysis.

The surveys (detailed in Table 3.1), some of which were not specifically constructed for this

thesis, provided information that could be used to test the hypothesis that student retention

can be improved. These surveys sought responses to a number of questions on [for the 2005


Survey] the enrolment procedures and [for the 2006 survey] student background and the

usefulness of information provided for the students during the orientation program. The

survey questions related to the measures identified by literature and research as discussed in

chapter 2.

3.2.1 The 2005 (Enrolment) and the 2006 (Orientation) UWS Surveys1

The literature review identified the transition phase as being significant in terms of student

satisfaction and preparedness for their studies in the first semester. The 2005(Enrolment)

Survey, directed towards this thesis, was carried out in the second semester 2005, focussing on

ten questions which tested student responses to the quality of information provided when

they first entered the university. Students were also able to comment on their subsequent

experiences in, for example, attendance at tutorials, use of WebCT and peer mentoring, issues

which were encouraged at orientation but perhaps were not adequately reinforced. The

questionnaire is presented in Appendix 3.

The ten questions were:

1. When you first made contact with UWS, were the staff friendly and helpful?

2. Was academic advice given in a friendly and helpful manner? 3. Were you aware of recommended minimum standards in English and mathematics for your course? 4. When you visited UWS for the orientation program, were the staff helpful and friendly? 5. Was the procedure for registering for tutorials and laboratory sessions made clear to you? 6. Was the importance of attending tutorials and laboratory sessions made clear to you? 7. Was the importance of regular participation in WebCT and e-mails made clear to you?

1 * - referred to as “the 2005 Survey” and “the 2006 Survey” respectively, so as to distinguish

them from UWS and other surveys covering a similar period.


8. Did you find the peer mentoring useful to you? 9. Did you find the academic mentoring useful to you? 10. Have academic staff, during the pre-enrolment period, been helpful, approachable and friendly to you? [Each answer was graded from VERY POOR [1] , to VERY SATISFIED [6]]

The results of this survey are described later in chapter 4 [Table 4.3] and chapter 5

[Table 5.2].

The second survey, carried out in February 2006, focussed on student opinion in the School

of Engineering and was specifically directed towards this thesis. The questions focussed on

student background, the details of the orientation program [see appendix 5], and the collection

of student data concerning employment and initial views on university study. The issues

included in the 2006 (Orientation) survey tested, at a local level, a number of measures to

improve retention within the transition phase, pre-entry phase and the orientation program.

This survey, unlike the 2005 survey, tested student opinion at the start of their university year.

Students were invited to respond to questions 1 to 12 below:

1 Overall level of satisfaction for the Orientation program 2 Was the Presentation by Head of School useful to you ? 3 Was the Careers and Employment presentation useful to you ? 4 Was the Engineers Australia presentation useful to you ? 5 Was the presentation on Learning Skills useful to you ? 6 Was the Library Services presentation useful to you ? 7 Was the Group Tutorial useful to you ? 8 Did you find it useful to meet your Academic Mentor ? 9 Did you find it useful to meet your Peer Mentor in week 1 ? 10 Was the site tour useful ? 11 Are you satisfied with the instructions for activating your MyUWS account ? 12 Did the Orientation program prepare you for week 1 ?


The student responses to questions 13 to 24 below are introduced in section 3.2: 13 Did you complete HSC ? 14 In what year did you complete HSC ? 15 If you did not complete HSC, what qualifications do you have ?

A TAFE Certificate B Diploma C International D Other

16 How many hours do you work part-time ? A Zero B 1 – 5 C 6 – 10 D 11 – 15 E 16 – 20 F 21 – 25 G . 25 per week

17 If working Part-time, what sector ? A no job B hospitality C retail D security E professional, not eng/ID F Engineering/ID

18 What classes do you think you must attend ? A Lectures only B All Tuts + Lectures C All sessions D Some of the above E None

19 How many hours do you think you must study out of the classroom ? 20 How much travelling time do you have per day ? 21 How old are you ? 22 What language do you speak at home ?

A English B European, not English C Asiatic D Middle Eastern E None of these

23 What is the highest qualification of family members ?

24. What course have you enrolled on at UWS ?


Where appropriate, statistical analyses were undertaken to test the hypotheses which stated

that first year student retention can be improved and that measures could be introduced to

make these improvements.

Additional data for this study was obtained from attending workshops, meetings and training

sessions; reports and data from the School of Engineering; the literature; the author’s

involvement in learning and teaching of first year students; and questionnaires, surveys and

comments in 2005 and 2006 of students and staff.

3.3 Research Participants

Around 80 students responded to the 2005 survey, referred to in the previous section, and

approximately 200 students responded to the 2006 survey out of a cohort of approximately

500. Both surveys were approved by the University Human Research Ethics Committee,

was voluntary, anonymous and the results are compared, in later chapters, with similar

surveys from within UWS and from other universities.

3.4 Materials

The questions contained within the two surveys referred to measures relevant to the

research carried out by Pascarella and Terenzini (1980) where the five institutional scales

are labelled as (1) peer group interactions, (2) interactions with faculty, (3) family concern

for student development and teaching, (4) academic and intellectual development and (5)

institutional and goal commitments. These scales have been proven, by a number of

researchers (e.g.Bers and Smith, 1991; Tenenzini et al., 1981) as reliable with predictive

validity.

Additional questions were included in the surveys in order to enable comparison with other

surveys, such as UWS surveys carried out in the first semester (see Table 5.1), telephone

surveys (see Table 5.4) and the DEST 2004 survey “First year experience” summarised in

Table 6.1.


One source of data for this research was the Course Unit Outlines at UWS, School of

Engineering, where the aims and objectives of the Unit are described, together with

assessment criteria and semester timetable.

Student feedback was collected for this chapter and, in particular, for two first year units:

Engineering and Industrial design Practice [300461] and Electrical Fundamentals [300021].

The purpose of such feedback was to survey student learning and teaching in respect of

student satisfaction, progress and quality in the learning situation both within the units listed

above and across the first year curriculum. Direct contact with students was found to be

invaluable as both a lecturer/tutor and as a member of a first year teaching team. Chapter 6

refers to the learning and teaching feedback obtained: chapters 5 refers to associated feedback

obtained from these same students re: their enrolment and orientation experiences and the

overall learning experience in general.

For example, one feature of the first year program, integrated within one of the core units, is

peer mentoring where students in 2nd and subsequent years volunteer to assist the new first

year students and offer general support, based on their own experiences as first year students

in the same course of study. The peer mentor program, in a similar way to other elements of

the Student Pathway, is modified and improved over time, based on feedback and ongoing

issues. The research included an analysis of peer mentoring and its benefits together with

feedback from students on its effectiveness.

To conclude, the main research instruments were

• Data collection – used to compare the performance of the UWS school(s) with other

universities and with other UWS schools

• Date analysis of UWS and other data – to identify a uniformally adopted definition of

student retention/attrition and consequently to compare results between selected

institutions

• The acquisition of papers, reports and surveys from UWS and elsewhere – to identify

measures carried out within universities to address student retention and their

effectiveness: also to measure, where available, research that has been carried out to

relate specific retention measures to associated retention improvement

• The carrying out of locally based student surveys – to collect student personal

information and opinions on their first year experiences


• Attendance at conferences where formal papers were presented and informal

discussions took place – further gathering data and evidence on student retention

issues and, finally

• Monitoring student retention at UWS where ‘across university’ measures and policies

were introduced throughout the carrying out of the research – directly monitoring the

effects of such measures.

Many similar surveys are carried by universities which relate to the topics discussed in this

thesis and the literature review. UWS carries out regular surveys of its students, both at the

orientation phase and throughout their studies: these can be accessed via the UWS home page

via: http://uws.clients.squiz.net/opq/planning_and_quality. Table 3.1 lists a selection of

surveys carried out at UWS:

Table 3.1 Summary of UWS Surveys & Performance Reports

Instrument Quantitative Qualitative Frequency, Sample &

Mode

UWS Student

Satisfaction Survey

November 2004

86 items covering

the student’s total

experience of the

university. Items are

ranked on both

importance and

performance

All comments are stored

digitally by college, year,

level, sorted by areas of

good practice and areas

requiring enhancement

Every two years to a

representative sample of 7000

currently enrolled course work

students. Paper and online.

Response rate 45.2% The

2006 survey results are being

benchmarked.

UWS Research

Student Satisfaction

Survey (May 2005)

107 items covering


research experience

of the university.

Items are ranked on

both importance

and performance

All comments will be

kept on digital files,

stored by course, year,




Every two years to all

currently enrolled research


Response rate 56% The 2006

survey results are being

benchmarked.



Mode

UWS Course

Performance

Report (Including

CEQ/GDS) UG &

PG report every

year in Oct/Nov

[CEQ – Course

Experience

Questionnaire.

GDS – Graduate

Destination Survey]

Time series,

benchmarked

performance results

on 25 core CEQ

items, along with

data on demand,

load, enrolments,

retention,

progression &

graduation rates, as

well as GDS

employment and

salary data. CEQuery

analysis of College

and University

results is also

included. See

Appendix 5

All CEQ qualitative data

are stored into areas of

good practice & those

requiring improvement.

Results at the course,

College and University

level are included in

each College’s annual

course report, along

with a CEQuery data at

each level.

Annual covering every course

for which there is sufficient

data. CEQ/GDS survey goes

to all graduates and can be

completed online or on paper.

Response rate 55%

UWS Student

Feedback on Unit

survey ( SFU )

13 items identified

as being of high

importance in earlier

surveys and in the

CEQuery analysis of

UWS comments on

the CEQ

Best aspect & needs

improvement comments

are returned to the

appropriate unit

coordinators.

Initially all units, every

semester. Paper based survey

/scannable form. Results

available to Schools and OPQ

UWS Student

Feedback on

Teaching survey

(SFT) process

based around the

use of SEEQ

instrument

31 items measuring

students’

perceptions of

educational quality

and teaching

effectiveness

Individual graphical

Original Open Ended

comments returned to

the individual teacher

with graphical report for

self analysis.

Staff are required to undertake

annual evaluation of their

teaching effectiveness using a

validated instrument – (SEEQ

is the centrally supported

instrument). The individual

teacher submits an online



Mode

Ongoing report showing

mean score for each

SEEQ factor

request to evaluate their

teaching. A confidential report

is returned to teacher. Paper

based / scannable form.

Offshore Student

Satisfaction Survey

82 items covering


experience of the

university. This

survey, with some

modification,

mirrors the onshore

Student Satisfaction

Survey. Items are

ranked on both

importance and

performance

All comments are stored

digitally by College, year,




Every two years with all

international offshore

students (undergraduate and

postgraduate coursework).

Both onshore and offshore

results are benchmarked.

Paper and online.

UWS Employer

Survey November

2004

Covers key

employer

perceptions of UWS

graduates’

capabilities,

unfolding trends in

the profession

concerned and gets

feedback on various

Careers’ Services

and employer views

of the UWS image

All comments are kept

on digital files, stored by

a wide range of

employer variables

Every three years to a

representative sample of key

UWS Employees. Results are

benchmarked. Online survey

Supplementary Surveys



Mode

UWS Image Survey

(since 2004)

Covers new student

perceptions of UWS

compared with

other universities in

NSW & ACT

All comments are kept

on digital files, stored by

course, year, and are

sorted by areas of good

practice and areas


Every three years to all

currently enrolled new


Response rate 39%.

Undertaken with UTS &

Macquarie University in 2004

Student Exit Survey

(Oct 2004)

Survey of students

who exit the

university prior to

completing the

course. Item based

on previous

research on attrition

and retention.

Covers reason for

withdrawing.

Targets all first year

international onshore

students (undergraduate

and postgraduate

coursework). Paper and

online survey

All students withdrawing in

2004. Pilot survey in 2004,

frequency will be determined

after the pilot survey.

Response rate 33%.

Telephone survey.

Retention Survey

(May 05/06)

23 items covering

the student

experience in the

first year

All comments are

analysed and reported to

the University.

Survey is targeted to a

representative sample of 1000

onshore students

(undergraduate and

postgraduate by coursework)

Telephone survey Response

rate- 70.7%

Commencing

International

Student Survey

(May 2006)

The survey gets

feedback from first

year international

students (onshore)

on various aspects

such as: marketing,

applications &

admissions and

orientation.

All comments are

analysed and reported to

the International Office

and the University.


4 Transition to University – Student Retention Issues

4.1 Introduction

“No single First Year Experience – “the” First Year Experience is complex.

The first year experience is not a homogeneous experience but a multiplicity of experiences contingent

on type of institution and student characteristics… Furthermore, the first year experience evolves and

changes both temporally and culturally. Issues facing students when they first arrive are not the same

as issues half way through the first year or towards the end:”

Harvey et al (2006)

This chapter addresses the issues of retention related to the Pathway from High School to

University (Figure 1.2). The focus is the key factors in this Pathway that affect student’s

retention and examining whether actions can be taken in this pathway to reduce attrition.

The literature review raised issues that arise within the transition phase about the influence on

student retention of factors such as student background, family support and expectations.

This chapter tests the effectiveness of measures which address these issues and assesses

whether the measures increase student retention at UWS

4.2 Student personal, family or social issues

For school leavers, the student pathway commences at school via their individual UAI score

and HSC passes. The majority of students carry with them, as they embark on the Pathway,

dreams, expectations and aspirations for a successful career.

The 2006 survey, described in the previous chapter and carried out at the commencement of

the 2006 academic year, assessed the student’s aspirations to attendance in classes prior to the

start of their studies. The survey addressed a number if issues raised in the literature review

such as student age, language and cultural background, family issues and so on. The responses

to the questions are listed in Table 4.1.


Table 4.1 Student responses to the 2006 Survey that relate to the pre-enrolment

process

Question to Students Dissatisfied To Satisfied

Graphical Results Data

%

Total Responses

13 Did you complete HSC ?

No Yes

Background 2a - 166 responses

158

8

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

a

b

(blank)

Count of Summary

Summary

4 % 96 %

198

14 In what year did you complete HSC ? 2000+

Nil 1 2 3 4 5

Background 2 - 169 responses

106

23

11

5

15

9

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

a

b

c

d

e

f

(blank)

Count of Summary

Summary

4 % 7 % 3 % 6 % 13 % 63 %

202

15 If you did not complete HSC, what qualifications do you have ? D Other C International B Diploma A TAFE Certificate

D C B A

Total

9

4

7

47

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

a

c

d

e

(blank)

Total

Count of Summary

Summary

82 % 6 % 4 % 8 %

117

16 How many hours do you work part-time ?

G 25 per week F 21 – 24 E 16 – 20 D 11 – 15 C 6 – 10 B 1 – 5 A Zero

G F E D C B A


79

11

25

20

21

7

4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

(blank)

Count of Summary

Summary

2 % 5 % 14 % 11% 15 % 6 % 45 %

199

17 If working Part-time, what sector ? A no job B hospitality C retail D security E professional, not eng/ID F Engineering/ID

F E D C B A


67

29

34

1

7

17

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

a

b

c

d

e

f

(blank)

Count of Summary

Summary

10 % 5 % 1 % 22 % 19 % 43 %

186




%

Total Responses

18 What classes do you think you must attend ? A Lectures only B All Tuts + Lectures C All sessions D Some of the above E None

F E D C B A


2

8

2

146

9

3

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

a

b

c

d

e

f

(blank)

Count of Summary

Summary

1 % 6 % 87 % 1 % 4 % 1 %

201

19 How many hours do you think you must study in total at home ?

>6 4-6 2-4 0-2 0


3

32

80

53

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

b

c

d

e

(blank)

Count of Summary

Summary

0 %

32 % 48 % 19 % 1 %

201

20 How much travelling time do you anticipate per day ?

>4 3-4 2-3 1-2 <1


32

66

35

22

14

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

a

b

c

d

e

(blank)

Count of Summary

Summary

7 % 13% 21 % 40% 19 %

202

21 How old are you ?

>25

21-25

18-20

<18


25

110

26

7

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

a

b

c

d

(blank)

Count of Summary

Summary

4 % 14 % 66 % 16 %

201

22 What language do you speak at home ?

E None of these D Middle Eastern C Asiatic B European, not English A English

E D C B A


105

10

35

10

9

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

a

b

c

d

e

(blank)

Count of Summary

Summary

7 % 7 % 19 % 5 % 62 %

202

23 What is the highest qualification of family members ?

HSC Trade CERT Diploma Degree Masters PhD


11

26

59

14

10

14

31

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

(blank)

Count of Summary

Summary

19 % 8 % 6 % 10 % 34 % 17 % 6 %

198




%

Total Responses

24 What course have you enrolled on at UWS ?

Other

D& T

BID

BEng


107

38

20

5

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

a

b

c

d

(blank)

Count of Summary

Summary

2.5 % 12 % 22.5%

63 %

205

Comparing these results with the literature review,

• the predominant age of the surveyed students was 18 to 20 years who, it is suggested

in the research (chapter 2, section 2.3), have the highest chance of completion. In this

cohort, the number aged over 25 is low at 4% which, it is claimed, correlates with

better performance.

• 62% of the cohort speak English at home but research infers (chapter 2, section 2.3 )

that, of the remainder, the 19% Asiatic students are more committed

• Research suggests that parental support influences goal commitment (chapter 2,

section 2.3) – over 70% of the cohort had parents with a higher education

qualification and so is encouraging for the surveyed students

• Travelling time is significant with 81 % travelling more than one hour per day: the

majority living at home; albeit in areas away from the UWS Kingswood campus.

Residential accommodation is available but is limited to the 19% with minimal travel

• The course expectations are influenced, according to research, by prior qualifications.

The survey identified only 40% students entering UWS solely with Australian HSC

qualifications and 58% with additional or alternative qualifications.

• In terms of student engagement, 55% student work part-time [2006 figure] which

greatly influences student engagement which, the research states, introduces a conflict

between the time available for effective study, work and socialising

• Social integration of students is also influenced by the conflict between study and

work, full or part-time

• While the influence of staff on the pre-enrolling student is evident there is no data to

verify whether attempts to improve these first contacts have been successful in

improving retention.


4.3 Student UAI scores and Student’s ability in Mathematics and

Science/Physics on entry

This section discusses how UAI and High school background relate to the hypothesis which

states that first year student retention can be improved. Are students prepared? How does

preparation impact on retention? Are there means of supporting poorly prepared students?

Do these methods work?

The UAI scores, as listed on the university database, for the UWS 2006 entrants to the first

year undergraduate School of Engineering course in Engineering and Industrial Design are

analysed in Figure 3.3, out of a cohort of 557 students.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

<60 60 - 70 70 - 80 80 - 90 90 - 100

Student UAI Score

Stu

dent

Num

bers

at E

nrol

men

t 200

6

Figure 4.1 UAI Scores for 2006 School of Engineering entrants

Figure 4.1 shows that, with a minimum UAI of 60 for Engineering and Industrial Design

courses, many students left school with UAI score lower than 60. However, although

students obtained the necessary minimum of 60, many entered UWS by alternative routes.

Students may choose different paths, including any study undertaken at another institution


(TAFE, private colleges, or other universities), to improve their competitiveness for entry to

UWS or to achieve academic credit/advanced standing in recognition of prior learning.

A low UAI score and low attainment in HSC mathematics subjects have a significant effect on

the retention of students in the School of Engineering as concluded in the McFarlane report

described below. The Bachelor of Engineering course, for example, contains mathematics

units in semesters 1 and 2 which are studied alongside technical units where the mathematics

is applied. As a result, many students experience difficulties or are discouraged at an early stage

in the degree studies which can prompt them to consider withdrawing or, if they continue to

the examinations, they fail in mathematics units and achieve poor results or fail the technical

units.

A report “An Analysis of Autumn 2005 Mathematics for Engineers 1 Results” described the

significance of UAI score to the progress of first year students in their first semester in the

School of Engineering in 2005. The report is included in Appendix 6 and the author, Assoc.

Prof. John MacFarlane, states that, for all groups other than ‘2U only’ [those who entered with

two HSC passes in Mathematics] ‘the UAI score is as good a predictor as the HSC Maths

score(s) for this groups. The exercise analysed the HSC mathematics qualifications of students

on entry, along with their UAI score, and compared this statistically with their performance in

the first year Mathematics for Engineers 1 unit; referred to again in the next section. Of the 70

students who entered with 3U [HSC passes in three Mathematics subjects], the 2005 figures

show the following relationship with their UAI score:

Pass grade in UAI Score on entry

Mathematics for Engineers 1 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100

High Distinction 3 6 1 2

Distinction 2 5

Credit 6 4

Pass 12 10

Fail 12 7

Students with a low UAI score and low attainment in mathematics, although admitted to the

degree courses, are less likely, as identified in the literature review, to


• meet their course expectations due to difficulties coping with associated subject matter; as

supported by the 2005 report described above

• seek appropriate academic advice, counselling and learning skills support

• attend all lectures and tutorials and complete all assignments on time and

• continue and successfully complete the first year, many withdrawing before the census

date or failing one or more units in the first semester.

The MacFarlane report illustrates that the UAI score can assist with the prediction of pass

grades in this unit for students with above average HSC entry but 19 of these students failed

in this key unit, despite 7 of these students [10%] entering with UAIs above 70. Such failures

not only require the units to be repeated in subsequent years but place considerable pressure

on associated studies where mathematical skills are applied.

The recommended HSC qualifications for the School of Engineering undergraduate courses

are Physics with Mathematics Extension 1 or Mathematics Extension 2. The “assumed

knowledge” is mathematics and two units of science, with two units of English. In 2006 only

17% of the student cohort complied with these requirements.

The 2005 analysis referred to in the previous section and in Appendix 6 concluded that “the

3U score looks to be the best predictor from among the HSC Maths results” with an element

of ‘background error’ due to adjustment to uni and overall effort in Mathematics. The

commentary in Appendix 6 shows that “The results in Maths for Engineers tend to decline

as the level of HSC Mathematics drops. Of the 61 students who studied 3-unit Maths at

the HSC, 22 received a result in Band 1. Of these 22, only 2 achieved Band 5 or better in

2-Unit Maths and 12 of the 22 (55%) failed Maths for Engineers 1.”

MacFarlane (2005) suggests a ‘rule of thumb’ model to predict the Mathematics for

Engineers 1 raw mark from the HSC scores, where 3U students should succeed; 2U

students need to work hard to pass; and concluded in his report “General Mathematics

students do not really stand a chance of passing and should enter via an alternative

route”.

The 2006 Survey, referred to in section 3.2, asked students to list their full range of HSC

passes on entry to UWS. The spread of HSC passes for students qualifying in High School in


2005 for entry to UWS in 2006 is shown in Table 4.2 which shows, for 173 students, an

analysis of HSC Passes for 2006 entry to the School of Engineering for Engineering and

Industrial Design courses:

Table 4.2 Analysis of Maths and Science HSC qualifications – 2006

General Maths + a Science* 65 Maths [only] + a Science* 64

Maths + Ext 1 + a Science* 13 Maths + Ext 1 + Ext 2 + a Science* 7

A Science but no Maths or English 2 Maths subject, no Science 5

No English 17

* includes Engineering Studies

The low numbers of 2U and 3U students indicates that, according to MacFarlane (2005) the

majority of students are likely to require support with mathematics as they embark on their

degree or their year course should commence with a lower level of mathematics unit; to

compensate for their lower mathematics ability.

The 2006 survey, referred to in section 3.2, showed that 96% of students who had

successfully enrolled into the first year of a degree in the School of Engineering had

completed their HSC [question 13] and 64% had completed their HSC in the year preceding

their entry into UWS [question 14]. For those without HSC, 82% possessed ‘other’

qualifications, with 9% possessing TAFE qualifications [question 15].

The level of mathematics of many students was further analysed in 2007 when an analysis was

carried out in the School of Engineering of the HSC Mathematics qualifications on entry with,

for 271 Engineering degree students:

Applicable Mathematics 1

General Mathematics 58

Mathematical Methods 1

Mathematics 165

Mathematics 2 Unit common 1

Mathematics 3 Unit common 1

Mathematics B 2

Mathematics C 1


Mathematics Extension 1 47

Mathematics Extension 2 4

Specialist Mathematics 1

All students with Mathematics Extension 1 or 2 entered with two HSC passes [2U as used in

the 2005 analysis], the majority entering with one HSC pass; but 27 entered with no

mathematics qualification.

The conclusion of the McFarlane report (Appendix 6) was

“3U students should be quite OK (as long as their 3U HSC performance was satisfactory, i.e. Band 2 or better); 2U students need to work hard to pass. Students below Band 3 should not be moving straight into Maths for Engineers 1 (failure rate for this group is 80%); General Maths students also do not really stand a chance of passing (failure rate also 80%) and should also not be moving straight into Maths for Engineers 1.”

Consequently, if the general level of Mathematics is low:

(a) additional learning support is suggested for those without 2U or 3U Mathematics prior

to entry and during the first semester;

(b) the routing of many students to a ‘lower level’ mathematical first semester unit is

recommended, such as Foundations of Mathematics, rather than direct entry in to

Mathematics for Engineers 1 where, in certain circumstances, this ‘lower level’ unit can be

considered an elective within the degree, and

(c) the integration of all first semester units is suggested so that the mathematical content

progresses in tandem, with newly introduced concepts taught in the mathematics classes

alongside the technical subjects: or

(d) routing students who do not possess the recommended entry requirements to a

Foundation Course such as the 2, 3 or 4-semester course offered by UWS College as

described in Appendix 7 where potential UWS students study:

• Computer Literacy

• Foundations of Business

• Foundations of Science

• Living Skills and


• Mathematical Foundations.

There have been no data analyses undertaken at UWS, other than that described above, on

the students who took “remedial “ mathematics programs, so it is not possible to judge

whether such programs, which have been in operation for several years, are successful.

4.4 Choosing a University and Course - Advice and Welcome from

Senior School/College staff

Students meet or talk to academic staff at enrolment or prior to enrolment about issues related

to enrolment and choice of course. Also students meet academic staff on orientation day

where key staff are introduced, where students meet their academic mentor and where

academic staff are available for consultation on a one-to-one basis.

In the 2005 [enrolment] survey of first year students in the School of Engineering [voluntary

to all first year students] students responded to ten questions, previously introduced in section

3.1, with the results listed in Table 3.3. Further questions and responses from the 2005 survey,

relating to the orientation process, are listed in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3 Questionnaire to students October 2005 Question to Students [October 2005]

1 Very Poor

2 Poor

3 4 5 Satisfied

6 Very Satisfied

Total Responses

% scoring 5 and 6

1. When you first made contact with UWS, were staff friendly and helpful ?

2 1 12 20 25 15 75 53

2. Was academic advice given in a friendly and helpful manner ?

2 4 8 21 21 12 68 49

3 Were you aware of recommended minimum standards of English and Mathematics for your course ?

2 3 8 7 26 32 78 74

10 Have Academic staff, during the pre-enrolment

11 23 24 11 3 4 76 9


Question to Students [October 2005]

1 Very Poor

2 Poor

3 4 5 Satisfied

6 Very Satisfied

Total Responses

% scoring 5 and 6

processes, been helpful, approachable and friendly to you ? One response which was significantly poor [9%] referred to question 10 “Have academic staff,

during the pre-enrolment process, been helpful ?” which contrasts with the 53% response to

question 1, which assessed staff ‘friendliness’ at the commencement of the academic year.

Such conversations between prospective or newly enrolled students with academic staff are

significant in a student’s assessment of the ‘friendliness’ of staff. Recommendations for a more

‘user-friendly’ approach are drawn from the results for questions 1, 2 and 10.

With reference to question 3 in Table 4.3, a significant awareness of the requirements for

English and Mathematics is demonstrated [peaking in the highest segment] despite the

difficulties that many students demonstrate with first year units of their degree course in the

School of Engineering. Continued difficulties can result in poor performance in units which

demand competence in these subjects; such as technical units or communications units – see

Chapter 6.

While the influence of staff on the pre-enrolling student is evident there is no data to verify

whether attempts to improve these first contacts have been successful in improving

retention. This is a topic requiring further research.

4.5 Students at Risk

UWS carried out research into students at risk [selected details are shown in figure 4.2] of

students commencing in 2008. An analysis of the results showed that, in the associated

report, “Students at Risk” (M.Campbell, 2008), the students were

- extremely time poor. - independent earners. - from academic backgrounds which have focussed on participatory learning methodologies. - inadequately advised prior to attending - from a young population attached to popular culture outside UWS. - living off campus & travel to UWS and to work


- lacking personal decision making process in course selections. - having limited academic choices - [some] from a NESB population with strong will to succeed. - from families with strong loyalties and responsibilities. and - with diverse & committed religious affiliations.

The report included a survey on student demographics (undertaken by GA Research*) which

was sent to all UWS students. The response rate was 12% which is high and respondents

were representative of the overall UWS student population. Those students with low literacy

skills, poor motivation, employment pressures, younger students and international students

were categorised in the report as “Students at Risk” since one or more of such issues greatly

influenced their studies and so their engagement and continuation on their course. These

results, listed below, compare with the 2005 Survey, introduced in section 3,2, the responses

to comparable questions being listed in Table 4.1.

• Gender of respondents to the survey

o a. Male (35%) o b. Female (65%)

• Average age of respondents

o 23.8 years

• Parents originally from English speaking/ non-English speaking country.

o a. An English speaking country (53%) o b. Mainland China (6%) o c. Rest of Asia-Pacific (12%) o d. India and the subcontinent (7%) o e. Middle East (9%) o f. Africa (2%) o g. Western Europe or Scandinavia (4%) o h. Eastern Europe (5%) o i. South/Latin America or Caribbean (3%)

• One or both parents have completed a university qualification – ie First in

Family (mandatory question)

o a. Yes (56%) o b. No (44%)

• Average hours a week of classes this semester (mandatory question)–

o 11.7 hours per week


• Average, number of hours a week spent on campus during the semester not

engaged in attending classes or studying (mandatory question)

o 7.8 hours per week

• Employment Details (mandatory question)

o a. Unemployed/not working at all (27%) o b. Casual (33%) o c. Part-time (23%) o d. Full-time (11%) o e. Self Employed (2%) o f. Working and on government benefits (3%)

• Personal average weekly income from all sources before tax.

o a. $0 (16%) o b. $1 - $149 (24%) o c. $150 - $349 (33%) o d. $350 - $649 (16%) o e. $650 - $999 (6%) o f. $1,000 + (4%)

* GA Research is a division of Gavin Anderson & Company, advisers on corporate, financial and public

affairs worldwide. It is a member of the Australian Market and Social Research Organisation (AMSRO).

Figure 4.2 The results from a comprehensive survey of ‘high risk’ students at UWS

Figure 4.2 shows the measurement of responses to:

• Retention and associated reasons, including the disciplines where it is more

prevalent

• Students where equity is of concern, particularly non-English speaking and

disabled, and

• The students most at risk.

This data reinforces the findings from the literature review where the pressures on first year

students were identified such as half the student population coming from families where

English may not be the first language, and the majority of whom work full-time or part-time

and who prefer to limit their university studies to 20 hours per week [12 hours of classes + 8

hours of study time outside classes].

For example, Question 16 in Table 4.1 concluded that the number of hours that a student

works, while studying, is considerable, and which is addressed by course timetables in which

student’s attempt to restrict attendance at university to two or three days per week – a growing


trend. The inadequate academic advice given to students prior to enrolment is reinforced and

the difficulty that students experience with course selection. The report highlights the impact

for these students on learning and teaching and, as discussed in chapter 6, the effect of large

classes, students feeling isolated and with low student satisfaction.

The Student at risk program led to a tracking and intervention program that is described in

Figure 4.3. Unfortunately, these systems are too new for an assessment to be made on

whether they are effective in reducing attrition.

4.6 Discussion

Referring to the Hypotheses that first year student retention can be improved and that

measures can be introduced, the university has identified and surveyed the measures suggested

in the literature review and, as Martinez stated in 2001, “there are no magic bullets, single

solutions or golden rules”. By introducing measures such as

• awareness of students being at risk

o student age being a factor

o cultural and family background being a factor

o student travel time being a factor

o student employment and the conflict of time being a factor

• effective academic advice and counselling and

• clear explanations of student expectations,

the university, and the School of Engineering, assigns resources and systems to address each

component of the transition pathway in order to satisfy students prior to entry. Unfortunately

there are insufficient data to judge whether the measures have improved retention.

In this chapter, with reference to the testing of the hypothesis, measures to improve retention

are discussed with associated survey data. However the direct impact of each measure on

student retention and its effectiveness is complex and subsumed within the overall annual

retention rate. In certain areas, such as the mathematics intervention program, research data

(section 4.4) has illustrated that it is possible to estimate pass rates in Mathematics for

Engineers 1 from the raw mark from the HSC score with 3U students likely to succeed;


Figure 4.2 An Analysis of the Students at Risk results

Figure 4.3 A diagrammatic summary of the results from the Students At Risk Survey

UWS Tracking and Improvement System for Learning and Teaching (TILT). Data Retention Equity Exit S. Satisfaction

• Increased proportion of UWS students give ‘feeling isolated’ as reason to leave.

National data • Never

intended to stay at UWS, given as 1st or 2nd reason to leave • 43 rd reason nationally

Large class size aligns with high attrition and low Student Satisfaction

Students most at risk identified by staff. • ESB and NESB with

low literacy skills • Poorly motivated students. • Those working long hours • Undecided students • Those with low attendance @ lectures • Migrant/ refugees students • International students • Younger students

[NESB – Non-English Speaking Background]

Students most at Risk identified by UWS data

• Commencing year. • Colleges of Business and Health & Science • Part-time students • Mature age

• Young men

Target specific programs B.Com Accounting, BA Humanities,

BA Psych, COHS High UAI and Maths

• Highly variable at a program level • We lose many top UAI students. • High proportion first generation & poorly advised students

Difficulty interpreting equity data • Same

demographics for those who succeed as those who fail. • NESB students tend to persist. • NESB amongst highest achieving students • Low SES data is unreliable • Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander, distance and isolated students have very poor access figures. • Younger disability students perform at above average rates in 3 colleges. • Women in non Trad’ fields retained at average rates in most fields. • 42% of young men in advantaged SES category nationally.

Literature Review

Retention Literature Review


Figure 4.3 An analysis of the UWSUndergraduate population,

Characteristics of underachievers 1. Unclear goal & planning skills 2. Time spent in study, out of class 3. Impact of paid employment 4. Insufficient advice prior to attending. (undecided students) 5. Previous poor academic performance. 6. Living arrangements. 7. Financial issues 8. Difficult family circumstances 9. Personal resilience

Institutional approaches/ to isolation & engagement - Student interaction with faculty members. - Active & collaborative learning. - Enriching Educational experiences. - Supportive campus environment. - High levels of academic challenge.

Best practice engagement initiatives nationally and internationally with non traditional cohorts

UWS Undergraduate population emerges as a non traditional student body. Student profiles: UWS commencing year students - Extremely time poor. - Independent earners. - From academic backgrounds which have focussed on participatory learning methodologies. - Inadequately advised prior to attending - Young population attached to popular culture outside UWS. - Live off campus & travel to UWS and to work - Lack personal decision making process in course selections. - Limited academic choices - NESB population with strong will to succeed. - Strong family loyalties and responsibilities. - Diverse & committed religious affiliations.

Focus needs to be brought to the students who underachieve as well as those who withdraw. The profile of UWS commencing year students is similar to those described in the literature as “non traditional” and suggests that ‘experimenting’ with University as a chosen option can be expected from this population. Students need to be supported through options and choices. A proportion of students must drop out in first year as they make other choices. UWS students do not withdraw prematurely in atypical numbers for the sector in the commencing year but the typical student will need support, committed teaching energy and resources in order to succeed.

Figure 4.4 A summary of the proposed actions for the Students At Risk project


2U students needing to work hard to pass; “General Mathematics students do not really

stand a chance of passing and should enter via an alternative route”. Such difficulties

with mathematics contribute to the overall student retention rate but the precise improvement

would require extensive additional research.

In addition to the issues described in this chapter, ongoing changes take place to the academic

environment. These include course structural changes, curriculum changes, staff changes,

administrative structural changes, and changes to student intake qualifications. Whereas some

changes are introduced in order to improve the learning and teaching, some may have the

effect of reducing student satisfaction and success and so it is difficult to untangle the changes

from the actual improvements resulting from intervention to improve retention. In order to

analyse the effect of these and the other measures of this chapter it would be necessary to

instigate a major research project within the School, requiring the full cooperation of all staff

and students while this intervention exercise was carried out.

In the UWS letter offering a place and in the follow-up letter from the School of Engineering,

students are made aware of the need to commit 100% to their studies if they are to succeed

but the offer of advice and support is reinforced at every stage. As a consequence, students

welcome such advice and support, as reported in the surveys analysed in this chapter. Students

At Risk are identified at the Pre-Entry and Orientation phases where additional support of

offered.

The following chapter describes the influences of the ‘institution’ regarding staff interaction, a

supportive environment and information and guidance provided by the university prior to

attending. Chapter 5 also describes how the orientation program can improve the transition of

students and how an institutional holistic approach can effectively minimise the problems

highlighted above. The survey also looked at the UWS student population and identified

comparisons with the general Australian HE population, as in figure 4.3 and listed above.

Such characteristics as high earners, school and family background, levels of pre-entry advice

and diverse backgrounds are significant and concur with the results obtained earlier in this

chapter.

Subsequent chapters address the further phases of the pathway.


5 Orientation and Settling In – Student Retention Issues

Enhancing the First Year Experience of our students and easing transition to tertiary study centres around one essential - their engagement as learners in their learning. For our students to engage in their tertiary studies and have a successful first year, they need to:

� feel that they belong to a larger group of students and academics who are committed to learning;

� sense that there is a seamlessness between their structured, timetabled classes and the learning experiences that occur outside the classroom; and

� actively connect to the subject matter of their discipline.

(McInnis, 2003 and Kul et al, 1991)

5.1 Introduction

Many researchers identify the orientation phase as crucial in terms ‘settling in’, becoming

familiar with the new environment and being an independent student on a university degree

(see Chapter 2). This chapter describes the ways by which UWS, the School of Engineering

and other institutions address the outcomes of the research reviewed in chapter 2, and their

effectiveness in improving student retention.

5.2 Arriving at University

Until recently, at UWS, the student’s first exposure to the university campus, staff,

administration, attitude, efficiency, professionalism and other elements were at ‘academic

advising days’ or ‘enrolment day’ . During these “days” students attended for general

introductions to the University, the course and general facilities; followed by paying the fees

and, for many students, registering for selected support such as e-learning computer system

access – an essential tool for all School of Engineering students. Prior to this day, information

was sent to students by post, or students accessed the University web sites. After enrolment, it

was necessary to register online for tutorials and other sessions, and subsequently, in week 0,

to attend for the Orientation Day program before commencement of classes in Week 1. From

2007, students enrol online and so the student’s first visit to the campus is during ‘week 0’ for

Orientation activities, run by either the School and/or the University. As discussed in Chapter


4, there are pre-student contacts with the University which influence retention, as examined in

that chapter.

Currently, the university distributes offer letters to all prospective students in early January: the

School follows with a letter with details of orientation, services and expectations. Students are

able to access the e-learning site at an early stage and so initially become familiar with the

online systems before attending the scheduled orientation program in week 0. Settling in has

been extended to weeks prior to week 0 and now continues for several weeks beyond week 0;

along the lines of QUT, RMIT and Deakin, described in section 5.5.

5.3 The Enrolment process

Prior to 2007, enrolment was the first step along the Pathway and so, for many students, this

was their first entry into the university environment and meeting university staff.

Consequently, any delays, errors or lack of a user-friendly reception could be registered by

students negatively. However this time was an opportunity for the orientation process to

commence, albeit alongside the administrative enrolment procedures. With online enrolment,

the student’s first exposure to university procedures is in Week 0 or orientation week.

Comments on the traditional enrolment process were obtained via surveys [one being the

UWS 2005 Telephone Survey referred to elsewhere in this chapter] carried out by UWS and

by questionnaires associated with enrolment. In addition, a Call Centre received applications

and provided information throughout this process. With all forms of enrolment it is essential

that all details and information concerning the University, its services, its support and its

course are easily accessible on the UWS web site.

In 2005, the University Office of Planning and Quality reviewed the UWS 2005 enrolment

process and students were asked to grade their opinions on a number of issues. The results of

this review, set out in Table 5.1, refer to a number of administrative issues that affected

students in the 2005 cohort.


Table 5.1 Review of UWS 2005 enrolments carried out by the UWS Office of

Planning and Quality - 101 students responded and of these 41% were school leavers

and 59% were post-school leavers.

Question Grade 1 2 3 4 5 Mean Rank

(Poor) (very well)

1. Academic Advising 4 17 54 82 61 3.82 5

2. Selecting Your Units 8 20 62 70 61 3.71 6

3. Completing 7 14 61 79 73 3.84 4

Enrolment Forms

4. Getting Your Student 1 4 28 66 131 4.40 2

ID Card

5. UWS staff distributing 2 4 21 73 132 4.42 1

and collecting forms

6. Orientation Advising 1 5 27 79 115 4.33 3

Issues identified as “needing improvement” were

• The length of time that the process took

• Academic advising – more one-to-one with staff was preferred and

• The number and complexity of the forms.

Although these issues occur prior to the course of study, they reinforce the comments of

students concerning staff approachability and helpfulness, as identified in Chapter 4, Table

4.3. Regular occurrences of this nature can add to overall student dissatisfaction and irritation.

Staff of the UWS Enrolments and Student Finance Unit met in 2005 to evaluate the 2005

enrolment process and their findings are described in the Appendix 8. They considered:

• The path followed by students through the process

• The administration and paperwork


• Travel to and from the enrolment venues and

• Student satisfaction.

Possible improvements were analysed for subsequent years and recommendations made, as

listed in Appendix 8. Delays were minimised and efforts made so that students obtained the

information and guidance necessary to complete the process.

These responses informed the decision to introduce online enrolment of all students from

2007. However, the issues reflect on potential improvements to administrative processes

across the institution so that students are not discouraged at this early stage and lose their

confidence in the university and its procedures. Research has shown (chapter 2., section 2.3)

that, if students experience a succession of problems, whether administrative, technical,

academic or procedural, then they are more likely to consider withdrawal at a later stage.

5.4 The role of Orientation week

Prior to online enrolment, students visited university campuses on, for example, a scheduled

Careers Day while in High School or for academic advice and so became familiar with a

university environment and how it may differ from school. However, for many students, the

orientation sessions may be the first programmed experience of university life which can be

not only exciting, but also daunting. Procedures for admission, enrolment or orientation

processes may differ very much among schools (Chapter 2, section 2.3). These include campus

layout(s), timetabling, teaching and learning styles. For this reason the Orientation program,

scheduled for ‘week’ 0’, the week before classes commence, is designed to introduce, explain,

visit, tour and ‘settle in’. University Orientation programs form part of the First Year

Experience Program or Transition Program.

The literature shows that the academic orientation and integration of a student is equally, if

not more important, than the social orientation (Tinto 1975, 2002).

With this in mind, Orientation:

1) Welcomes students to the university and engenders a sense of belonging with students

making friends and forging relationships.


2) Develops a student’s sense of direction by:

• Introducing them to their course area and promoting a clear understanding of

where their courses and subjects are directed.

• Promoting a clear understanding of the aims and objectives, learning outcomes,

learning processes, assessment methods, and teaching and learning methods of

their courses.

3) Familiarises students with the university by:

• Introducing students to the physical environment.

• Explaining the academic culture and expectations.

• Promoting a clear sense of university policy and procedures.

• Promoting the wider academic and student support services of the university

(‘who to go to for what’), including Library, Student Support Services (Careers

& Employment, Counselling & Disabilities, and Learning Skills), Information

Technology, Student Administration, Web CT.

4) Facilitates students’ engagement in university life by:

• Acknowledging that the transition to university can be difficult and working to reduce

student anxiety.

• Promoting involvement in university life and engagement with peers.

• Supporting students to make ‘good’ choices.

The following sections summarise student responses to the development of the Orientation

program at UWS: an exercise where improvements were progressively implemented in

subsequent years. Comparisons are made with the orientation programs at other universities,

including RMIT, Deakin University and QUT.

5.4.1 Step 1 - The 2005 Orientation program

Regular surveys of students following orientation programs are conducted by UWS. For

example, in 2005, a telephone survey was carried out by UWS [see table 5.4] to assess student

satisfaction of the 2005 orientation program and feedback was received from 494 students out

of 1000 first year students from the School of Engineering and Industrial Design. These


students reported that they received too much written information, and that it was difficult to

gauge what of the information they received was important. This survey showed that many

students use a ‘just in time’ approach so that, if the information is not relevant at the time of

Orientation, it is thrown away.

5.4.2 Step 2 - Reviewing the 2005 Orientation Program

The 2005 (Enrolment) Survey asked key questions [referred to previously in chapter 4] to

which the responses are listed in Table 5.2, together with responses to the open question:

“How useful did you find...?”

Table 5.2 Student Feedback on Orientation activities

(a) Responses to questions 5 to 9

Question to Students [October 2005]

1 Very Poor

2 Poor

3 4 5 Satisfied

6 Very Satisfied

Total Responses

% scoring 5 and 6

5 Was the procedure for registering for tutorials and laboratory sessions made clear to you ?

12 13 11 18 14 11 79 32

6 Was the importance of attending tutorials and laboratory sessions made clear to you ?

4 5 9 12 27 22 79 62

7 Was the importance of regular participation in WebCT and e-mails made clear to you ?

5 4 11 14 25 20 79 57

8 Did you find the Peer Mentoring information useful to you ?

24 17 7 13 8 5 74 18

9 Did you find the Academic mentoring information useful to you ?

16 7 7 15 12 7 64 30


(b) Responses to the open question “How useful did you find...?”

Assessment of Usefulness

Session nil% little% lot% more% did not

attend%

Course based sessions 2.2 31.2 43.4 17.3 4.0

Library Tour 2.7 18.9 42.8 16.5 19.1

IT Tour 5.9 22.0 28.5 8.0 35.6

Secrets of Success 6.1 19.7 26.2 8.8 39.2

Orientation Bag 3.1 20.7 49.0 23.0 4.2

Orientation website 1.9 26.4 41.5 16.1 14.0

Campus info. Stall 1.2 27.3 47.3 20.2 3.9

Self Guided Tour 3.6 24.3 37.1 14.5 20.5

Using attendance records, the overall attendance for 1st year students in 2005 was 95%: an

increase on 2004.

The 2006 Orientation program

As a result of the discussion that took place around these and other issues, the School of

Engineering reviewed and revised subsequent programs. The procedure for registering for

tutorials was addressed and improved and the peer mentoring process was enhanced and

better explained to students. Within the 2006 Survey, students were asked to assess aspects of

the 2006 program, as summarised in the following section.

5.4.3 Reviewing the 2006 Orientation program

The 2006 student survey, introduced in chapter 3 as part of the research for this thesis, listed

questions submitted, in February 2006, to first year students in the School of Engineering. The

responses to questions 1 to 12 are listed in Table 5.3 [the responses to questions 13 to 24 are

listed in Table 4.1]. The 26 question survey was voluntary and circulated via WebCT in late

February 2006 to all UWS School of Engineering First year EIDP students. 233 responses

were received, out of a student population of 350 – a 66.6 % response.


Table 5.3 Student responses to the 2006 Survey on Orientation

Question to Students

Dissatisfied To Satisfied

Results Results Total Responses

% Satisfied + Very Satisfied

1 Overall level of satisfaction for the Orientation program

D S 10

98

24

3

4

31

0 20 40 60 80 100

1

2

3

4

5

6

(blank)

Count of Summary

Summary

37 5 4 28 117 13

204 64 %

2 Was the Presentation by Head of School useful to you ?

D S

Question 2 169 responses

14

81

33

5

2

34

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

1

2

3

4

5

6

(blank)

Count of Summary

Summary

39 5 6 39 98 16

203

56 %

3 Was the Careers and Employment presentation useful to you ?

D S


27

77

25

2

8

32

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

1

2

3

4

5

6

(blank)

Count of Summary

Summary

38 12 2 30 91 31

204

60 %

4 Was the Engineers Australia presentation useful to you ?

D S


21

63

36

9

10

32

Count of Summary

Summary

38 15 10 41 75 25

204

49 %

5 Was the presentation on Learning Skills useful to you ?

D S

Question 5 - 168 responses

15

88

19

3

8

35

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

1

2

3

4

5

6

(blank)

Count of Summary

Summary

42 9 3 22 106 19

201

62 %






6 Was the Library Services presentation useful to you ?

D S


19

78

26

4

6

36

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

1

2

3

4

5

6

(blank)

Count of Summary

Summary

42 8 5 30 93 23

201

58 %

7 Was the Group Tutorial useful to you ?

D S


34

68

18

11

38

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

1

2

3

4

5

(blank)

Count of Summary

Summary

47 13 23 83 36

197

59 %

8 Did you find it useful to meet your Academic Mentor ?

D S


43

18

4

39

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

1

2

3

4

5

(blank)

Count of Summary

Summary

47 6 21 82 47

203

64 %

9 Did you find it useful to meet your Peer Mentor in week 1 ?

D S


35

31

6

21

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

1

2

3

4

5

(blank)

Count of Summary

Summary

23 11 38 88 40

200

64 %

10 Was the site tour useful ?

D S


25

20

4

29

25

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

1

2

3

4

5

6

(blank)

Count of Summary

Summary

30 38 4 22 77 31

202

53 %

11 Are you satisfied with the instructions for activating your MyUWS account ?

D S


55

9

10

3

8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

1

2

3

4

5

(blank)

Count of Summary

Summary

8 4 13 113 64

202

87 %






12 Did the Orientation program prepare you for week 1 ?

D S


14

89

35

6

27

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

1

2

3

4

5

(blank)

Count of Summary

Summary

31 8 41 110 14

204

61%

5.4.4 Future Orientation programs

The 2007 orientation program incorporated comments from the 2006 survey, the UWS

working group and the fact that online enrolment resulted in the orientation week being the first

visit to the campus for most first year students. A generic schedule was evolved for the one-

day UWS School of Engineering 2006 Orientation program and is described in Appendix 4.

This included:

Introductions to the key staff;

Course - based sessions;

The Secrets of Success workshops;

A Library tour;

IT tour;

Self-paced Campus tour;

Welcome lunch/BBQ; with

a UWS information stall/kiosk, a web site and an orientation package given

out according to whether the student is undergraduate, postgraduate,

international or graduate.

How does the Orientation program influence student retention ? The literature review

(Chapter 2) identified academic advice, student motivation, collaborative learning and

mentoring relationships as being linked to student retention. Consequently, the university and

the School of Engineering ensure that the orientation program incorporates all such elements

and that student feedback from prior events is also taken into consideration. For this vital and

sensitive phase in the transition process, the School aims that, for as many students as

possible, the program contains a blend of such elements, all of which, to a degree, provide


students with a positive and motivating experience. However, precise data on, for example,

the percentage increase in retention due to one or more such elements is not possible due to

the many other influences such as described in chapter 4 and later in chapter 6.

5.5 An Institutional approach to Transition and the Orientation

Program

Following the identification of the components of a successful orientation program, such as at

UWS, many universities have adopted an institutional approach to transition and orientation

and extended the process from a few weeks prior to ‘Week 0’ to the end of the first semester,

recognising that students adjust to their university studies over an extended period. Typical

programs are :

1. The QUT program of Figure 5.1

2. The RMIT Draft Student Transition Plan of Figure 5.2

3. The Deakin University Timeline of Figure 5.3 and

4. The UWS First Year Transition/Retention Plan 2008/9 of Figure 5.4

(Programs 1, 2 and 3 - Kift,2008). Program 4 was presented to the UWS Transition/FYHE Group in 2008).

Each program recognises that induction/orientation commences a week or two prior to their

first classes; it continues throughout the first semester and continues through examinations

and into the second semester. Each program incorporates the learning and teaching session,

‘academic engagement’ and study skills, ‘at risk’ provision’ and the use of student ‘hosts’,

‘mentors’ or ‘buddies’ to serve as ice breakers with special provision for international students.

One key objective of such programs is to ease transition of every student into the university

and thereby to minimise student dissatisfaction, disquiet or frustration: thereby minimising

student attrition. Such programs are recognised (Kift, 2008) as an institutional ‘culture shift’

and so each program relies on cooperation between all interested parties, from the academic

and administrative School/Faculty staff to Student Support Services, IT departments, catering

and all other university services.


Figure 5.1 The QUT Transition Plan for 2008


Figure 5.2 The RMIT Student Transition Plan


Figure 5.3 Deakin University’s Timeline


What you expect, what we expect Course Expectations: balancing study, work and social life QUEST Who/ Where to go for Help ? Campus Familiarity First Year Intro to Key Staff Central website Access to vUWS for Ice Breakers “Market Days” NEW STUDENTS: BBQs Fit, Financial, Feeling Good ? • Key Dates • Tutorial Student engagement monitored Registration “Talk before you Walk” • Online access Census Date Ü • Acquire Books • Receive Week 0 “First Assessment” monitored - Program At Risk students identified + Revision Drop-ins/workshop Transition/Bridging Exams Skills Pre-Programs Academic Skills Workshops Top 10 Tips Guides/Mentors/ ‘ Ask Us’ teams circulate Buddies available

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 (week number) Academic Staff Tutors refer to Learning Guide at each lecture Briefed Tutors continue “Welcome Mentoring” www.uws.edu.au/fyc “Just in Time” e-mails sent

WELCOME SETTLING IN TAKING OFF FABULOUS FINISH

Figure 5.4 UWS Transition Plan 2008/9

Orie

ntat

ion

Week


5.6 IT access

Students of UWS have access to a wide range of IT facilities. Over 1000 computer terminals are

available across the six campuses with student access to general-purpose computer laboratories 7

days a week, from early morning to the evening during weekdays. Many students are required to

upload their assignments through WebCT [a sub set of e-learning] and so regularly require such

access. Quizzes are displayed as assignments on WebCT, as are student e-mail addresses for

communicating to or from students. It is therefore necessary for every student to register online

with MyUWS and hence to their appropriate WebCT pages. Students also have access to WebCT

from their home computers, enabling continuous communications with the university and their

academic and administrative staff and student colleagues.

MyUWS contains many 1000s of pages of information for students, including First Year central

during the first few weeks and help pages such as the button “Got Questions ?” [See Appendix 9

for the First Year Central links].

In the 2005 UWS Telephone survey referred to in section 5.4.1, some questions were asked about

the MyUWS help service via a button called “Got Questions ?”. Students were also asked to

comment on IT resources, WebCT and library access and quality. The results are summarised in

Table 5.4.


Table 5.4 Summary of responses to Telephone Surveys of 2005 and 2006?

Year, where applicable 2005 2006

Did you use this ‘Help’

button ?

18.6%

Said ‘

Said ‘Yes’

13.7%

Said ‘Yes’

If Yes, how useful was

this ‘Help’ button ?

93.2%

Said Good

88.6%

Said Good

Where IT resources are

mostly used

73.8%

Said Home

3%

Said Work

23.2%

Said University

Rating of access to IT

resources

95.9%

Said

‘Good’

92.9%

Said ‘Good’

Using WebCT to access

unit content or

communicate online

91.6%

Said ‘Yes’

98.4%

Said ‘Yes’

Rating of experience in

using WebCT

90.1%

Said ‘Yes’

96.4%

Said ‘Yes’

Library access and

quality

90.4%

Said ‘Yes’

96.4%

Said ‘Yes’

A growing reliance on WebCT accounts for an improvement in level of satisfaction from 2005 to

2006, in general, in addition to improved e-mail communications and software packages for most

courses, with students primarily accessing computers at home. The ‘user-friendliness’ of the Help

Button has caused concern among students who criticise difficulties with quickly searching for

their chosen data or item on the university web site: the Help button not being found on the main

page.


5.7 Administrative issues such as fees and MyUWS Account registration

Students pay fees to UWS early in the process of enrolment. This triggers the administrative staff

to open access for the students to MyUWS and the university library and consequently WebCT

where early course information is posted onto the relevant course sites. Errors or problems with

the paying of the correct fees can create frustration with students who are unable to follow the

steps suggested by academic staff with the preparation for their first week of studies with, for

example, information of text book, readings, initial quizzes and general background information.

In the 2005 UWS Telephone Survey several questions were asked of students in their first

semester about administrative issues and the results incorporated into the UWS working party

addressing student retention. As a result, improvements and greater awareness have been evident

and student comments in 2007 have been minimal within the School of Engineering.

5.8 Seeking help and support - Staff communications and accessibility

In relation to staff, the following issues are suggested by Tinto [2002]:

o A stronger emphasis in staff performance review and development, staff training,

new staff recruitment and induction on:

- professionalism

- cultural sensitivity

- becoming more ‘client centred’

- providing comprehensive and accurate advice to students

o Improved protocols, and monitoring of adherence to these protocols to avoid

slippage, to ensure that

- teaching staff provide reasonable and clearly communicated accessibility to

students

- The Peer Mentor scheme


Student feedback obtained in the 2005 (Enrolment) survey associated with this thesis included

reference to much needed improvements to information relating to peer mentoring and academic

mentoring – see Table 5.2; further discussed in chapter 6. Table 5.2 shows that only 18% of

students were satisfied or very satisfied with information on peer mentoring and only 30% with

information on academic mentoring. In terms of peer mentoring, improvements in peer

mentoring training and implementation were introduced in 2007 but, because of a considerable

increase in first year student numbers, insufficient [volunteer] peer mentors were introduced so

this issue is to be addressed for the 2008 cohort. In terms of academic mentoring, the scheme

was shelved for 2007, being partly replaced by a First year Coordinator, but was addressed for the

2008 semester.

The visibility and responsibility of Student Support greatly influences the ease with which students

approach and receive responses to any problems and issues that they may have. For example, if

one member of staff identifies that a student requires assistance,

• Is this conveyed to colleagues within the School or within UWS ?

• Is this recorded within the School ?

• How is the student channelled to the source of assistance ?

• Which measures have been introduced into the School in 2005 to improve the retention

of 1st year students ?

• How affective are these measures ?

• Is the drop in retention rate linked to the Retention Project Action Plan 2005: December

2004

• What improvements could be considered by the School for subsequent years ?

Questions on IT access, The Campus, WebCT, The Library, UWS Study Assistance and Learning

Skills support are contained within the research questions listed above. A major project will be

carried out for the first semester 2009 in the School of Engineering at UWS which addresses the

above questions and ‘students at risk’ with the aim of improving student retention in its first year.


Evaluation of every measure and aspect of the transition and orientation process will be

continuous.

5.9 Discussion

The initiatives, introduced in this chapter and identified in the literature review of Chapter 2, were

aimed at improving the student experience, and consequently student retention, through the entry

and orientation phases. These initiatives sit alongside many other measures that universities

introduce for the new students and so it is difficult to state that any one initiative alone improved

student retention. However they alter the ‘mentoring culture’ of the university and the School,

particularly if an institution-wide approach is adopted. Alongside these measures, each student

carries a background and individual approach to study, as well as academic ability and so the

university attempts to maximise the effectiveness of its entry and orientation processes for each

student; addressing individual student needs where resources allow.

Student responses to the elements of the orientation program described in this chapter indicate

reasonable acceptance and satisfaction. Students in the 2006 survey were satisfied with the 2006

orientation program in general, the e-learning facilities and the mentoring.

This follows an on-going review and improvement process with, for example, orientation and, as

at UWS and other universities, an institutional approach to the whole process from week -4 to

week 5 and beyond as illustrated in Figure 5.4. These exercises have involved all staff within the

School and key departments of the university: all have raised awareness of student expectations in

order to maximise student satisfaction.

Unfortunately, the data available for this project were insufficient to undertake a rigorous

analytical study of the effectiveness of the different retention strategies although ongoing

developments of the 2004 strategy was very useful; measuring its effectiveness though the 3 years

of this research. Thus, while a significant effort has been devoted to improving student

satisfaction during the first contact with the university, there is no substantive evidence that it

alone or in unison with other actions resulted in a significant improvement in retention.


6 Teaching and Learning – Student Retention Issues

6.1 Introduction

“The more students learn, the more value they find in their learning, the more likely they are to stay and

graduate. This is particularly true for more able and motivated students who seek out learning and are, in

turn, more likely to respond to perceived shortcomings in the quality of learning they experience on campus.

Lest we forget the purpose of higher education is not merely that students are retained, but that they are

educated.

In the final analysis, student learning drives student retention.”

( Vincent Tinto)

This chapter addresses the issues of teaching and learning as they affect retention and, in

particular, the effects of style, quality and support in teaching and learning on first year

engineering students as they embark on their four year degree course.

The literature review (Chapter 2) identified a number of teaching and learning issues, such as

• Quality of teaching and learning

• Attitude of staff

• Learning style

• Advisory services

• An institutional approach

which, accumulatively, influence student retention. As stated in Chapter 5 and by Martinez (2001)

there are no “magic bullets” in improving retention. The review suggested that, if the teaching and

learning curriculum, styles, support, timetables and related factors, are understood by new

students and if tutors are aware of the student backgrounds and abilities, then an appropriate

learning and teaching culture is in place and students will be less likely to be discouraged.

Many support services such as student support, mentoring and academic advice are used to

address the retention issues associated with teaching and learning. Issues of student workload and


motivation can influence the ability of any student to cope with their course of study and research

has indicated (see chapter 2, section 2.3) that time pressures or work pressures or family pressures

can place significant burdens on any one student. In the following these factors and those of

teaching and learning in general are discussed and examined in the context of Engineering courses

at UWS using data from surveys and analyses undertaken at the University of Western Sydney

and other universities (where appropriate).

6.2 Teaching and Learning activities

Two groups of first year undergraduate students were tutored by the author, as part of the

approved methodology of this research study as a means of collecting further data on student

retention, satisfaction and performance. Ethics approval was obtained for the surveys and

contacts with students and all students were informed, prior to the exercise, that the process was

in place. However, this was not referred to again so as to minimise the ‘halo’ effect where the

knowledge of the project may have biased the results in the tutor groups. At the conclusion of

the exercise, students then received feedback. Tutoring and meeting these tutorial groups proved

invaluable to the research. The contacts allowed better assessment of the potential reasons why

students choose to drop out via

• Discontinuation

• Dropping the subject and transferring elsewhere within UWS at the first opportunity

• Transferring to another university or

• Repeating the Unit [n.b. students failing or withdrawing from any unit are recorded as

dropping out, even if they return to repeat the same unit in a subsequent semester].

The feedback relating to the enrolment process was outlined in chapter 4 and the orientation

process in Chapter 5, where questions relating to classroom experience and support were raised

(see Appendix 3 for the questionnaires). Many issues create student dissatisfaction which, if

occurring frequently or if unresolved, cause general disquiet and dissatisfaction, with

consequential lack of motivation and eventual dropping out. Evidence to support this statement is

varied and, as stated above, is contained within many aspects of the pathway followed by each


student, whether via their background and ability or via the process that they are following.

‘Tolerance levels’ are exceeded and commitment is reduced. Students may consider transfer to

another course, either during the semester or between semesters; or elsewhere to another

University. Throughout the first semester students are encouraged by Student Support Services,

and the First Year Coordinator, to ‘Talk before they Walk’ [see Figure 1.1] so that such issues are

discussed and, maybe, eliminated or reduced in complexity. One aspect of University-based

student support is the identification of students with problems/issues either directly or by

encouraging them to seek assistance. The importance of a mentoring culture was identified in the

literature review (Chapter 2.3).

6.3 Curriculum Design for the First year

Students should be clear on their expectations and fully understand the criteria against which they

are assessed. Lack of clarity with assessment details has been identified in UWS research and

linked with student attrition. As a consequence, the university revised its assessment policy in

2008 requiring all unit outlines to be rewritten in the form of criteria and standard based

learning, with an accompanying learning guide circulated to all students where all assessment

tasks were listed and linked to the learning outcomes, with criteria and standards explained.

6.4 Class Timetables, including laboratory sessions, tutorials etc.

The timetabling of lectures, tutorials, laboratory sessions and other activities for each Unit can

pose problems for many students. In the 2006 survey a question was asked of students

“5. Was the procedure for registering for tutorials and laboratory sessions made clear to you ?”

and the satisfactory score was 32%.

This is an ongoing problem partly due to the integration of timetable sessions of one, two, three

or more units in any week and partly due to the integration of a timetable with their personal life,

including part-time or full-time employment. For this reason, some students prioritise classes and


may not attend if difficulties or clashes arise. For example, attendance at formal lectures can be

poor: some students choosing to utilise the lecture notes on WebCT rather than attend. The

procedure for each student to establish their full semester timetable comprises registration in each

class, and this poses problems for some students whose options are limited for a number of

reasons. Problems arise if students are late in registering, if they are international students and

their registration is delayed, or if the units of their course are complex and the options are difficult

to integrate.

The week-by-week schedules contain the times allocated to lectures, laboratory, tutorial and other

sessions, with rooms, times and other details. First year Units cater for large numbers of students

and lectures are normally held in a large lecture theatre whereas, for tutorials and

laboratory/practical sessions, classes are divided according to the furniture and/or equipment

available in individual rooms and many groups are timetabled throughout the week.

6.5 Monitoring Learning activities

Considerable research has been carried out which links ‘quality of teaching and learning’ with

student retention, particularly in the first few weeks of the first year [Zimitat, 2006]. Several

references have been made in this chapter to students’ perceptions of the teaching and learning

process and their levels of satisfaction or disquiet with the curriculum, syllabus content, teaching

styles, assessments and so on.

Students at UWS have the opportunity to assess aspects of their teaching program, such as ‘good

teaching’, assessment and so on in the feedback forms SFU [Student Feedback on Unit] and SFT

[Student Feedback on Teacher], as described in Table 3.1, and offer a discrete opportunity to

inform the university, and subsequently the School, of their opinions.

The literature review (Chapter 2) showed that student satisfaction was a key factor in discouraging

students from engaging and succeeding. This is measured at UWS and at other universities via

SFU and SFT surveys, or similar, and Course Experience Questionnaires, carried out annually.

These are two part surveys which includes responses from UWS and compares them with national


responses from Australian universities. Typical reports from the 2003 - 2005 CEQ survey are

displayed in Figure 6.1 and Tables 6.1 and 6.2. The first is a measure of core activities which

students have identified as significant in many surveys and questionnaires, as outlined later in this

chapter. Figure 6.1 and Table 6.1 list the reasons for discontinuation; these frequently being

identified as the most significant in CEQ surveys. The responses for three consecutive years can

be seen to improve over the years 2003 to 2005.

Figure 6.1 UWS CEQ [Course Experience Questionnaire], 2003 to 2005

Table 6.1 UWS CEQ data

Table 6.2 lists a number of statements supplied to students in 2003, 2004 and 2005 formulated to

assess levels of satisfaction. Such levels of satisfaction, particularly if accumulative, influence a


student’s decision to remain in the course, to remain in the university or to remain motivated to

succeed. Although some data in these tables is college-based, it illustrates trends in overall levels

of satisfaction for, in particular, the College of Science, Technology and Environment [CSTE]

within which are the two Schools where detailed research and surveys were carried out – namely

the School of Engineering and Industrial Design [now Engineering] and the School of

Environment and Agriculture.

A selection of the detailed questionnaire responses is displayed in Table 6.2, together with the

questions asked, for the same three years at UWS. This questionnaire is one of those introduced

in Table 3.1 carried on annually by the UWS Office of Planning and Quality. Overall, the results

are disappointing and, for students who are experiencing such difficulties as only 45% saying “my

lecturers were good at explaining things” and similar responses below 50%, greater emphasis on

the quality of teaching staff is obvious. Table 6.3 illustrates the variations between UWS colleges

where, for engineering courses contained within the College of Science, Technology and

Environment, CSTE; [now, after reorganisation, the College of Health and Science], the

satisfaction percentage of 41.8% for ‘good teaching’ is below that for the Colleges of Education

and of Health where entry UAIs are considerably higher. If these figures, for CSTE, are compared

with the average UWS figures as seen in Table 6.4, student satisfaction is higher but, due to other

lower percentages, the overall satisfaction level is lower at 58.2%


Table 6.2 UWS CEQ [Course Experience Questionnaire] responses


Table 6.3 A breakdown of the CEQ data by UWS College

Source: UWS Office of Planning and Quality, 2005


A second analysis of these results, in Table 6.5, measures the responses UWS College by College

where, for the School of Engineering, CSTE is the significant measure – the College of Science,

Technology and Environment - for which the variations from the UWS average responses are as

presented.

Table 6.4 Comparison of CSTE and UWS CEQ Responses

Year 2003 2004 2005

Issue:

Good teaching CSTE 39.6% 44.7% 48.3%

UWS 40.5% 41.7% 44.1%

Appropriate CSTE 39.2% 39.6% 46.5%

Assessment UWS 43.1% 42.6% 50.0%

Generic Skills CSTE 57.3% 56.2% 62.6%

UWS 54.3% 54.5% 61.6%

Clear Goals and CSTE 40.9% 40.4% 42.4%

Standards UWS 41.2% 42.2% 45.2%

Student Support CSTE 48.8% 50.5% 53.1%

UWS 42.9% 44.3% 49.3%

Overall Satisfaction CSTE 56.9% 53.6% 58.2%

UWS 55.4% 55.4% 62.0%

[CSTE = College of Science, Technology and Environment]

When the ‘Importance Mean’ is measured, for the results of the CEQ, the top 10 choices are

listed below. The literature review identified a similar range of issues which influenced student

retention and, despite the students assigning a 58.2% score for the College’s ‘overall satisfaction’

in 2005, the “clear goals and expectations are explained” in Table 6.4 scored only 42.4 %. Bean

(1985) identified quality teaching as closely linked to retention: the same students scoring only

48.3% in the CEQ (Table 6.4).


The top ten choices were:

1 WebCT for online learning

2 Is conducted by staff who are good teachers

3 Computers

4 Library

5 Quality of software

6 Up-to-date knowledge and skills needed by employers

7 Quality of computing equipment

8 Electronic access to Library Resources

9 Has useful and relevant learning materials and equipment

10 Provides clear assessment requirements.

The lowest 10 results were:

76 Social activities

77 English language intensive courses for overseas students

78 Sport activities and programs

79 Sports facilities

80 Swimming pools

81 Aboriginal education centre

82 Child care

83 Bars

84 Religious facilities

85 Aboriginal tutorial assistance scheme.


Figure 6.2 Student Perceptions of Quality for Spring 2004

[The horizontal scale represents student scores ranging from 1 [less that satisfactory] to 9 [exceeds

expectations].

Figure 6.2 illustrates student feedback from a 2004 survey where, in the courses delivered by the

School of Engineering and Industrial Design, students rated the categories listed and comparable

scores were obtained. These results, with an overall rating of 64% (equating to ‘above average’),

compare favourably with the UWS CEQ rating in 2003 of 55.4% (Tables 6.2 and 6.3), rising to

62% in 2005.

6.6 A UWS Survey on Learning Activities

A DEST report “First Year Experience”, 2005, describes feedback from students who see good

teaching and learning as significant, as set out in Tables 6.1 and 6.2 . According to these results,

the satisfaction at UWS is seen to exceed that for Higher Education as a whole, from the DEST

report. This, again, endorses the outcomes of the literature review where [section 2.3.17]

researchers identified considerable correlation between learning and teaching and student

retention. Additionally, the CEQ results above illustrate that the quality of teaching and learning

is very significant in student’s perception of the University and improvements are essential if

student retention is to be improved.


Table 6.5 Perceptions of teaching, 1994-2004, 5-point scale collapsed to 3 points, (% of

students) (1994, N=4028; 1999, N=2609, N=2334). DEST 2004

Disagree Agree

The quality of teaching in my course is generally good 1994

1999

2004

9

9

5

25

24

17

66

67

78**2 3

Staff are enthusiastic about the subjects they teach 1994

1999

2004

13

12

5

34

32

23

53

56*1

72**2 3

Most of the academic staff are approachable 1994

1999

2004

12

12

8

26

26

20

62

62

72**2 3

The teaching staff are good at explaining things 1994

1999

2004

16

17

9

38

35

28

47

48

63**2 3

Staff try hard to make the subjects interesting 1994

1999

2004

17

17

11

34

34

28

50

50

61**2 3

Staff are usually available to discuss my work 1994

1999

2004

21

25

15

34

37

36

45

38**1

49**2 *3

Staff make a real effort to understand difficulties students

may be having with their work

1994

1999

2004

28

28

17

36

35

36

36

37

47**2 3


Teaching staff here usually give helpful feedback

on my progress

1994

1999

2004

40

40

31

32

34

36

28

25*1

33**2 3

Most academic staff in my subjects take an interest

in my progress

1994

1999

2004

44

47

34

32

32

36

24

21*1

30**2 3

* Significant at .01 ** significant at .05

1 Denotes significant change 1994 to 1999. 2 Denotes significant change 1999 to 2004.

3 Denotes significant change 1994 to 2004.

Table 6.6 Satisfaction with course of study, 1994-2004 (% of students)

(1994, N=4028; 1999, N=2609; 2004, N=2334) (DEST 2004)

Disagree Agree

I am finding my course intellectually stimulating 1994

1999

2004

12

10

6

25

26

19

63

63

75**2 3

Overall, I am really enjoying my course 1994

1999

2004

15

13

9

24

23

20

61

64*1

71**2 3

Overall, I am very satisfied with my university

experience so far

1994

1999

2004

15

14

10

23

24

20

61

63

70**2 3


1 Denotes significant change 1994 to 1999. 2 Denotes significant change 1999 to 2004.

3 Denotes significant change 1994 to 2004.


The DEST data shows that, in 2004, most students at Australian Universities were satisfied with

their university experience, as set out in Table 6.6 the degree of satisfaction improving over the

ten year period of the survey. A link exists between ‘levels of student satisfaction’ and retention

rate, as identified by Bean (1985), Abbott-Chapman et al, (1992) and Siegfried and Walstad (1990).

The 2005 and 2006 student surveys that were part of this thesis also identified the varied levels of

student satisfaction with comparable results to the DEST levels of satisfaction in Table 6.6. The

satisfaction percentages are similar to those obtained for student retention, as listed in chapter 1.

Accumulated levels of student disquiet over a period influence a student’s opinion of the course,

the School and the university. If the CEQ data for the university and the respective UWS College

[CSTE] [taken from Table 6.4] are compared with the School’s percentage retention [from Table

1.2], an upward trend can be illustrated as seen in Figure 6.3. Exact correlation is influenced by

many external factors such as changes to university structure, course formats and the student

background and personal pressures such as work.

40.541.7

44.1

39.6

44.7

48.3

66

70.6 69.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2003 2004 2005

UWS [CEQ]*

UWS College, CSTE [CEQ]*

UWS School of Engineering Retention

Figure 6.3 Comparison between CEQ measurements of student satisfaction and School of

Engineering Retention for 2003, 2004 and 2005. [* from Table 6.4]


6.7 Student motivation and workload

According to Tinto (1975, 2003), the decision whether a student persists or drops out is quite

strongly predicted by their degree of academic integration, and social integration. These evolve

over time, as integration and commitment interact, with dropouts depending on commitment at

the time of the decision. Both academic and social integration could possibly be measured by

posing the following two questions (Tinto, 2002):

(a) “How can each student assess the academic integration of their studies, using:

o Grade / mark performance

o Personal development -- or does this just indicates a student's private judgement

on the value of what they are learning (as opposed to official marks / teachers'

judgements).

o "Do you think you are doing well academically?" (Academic self-esteem)

o Enjoying your subject(s).

o Enjoying studying your subject(s): i.e. the study patterns required/requested are or

are not enjoyable.

o Identification with academic norms and values

o Identification with one's role as a student ?

(b) How can the students assess the social integration by asking:

o How many friends do you have ? It probably doesn't matter whether you fit with

the dominant social crowd, only whether or not you have a group of friends you

fit with.

o Personal contact with academics. In fact, it may be that it is important to measure

really small amounts of contact: how many staff know your name, smile at you…

("How many staff have you had a personal interaction with, however small?"

"How many personal interactions with staff have you had this year?").

o "Are you enjoying being at university?"


Student social integration is influenced by a number of factors; such as available time, available

facilities and available finance. Although university study has traditionally included social life,

many students are now employed and experience the conflict between this and study time.

As a consequence, within the 2006 survey questionnaire on orientation, the results of which are

presented in Table 4.1, it is evident that many students work while studying at university. 50%

work more than 5 hours per week, many during the night, and only 10% work in the field of

engineering. In order to balance their work and their studies, many students attempt to fit their

study timetable into two or three days. This can present the School with logistical problems and it

also places extreme pressures on students.

A DEST Survey of “First Year Experience”, 2005, surveyed first year students and collected data

on sources of income, the results are set out in Table 6.7.

Table 6.7 Percentage of full-time and part-time enrolled students saying that source

of income was their main or only source, 2004 (N=2344)

Main or only source of income

Enrolled full-time (%)

Enrolled part-time (%)

Youth Allowance/Austudy/Abstudy

26** 15

Part-time/casual work

32 32

Full-time work

3 23**

Parents/family

43** 22

Savings

10 6

Scholarship/Cadetship

3 12**

Spouse/partner

3 12**


And, for those in employment the results are shown in Table 6.8.


Table 6.8 DEST Student Income - Paid work as a source of income, 1994-2004 (% of all

students)

Only source Main source Minor source Not a source

Full-time work 1994

1999

2004

3

2

2

2

2

3

0

1

2

94

95

94

Part-time/

Casual work

1994

1999

2004

4

9

7

22

27

25

22

23

28

52

40

40

From Tables 6.7 and 6.8, it is evident that, for most students in a national context, financial

support is obtained from the parents or family or from part-time or causal work. UWS appears to

have a much higher proportion of working part or full-time students.

An interesting AUSSE finding (AUSSE, 2007) regarding paid work showed that students who

work between 1 and 30 hours “tend to report higher levels of engagement than students who do

not work and those who work for more than 30 hours a week”.

6.8 Meeting the deadlines

For students to succeed in their first year, it is necessary for them to attend lectures, tutorials and

other timetabled sessions, to engage in all aspects of their course, to complete all assignments by

the stated dates and to deliver work to acceptable standards. For example, within one particular

UWS first year unit, EIDP, there are weekly deadlines for various assignments, annotations,

presentations and tests; all of which are controlled by the WebCT system. Lateness is penalised

and students learn the discipline of keeping to deadlines. Such discipline is closely linked to

motivation as introduced in section 4.5. Reasons for lateness are, however, considered and, where

there are personal issues surrounding a student [sickness, financial pressure, family commitments

for example], special allowances are made via the Unit Coordinator and First Year Coordinator.

To miss one assignment can be “the last straw” for a student experiencing a range of frustrations

and difficulties, not necessarily the fault of the student. In order to address issues such as time


management, the School of Engineering has now introduced the Learning Guides to all students

and the schedule of attendance, assessments and deadlines is fully explained. An increased

awareness of student support is also regularly explained; by both academic staff and university

support staff.

For a number of reasons, such as conflicts with employment, difficulty in coping with studies,

personal circumstances such as finance or accommodation or travel, a student can be placed

under time pressures to both attend all lectures and classes and to submit all assignments on time.

If such conflicts and pressures accumulate, some students might consider dropping out, either on

a temporary basis or permanently. For this reason the message “Talk before you Walk” is

displayed and, if at all possible, reflected in classes and university activities, so that assistance can

be offered; see Figure 1.1. This demonstrates one of many strategies to reach those students

considering dropping out or those who may lack the confidence to come forward to seek help. If

such students are not assisted, there is a strong chance that they will become an attrition statistic.

6.9 Advice and Welcome from Senior School/College staff

In 2007, around 25 institutions took part in the Australasian Survey of Student

Engagement (AUSSE). 15 universities took part in the Staff Student Engagement Survey – a

cross-institutional survey of staff which, for the first time in Australasia, was about students. The

report concluded that, to enhance the management of educational programs and resources, more

should be done to develop this aspects of university education. AUSSE (2007, pp 17-18)

identified a deficit regarding the necessary student support to cope with non-academic challenges

& to help socialise

– 56.6% of students reported that institutions provide academic support “quite a bit” or “very

much”

BUT

– Only 15.7% say this for non-academic support (49.7% never supported; 34.6% sometimes

supported);

– 21% say support provided to socialise (37.6% never supported; 41.4% sometimes supported).


Figure 6.4 AUSSE results for academic advising for specific experiences, for levels of

student engagement. (AUSSE, 2007)

Figure 6.5 Scores measuring the quality of academic advising (AUSSE, 2007)

These results can be compared with measures, by students, of their educational experience in

Figure 6.6 which strongly resemble the student perceptions seen in Figure 6.5. Students are seen

to score high for a supportive learning environment but poorly for staff/student interactions and

the ‘enriched’ educational experience. Students who have poor educational experiences and/or


poor interactions with staff and who do not seek assistance or support can become discouraged

and consider dropping out, alongside the other factors described in this chapter. Comments were

received from the student surveys conducted in 2005 and 2006 in the School of Engineering

where such dissatisfaction was identified – see tables 4.3, 5.1 and 5.2.

Figure 6.6 Student measures of the overall quality of the ‘educational experience’ (source)

Finally, the links between engagement and intentions and intentions to change courses or

institutions are modest although generally negative, as are shown in Figure 6.7. The strongest

negative relationships are between perceptions of support and Work Integrated Learning and

student’s intentions to change either course or institution

Such surveys illustrate that positive and constructive assistance from staff is important when

addressing any student difficulty but student’s comments in the 2005 and 2006 surveys illustrate

some difficulties in respect of the care, empathy and compassion shown by some academic staff

and the consideration given to students with academic or personal difficulties. Students

experiencing problems with, for example, mathematics, literacy or science can be referred to the

Learning Skills Unit, or to the First Year Coordinator for general support.


Figure 6.7 Measures of the correlations between the overall scores and the AUSSE

scales.(AUSSE, 2007)

The appointment of a first year coordinator has been a positive step in many university schools

and faculties: a person who monitors such student care, reminding all staff of the support that is

available, whether academic [via learning skills support] or personal [via counselling services] or

social If student concerns and frustrations can be addressed to the student’s satisfaction, this

removes one or more reasons for possibly dropping out, as identified in the research of Chapter

2.3. In the School of Engineering the first year teaching team, the peer mentoring process, the

effective orientation program and the raising of awareness of these issues were introduced in 2004

and subsequently to improve student retention, albeit by a small amount as illustrated in Figure

6.3.

6.10 The Peer Mentor scheme

Peer mentoring has been an integral part of first year undergraduate programs for several years.

In 2003 an evaluation program commenced at UWS to improve the effectiveness of UWS

programs. In the School of Engineering [formerly School of Engineering and Industrial Design]

peer mentors visit groups of students in the first (autumn) semester for a specified number of


times, one hour per visit, and peer mentors cover a range of issues which help to build the

confidence and ability of the undergraduate first year students.

Peer mentors for Engineering, Industrial Design and, now, Construction, degree courses are

recruited from the School of Engineering 2nd and subsequent year students and they are trained

prior to the commencement of the first semester. They are required to keep attendance records of

the groups that they mentor and provide reports on each session.

The results from several years are as follows:

Engineering and Industrial Design

• 1999 Failure rate dropped from 72.4% in 1997 to 52.4% in 1998, and the pass rate in 1999

was 71%.

• 2000 Pass rate steady at 71% with mentor program in Civil and Environmental

Engineering Practice. 65 attended.

• 2001 voluntary program. 3 attended.

• 2002 no program due to lack of school staff support.

• 2003 Introduction to Professional Practice showed a higher GPA for those who were

mentored (269 students) when compared with those who were not (200 students). The

mean GPA for the group who were mentored (2.95) was significantly higher ( a 75%

increase) than that of the group who were not mentored (1.71) for a comparison

excluding all students who withdrew without penalty. This increase compares with the

corresponding increase in retention from 2003 onwards, as part of a range of measures

which, as a package, aimed to increase student satisfaction and, as with peer mentoring,

offered a route to mentoring support to those students for whom it seemed appropriate.

From the quantitative and qualitative evaluations of the program over a number of years, it

appears that both first year students and mentors who participate gain considerably in terms of

skills and confidence. The greatest difficulty is encouragement of first year students to attend

sessions, and this is dependent on the support of the academics and schools involved.

Benchmarking with the University of Wollongong, which conducts an SI based program (PASS),


indicates that it may be advisable to focus on fewer disciplines, particularly those with strong

support from academic staff and schools and which have difficult subjects with a high failure rate.

In 2006, 22 peer mentors were trained by the UWS School of Engineering to serve the 360 or so

first year students, some operating in pairs to serve the 19 streams of students:

Week 1, (both hours of the tutorial)

Week 2, (2nd hour of the tutorial)




In 2007, with 23 groups of students, the required numbers of peer mentors proved difficult to

recruit so that a small number of student groups failed to meet their peer mentor. However,

some peer mentors volunteered to visit 2 or 3 groups and so a all student groups received peer

mentoring. It was decided, by the School Academic Committee to continue with a peer mentor

scheme in the first year semester due to ongoing successes, despite recruitment difficulties. First

year undergraduates meeting their more advanced peers can be a very successful and stimulating

experience, contributing to improved student retention, and supplementing support to students

who lack confidence or particular skills, for example, written communications.

6.11 Student Support Services, counselling

Many references have been made to student support from the university where counselling,

guidance, learning skills, chaplaincy and other support is freely available to every student. For

students living away from home, this can be the only form of personal guidance available; apart

from peer group support. The university outlines this support at orientation and, where possible,

reminds students throughout their first year.

Student support is available in many forms: from academic staff; from administrative staff, from

professional counsellors, from learning skills support staff and so on. In the same UWS Retention


Telephone Survey as referred to in table 5.4, questions were put to first year students in 2005

about student support in order to assess the effectiveness of such services:

“Did you receive assistance, inside or outside of your course, that has helped with university study

skills, university writing or maths ?”

For the College, 27.7% replied Yes: 72.3% replied No. This response reflects the level of

awareness or student confidence in these services.

Students were also asked “What was the kind of assistance received ?”: the responses were:

• Preparation and bridging programs 32.3%

• Workshops 27.8%

• Web based resources 16.7%

• Peer Mentoring 8.6%

• Teaching provided within timetabled subjects 8.1%

• Booklets in writing and academic skills 6.6%

“What was the rating of assistance received ?”

For the College, 76.9% replied ok, good or excellent: 16.9% replied Not Used. These are

encouraging responses which are reflected in the surveys and CEQ data described elsewhere in

this thesis.

“Have you used other UWS Student Services ?”

For 2005 for the College 29.5% replied Yes

For 2006 the reply was 11.9% and for Penrith was 14.8%.

“What was the UWS Student Services most used 2006 and 2005 ?”


• Careers and Employment 31.8% (20.3% in 2005)

• Learning and Study Skills 26%

• Other 16.2%

• Personal Counselling 12.1% (24.1% in 2005)

• Disability Support 9.8% (27.8% in 2005)

• Chaplaincy 4% (2.5% in 2005)

The careers and employment service, the highest in the above list and for university financial

reasons, ceased to be offered from 2007. The 26% for Learning Skills is encouraging in an

environment where many first-year students have difficulties with basic subjects such as

mathematics, science and English. The lower percentages for counselling and disability support

may be reflected in the organisational changes to Student Support Services introduced in 2006 and

2007, with staff reductions and consequential reductions in support.

“What was the rating of experience in using (other) Student Services ?”

For the College 87.5% replied ok, good or excellent

For Penrith 80.8% replied ok, good or excellent.

“Did you receive the UWS ‘Start Up’ kit ?” Yes 86.3%: No 13.7%

“If received, was it useful ?” Yes 76.5% No 23.5%

This kit is no longer supplied – one of the consequences of university financial pressures.

The Learning Skills Unit, part of Student Support Services, offers a wide range of study skills for

students who may have difficulties reading, speaking or writing in English. These include


Essay Structure 2 hours

Academic Writing Style 2 hours

Essay Writing 4 hours

Referencing 3 hours

Critical Thinking 2 hours

Scientific Report Writing 2 hours

Spoken English 4 x 1 hour

Grammar and Writing 4 x 1 hour

Developing your Writing 5 x 1 hour.

Many sessions are offered at different campuses and many are available during the lunch period or

late afternoon/evening, for the convenience of the students. Such programs, and programs in

mathematical skills, run by demand, are free to students and are encouraged for students who do

not possess the Australian HSC qualifications, students who come from no-English speaking

countries or homes where English is not the first language.

6.12 The Campus

‘University life’ for many potential students, comprises studies supplemented by social and sports

events and activities with friends or fellow students. However, one limiting factor with such

activities is the available time between studies and classes and employment. Travel to the UWS

Kingswood campus requires students to either drive or to use public transport but the campus

buildings are positioned a km or so from the nearest railway station. A local UWS bus carries

students between the railway station and the campus buildings so, in the 2006 survey one

question was asked about travel to the Penrith Campus and the result from Table 4.1, question 20.

Of the responses, the majority of students 40% travel for one to two hours per day and 41%

taking two hours or more. Consequently, many students, because of the geographical position of

the campus, do not have the free time to enjoy social and sports activities, before or after classes.

Many students live in the Sydney region, some north or south of the CBD and so travel by car or

train can take two hours each way for every visit to the campus. For this reason, these students


prefer to attend classes when there are significant periods of timetabled classes on each day, rather

than one one-hour session, such as a lecture. Similarly these students become frustrated when

classes, for which they have travelled 2 hours each way, are cancelled at short notice, or are

timetabled in the evenings when travel can present difficulties.

In the UWS Retention Telephone Survey, students were asked “What is your rating of Campus

life and activities ?”

For Penrith for 2005, 73.9% replied ok, good or excellent: 8 % Not Used

For 2006, the corresponding replies were 82.1% and 9.9%

Figure 6.8 Hours per week spent on extracurricular activities (AUSSE, 2007,p.16)

The 2007 AUSSE Report surveyed the hours per week that students spend on extracurricular

activities, as seen in Figure 6.8

This result demonstrates that, despite the provision of a range of activities and encouragement to

use them the majority of students, 78% seldom use them or do not use them at all.


The DEST 2005 “First Year Experience” report surveyed students on their weekly schedule with

the results set out in Table 6.9.

The impact of employment in 2004, as compared with 1994, is significant. Also, the weekly time

spent on many activities, some related to study, has greatly reduced since 1994. Campus sports

facilities are no longer a high priority for university students, on average, whereas the time spent

on commuting is significant.

6.13 Staff communications and accessibility

Students access academic staff in a number of ways, to ask specific academic questions or to seek

clarity; to seek advice on careers or future studies; to ask personal questions or to seek comments

on an assignment before or after submitting it for marking. Students can access staff during

tutorial, during practical laboratory sessions, before or after the weekly lecture, via e-mail or

telephone or by attending the office of the staff member during the advertised consultation

times. Students are made aware of the consultation times from the staff member or by reading

notices on the office doors. Staff can communicate with one or more students, or whole classes or

units of students, via WebCT. For this reason, all students are encouraged to check their

messages on a daily basis.


Table 6.9 DEST – How students spend their weekday time, 1994 - 2004

(% of total sample) (DEST, 2005)

None <1hr 1-2hrs 3-4hrs 5-6hrs 7-8hrs 9-10hrs >10hr

Private study

1994

2004

16

15

19

21

34

36

23

20

6

6

2

1

1

1

1

1

Using the library

1994

2004

37

47

28

31

25

18

8

4

2

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

Household/family duties

1994

2004

13

25

37

41

35

23

11

7

3

2

1

1

0

0

1

1

Sport

1994

2004

48

62

23

18

23

16

5

3

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

Recreation

1994

2004

21

26

20

22

32

29

19

15

5

5

1

1

0

0

1

1

Social activities

1994

2004

23

30

18

24

30

25

20

15

7

4

2

1

1

0

1

1

Other significant activity (e.g.

volunteer work)

1994

2004

77

90

4

4

5

3

7

1

3

1

3

0

1

0

1

0

New in 2004

Commuting to and from

university

2004

7

42

37

12

1

0

0

0

Paid work

2004

74

1

4

10

6

2

1

2


The objective of this thesis is to “analyse possible reasons why students discontinue and identifies

strategies and approaches to retaining these students through improvements to the quality of the

teaching and learning environment”. Effective communications with staff, an essential component

of the teaching and learning process, is vital in motivating and retaining students at university.

Students, in the 2005/2006 telephone survey analysis, were asked: “What is the method mostly

used to communicate with staff ?”

For 2006, 44.4% of students replied: “Face to face:” 36% replied E-Mail, 16.6% replied WebCT

and 3% replied telephone.

With respect to “Staff accessibility”:

For 2005, for the College 86% of students replied ok, good or excellent

For 2006 the corresponding reply was 90.4% which is a higher rating than the 2005 (Enrolment)

survey referred to above which was carried out during the second semester when most students

were familiar with the overall level of communications with staff and their responses were based

on ten months at uni as compared with three weeks in the telephone survey.

However such responses could possibly be distorted due to the Hawthorne effect – responses to

questions about ‘staff’ being rated higher due the psychological stimulus of being singled out and

made to feel important.

6.14 Discussion

The research referred to in this chapter aimed to identify links between student retention with the

learning and teaching process. Zimiate (2006) and other researchers in the literature review said

that student retention should be closely linked with ‘good teaching’ and the student experience.

The evidence is based on research into the links between the many aspects of the programme of

study such as

• Week 1 and introduction to study skills, the Learning Guides, assessment plans and so on

• Quality teaching and learning


• Effective e-learning and other materials

• Academic mentoring

• Student support

• Learning skills support.

• Staff accessibility and approachability and

• Conflicts between study time and employment.

Students experience degrees of satisfaction with each of the above aspects of their studies and,

coupled with their individual qualifications and experiences, each student follows an individual

path, so quantitative analysis is complex. Overall satisfaction is measured by DEST and the CEQ

and, in academic terms, examination success.

Student motivation, progress and ability to cope with the workload in the first year is highly

dependent on the learning activities; whether in the classroom and laboratory, whether on

WebCT; whether during assessment processes and whether students receive support and a

positive attitude from the academic staff. Other issues such as administration, accommodation or

personal traumas are ongoing and, if aggravated by problems with learning, can “tip the balance”

and cause a personal crisis or period of depression for the student who then might require

intervention by a Unit Coordinator, First Year Coordinator, counsellor or peer mentor. Many

students drop out because of a build up of tensions and stresses during the first year but their

state of mind does not direct them to a source of positive assistance: instead they distance

themselves from the university and, after a period of absence and accumulative missed

assignments or other demands, choose to leave or defer their course until a later date.

Despite the anecdotal evidence there is no sufficient data to establish whether all the actions to

improve teaching and learning have a direct impact on improving retention in the School of

engineering. There are too many interacting factors to unscramble the direct causes of

improvement in retention. Nevertheless, as far as satisfaction is concerned in relation to a number

of aspects of teaching and learning, there is no doubt that there has been an improvement. Clearly


mentoring and personal contact with staff and mentors are important factors in improving

student performance and hence the commitment of students to remain at university. But as was

shown in the literature review and this chapter, many of the factors that determine attitudes and

commitment to learning are personal and beyond the ability of the School or University to

influence.


7 Progression – Student Retention Issues

The survey also found that many students had negative views of teaching and their courses. In particular, it was notable that:

� barely half the students surveyed found their subjects interesting; � only 53 per cent of students thought academic staff were enthusiastic about the subjects they were teaching; � less than half thought that teaching staff were good at explaining things; � only 41 per cent of students thought there was a positive attitude towards learning amongst their fellow

students; and � over a quarter of the students worked in isolation from their peers and were not interested in extra-

curricular activities DEST The First Year Experience, 2005

7.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the results of research carried out into the fourth stage of the Student

Pathway, namely progression into the second year or, for those choosing to transfer elsewhere,

progression to another university or employment or elsewhere. This chapter also describes

measures taken by other universities, such as the University of Tasmania, where retention is

addressed and the results of their efforts are compared with similar measures introduced at UWS.

Once again, the focus is on the hypothesis that retention can be improved by introducing

measures to facilitate these improvements.

All data referred to in this thesis is public information as published by DEST or at public

presentations by individual universities or in published papers.

7.2 Student Retention data

The UWS Action Plan 2005 stated a retention target:


“Target

We have set an ambitious target of reducing the first year drop out rate by 25%. On last

year’s figures this would mean that we would lose 1140 UWS students in year one, not

1520. “

Measures to improve student retention were introduced over a period commencing in 2003 and

described in chapters 4 to 7, resulted in an overall progressive improvement in student retention

in the UWS School of Engineering over this period. Table 1.2, derived from university data

collected over four years, illustrates the accumulative numbers of students who discontinued as

the 2003, 2004 and 2005 cohorts progressed from the commencement of their courses in

February 2003, 2004 or 2005:

Student numbers discontinuing in the first year in 2003, from the 2003 cohort = 20%;

Student numbers discontinuing in the first year in 2004, from the 2004 cohort = 17%; and

Student numbers discontinuing in the first year in 2005, from the 2005 cohort = 15%.

Following the 2005 Course Report referred to in chapter 1, the School of Engineering and

Industrial Design identified the need to address some of its key issues , namely retention,

progression, UAI and loading, as discussed in Chapter 1. The School was mindful that many of

the statements made in the CEQs related to the teaching quality of staff and their interaction with

the students. The First Year Teaching Team was formed to address this issue and also the

comments relating to the School of Engineering [and Industrial Design] within the report on the

Course Experience Questionnaire [CEQ] where “Best Aspects” and “Needs Improvement” were

identified. Examples of areas of improvement from the CEQ were:

For Environmental and Civil courses the lectures and real world examples were ‘good

points’. ‘Needing improvement’ was the range of electives and resources.

For Robotics and Mechatronics courses, it was the practicals and content that were ‘good

points’. Communication skills of the staff needed improving.


Figures 7.1 to 7.4 illustrate the numbers of students who discontinued, month by month, for the

2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 cohorts: all data extracted from the university database and

summarised in Figure 1.2, introduced earlier. The trend is a falling drop-out at each census date

which accumulatively is influenced by the many measures to improve student retention.

In general, the pattern is as follows:

(a) Students in both Schools enrol in February and it seems, allow themselves a few weeks to

settle to life at university in terms of the social life, the academic life, their timetable, their financial

situation and employment where appropriate, their accommodation whether home or in rented

accommodation, to attend classes and plan their curriculum and assessments and so on. 31st

March and 31st August are the HECS [Higher Education Contribution Scheme] cut-off dates, or

Census dates, by which students should have paid their fees but after which fees cannot be

refunded. Consequently, some students choose not to continue beyond this date and it is these

students who are targeted with the hope that their concerns can be addressed.

Discontinued Students from 2003 Cohort

2

35

0 1 0

18

24

20 0 0

12

25

18

0 1 1

8 9

1 1 0 1

26

8

31 0 0

5 69

0 0 0

78

3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Feb-0

3

March

April

MayJu

ne July

AugSep

tOct

Nov Dec

Jan-

04 Feb

March

April

MayJu

ne July

AugSep

tOct

NovDec

Jan-

05 Feb

March

April

MayJu

ne July

AugSep

tOct

NovDec

Jan-

06 Feb

Num

ber

of D

isco

ntin

ued

Stu

dent

s

Figure 7.1 Discontinued students from the 2003 cohort for the UWS School of Engineering over the period January 2003 to January 2006


1st year Student Drop-out 2004 - SE

0

4

29

0

9

1

6

15

10

12

18

32

21

01 1

16

9

01

00

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Jan-04

Feb-04

Mar-04

Apr-04

May-04

Jun-04

Jul-04

Aug-04

Sep-04

Oct-04

Nov-04

Dec-04

Jan-05

Feb-05

Mar-05

Apr-05

May-05

Jun-05

Jul-05

Aug-05

Sep-05

Oct-05

Nov-05

Stu

dent

s D

isco

ntin

uing

Figure 7.2 Discontinued students from the 2004 cohort for the UWS School of Engineering over the period January 2004 to November 2005

First Year Student Drop-out 2005 - SE

01

33

45

0

8

16

01

0 0

14

42

21

0 0 0

15

3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Jan Feb Mch Apl May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mch Apl May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

2005 2006

Stu

dent

s D

isco

ntin

uing

Figure7.3 Discontinued students from the 2005 cohort for the UWS School of Engineering over the period January 2005 to December 2006


1st Year Student Drop-out 2006 - SE

3

6

35

1

4

2

10

4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Jan Feb Mch Apl May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mch Apl May June July Aug Sept Nov Dec

2006 2007

Stu

dent

s D

isco

ntin

uing

Figure 7.4 Discontinued students from the 2006 cohort for the UWS School of Engineering over the period January 2006 to September 2007 (b) During the first semester, following the Census Date, around 5% of students discontinue

for personal or financial reasons. However, at the end of the first semester, 6% discontinue

because they may have failed one or more units and so may return the following year to repeat a

unit or the course, or they ‘carry’ this referral or failure to be addressed the following year or they

choose to transfer to a course elsewhere or they decide that university does not meet their

expectations.

(c) At the end of the second semester, around 25% discontinue before the start of the second

year. This is prior to the Census dates of 31st March since they are able to transfer to a course at

UWS or another university, using their (successful) first year as a stepping stone to a course or

university of their choice. Their initial intention may have been to enrol at another university in

GWS but their UAI score was too low, so they decide to complete the first year at UWS where a

UAI of 60 is accepted. Alternatively they decide to transfer to a course which better suits their

interests and aspirations, using, where possible, passes in the first year units as credit for the new

course.


(d) Subsequently, having passed the Census date, the remaining students continue through

year 2 with a small number discontinuing during each semester (20 in the first semester out of the

2003 cohort and 3 in the second semester) and a greater number, (around 37, or for 2003, 9 % of

the original cohort) dropping out between year 2 and year 3, because they have failed units or are

repeating units or are transferring elsewhere.

(e) A similar pattern continues for following years, with most students dropping out

between semesters. However, many students choose to work part-time or full-time while studying

and this influences, over several years, their study time, their degree of success in each year and

the personal pressures on themselves. Many opt out as they find difficulty coping but can return

in later years to continue their studies.

The measurement of 78 for January 2006 corresponds to the graduation of 78 students from the

2003 cohort, these students being catagorised as ‘withdrawing’ on the university database.

Comparisons of the data for the 2004 and 2005 cohorts of Figures 7.2 and 7.3 , shows a

significant correlation between the two cohorts., measured over the two academic years when the

data is analysed as described in (a) to (e) above. A similar pattern is evident for the 2003 and the

2006 data.

The School of Environment and Agriculture (Figure 1.3) displays a very similar pattern of

discontinuance to that for the School of Engineering. These two schools on different

campuses, each experiencing a similar drop-out pattern

The courses within the School of Environment and Agriculture courses to which this data was

taken , sited at the UWS Hawkesbury campus, were:

206A Bachelor of Arts (Tourism)

407A Bachelor of Applied Science (Environmental Management and Tourism)

3544 Bachelor of Landscape Management and Conservation


3569 Bachelor of Applied Science (Environmental Health)

3570 Bachelor of Applied Science (Environmental Management)

3571 Bachelor of Systems Agriculture

3572 Bachelor of Equine Studies

3586 Bachelor of Environmental Science

3592 Bachelor of Animal Science

There are also financial and personal costs of students dropping out, which have been

discussed previously.

Mention has been made in each chapter of the complex nature of proving the hypothesis that first

year student retention can be improved. The research described in chapter 2 described many

factors relating to transition, pre-entry, orientation and first year teaching but little research was

evident regarding the progression phase where, as experienced at UWS, students choose an

engineering degree at UWS with a low UAI and then transfer to another university on successful

completion or year 1. Efforts are made to retain students by aiming for high quality teaching and

support but considerable persuasion is required if the student tolerates four hours of travel per

day or they work: geographical or financial reasons which cannot easily be resolved. The offer of

scholarships to successful first year students is one option, together with pathways to honours

streams or postgraduate programs not available elsewhere.

7.3 Exit Surveys

The university carries out exit surveys of students when they leave: at whatever stage in their

degree studies. This is a voluntary exercise with around 50% response. The data is not specific to

a school or college but provides indications of the reasons, in ‘university’ terms, why students

drop out. In 2004, around 5000 students were enrolled across UWS but 1,520 enrolled and then

withdrew, around 25% drop-out. This data is useful in this research inasmuch as it confirms the

outcomes of the research described in Chapter 2 but applied to students who have chosen to opt

out, rather than to reconsider their decision following advice or support, if sought. Equivalent

data is not available for the School of Engineering and so the research into student retention


would require extension if data is to be obtained and correlated with earlier findings. These exiting

students were asked for the reasons why they withdrew and the results were:

Course was not as expected 35%

Conflicting employment commitments 24%

Administrative fees and other difficulties 20%

Assessment expectations unclear 16%

Timetable difficulties 16%

Pressurised to enrol 15%

Family pressures 13%

Staff difficult to access 10%

Unmotivated teaching /learning 9% and

Financial difficulties 9%.

Many of these reasons are interlinked. For example, a student’s family may put pressure on their

child to enrol at university because, as introduced in the orientation survey, many students come

from families where parents have qualified to degree level. Also, employment conflicts can be

linked to timetable difficulties.

These results concur with the survey feedback described in Chapter 5 where students in the 21st

century have greater financial pressures and choose to work alongside their studies which reduces

their overall study time and reduces the time for university social life.

Feedback from students on reasons for discontinuing is echoed by other universities. For

example, at the University of Tasmania, (Carlson, 2006) students gave the following reason or

reasons why they discontinued:

54% of students withdrew for non-university reasons;

46% therefore said university-related factors had contributed to their withdrawal;

22% had transferred to other units;

33% had attended no classes and

Under institutional control with respect to appropriate advice and guidance prior to enrolment and commencement

Primarily due to student personal choices

Under Institutional control


60% stated their intention to re-enrol later.

Some students at AUT choose to attend no classes, due to other commitments, travel restrictions

or other priorities, and so they rely primarily on the lecture notes posted on WebCT, These same

students attend, however, when attendance is recorded or when assignments are set and the

marks can contribute towards their final grade,

Also in the University of Tasmania, 18.5% indicated overload at the start of their course but, by

contrast,

17% claimed insufficient pre-enrolment information;

14% said that university was not a welcoming place;

14% said it was difficult to make friends;

14% said the teaching methods did not suit them and

12% complained of excessive workload.

These results concur with the survey results described in earlier chapters; effective orientation programs

addressing several issues [see Chapter 5] and on-going encouragement to seek guidance [see Chapter 6]

addressing the remainder.

7.4 Progression to other universities

In the UWS School of Engineering, it became evident, in January 2005, that fifty students from

the 2004 cohort had transferred to engineering courses at the University of Technology, Sydney

[UTS], following information obtained from Dr. David Lowe, Associate Dean [Teaching and

Learning] Faculty of Engineering. These students, which contributed 15 percentage points of the

school’s attrition in 2004, successfully completed their first undergraduate year at UWS, entering

UWS in 2004 because they did not meet the prerequisites of UTS. These fifty students are

included in the retention statistics, such as Table 1.2.

Many students enrol at UWS because their entry qualifications and/or UAI do not match the

requirements of other universities: universities which ‘require’ minimum entry UAI scores and


HSC passes rather than, as at UWS, ‘recommended’. These students may live in areas more

accessible to the Sydney CDB universities than UWS but they tolerate such inconvenience with

the intention of transferring to the Sydney CBD 12 months later. Such students require to pass,

often with credit or distinction, eight units, each with 10 credit points, for progression elsewhere

and so they are highly motivated. UWS could, therefore, be described as a feeder institution for

some students.. One strategy for retaining students at universities, rather than observe them

moving from, say, UWS to another Sydney university, is to encourage students to benefit from

the Learning and Teaching Performance Fund (LTPF) which was introduced in 2006 to reward

universities for excellence in learning and teaching for undergraduates. Undergraduates could

be offered scholarships to remain at UWS and complete their course, possibly to Honours or

beyond. Many would agree that the LTPF has contributed to the focusing of universities’ on

learning and teaching policies and practices, and the quality of learning and teaching.

7.5 Discussion

This chapter discussed the retention issues associated with the overall student experience – a

degree of satisfaction on which is based, for many students, progression into year 2 at the Host

University or transfer to another university – even if the student’s original intention was to stay

with the host university and transfer elsewhere. Recommendations described in Chapter 8 often

refer to the close liaison between student drop-out and an accumulation of difficulties in the areas

of the pathway introduced in chapter 2.

Was the target of losing 1140 students, rather than 1520, achieved in 2006 ?

With regard to the university, the percentage of first year students who discontinued fell by

16% [lower than the target of 25%] in 2006 as compared with the 2004 figure. For the School

of Engineering, the data shows that 119 first year students dropped out from the 2004 cohort

whereas 116 dropped out from the 2006 cohort which is insignificant. There are many reasons

for this apparent limited improvement within this school. These include:


• The growing dependency of students, year by year, on employment and so reduced

study times and associated pressures, resulting in increased pressure to drop out or

switch to part-time study [identified as ‘discontinued’ within the data];

• Structural course changes took place in 2005/2006 which distorts the data;

• The definition of ‘drop-out’ or discontinuation and their timelines can be inconsistent

between sets of data; e.g. using December or March or census date as the cut off date;

and

• The resultant effects of retention improvement take several years to mature or

materialise – some requiring an injection of resources in subsequent years, such as at

UWS where, in 2009 a major retention project is under way.


8 Conclusions, Recommendations and Future Work

Overall, however, only eight per cent of students in 1955/6 indicated they had not enjoyed their time at

university. Nevertheless, 53 per cent, although satisfied intellectually, expressed some reservations about

other aspects of their experience. The report of the first major Australian study concluded that when a

number of personal problems were encountered by students a pattern of failure resulted. Students who did

well were those who were favourably endowed in terms of finance, family occupation, and family tradition of

university study.

DEST The First Year Experience, 2005

This research concludes that, in general terms, “there are no magic bullets, single solutions or

golden rules” to improve student retention for first year students, for a number of reasons. Some

of the reasons for attrition are institutional, some social, some financial and some are long term

and primarily attitudinal. This chapter addresses the hypothesis that student retention can be

improved by introducing measures to facilitate that improvement.. The findings follow the

phases of the student pathway and conclude with a strategy for the improvement of student

retention.

Transition to University [Chapter 4]

1. Prior to enrolment, students should be aware of the academic requirements in terms of

entry qualifications, e.g. mathematics and science for engineering courses – the 2005

{enrolment} survey

2. Effective academic advice, counselling and support is essential and this should include

a. Clarity with the expectations of the university regarding commitment and

engagement

b. Full information on the course of study, its assessment requirements and

timescales

c. Ongoing encouragement to seek advice and assistance whenever required - CEQ

Feedback


3. Academic staff should have an awareness of some students being at risk due to, for

example

a. student age

b. cultural and family background

c. student travel time

d. student employment and the conflicts of time - the Students at Risk Project

4. The transition from High School to university study is identified as a major hurdle for

students in terms of modes of study, levels of available support, academic expectations

and, sometimes, as concluded in the 2006 Survey, financial pressures; many students

having to earn income alongside university study. – 2005 {enrolment} survey

Enrolment and Orientation [Chapter 5]

Within the School of Engineering,

1. A ‘mentoring culture’ is suggested where all students are encouraged to seek assistance

and, when needed, this is provided in a caring manner and followed up. This includes

learning skills support where the need is identified. – 2006 {orientation} survey

2. Academic advice is comprehensive and meaningful prior to enrolment and prior to entry

into the course. Students at risk should be identified and programs designed to their

requirements. – 2006 {orientation} survey

3. The orientation program should include social, course, campus and other elements and

include an ongoing mentoring culture throughout the first semester – 2006 {orientation}

survey

Chapter 5 described how the transition from high school to university is assisted by an

‘institutional mentoring culture’, supplementary bridging courses to students with low HSC passes


in mathematics and physics followed by the orientation process. Only 17% of engineering

students in 2006 Survey possessed the recommended entry qualifications. The orientation

program introduces students to key staff, processes, procedures and university life in general.

Chapter 5 followed the development of an orientation program at UWS so that its effectiveness

was improved as a preparation for students entering the first semester. The importance of a ‘user

friendly’ environment during the orientation process was evident in the 2005 and 2006 Surveys,

with staff ‘approachability and attitude’ being seen as important at the commencement of their

studies.

Teaching and Learning [Chapter 6]

Quality learning and teaching should be the target, to maximise student success and satisfaction,

including elements such as:

• Week 1 and an introduction to study skills, the Learning Guides, assessment plans and

student expectations

• Quality teaching and learning

• Effective e-learning and other materials

• Academic mentoring

• Student support

• Learning skills support.

• Reliable staff accessibility and approachability and

• Awareness by tutors of the conflicts between study time and employment. – UWS CEQ

study

Chapter 6 described research, including local surveys and student feedback, which identified the

correlation between student drop-out and the teaching and learning process. Significant research

findings are evident in this area, both in UWS, in the School and externally. The content of the

curriculum, its pace, style of learning/teaching, integration between units/subjects, assessment

techniques, student support and other issues form elements of the teaching and learning process;


each of which can present difficulties for some students and, if not discussed or resolved, can

trigger student drop-out.

Progression [Chapter 7]

1. All staff should be aware of student retention data and issues and aim to maximise this –

UWS Exit Survey

2. Measures should be introduced to retain students at the end of year 1 by, for example,

considering scholarships – LTPF Scheme

3. Regular surveys should identify the reasons why students opt out and potential areas for

improvement – AUT Survey

The recommendations of chapters identify many areas where the university might take steps to

minimise student drop-out, such as:

Entry qualifications – see chapter 4

• Cater for students from all backgrounds, entry qualifications and UAIs; so that their

progress can be monitored and necessary action taken.

• Adopt an effective and pro-active team approach to first year teaching and integration of

the curriculum; so that students with poor HSCs can be catered for and curriculum

barriers minimised.

• Adjust the curriculum for students without the pre-requisite HSCs; by offering different

levels in subjects such as mathematics and science.

• Address student motivation, particularly for those with low engagement.

• Promote Learning Skills awareness and encourage students to use Learning Skills

programs; as an essential support process for students with low HSC passes, low UAIs

and with language difficulties. Inform potential students in good time of their entitlement


to Learning Skills and Bridging courses: including students, such as international students,

who arrive at university in week 0.

Strategies which worked well: Recognition of student difficulties with

mathematics and the introduction of Fundamentals

of Mathematics; and

‘voluntary’ Bridging courses offered in

Mathematics, Physics and English prior to and

during the first semester.

Strategies which require further work: The enrolment on Bridging courses proved

disappointing: many students not being informed

of Bridging courses or alternative routes; in

particular international students.

The integration of first year units is seen as a major

logistic exercise.

Student disengagement is a major problem which is

influenced by student UAI and entry qualifications

and many other factors.

The First Year teaching team meets sporadically, so

coordination and progress is slow.

• Ensure minimum administrative barriers so that students are not delayed, frustrated or

turned away by unnecessary difficulties sometimes caused by university departments

failing to liaise and resolve academic and administrative issues. To regularly publish dates

and to reminder students of key information, maybe via WebCT; particularly in the first

semester following the student’s transition from school to university. To establish an

Engineering two-way ‘one stop shop’ online HelpLine; to provide access to information,

contacts, links and so on:

Strategies which worked well: Online enrolment a success.

A First year Coordinator processes the majority of

such queries and refers such issues to the Student

Focus Group: for example issues surrounding the


UWS Campus Student Centre; now seen as more

accessible and ‘use friendly’

Strategies requiring further work: Students continue with central UWS administrative

difficulties and errors which can greatly frustrate

students and trigger thoughts of dropping out.

Campus issues such as car parking and inter-site

travel remain and are being addressed by the

Student Focus Group

• Appoint a First Year Mentor or Coordinator; to ensure students have access to relevant

information, guidance and support. To encourage students to seek help when needed; and to

follow up all student queries and consider recording them; so that patterns of student progress

can be identified and acted upon – particularly with high risk students. To strengthen

academic mentoring; so that students can confidently approach staff members for assistance,

whether unit related of in general terms, such as careers or course advice:

Strategies which worked well: A First Year Coordinator processes student queries

or refers elsewhere and is easily accessible.

A Student Focus group meets regularly to discuss

curriculum, campus and administrative issues.

Strategies requiring further work: Few students choose to seek guidance and support

when in difficulty, despite encouragement. This can

be due to lack of confidence or low esteem or the

inaccessibility or approachability of some staff.

8.1 Issues yet to be addressed at UWS, and for which policies are not

in place

• To give consideration to students timetable needs, taking into consideration the need to

provide early registration of tutorials and practicals, an early printout of the full timetable and

student requests for non-class times/days in order to work. To introduce interactive timetable


software this enables students to plan their route through the first semester with minimum

frustrations. By adopting a coordinated timetable and assessment program, to address student

workload; particularly for those who have part-time or full-time employment or those who

travel long distances to the campus:

• Consider alternative Peer Mentor models, so that the service is reliable and which meets the

set criteria; inviting all year 2+ students to become Peer Mentors;

• Ensure the UWS and School web and WebCT sites are user friendly; and also reliable at all

times – a common cause of frustration

• To ensure a “warm and fuzzy”/”user friendly” welcome and ongoing approach by all staff; so

that students feel confident and comfortable in approaching any member of staff for help and

guidance

• To closely follow the published Unit Outlines; so that students accept the criteria and

assessment requirements which do not alter as the semester proceeds.

8.2 What measures can be made to retain them ?

The measures adopted by universities in Australia and elsewhere are described in chapters 4 to 7,

in addition to measures considered and adopted in UWS. Many measures require either policy

decisions by managers, such as “Appoint a First Year Mentor or Coordinator; to ensure students

have access to all types of information, guidance and support:” or they might be procedures which

can be applied on a local level to, for example, “Invite all year 2+ students to become Peer

Mentors”: a task which can be carried out by a Unit Coordinator or the First Year Coordinator.

The recommendations below include a number of issues for which data is not readily available,

awareness is poor, policies are required which raise the profile of student retention, its

consequences and the measures to improve retention:

• Collect retention data regularly and communicate this to staff; so as to regularly raise the

awareness of the financial and educational consequences


• Coordinate all analyses of enrolment, retention and exit data; so that it is easily available for

analysis and discussion and so that measures can be introduced to counteract any falling

trends

• Involve the staff in retention analyses and train the staff to interpret and react to the causes

and remedies for low retention

• Coordinate all pre-enrolment student information; so that the schools and prospective

students receive correct and non-conflicting information

• Identify at-risk students and respond at an early stage; so that such students can be contacted

and, if necessary monitored and counselled

• Establish a School web site where pre-enrolment and orientation information is displayed;

both by schools and prospective students and

• Liaise regularly with feeder schools and provide potential students with all necessary

information; coupled with a web site, CD and other information.

Following the completion of this thesis and an analysis of student retention in the UWS School of

Engineering, possible continuation on to a PhD project could include:

Research Hypothesis

The cost benefit of retaining students at university justifies the investment necessary to

introduce measures to improve student satisfaction, particularly within the first year

8.3 A Final Word

The hypothesis that the actions undertaken to improve retention are working is not proven,

although it was shown that retention has improved as a result of a number of actions. It was

also shown that student satisfaction has improved as a result of a number of School and

University wide initiatives, but the link between satisfaction and retention is not firmly

established. The student pathway is complex and varies from student to student in terms of the


important factors influencing the decision and ability to remain in engineering. So it is not

surprising that there are no clear relationships between actions and student retention.

It is clear that the School of Engineering is not alone in the University in either its pattern of

attrition or the magnitude of the attrition. And there is evidence to suggest that the pattern and

magnitude are similar in engineering schools and faculties at other Universities. But this is no

excuse for not trying to reduce the attrition, nor in terms of the number of students affected

and the cost does it give one solace.

The three questions that were asked at the beginning of the thesis were:

Why are students dropping out ?.

When do they drop out ? and

What measures can be used to retain them ?

This thesis has demonstrated the complexity of the answer to these questions in a model based

around the student pathway into and through the engineering course at UWS.

The hypothesis of this thesis is that student retention can be improved. The answer to this is

affirmative, but we cannot predict by how much nor what are the most effective actions in

improving retention, either in terms of percentage improvement in retention or the cost-

effectiveness of retention actions. As a result of the ambiguity there is likely to be no “quick

fixes” or strategies that will be universally applied, either within the University or amongst

Universities. It is suggested that the local institutions and the schools/faculties within the

Universities probably know best the nature of their student and potential-student populations

and can respond most rapidly to the outcome of initiatives and the need to vary these to

improve performance.


9 REFERENCES

Abbott, C. J., Hughes, P. & Wyld, C. 1992, Monitoring Student Progress. A framework for improving student performance and reducing attrition in higher education, Youth Education Studies Centre, University of Tasmania. A report funded by the Department of Employment Education and Training.

Abbott, C.J., Hughes, P. & Wyld, C. 1986, Participation and Retention Rates and Social and Educational Factors which are Related to Them in Tasmania, Australian Government Printing Service, Canberra Commonwealth Schools Commission.

Abbott-Chapman, J., Hughes, P. and Wyld, C. 1992 Improving Access of Disadvantaged Youth to Higher Education, Canberra: AGPS.

Adams, R. 1983, Sex differences in ASAT and retentivity, Australian Association for Research in Education Conference, Melbourne., pp 35-44

Aitkin, M. & Longford, N. 1986, ‘Statistical Modelling Issues in School Effectiveness Studies’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A., Vol. 149, No. 1, pp. 1-43.

Allen, D. & Amaury, N. 1995, ‘An Empirical Examination of the Construct Validity of Goal Commitment in the Persistence Process’ Research in Higher Education, Vol. 36,No. 5, pp. 509-33.

Allen, D 1999. ‘Desire to finish college’. Research in Higher Education, 40(4), 461-485.

Allen, D.F. & Nelson, J.M. 1989, ‘Tinto's Model of College Withdrawal Applied to Women in Two Institutions’, Journal of Research and Development in Education, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 1-11.

Anderson, G., Benjamin, B. & Fuss, M.A. 1994, ‘The Determinants of Success in University Introductory Economics Courses’, Journal of Economic Education, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 99-119.

Anderson, J. (undated) A.C.T. 1: Assessment Counselling and Tutoring for First Year Students at University, Preliminary Report prepared for DEET, Monash University, 65 pages

Anderson, K.L. 1986, College Contexts, Student Integration, and Educational Attainment. ASHE Annual Meeting Paper, 15 pages

Anderson, K.L. 1987, Persistence, Student Background, and Integration/Commitment: Variation by Definition of Persistence and Institutional Type. Association for the Study of Higher Education Conference Paper, Baltimore, 23 pages

Arcuri, A., Daly, W., & Mercado, P. 1982. Academic boot camp. In K. Lauridgen, V. & C. Myers (Eds.), Summer Programmes for Underprepared Freshman. New Directions for College Learning Assistance (pp. 13-20). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


Ashurst, J.T, De La Rocha, O. & Tobis, J. 1992, ‘Analysis of Collateral Data: A Method for Assessing and Correcting the Effects of Attrition on Internal Validity’, Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 60, No. 3, pp. 215-234.

Astin, A. 1975, Preventing Students from Dropping Out and Knowledge, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Astin, A. 1977, Four Critical Years: Effects of College on Beliefs, Attitudes and Knowledge, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Astin, A. 1984, ‘Student Involvement: a Development Theory of Higher Education’, Journal of College Student Personnel, Vol. 25, pp. 297-308.

AUSSE 2007, ‘Australia Survey of Student Engagement’, Australian Learning & Teaching Council, 30 pages

Auyeung, P K., & Sands, J.S. 1993, ‘An evaluation of secondary school studies as predictors of performance for accounting majors’, Australian Educational Researcher, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 51-61.

Bailey, D.E., Emeleus, T.G. & Logan, P.F. 1989, Student performance and success predictions in the first year physics courses of applied science degree programs, Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, Melbourne., 256 pages

Baxton, J.M. et al. 1988, ‘The Influence of Student Problems on Student Withdrawal Decisions: An Autopsy on Autopsy Studies’, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 241-53.

Bean, J.P. & Metzner, B.S. 1985, ‘A Conceptual Model of Non-traditional Undergraduate Student Attrition’, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 55, No. 4, pp. 485-540.

Bean, J.P. & Vesper, N. 1994, Gender Differences in College Student Satisfaction. Association for the Study of Higher Education Conference Paper, (Tucson), 46 pages

Bean, J.P. 1980, ‘Dropouts and Turnover: The Synthesis and Test of a Causal Model of Student Attrition’, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 12, pp. 155-187.

Bean, J.P. 1982, ‘Student Attrition, Intentions, and Confidence: Interaction Effects in a Path Model’, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 17, pp. 291-319.

Bean, J.P. 1985, ‘Interaction effects based on class level in an exploratory model of college student dropout syndrome’, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 22, pp. 35-64.

Becker, W.E. & Salemi, M.K. 1977, ‘The Learning and cost effective of AVT supplemented instruction: Specification of learning models’, Journal of Economic Education, Vol. 8, pp. 77-92.

Becker, W.E. & Walstad, W.B. 1990, ‘Data loss from pretest to post test as a sample selection problem’, Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 72, pp. 184-188.


Becker, W.E. 1983, ‘Economic education research: Part III, statistical estimation methods’, Journal of Economic Education, Vol. 14, pp. 4-15.

Beltzer, S. 1985, Persistence of GED and Traditional Students at a Public Community College: A Test of a Conceptual Model, American Council on Education, Washington, 19 pages

Benda, E.J. 1991, ‘The Relationship among Variables in Tinto's Conceptual Model and Attrition of Bachelor's Degree Nursing Students’, Journal of Professional Nursing, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 16-24.

Bennett, R. 2003,. Determinants of Undergraduate Student Drop Out Rates in a University Business Studies Department. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 27(2), 123-141.

Ben-Shakhar, G. & Kiderman, I 1996, ‘Comparing the Utility of Two Procedures for Admitting Students to Liberal Art’, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 90-106.

Benson, M.T. (ed) 1991, A statistical analysis of the predictions of graduation rates for college student athletes, NCAA Academic Performance Study, 36 pages

Bers, T. 1994, ‘English proficiency, course patterns and academic achievements of limited-English-proficient community college students’, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 209-234.

Bers, T.H., and Smith, K.E. 1991, Persistence of community college students: The influence of student intent and academic and social integration’’, Research in Higher Education 32(5), 539-556.

Beswick, D, Schofield, H., Meek, L. & Masters 1984, Selective admissions under pressure: an evaluation and development study of student selection procedures at the University of Melbourne, Centre for the Study of Higher Education, Melbourne, pp 11-14

Biggs, J. 1999. Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Buckingham: SRHE and OUP, 183 pages

Biner, P.M., Bink, M., Martin, L., Huffman, M. & Dean, R. 1995, ‘Personality Characteristics Differentiating and Predicting the Achievement of Televised-Course Students and Traditional-Course Students’, The American Journal of Distance Education, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 46-60.

Binkley, M. et al. 1995, Methodological Issues in Comparative Educational Studies: The Case of the IEA Reading Literacy Study, National Centre for Education Statistics, Washington, 63 pages

Birrell, B. 1994, ‘Competition for Tertiary Entrance: The Monash Experience’, People and Place, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 18-24.

Blanc, R., DeBuhr, L. & Martin, D. 1983, ‘Breaking the Attrition Cycle’, Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 54, No. 1, pp. 80-90.


Bleiklie, I., & Kogan, M. 2000. Comparison and Theories. In M. Kogan, M. Bauer, I. Bleiklie & M. Henkel (Eds.), Transforming Higher Education, A Comparative Study. London and Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley, 132 pages Blythman, M., & Orr, S. 2003, A Joined-up Policy Approach to Student Support. In M. a. W. Peelo, T. (Ed.), Failing Students in Higher Education (pp. 45-55). Buckingham: Open University Press/SRHE.

Boddy, G. 1996, ‘A Three Year Longitudinal Study of the University Experience: A Progress Report’, Asia Pacific Student Services Association, Conference Proceedings, Sydney.

Bollen, K.A. 1989, Structural Equations with Latent Variables John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Boud, D. 1988, Developing Student Autonomy in Learning. London: Kogan Page, 79 pages

Bouillon, M. & Doran, M. 1992, ‘The Relative Performance of Female and Male Students in Accounting Principles Classes’, Journal of Education for Business, pp. 224-228.

Bouillon, M.L. & Doran, M. 1990, ‘Factors That Predict Success in Principles of Accounting Classes’, Journal of Education for Business, pp. 23-27.

Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. 1990. Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture London: Sage Publications, 261 pages

Boyle, P. 1987, Secondary students knowledge of postsecondary education options, and its relationship to background variables, University of Western Australia, Perth, 64 pages

Boyle, T. 1989, ‘An Examination of the Tinto Model of Retention in Higher Education’, NASPA Journal, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 288-94.

Bradsen, J.R. & Farrington, J.A. 1986, ‘Student selection and performance in the Faculty of Law, the University of Adelaide’, Australian Universities Review, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 25-31.

Brasfield, D., Harrison, D., McCoy J. & James P. 1993, ‘The Impact of High School Economics on the College Principles of Economics Course’, Journal of Economic Education, pp. 99-111.

Braxton, J. et al. 1995, ‘Expectations for College and Student Persistence’, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 36, No. 5, pp. 595-612.

Braxton, J., Vesper, N., & Hossler, D. 1995 Expectations for college and student persistence. Research in Higher Education, 36(5), 595-612.

Braxton, J.M., & Mundy, M.E. 2002, ‘Powerful institutional levers to reduce college student departure’’. Journal of College Student Retention Research, Theory & Practice, 3(1), 91-118.

Brekke, S.E. 1994, Some Factors Affecting Student Performance in Physics, Illinois, 37 pages


Brennan, L. 2001, ‘Choosing a University Course: first year student' expertise and information search activity’. Higher Education Research & Development, 20(2), 217 – 224.

Burgum, M, Martins, A.C. & Northey, K. 1993, ‘Predicting student persistence and performance in the first year of a tertiary nursing programme: a pilot study’, Higher Education Research and Development, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 157-169.

Burke, R. J., McKenna, C. S., and McKeen, C. A. 1991 "How do mentorships differ from typical supervisory relationships?” Psychological Reports: 68(2). April. Pp. 459-467. Burr, P. L., Burr, R. M., & Novak, L. F. 1999, ‘Student retention is more complicated than merely keeping the students you have today: towards a "seamless retention theory"’ Journal of College Student Retention, 1(3), 239-253.

Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A. & Castaneda, M.B. 1993, ‘Structural Equations Modelling Test of an Integrated Model of Student Retention’, Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 64, No. 2, pp. 124-139.

Cabrera, A., Castaneda, M., Nora, A. & Hengsteen, D. 1992, ‘The Convergence between Two Theories of College Persistence’, Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 63, No. 2, pp. 143-64.

Cabrera, A., Nora, A., & Castaneda, A. 1992, ‘The roles of finances in the persistence process: A structural model’. Research in Higher Education, 33, 571-593.

Cabrera, A.F., Nora, A. & Castaneda, M.B. 1993, ‘College persistence: Structural equations modelling test of an integrated model of student retention’, Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 64, No. 2, pp. 123-139.

Caldas, S. 1992, ‘Using Multiple Regression to Predict Achievement: A Reply to Klingele and Warrick, Penny and Bond’, Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 85, pp. 325-326.

Calderon, A. 1996, ‘Student Progress Units (SPU) and SPU Ratios’, Memo, Budget and Statistical Services, Monash University.

Callender, C., & Kemp, M. 2000, Changing Student Finances: Income, Expenditure and the Take-up of Student Loans Among Full- and Part-time Higher Education Students in 1998/9. Retrieved 5th March, 2006, from http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR213.PDF

Campbell, J.D. 1990, ‘Self-esteem and clarity of the self-concept’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 59, pp. 538-549.

Campbell, TA, & Campbell, DE 1997 ‘Faculty/Student mentor program: effects on academic performance and retention’, Research in Higher Education, 38, pp. 727–742.


Carbone, A., Mitchell, I., & Macdonald, I. D. H. 1996, ‘Improving teaching and learning in first year computer science tutorials’, ASCILITE conference paper.

Care, W. 1995, Helping Students To Persist in a Distance Education Program: The Role of the Teacher, University of Manitoba, Canada, 82 pages

Carlson, J 2006 (AUT) Supporting Retention – a presentation at the 2006 QUT 9th Pacific Rim Conference, 6 pages

Carpenter, P. & Fleishman, J. 1987, ‘Linking intentions and behaviour: Australian students college plans and college attendance’, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 79-105.

Carpenter, P. & Hayden, M. 1992, ‘Academic achievement among Australian youth’, Australian Journal of Education, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 199-220.

Cash, R. & Bissel, H. 1985, ‘Testing Tinto's Model of Attrition on the Church-Related Campus’, Association for Institutional Research, Conference Paper, Portland.

Castle, E.McC., 1993, ‘Minority Student Attrition Research, Higher Education’s Challenge for Resource Development’, Educational Research, Vol. 22, No. 7, pp. 21-30.

Caudill, S. & Gropper, D. 1991, ‘Test Structure Human Capital, and Student Performance on Economics Exams’, Journal of Economic Education, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 303-06.

Cheng, K.C, Keeves, J. Sellin, N. & Tsoi, S.C. 1990, ‘The analysis of multilevel data in educational research: studies of problems and their solutions’, International Journal of Educational Research (UK), Vol. 14, p. 3.

Chickering, A. & Reisser, L. 1993, Education and Identity, (2nd ed.) Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 192 pages

Chickering, W & Gamson,Z 1987 "Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education" American Association of Higher Education Bulletin pp.3-7 Christie, H., Munro, M., & Fisher, T. 2004, ‘Leaving university early: exploring the differences between continuing and non-continuing students’. Studies in Higher Education, 29(5), 617 - 636.

Christie, N. & Dinham, S. 1990, ‘Elaboration of Tinto's Model of College Student Departure: A Qualitative Study of Freshman Experiences’, American Educational Research Association, Conference Paper, Boston, 35 pages

Christie, N. & Dinham, S. 1991, ‘Institutional and External Influences on Social Integration in the Freshman Year’, Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 62, No. 4, pp. 412-36.


Clark, E. & Ramsay, W. 1990, ‘Problems of Retention in Tertiary Education", Education Research and Perspectives, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 47-59.

Clark, E. 1989, ‘The Importance of a Comprehensive Advising System in Improving Student Retention and Graduation Rates’, Australian Universities’ Review, Vol. 1, pp. 27-29.

Clark, J. & Davis, W. 1992, ‘Does High School Economics Turn Off Too Many Students?’, Journal of Education for Business, pp. 152-155.

Clarke, J., Burnett, P. & Dart, B. 1994, A Research Project Investigation Predictors of Performance in Higher Education: Phase 1 Literature Review and Model Development, Tertiary Entrance Procedures Authority, 17 pages

Cobbin, D.M & Barlow, A.R. (eds) 1993, Tertiary access and equity initiatives: a handbook for evaluative research. Evaluative Studies Research Group, Higher Education Division, EIP, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 14 pages

Cohen, A.M. 1994, ‘Indicators of Institutional Effectiveness’, ERIC Digest, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Washington, 114 pages

Cope, R & Hannah, W. 1975, Revolving College Doors: the causes and consequences of dropping out, stopping out, and transferring, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 229 pages

Corman, J., Barr, L. & Caputo, T. 1992, ‘Unpacking Attrition: A Change of Emphasis’, Canadian Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 14-27.

Cornell, I., Cornell, R. Dickie, L., Elizov, H., Farrell, J., Kubanek, A., Montpetit, D. & Waller, M. 1990, Easing the transition from secondary school to college, Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Quebec (ERIC Document Reproduction Service), 188 pages

Cowan, J. 1998. On Becoming an Innovative University Teacher: Reflection in Action Buckingham: SRHE and OUP, 96 pages . Cuseo, J, 2002 ROOTS OF ATTRITION : www.ulster.ac.uk/star/resources/sing_handout.pdf, accessed 6.6.2007

Dale, M.G. & Jennings, P.J. 1986, ‘Factors Affecting the Performance of Students in Undergraduate Physics’, Australian Physicist, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 9-12.

Dancer, D.M & Doran, H. 1990, Prediction of the probability of successful first year university studies in terms of high school background: with application to the Faculty of Economic Studies, University of New England, 69 pages

Danko, K., Duke, J.D. & Franz, D.P. 1992, ‘Predicting Student Performance in Accounting Classes’, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 67, No. 5, pp. 270-274.


Dart, B.C. & Clarke, J.A. 1992, ‘Learning and learning environments’, Research and Development in Higher Education, Vol. 15, pp. 167-174.

Dart, B.C. 1993, ‘Personal and environmental influences on tertiary students’ learning strategy use’, European Association for Research in Learning and Instruction Conference Papers, France, 23 pages

Dart, B.C. 1994, ‘A goal-mediational model of personal and environmental influences on tertiary students’ learning strategy use’, Higher Education, p. 16.

Davies, R., & Elias, P. 2003, Dropping Out: A Study of Early Leavers from Higher Education. http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR386.pdf Retrieved 5.3.2007

Davis, T.M. & Murrell, P.H. 1994, ‘Turning Teaching into Learning. The Role of Student Responsibility in the Collegiate Experience’, ERIC Digest, 15 pages

De Rome, E. & Lewin, T. 1984, ‘Predicting persistence at University from Information obtained at intake’, Higher Education (NETH), Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 49-60.

Deer, C. 2005, The politics of access to higher education in France. In T. Tapper & D Palfreyman (Eds.), Understanding Mass Higher Education, Comparative perspectives on access (pp. 28-50). London and New York: Routledge Falmer.

DEST 1990, A Fair Chance for All Canberra: AGPS, 73 pages

DEST 1995 Equality, Diversity and Excellence: Advancing the National Equity Framework, Canberra: AGPS, 155 pages

DEST, 8/1999 Transition from secondary to tertiary: a performance study [higher education series (HES) 36], 115 pages

DEST 2005 Outcomes of a university's flexible admissions policies [EIP 96/8] Eleanor Ramsay; Deborah Tranter;

Robert Summer; Steve Barrett; University of South Australia, 166 pages

DEST 2005 First Year Experience. Updated 2007

DEST 2004 Higher Education Attrition Rates 1994 – 2002 A Brief Overview. Research Note 1 March 2004 – including: the web site http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_education/publications_resources/statistics/ DEST Learning & Teaching Performance Fund cited 1.4.2007 http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_education/policy_issues_reviews/key_issues/learning_teaching/ltpf/default.htm Dewart,H, Drees,D, Hixenbaugh,P, Thron,L 2006 Engaging Students at a Metropolitan University: Is Electronic mentoring an Effective Startegy ? University of Westminster, London, UK, 16 pages


Dey, E.L. & Astin, A.W. 1993, ‘Statistical Alternatives for Studying College Student Retention: A Comparative Analysis of Logit, Probit, and Linear Regression’, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp. 569-81.

Diasma, K. et al. 1994, ‘Look what you get when the system is a bit more flexible and generous’, JANSSA News, No. 4.

Dietsche, P.H.J. 1995, ‘Attrition Research: Implications for Quality in Community College Education’, Community College Journal of Research and Practice, Vol. 19, No. 5, pp. 423-426.

Dinius, S.H. 1991, ‘Accounting Students: Secondary-Level Study and Academic Performance and Characteristics’, Journal of Educational for Business, pp. 244-250.

Dirkx, J.M. & Jha, L.R. 1994, ‘Completion and Attrition in Adult Basic Education: A Test of Two Pragmatic Prediction Models’, Adult Education Quarterly, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 269-85.

Dobson I R & Sharma, R 1993, ‘Student Progress: a study of the experience in Victorian Tertiary institutions’. Journal. of. Tertiary Education Administration 1993, 75 pages

Dobson, I. & Sharma, R. 1995, Student Performance and the Diversification of Modes of University Study and Bases of Admission, DEETYA. 42 pages

Dobson, I. 1995, ‘A Fair Chance for Whom?’, National Conference on Equity and Access in Tertiary Education, paper, 97 pages

Dobson, I., Sharma, R. & Haydon, A. 1996, ‘Evaluation of the Relative Performance of Commencing Undergraduate Students in Australian Universities’, Australian Credit Transfer Agency, Adelaide, 39 pages

Dolnicar, S. 2005, ‘Should We Still Lecture or Just Post Examination Questions on the Web?: the nature of the shift towards pragmatism in undergraduate lecture attendance.’’ Quality in Higher Education, 11(2), 103-115.

Douglas, S. & Sulock, J. 1995, ‘Estimating Educational Production Functions with Correction for Drops’, Journal of Economic Education, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 101-12.

Downes, B. 1976, ‘A Model for Prediction of Academic Performance and Selection of Students for University Entrance’, The Australian University, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 202-212.

Drew, N, Pike, L., Pooley, J., Young, A., & Breen, L. 2000 School of Psychology peer mentoring pilot programme. Paper presented at the Pacific Rim Conference on the First-year in Higher Education, July 7 2000, Brisbane, Australia.

Duke, F. 1987, ‘Degrees of Experience: are the needs of nature age adults and school leavers compatible?’, Journal of Access Studies, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 54-63.


Durkheim, E. 1961, Suicide, (Spaulding, J. and Simpson, G. trans.), Glencoe: the Free Press.

Durkheim, Suicide, 1897, The Free Press reprint 1997 ISBN 0684836327, 416 pages

Earwaker, J. 1992. Helping and Supporting Students. Buckingham: SHRE and OUP, 79 pages

Eaton, S.B. & Bean, J. 1995, ‘An Approach/Avoidance Behavioural Model of College Student Attrition’, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 36, No. 6, pp. 617-45.

Eckel, P. 1994, ‘Building Community in the Freshman and Senior Year Experiences: Completing the Cycle of Student-Institution Involvement’, International Conference on the First Year Experience, Dublin, 64 pages

Ecob, R. & Goldstein, H. 1983, ‘Instrumental Variable Methods for the Estimation of Test Score Reliability’, Journal of Educational Statistics, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 223-41.

Edwards, R. 1993, Mature Women Students: Separating or Connecting Family and Education, Taylor and Francis Ltd., London, 27 pages

Eisenberg, E & Dowsett, T. 1990, ‘Student drop-out from a distance education project course: a new method of analysis’, Distance Education, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 231-253.

Elkin, G 1990, ‘The admission of mature adult students to executive MBA programs’, Australian Journal of Adult and Community Education, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 166-173.

Ellington, H. 1999, April 30, ‘Teach with excellence’. The Times Higher Education Supplement, p. 33.

Elliott, D.B. 1992, Community College Faculty Behaviours, Impacting Transfer Student Success: A Qualitative Study, the Ed D dissertation, Arizona State University, 94 pages

Elsworth, G., Day, N., Hurworth, R. & Andrews, J. 1983, From School to Tertiary Study: transition to college and university in Victoria, Australian Council for Education Research, Melbourne, 59 pages

Elsworth, G.R & Day, N.A. 1983, ‘Eligibility and self selection: discontinuities in transition to tertiary education in Victoria’ Australian Journal of Education, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 62-77.

Engstrom, C & V.Tinto, 2001, Building Collaborative Partnerships with Student Affairs to Enhance Student Learning, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., 88 pages

Eskilson, A., Wiley, M.G., Muehlbauer, G. & Dodder, I 1986, ‘Parental pressure, self-esteem and adolescent reported deviance: Bending the twig too far’, Adolescence, Vol. 21, pp. 501-515.

Evans, M, 2000, Planning for the Transition to Tertiary Study: A Literature Review, Journal of Institutional Research, 105 pages


Everett, J.E & Robins, J. 1991, ‘Tertiary entrance predictors of first-year university performance’, Australian Journal of Education, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 24-40.

Ewell, P.T. 1984 Conducting Student Retention Studies, Boulder: National Centre for Higher Education Management Systems, 53 pages

Fagenson, E, 1989 The Mentor Advantage, Journal of Organisational Behaviour Vol 10 No. 4 pp 309 - 320

Farabaugh-Dorkins, C. 1991, ‘Beginning To Understand Why Older Students Drop Out of College: A Path Analytic Test of the Bean/Metzner Model of Non-traditional Student Attrition’, The Association of Institutional Research, Vol. 39, pp. 1-10.

Farley, A.A. & Ramsay, A.L. 1988, ‘Student Performance in First Year Tertiary Accounting Courses and Its Relationship to Secondary Accounting Education’, Accounting and Finance, pp. 29-41.

Farley, B.L. 1995, A Is for Average: The Grading Crisis in Today's Colleges, Princeton University, 44 pages

Fels, R. & Siegfried, J.J. (eds.) 1982, Research on teaching college economics: Selected readings, Joint Council on Economic Education: New York, 48 pages

Ferber, M.A., Birnbaum, B.G. & Green, C.A. 1983, ‘Gender differences in economic knowledge: A re-evaluation of the evidence’, Journal of Economic Education, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 24-37.

Fetler, M.E. 1989, ‘School Dropout Rates, Academic Performance, Size, and Poverty: Correlates of Educational Reform’, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 109-16.

Fetler, M.E. 1990, ‘A Method for the Construction of Differentiated School Norms’, Applied Measurement in Education, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 53-66.

Fetler, M.E. 1991, ‘Pitfalls of Using SAT Results to Compare Schools’, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 481-91.

Finch, P.D. 1977, ‘Some statistical comments on educational issues in tertiary selection’, Vestes, Vol. 20, pp. 33-39.

Fisher, S., & Hood, B. 1987, ‘The stress of the transition to university: a longitudinal study of psychological disturbance, absent-mindedness and vulnerability to homesickness’. British Journal of Psychology, 78, 425-441. Fitzgibbon, K., & Prior, J., 2003, Student Expectations and University Interventions – a timeline to aid undergraduate student retention. Paper presented at the LTSN BEST Annual Conference


Flitman, A.M. 1997, ‘Towards Analysing Student Failures: Neural Networks Compared with Regression Analysis and Multiple Discriminant Analysis’, Computers Ops. Res., Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 367-377.

Floud, R. 2003, Policy Implications of Student Non-completion: Government, Funding Councils and Universities. In M. Peelo & T. Wareham (Eds.), Failing Students in Higher Education (pp. 56-69). Buckingham: Open University Press/SRHE, 27 pages

Fox, R.N. 1984, ‘Reliability and Discriminant Validity of Institutional Integration Scales for Disadvantaged College Students’, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 44, No. 4, pp. 1051-57.

Fox, R.N. 1986, ‘Application of a Conceptual Model of College Withdrawal to Disadvantaged Students’, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 415-24

Francis, K.C. et al. 1993, ‘Success in School: A Research Agenda on Student Attrition and Retention in the SEEK Program’, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 437-41.

Frazer, L. 1992, ‘Students at Risk of Dropping Out: Developing Accurate Criteria to Identify Them’, ERS Spectrum, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 3-9.

Fries-Britt, S. 1995, ‘Voices of Gifted Black Students’, Association for the Study of Higher Education Conference paper, Orlando.

Frost, S.H. 1991, Academic Advising for Student Success: A System of Shared Responsibility, ERIC Digest, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Washington, 17 pages

Fulmer, A. & Jenkins, H.I. 1992, ‘Evaluating a Tertiary Access Program for Mature Age Women’, Higher Education Research and Development, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 45-60

Garner, C. L. & Raudenbush, S.W. 1991, ‘Neighbourhood Effects on Educational Attainment: A Multilevel Analysis’, Sociology of Education, Vol. 64, No. 4, pp. 251-62.

Geiger, M.A. & Cooper, E.A. 1995, ‘Predicting Academic Performance: The Impact of Expectancy and Needs Theory’, Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 63, No. 3, pp. 251-62.

Getzlaf, S.B. et al. 1984, ‘Two Types of Voluntary Undergraduate Attrition: Application of Tinto's Model’, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 257-68.

Gillespie, M. & Noble, J. 1992, Factors Affecting Student Persistence: A Longitudinal Study, American College Testing Program, Iowa City, 24 pages

Glaser, N, Hall, R, Halperin, S 2005 Students supporting Students – the effects of peer mentoring on student transition. Paper presented in 2005 to the conference Enhancing Students Success, 18 pages


Glass, J. C. Jr. & Garrett, M.S. 1995, ‘Student Participation in a College Orientation Course, Retention, and Grade Point Average’, Journal of Research and Practice, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 117-32.

Godwin & Markham 1996 NOV-DEC [NOV 15] JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION 67(6):660-& Godwin GJ; Markham WT First encounters of the bureaucratic kind - Early Freshman experiences with a campus bureaucrat, 11 pages

Goldstein, H 1991, ‘Better Ways to Compare Schools?’ Journal of Educational Statistics, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 89-91.

Goldstein, H. & McDonald, R.P. 1988, ‘A General Model for the Analysis of Multilevel Data’ Psychometrika, Vol. 53, No. 4, pp. 455-67.

Goldstein, H. & Spiegelhalter, D. 1996, ‘League Tables and their Limitations: Statistical Issues in Comparisons of Institutional Performance’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, A, Vol. 159, No. 3, pp. 385-443.

Goldstein, H. 1983, ‘Measuring Changes in Educational Attainment over Time: Problems and Possibilities’, Journal of Educational Measurement, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 369-77.

Goldstein, H. 1984, ‘The Methodology of School Comparisons’, Oxford Review of Education, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 69-74.

Goldstein, H. 1986, ‘Multilevel mixed linear model analysis using iterative generalised least squares’, Biometrika, Vol. 73, pp. 43-56.

Goldstein, H. 1987, ‘Multilevel covariance component models’, Biometrika, Vol. 74, pp. 430-431.

Goldstein, H. 1989, ‘Estimating the Regional Economic Impact of Universities: An Application of Input-Output Analysis’, Planning for Higher Education, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 51-64.

Goldstein, H. 1993, ‘Assessing Group Differences’, Oxford Review of Education, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 141-50.

Goldstein, H. 1995, Multilevel Statistical Models, Kendalls Library of Statistics, No. 3, 2nd ed., John Wiley and Sons, 27 pages

Goldstein, J. & Thomas, S. 1996, ‘Using examination results as indicators of school and college performance’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, A, Vol. 159, No. 1, pp 149-163.

Goldstein, Z. & Marcoulides, G.A. 1991, ‘Maximizing the Coefficient of Generalisability in Decision Studies’, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 79-88.

Gracia, L., & Jenkins, E. 2002. An exploration of student failure on an undergraduate accounting programme of study. Accounting Education, 11(1), 93-107.


Grimes, P.W. 1994, ‘Public versus Private Secondary Schools and the Production of Economic Education’, Journal of Economic Education, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 17-30.

Grosset, J. & Hawk, T.R. 1988, Institutional Effectiveness: A Three-Year (1985-1988) Status Report, Philadelphia Community College Philadelphia, 15 pages

Grosset, J.A. 1989, Conceptual Framework for Describing the Causes of Student Attrition, Philadelphia Community College, Philadelphia, 57 pages

Gunn, F. M. & Macdonald, I. D. H. 1997, ‘Developing a culture of teaching and learning at tertiary level: A training course for post graduate student tutors that made a difference’, ASERA conference paper, pp 12-16

Gunstone, R., Macdonald, I. D. H., McKittrick, B., Mills, D., Mulhall, P. & White, R. T. 1996, ‘Changing students’ approaches to laboratory work in undergraduate physics’, ASERA conference paper, pp 24-27

Gutierrez, M & Marquez, A. 1994, ‘Longitudinal Model for Assessing Student Outcomes at a Community College’, Association for Institutional Research, Conference Paper, Illinois, pp11-18

Gutteridge, R. 2001, May 14-16, Student support, guidance and retention; re-defining additional needs. Paper presented at the Conference on Qualitative Evidence-based Practice: Taking a Critical Stance, Coventry University, from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001709.htm (Accessed 24 February 2005)

Hadley,T. & Winn, S. 1992, ‘Measuring Value Added at Course Level: An Exploratory Study’, Higher Education Review, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 7-30.

Hagan, D.L., Sheard, J.I. & Macdonald, I.D.H. 1997, ‘Monitoring and evaluating a redesigned first year programming course’, ACM SIGCSE/SIGCUE Conference on Integrating Technology into Computer Science Education, paper, Sweden, pp 35-36

Halabi, A & Smyrnios, K. 1996, ‘Orientation Programs: What Monash Gippsland Business Students Think..Finally!’, Journal of Australian and New Zealand Student Services Association, Vol. 8, pp. 73-89.

Halpin, R.L. 1990, ‘An Application of the Tinto Model to the Analysis of Freshman Persistence in a Community College’, Community College Review, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 22-32

Hamdi, F.A., Abdulrazzak, C. & Nada, K.H. 1992, ‘A discriminant function model for admission at undergraduate university level’, International Review of Education, Vol. 38, No. 5, pp. 505-518.

Hand, M. & and Fry, T.R.L. 1995, Honours Streaming of Undergraduate Students: The Predictive Ability of the Binary Logit Model, Department of Econometrics, Monash University, 52 pages


Hansen, W.L. 1993, ‘Bringing total quality improvement into the college classroom’, Higher Education, Vol. 25, pp. 259-279.

Hansford, B.C. & Hattie, J.A. 1982, ‘The relationship between self and achievement/performance measures’, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 52, pp. 325-340.

Hart, G. 1992, Selected correlates of academic performance, Institute of Education, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, 16 pages

Hartley & McInnis 2002, SRHE The role of peers in undergraduate student experience, Annual Conference 2002 Student engagement: Hartman-Hall, H. M., & Haaga, D. A. F. 2002 ‘College students' willingness to seek help for their learning disabilities’. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 263-274. Hatcher, L., Kryter, K., Prus,. J. & Fitzgerald, V. 1992 ‘Predicting college student satisfaction, commitment, and attrition from invest model constructs’. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 22, 1273 - 1296.

Hau, I. 1991, ‘Teaching quality improvement by quality improvement in teaching’, University of Wisconsin Report Series in Quality and Productivity, Vol. 59, pp. 1-15.

Hawker, L. et al. 1991, ‘The Relationship of Interpersonal Communication Variables to Academic Process and Persistence in College’, Communication Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 297-308.

Hayes, S. 1977, ‘Pressure Contributing to the Decision to Dropout - Comparison between dropouts and persisters’, Australian Journal of Education, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 138-148.

Hayes, S. C. ,1977, ‘Dropouts' dissatisfaction with university’. Australian Journal of Education, 21, 141-149.

Heath, J.A. 1989, ‘An econometric model of the role of gender in economic education’, American Economic Review, Vol. 79, pp. 226-30.

Heckman, J.J. 1979, ‘Sample selection bias as a specification error’, Econometrica, Vol. 47 ,pp.153-161.

Henkel, M., & Vabo, A. 2000, Academic Identities. In M. Kogan, M. Bauer, I. Bleiklie & M. Henkel (Eds.), Transforming Higher Education, A Comparative Study. London: Jessica Kingsley, pp 6-11

Henry, T.C. & Smith, G.P. 1994, ‘Planning Student Success and Persistence: Implementing a State System Strategy’, Community College Review, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 26-36.

Heywood, J. ,2000, Assessment in HE: student learning, teaching, programmes and institutions. London: Jessica Kingsley, 29 pages


Hill, P.W. 1995, ‘Value added measures of achievement’, Seminar Paper, IARTV, Australia.

Hill, P.W. et al. 1993, School and Teacher Effectiveness in Victoria. Key Findings from Phase 1 of the Victorian Quality Schools Project, Centre for Applied Educational Research, University of Melbourne.

Hinnett, K. 2003,. Failing to Assess or Assessing to Fail. In M. Peelo & T. Wareham (Eds.), Failing Students in Higher Education. Buckingham: Open University

Hisada, P. 1988, Studying Student Retention: the Requirements and Process of Retention Research, Hawaii University, Honolulu, 21 pages

Holdaway, E. & Kelloway, K. 1987, ‘First year at university: perceptions and experiences of students’, The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 17, pp. 47-63.

Hong, S.M. 1982, ‘Age and achievement: the age factor in predicting academic success’, Australian Journal of Adult Education, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 21-28.

Hong, S.M. 1984, ‘The age factor in the prediction of tertiary academic success’, Higher Education Research and Development, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 61-70.

Horn, C., Bruning, R., Schraw, G., Curry, E. & Kathkanant, C. 1993, ‘Paths to success in the college classroom’, Contemporary Educational Psychology, Vol. 18, pp. 464-478.

Horvath, J., Beaudin, B.Q. & Wright, S.P. 1992, ‘Persisting in the Introductory Economics Course: An Exploration of Gender Differences’, Journal of Economic Education, Vol. 23, pp. 101-108.

Huang, G. 1995, ‘National Data for Studying Rural Education: Elementary and Secondary Education Applications’, ERIC Digest, 32 pages

Jackson, J. 1997, TQM in higher education: continuously improving the teaching and learning of introductory statistics, Unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Econometrics and Business Statistics, Monash University, 185 pages

Jacobi, M. 1991, ‘Mentoring and Undergraduate Academic Success: A Literature Review’, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 61, No. 4, pp. 505-532.

Jaques, D. 1990, Being a Personal Tutor. Oxford: Oxford Brookes University, 179 pages

Jenkins, N.J. 1992, ‘The Scholastic Aptitude Test as a predictor of academic success: A literature review’, ERIC ED354243.

Johnes, J. & Taylor, J. 1990, ‘Undergraduate Non-Completion Rates: A Reply’, Higher Education, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 385-90.

Johnson, G. A. 1994, ‘Undergraduate Student Attrition: A Comparison of the


Characteristics of Students who Withdraw and Students who Persist’. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, XL(3), 337-353. Johnston, V. 2001, Developing strategies to improve student retention: reflections from the work of Napier University's Student Retention Project. Retrieved 30 April, 2003, from http://www.napier.ac.uk/qes/studentretentionproject/Documents/SRHE%202001%20Cambrid

ge.doc Johnston, V. 2002, ‘Improving student retention - by accident or design’. Exchange(1), 9-11. Johnston, V. 2003, Using Research to Improve Student Retention and Progression: The Experiences of the Student Retention Project at Napier University. Paper used in support of a presentation given at the Institutional Research to Widen Participation Symposium held on 16th June. Retrieved 30 April, 2003, from http://www.ltsn.ac.uk/application.asp?app=resources.asp&process=full_record&section

Jones, J. 1990, ‘Outcomes of Girls’ Schooling: Unravelling Some Social Differences’, Australian Journal of Education, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 153-167.

Jones, P. C. 2002, ‘Improved Academic and Pastoral Support: The University of Greenwich explores a possible way forward’. Exchange, 1, pp24-25.

Kantanis, T. 2002 Same of Different: Issues that affect mature age undergraduate students’ transition to university, presented at 6th Pacific Rim Conference 2002, 16 pages Kealy, M. J., & Rockel, M. L. 1987, ‘Student perceptions of college quality: the influence of college recruitment policies’. The Journal of Higher Education, 58, 683-703.

Keef, S.P. 1992, ‘The Comparative Advantage of Cognate Studies in the New Zealand University Bursaries Accounting Examination’, Australian Journal of Education, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 14-29.

Keeves, J.P. (ed) 1986, ‘Aspiration, motivation and achievement: different methods of analysis and different results’, International Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 10, No. 2.

Keeves, J.P. (ed) 1988, Educational research, methodology, and measurement: an international handbook, Pergamon, Potts Point, New South Wales, pp 32-40

Kember, D, Murphy, D., Siaw, I., & Yuen, K.S. ,1991, ‘Towards a Causal Model of Student Progress in Distance Education: Research in Hong Kong’, The American Journal of Distance Education, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 3-15.

Kember, D. 1989, ‘A Longitudinal-Process Model of Drop-Out from Distance Education’, Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 60, No. 3, pp. 278-301.


Kember, D. 1990, ‘The use of a model to derive interventions which might reduce drop-out from distance education course’, Higher Education, Vol. 20, pp. 11-24.

King, P. 1992, ‘Issues of Curriculum and Comments for First-Generation Asian Americans in College’, New Directions for Community College, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 97-117.

Killen, R. 1994, ‘Differences between students’ and lecturers’ perceptions of factors influencing success at university’, Higher Education Research and Development, 13, pp. 199–211.

Koslowsky, M. 1993, ‘A Comparison of Two Attitude-Behaviour Models for Predicting Attrition in Higher Education’, Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 359-365.

Kraemer, B.A. 1993, ‘The Dimensionality of Academic and Social Integration in Persistence Studies of Hispanic Students’, Association for the Study of Higher Education, Conference Paper, Pittsburgh, 64 pages

Kram, K. E., & Isabella, L. A. 1985, ‘Mentoring alternatives: The role of peer relationships in career development’. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 110-132. Krause, K et al 2005 The first year experience in Australian universities: findings from a decade of national studies, Centre for the Study of HE, University of Melbourne, HEIP, Canberra. Krause, K.-L., Hartley, R., James, R., & McInnis, C. 2005. The First Year Experience in Australian Universities: findings from a decade of national studies: Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne. Kuh & Hu 2001,’ The effects of student-faculty interaction in the 1990s’. The Review of Higher Education, 24, 309-332.

Kuh, G. 1993, ‘In Their Own Words: What Students Learn Outside the Classroom’, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 277-304.

Kuh, G. 1995, ‘The Other Curriculum: Out of Class Experiences Associated with Student Learning and Personal Development’, Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 66, No. 2, pp. 123-153.

Laing, C., & Robinson, A. 2003. The Withdrawal of Non-traditional Students: developing an explanatory model. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 27(2), pp15-17

Lam, Y.L.J. 1984, ‘Predicting dropouts of university freshmen: a logic regression analysis’, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 74-82.

Langston, P.D. & Boyles, C. 1987, ‘The search for a mission and new admission standards: A case study’, College and University, Spring, pp. 183-193.

Le Claire, K.A. 1988, ‘Higher education access and participation: political dependency and student choice’, International Journal of Education Research, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 375-393.


Lenning, O.T., Beal, P.E. and Sauer, K. 1980 Retention and Attrition: Evidence for Action and Research, Boulder: National Centre for Higher Education Management Systems, 48 pages

Leppel, K. 1984, ‘The academic performance of returning and continuing college students’, Journal of Economic Education, Vol. 15, pp. 46-54.

Levin, J.R & Levin, M.E. 1993, ‘Methodological Problems in Research on Academic Retention Programs for At-Risk Minority College Students’, Journal of College Student Development, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 118-24.

Levin, M.E. & Levin, J.R. 1991, ‘A Critical Examination of Academic Retention Programs for At-Risk Minority College Students’, Journal of College Student Development, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 323-34.

Lewallen,W. 1993, ‘The Impact of Being ‘Undecided’ on College-Student Persistence’, Journal of College Student Development, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 103-12.

Lewis, D.E. 1991, Credit Transfers Between TAFE and Higher Education, University of Wollongong, DEET, Evaluations and Investigations Program, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 18 pages

Lewis, D.E. 1994, The Performance at University of Equity Groups and Students Admitted Via Alternative Modes of Entry, Higher Education Division, Evaluations and Investigations Program, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra., 21 pages

Light, G., & Cox, R. 2001, Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. London: PCP Publishing, 195 [ages

Light, R. J. 2001, Making the most of college: Students speak their minds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 112 pages

Linke, R.D, Barton, A.R. & Cannon, A.R. 1985, Deferment of entry into higher education, Tertiary Education Authority of South Australia, 48 pages

Linke, R.D. 1992, ‘Some principles for application of performance indicators in higher education’, Higher Education Management, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 194-203.

Linke, R.D. et al. 1991, Performance indicators in higher education, DEET, Canberra AGPS, 17 pages

Lintern, S 2006, LOST Program for first year students, presented to 9th Pacific Rim Conference 2006 QUT, 6 pages

Logan, P.F & Bailey, D.E. 1983, ‘Diagnostic testing for success in tertiary physics’, Australian Physicist, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 62-65.

Logan, P.F. & Bailey, D.E. 1987, ‘Characteristics of students’, in Miller, A.H. & Sasche-Akerhurst, G The Learning in Higher Education: A Forgotten Species, ., pp. 240-247.


Long, M. 1994, A Study of the Academic Results of On-Campus and Off-Campus Students: Comparative Performance Within Four Australian Tertiary Institutions, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 58 pages

Long, M., & Hayden, M. 2001, Paying their Way: A Survey of Australian Undergraduate University Student Finances, 2000. Retrieved 01 February 2006, 2006, from http://www.avcc.edu.au/documents/publications/policy/statements/final_report_re v_22_oct_01.pdf

Lowe, I. 1987, ‘Alternatives in tertiary selection’ Australian Mathematics Teacher, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 19-20.

Lublin. J. 1982, ‘Some alternative entry characteristics as factors in tertiary success’, Higher Education Research and Development, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 69-71.

Lumsden, K. & Scott, A. 1983, ‘The efficacy of innovative teaching techniques in economics: the UK experience’, American Economic Review, Vol. 73, pp. 13-17.

Lumsden, K.G. & Scott, A. 1987, ‘The economics student re-examined: Male-female differences in comprehension’, Journal of Economic Education, Vol. 18 pp. 365-375.

Lyons, L. 1991, ‘The Integration of Qualitative and Quantitative Research in a Longitudinal Retention Study’, Association for Institutional Research Forum Paper, San Francisco, 77 pages

Lysaght, P and Walton, R 2006, (University of Wollongong) A CD-ROM in Student Speak at the 2006 QUT 9th Pacific Conference

Mackie, S. E. ,2001, ‘Jumping the Hurdles - Undergraduate Student Withdrawal Behaviour’. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 38(3).

Magel, R.C. 1996, ‘Increasing student participation in large introductory statistics courses’, The American Statistician, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 51-56.

Magolda, M. & Baxter, B. 1990, ‘The Impact of the Freshman Year on Epistemological Development: Gender Differences’, Review of Higher Education, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 259-84.

Marcoulides, G.A. & Goldstein, Z. 1992, ‘The Optimization of Multivariate Generalisability Studies with Budget Constraints’, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 52, No. 2, pp. 301-08.

Marsh, H. & Craven, R. 1994, ‘Who Benefits from Selective Schools? The Role of Academic Self Concept and a Call for Further Research’, Forum of Education, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 3-13.

Marsh, H.W. & Dunkin, J.J. 1991, ‘Student’s evaluations of university teaching: A multidimensional perspective’, in Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, ed. J. Smart.


Marsh, H.W. 1990, Self-Description Questionnaire – 1: Manual, Campbelltown, University of Western Sydney, 37 pages

Mason, P.M. et al. 1995, ‘Student Evaluations of Faculty: A New Procedure for Using Aggregate Measures of Performance’, Economics of Education Review, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 403-16.

McCaffrey, S. 1989, ‘A Key to Survival: The Retention of Adult Students in an External Degree Program’, ASHE Annual Meeting Paper.

McClelland, A.A. & Kruger, P.W. 1993, An Investigation of the Subsequent Performance in Tertiary Studies of Students Admitted Through the Queensland Tertiary Admissions Centre in 1989-90, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 14 pages

McInnes, C 2001 ‘Researching the first year experience: where to from here?’, Higher Education Research and Development, 20(2), pp. 105–114. McInnes, C, Griffin, P, James, R and Coates, H 2001 Development of the Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ), Evaluations and Investigations Program, Higher Education Division, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 82 pages

McInnes, C., James, R, 2004 First Year Experience @ Griffith University Griffith University, 64 pages

McInnes, C., James, R. and McNaught, C. 1995 First Year on Campus Canberra: AGPS, 163 pages

McInnis C 1995, ‘Achieving quality learning in higher education’. Higher Education Research and

Development. 14 129-130.

McInnis, C. 2003, ‘From Marginal to Mainstream Strategies: responding to student diversity in Australian universities’. European Journal of Education, 38(4), 387 - 400.

McInnis, C., & James, R. 1995, First Year on Campus: Diversity in the Initial Experiences of Australian

Undergraduates. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 58 pages McInnis, C., James, R., & Hartley, R. 2000, Trends in the First Year Experience in Australian

Universities. Canberra: AGPS, 95 pages

McJamerson, E.McC. 1992, ‘Undergraduate Academic Major and Minority Student Persistence: Individual Choices, National Consequences’, Equity and Excellence, Vol. 25, No. 2-4, pp. 35-48.

McKeown, B., Macdonnell, A. & Bowen, C. 1993, ‘The Point of View of the Student in Attrition Research’, Canadian Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 65-85.


McClelland, A.A. and Kruger, P.W. 1993 An Investigation of the Subsequent Performance in Tertiary Studies of Students Admitted Through the Queensland Tertiary Admissions Centre in 1989-90, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

McPherson, A & Paterson, L. 1990, ‘Undergraduate Non-Completion Rates: A Comment’, Higher-Education, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 377-83.

Metzner, B.S. 1987, A Categorical Bibliography for Student Attrition Research. Review of Educational Research, 55(4), 485-540

Metzner,B.S. & Bean, J.P. 1987, ‘The Estimation of a Conceptual Model of Non-traditional Undergraduate Student Attrition’, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 15-38.

Meyler, M.J. 1989, ‘A multivariate approach to the study of student success at university’, Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australia Conference, Perth, pp 36-39

Miller, M.T. & Dirkx, J.M. 1995, ‘Mentoring in Graduate Education: The Role of Graduate Student Organizations’, Journal of Adult Education, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp.20-30.

Minnaert, A. & Janssen, P.J. 1992, ‘Success and progress in higher education: A structural model of studying’, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 62, pp. 184-192.

Modk, D.H. 1989, ‘The education production function: its evaluating role in policy analysis’, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 31-45.

Mortiboys, A. 2002, ‘Retention as a measure of university effectiveness’. Exchange, 1(14-16).

Moss, P. 1992, ‘Shifting Conceptions of Validity in Education of Management: Implications for Performance Indicators’, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 62, No. 3, pp. 229-288.

Muckert, T 2002 Investigating the Student Attrition Process and the Contribution of Peer-Mentoring Interventions in an Australian First Year University Program, Griffith University, pp 53-57

Muckert, T., Wilson, K. & Lizzio, A. 1996, ‘Can peer mentoring assist the adjustment of first year Psychology students in making the transition to university? A preliminary report of work in progress’, ‘First Year Experience’, Conference proceedings, University of Melbourne. pp 16-20

Munn, P. et al. 1994, The Effectiveness of Access Courses: Views of Access Students and Their Teachers, Research Report Series, Scottish Council for Research into Education, Edinburgh, pp 15-19

Munro, B. 1981, ‘Dropouts from higher education: Path analysis of a national sample’, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 20, pp. 133-141.

Mutter, P. 1992, ‘Tinto's Theory of Departure and Community College Student Persistence’, Journal of College Student Development, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 310-18.


Myers, R.S. & Pyles, M.R. 1992, ‘Relationships among high school grades, ACT test scores and college grades’, Mid-South Educational Research Association Conference Paper.

National Student Satisfaction Survey. 2005. Retrieved 21 February, 2006, from http://www1.tqi.ac.uk/sites/tqi/home/index.cfm National Audit Office. 2002, Improving Student Achievement in English Higher Education. London: The Stationery Office, 153 pages Nelson, K 2006, QUT presentation at the 9th Pacific Rim Conference ‘Engaging Students” 12 -14 July 2006, 47 slides

Neumann, Y. & Finaly-Neumann, E. 1989, ‘Predicting Juniors’ and Seniors’ Persistence and Attrition: A Quality of Learning Experience Approach’, Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 59, pp. 129-140.

Neumann, Y., Finaly-Neumann, E. & Reichel, A. 1990, ‘Determinants and Consequences of Students’ Burnout in Universities’, Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 61, No. 1, pp. 21-31.

Nora, A. & Rendon, L.I. 1990, ‘Determinants of Predisposition to Transfer among Community College Students: A Structural Model’, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 235-55.

Nora, A. 1987, ‘Determinants of Retention among Chicano College Students: A Structural Model’, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 31-59.

Nora, A. et al. 1990, ‘Testing Qualitative Indicators of Precollege Factors in Tinto's Attrition Model: A Community College Student Population’, Review of Higher Education, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 337-55.

Nora, A., & Cabrera, A. F. 1996, ‘The role of perceptions of prejudice and discrimination on the adjustment of minority students to college’. Journal of Higher Education, 67, 119-148. Nora, A., Cabrera, A. F., Hagedorn, L. S., & Pascarella, E. T. 1996, ‘Differential impacts of academic and social experiences on college related behavioural outcomes across different ethnic and gender groups at four-year institutions’. . Research in Higher Education, 37 427- 452.

Norman, K.F. & Norman, J.E. 1995, ‘The Synergy of Minority Student Persistence and Faculty Renewal’, Innovative Higher Education, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 129-40.

Norton, C. & Reding, K. 1992, ‘Predicting Success in Collegiate Accounting Courses’, Journal of Education for Business, pp. 314-316.

Nourayi, M. & Cherry, A. 1993, ‘Accounting Students’ Performance and personality types’, Journal of Education for Business, pp. 111-115.


O’Dowd, M. 1996, Young People At-Risk: Empowerment and Perspective, Unpublished PhD Thesis, Monash University, 175 pages

O’Dowd, M. 1997, The Transition Needs of Mature Age Students: An Evaluation of a Pilot Transition Program, Report to Monash University University Vice Chancellor (in process).

Orr, S., & Blythman, M. 2002, ‘Student success - a lesson from further education’. Exchange, 1(1), 20-22.

Ozga,J & Sukhnandan,L. 1998 "Undergraduate non-completion: Developing an explanatory model" Higher Education Quarterly vol.52 no.3 pp.316-333

Pacheco, A. 1994, ‘Bridging the Gaps in Retention: Metropolitan Universities, An International Forum, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 54-60.

Palmer, J., Carliner, G. & Romer, T. 1979, ‘Does high school economics help?’ Journal of Economic Education, Vol. 10, pp. 58-61.

Park, K.H. & Kerr, P.M. 1990, ‘Determinants of academic performance: A multinomial logit approach’, Journal of Economic Education, Vol. 21, pp. 101-111.

Parmar, D., & Trotter, E. 2005, ‘Keeping our Students: Identifying factors that influence student withdrawal and strategies to enhance the experience and retention of first year students’. Learning and Teaching in the Social Sciences, 1(3). Parry, G. 2003, A Short History of Failure. In M. Peelo & T. Wareham (Eds.), Failing Students in Higher Education (pp. 15-28). Buckingham: Open University Press/SRHE.

Pascarella, E & Terenzini, P, 1980 "Toward the validation of Tinto's model of college student attrition: A review of recent studies." Research in Higher Education, pp. 271-282.

Pascarella, E. T., & Chapman, D. W. 1983, ‘Validation of a theoretical model of college withdrawal: Interaction effects in a multi-institutional sample’. Research in Higher Education, 19, 25-48.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. 1991, How College Affects Students: Findings and Insights from Twenty Years of Research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 64 pages Pascarella, E. T., Pierson, C. T., Wolniak, G. C., & Terenzini, P. T. 2004 ‘First- Generation College Students: Additional Evidence on College Experiences and Outcomes’’. The Journal of Higher Education, 75(3).

Pascarella, E.T. & Chapman, D.W. 1983, ‘A Multi-Institutional, Path Analytic Validation of Tinto's Model of College Withdrawal’, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 87-102.


Pascarella, E.T. & Terenzini, P.T. 1974, Ratings of the Academic Program by Freshman Students in Systematically Designed and Conventional Courses: A Discriminant Analysis, Syracuse University, N.Y, 95 pages

Pascarella, E.T. & Terenzini, P.T. 1977a, ‘Informal Interaction with Faculty and Freshman Ratings of Academic and Non-Academic Experience of College’, Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 70, No. 1, pp. 35-41.

Pascarella, E.T. & Terenzini, P.T. 1977b, ‘Patterns of Student-Faculty Informal Interaction Beyond the Classroom and Voluntary Freshman Attrition’, Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 48, No. 5, pp. 540-52.

Pascarella, E.T. & Terenzini, P.T. 1978, ‘Student-Faculty Informal Relationships and Freshman Year Educational Outcomes’, Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 71, No. 4, pp. 183-9.

Pascarella, E.T. & Terenzini, P.T. 1979a, ‘Interactive Influences in Spady and Tinto's Conceptual Models of College Attrition’, Sociology of Education, Vol. 52, No. 4, pp. 197-210.

Pascarella, E.T. & Terenzini, P.T. 1979b, ‘Student-Faculty Informal Contact and College Persistence: A Further Investigation’, Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 72, No. 4, pp. 214-18.

Pascarella, E.T. & Terenzini, P.T. 1980, ‘Predicting Freshman Persistence and Voluntary Dropout Decisions from a Theoretical Model’, Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 60-75.

Pascarella, E.T. & Terenzini, P.T. 1981, ‘Residence Arrangement, Student/Faculty Relationships, and Freshman Year Educational Outcomes’, Journal of College Student Personnel, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 147-56.

Pascarella, E.T. & Terenzini, P.T. 1983, ‘Predicting Voluntary Freshman Year Persistence/Withdrawal Behavior in a Residential University: A Path Analytic Validation of Tinto's Model’, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 75, No. 2, pp. 215-226.

Pascarella, E.T. & Terenzini, P.T. 1991, How College Affects Students: Findings and Insights from Twenty Years of Research, San Francisco, Josey-Bass, 47 pages

Pascarella, E.T. 1980, ‘Student-Faculty Informal Contact and College Outcomes’, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 50, pp. 545-95.

Pascarella, E.T. 1982a, ‘Perspectives on Quantitative Analysis for Research in Postsecondary Education’, Review of Higher Education, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 197-211.

Pascarella, E.T. 1982b, Validation of a Theoretical Model of College Dropouts, National Inst. of Education (ED) Washington, DC, 105 pages

Pascarella, E.T. 1986, ‘A Program for Research and Policy Development on Student Persistence at the Institutional Level’, Journal of College Student Personnel, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 100-107.


Pascarella, E.T. et al. 1981, ‘Pre enrolment Variables and Academic Performance as Predictors of FreshmanYear Persistence, Early Withdrawal, and Stopout Behaviour in an Urban, Non-residential University’, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 329-49.

Pascarella, E.T. et al. 1983a, ‘A Test and Reconceptualisation of a Theoretical Model of College Withdrawal in a Commuter Institution Setting’, Sociology of Education, Vol. 56, No. 2, pp. 88-100.

Pascarella, E.T. et al. 1983b, ‘Student-Faculty Relationships and Freshman Year Intellectual and Personal Growth in a Non-residential Setting’, Journal of College Student Personnel, Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 395-402.

Pascarella, E.T. et al. 1986, ‘Long-Term Persistence of Two-Year College Students’, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 47-71.

Pascarella, E.T. et al. 1994, ‘Impacts on 2-Year and 4-Year Colleges on Learning Orientations: A Preliminary Study, 1994, Community College Journal of Research and Practice, Vol. 18, No. 6, pp. 577-89.

Paterson, L. & Goldstein, H. 1991, ‘New Statistical Methods for Analysing Social Structures: An Introduction to Multilevel Models’, British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 387-93.

Peat, M., Dalzeil, J., & Grant, A. M. 2001, ‘Enhancing the First Year Student Experience by Facilitating the Development of Peer Networks through a One-day Workshop’’. Higher Education Research & Development, 20(2), 199 - 215.

Peng, S.S. 1977, Transfer Students in Institutions of Higher Education, Research Triangle Institute, Durham, National Centre for Education Statistics,32 pages

Pharr, S., Bailey, J. & Dangerfield, B. 1993, ‘Admission/Continuance Standards as Predictors of Academic Performance of Business Students’, Journal of Education for Business, pp. 69-74.

Pitkethly, A., & Prosser, M. 2001 ‘The First Year Experience Project: a model for university-wide change’. Higher Education Research & Development, 20(2), 185 - 198.

Pongboriboon 1993, Variables influencing the mathematics performance of first-year tertiary students: a case study, Deakin University, Geelong, 52 pages

Pope, B., Cameron, B. & McClelland, A.A. 1991, Unmet Demand for Higher Education Places in Victoria and Queensland, Australian Government Printing Service, Canberra,. 153 pages

Pope, G. and Van Dyke, M. 1999 Mentoring.Value adding to the University In Success in Transition Years, proceedings of the 3rd Pacific Rim Conference on the First Year Experience. Auckland Institute of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand, 6 pages

Powell, J. 1979, ‘From School to University’, The Australian Journal of Education, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 113-120.


Power, C & Robertson, F. 1987, Factors influencing participation in higher education in Australia, National Institute of Labour Studies, Flinders University, South Australia, 25 pages

Preston, D.L. 1993, ‘Using the CCSEQ in Institutional Effectiveness: The Role of Goal Commitment and Student's Perception of Gains’, Association for Institutional Research Conference Paper, Chicago, 16 pages

Price, D., Harte, J. & Cole, M. 1992 Student Progression in Higher Education: A Study of Attrition at Northern Territory University, DEET, Evaluation and Investigations Program, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 53 pages

Raaheim, K., Wankowski, J., & Radford, J. 1991, Helping Students to Learn: Teaching, Counselling, Research. Buckingham: SHRE and OUP, 118 pages

Raciti, M, 2006 Engaging first-year students through Relationship Marketing, 9th Pacific Rim in Higher Education Conference 2006 QUT, 42 slides and 12 pages

Ramirez, H. 1994, ‘Programs and Drop-out in Universidad Estatal a Distancia (UNED) of Costa Rica’, The American Journal of Distance Education, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 64-73.

Ramsay, A.L. & Baines, A.R. 1996, The Impact of Gender on Student Performance in Introductory Accounting Courses, Department of Accounting and Finance, Monash University, 63 pages

Ramsden, P. 1992. Learning to Teach in Higher Education. London: Routledge, 241 Pages

Ramsden, P. 1991, ‘Study processes in Grade 12 environments’, in Fraser, B.J. & Walberg, H.J. (eds) Educational Environments. Evaluation, Antecedents and Consequences, New York: Pergamon Press, pp 45-47

Ramsden, P., Martin E. & Bowden, J. 1989, ‘School environment and sixth form pupils’ approaches to learning’, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 59, pp. 129-142.

Rasbash, J. & Goldstein, H. 1994, ‘Efficient Analysis of Mixed Hierarchical and Cross-Classified Random Structures Using a Multilevel Model’, Journal of Educational and Behavioural Statistics, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 337-50.

Rasell, E. & Rothstein, R. 1993, ‘School Choice: Examining the Evidence’, Economic Policy Institute, Washington, DC,37 pages

Raudenbush, S.W. & Chan, W.S. 1993, ‘Application of a Hierarchical Linear Model to the Study of Adolescent Deviance in an Overlapping Cohort Design’, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 61, No. 6, pp. 941-51.

Raudenbush, S.W. & Willms, J.D. 1995, ‘The Estimation of School Effects’, Journal of Educational and Behavioural Statistics, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 307-35.


Raudenbush, S.W. 1993, ‘A Crossed Random Effects Model for Unbalanced Data with Applications in Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Research’, Journal of Educational Statistics, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 321-49.

Raudenbush, S.W. et al. 1991, ‘A Multilevel, Multivariate Model for Studying School Climate with Estimation via the EM Algorithm and Application to U.S. High-School Data’, Journal of Educational Statistics, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 295-330.

Riley, K.A. & Nuttall, D.L. (eds) 1994, Measuring Quality: Education Indicators-United Kingdom and International Perspectives, Falmer Press, Bristol, pp 25 - 27

Roberts, D. 1984 Ways and means of reducing early student drop-out rates, Distance Education, 5, pp. 50–71.

Rogosa, D. & Saner, H. 1995, ‘Longitudinal Data Analysis Examples with Random Coefficient Models’, Journal of Educational and Behavioural Statistics, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 149-70.

Romer, D. 1993, ‘Do students go to class? Should they?’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 167-174.

Rowe, K.J., Hill, P.W. & Holmes-Smith, P. 1995, ‘Methodological Issues in Education Performance and School Effectiveness Research: A Discussion with Worked Examples’, Australian Journal of Education, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 217-248.

Rudman, S, 2006 Mentors @Macquarie presented at 9th Pacific Rim Conference 2006 QUT, 38 slides

Rump, E. & Greeb, N. 1975, ‘The characteristics and motivations of students who withdraw without failing’, Vestes, Vol. 18, pp. 150-160.

Sadler, R. 1986, ‘The prediction of tertiary success: a cautionary note’, Journal of Tertiary Educational Administration, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 151-158.

Salemi, M.K. & Tauchen, G.E. 1980, ‘Guessing and the error structure of learning models’, American Economic Review, Vol. 70, No. 2, pp. 41-49.

Salganik, L.H. 1994, ‘Apples and Apples: Comparing Performance Indicators for Places with Similar Demographic Characteristics’, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 125-41.

Sawchuk, M.T. 1991, Access and Persistence: An Educational Program Model. Celebrating Cultural Diversity in Higher Education, Mount St. Mary’s College, Los Angeles, 97 pages

SCEE. 2001, Select Committee on Education and Employment, Higher Education: Student Retention, Sixth Report, HC 124. Retrieved 16th April, 2003, from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200001/cmselect/cmeduemp/124/12408.ht


Schedvin, M. 1985, ‘"Why we discontinued": an exploration of voluntary discontinuation of studies among first year students at a college of health science’, Higher Education Research Development, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 159-173.

Schofield, H. 1989, ‘The predictive value of school based assessment in tertiary selection’, Australian Association for Research in Education Conference, Adelaide Pp 43-45

Schuller,T. & Bamford,C. 2000 "A social capital approach to the analysis of continuing education: evidence from the UK Learning Society research programme" Oxford Review of Education vol.26 no.1 pp.5-19

Schultz, R.A. et al. 1992, ‘Assessing a Short-Term Intervention to Senior secondary school persistence and attrition: the development and testing of a theoretical model. Facilitate Academic Success’, NASPA Journal, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 43-50.

Scott, G 1999 Change Matters: Making a Difference in Education & Training, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, pp 140-160 Scott, G 2004 ‘Change matters; making a difference in higher education’, in Carmichael, R (ed) 2004, Quality in a time of change, Proceedings of AUQF 2004, AUQA Melbourne, pp. 35–51. Scott, G 2005 ‘Accessing the Student Voice’, Final Report, DEST,, 142 pages

Secretary of State for Education and Employment 2000,. Funding Letter to the Higher Education Funding Council for England, 29 November, cited in Floud (2002, p57).

Selby, P. & Hore, T. 1996, Cohort ‘94: A Longitudinal Study of Student Characteristics and Expectations, Professional Development Centre, Monash University, pp 46-49

Seltzer, M.H. 1993, ‘Sensitivity Analysis for Fixed Effects in the Hierarchical Model: A Gibbs Sampling Approach’, Journal of Educational Statistics, Vol. 18, No. 3 pp. 207-35.

Seltzer, M.H. 1994, ‘Studying Variation in Program Success: A Multilevel Modelling Approach’, Evaluation Review, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 342-61.

Seltzer, M.H. et al. 1994, ‘The Metric Matters: The Sensitivity of Conclusions about Growth in Student Achievement to Choice of Metric’, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 41-49,

Shah, C. & Burke, G. 1996, Student Flows in Australian Higher Education, Monash, ACER, Centre for the Economics of Education and Training, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 107 pages

Sharma, R. & Dobson, I. 1995, Student Performance and the Diversification of Modes of University Study and Bases of Admission, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 113 pages


Sharma, R. and Burgess, Z. 1994 Student discontinuation at a technological higher education institution, Journal of Tertiary Education Administration, 16, pp. 225–238.

Sheldrake, P. 1976, ‘Failure and Withdrawal: Student Dropout at Flinders University’, Vestes, Vol. 19, pp. 25-29.

Sherman, R.H. & Tinto, V. 1975, ‘The Effectiveness of Secondary and Higher Education Intervention Programs: A Critical Review of Research’, American Educational Research Association Conference Paper, Washington USA, 85 pages

Siegfried, J. & Fels, R. 1979, ‘Research on Teaching Economics: A Survey’, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 17, pp. 923-69.

Siegfried, J. & Walstead, W. 1991, Research on Teaching College Economics. In the Principles of Economics Comes: A Handbook, for instructors, ed. Saunders, P. & Walstead, W., N.Y., McGraw Hill, 254 pages

Simpson, C., Baker, K., & Mellinger, M. 1980, ‘Conventional failures and unconventional dropouts: Comparing different types of university withdrawals’. Sociology of education, 53, 203-214.

Singer, J.D. & Willett, J.B. 1993a, ‘It's about Time: Using Discrete Time Survival Analysis to Study Duration and the Timing of Events’, Journal of Educational Statistics, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 155-95.

Singer, J.D. & Willett, J.B. 1993b, ‘New Methods for Studying Event Occurrence: Using Survival Analysis in Early Intervention Research’, Journal of Early Intervention, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 322-39.

Sladden, J.D. 1979, ‘Secondary/tertiary transition’, Pivot, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 39-43.

Smith, P. 1990, ‘The Use of Performance Indicators in the Public Sector’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, A, Vol. 153, No. 1, pp. 53-72.

Smyth, G.K., Knuiman, M.W., Thornett, M.L. & Kiiveri, H. 1990, ‘Using the EM algorithm to predict first year university performance’, Australian Journal of Education, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 204-224.

Spady, W.D. 1970, ‘Dropouts for Higher Education: Towards an Empirical Model’, Interchange, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 38-62.

Spann, N.G. 1990, ‘Student Retention: An Interview with Vincent Tinto’, Journal of Developmental Education, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 18-20,22,24.

Spector, L.C. & Mazzeo, M. 1980, ‘Probit analysis and economic education’, Journal of Economic Education, Vol. 11, pp. 37-44.

Stage, F.K. & Rushin, P.W. 1993, ‘A Combined Model of Student Predisposition to College and Persistence in College’, Journal of College Student Development, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 276-82.


Stage, F.K. 1987, ‘University Attrition: LISREL with Logistic Regression for the Persistence Criterion’, American Educational Research Association Conference paper, Washington.

Stage, F.K. 1989 ‘Motivation, Academic and Social Integration, and the Early Dropout, 1989’, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 385-402

Stahl, V.V, Pavel, D. & D. M. 1992, Assessing the Bean and Metzner Model with Community College Student Data.

Stanley, G. & Oliver, J. 1994, ‘Variation in student selection within the Australian Unified National System: a case study in undergraduate business studies from Western Australia’, Higher Education, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 113, 291-299

Steele, G.E. et al 1993, ‘The Retention of Major-Changers: A Longitudinal Study’, Journal of College Student Development, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 58-62.

Stone, H.R. 1988, ‘Capabilities of traditional quantitative admissions criteria in predicting performance of off campus engineering graduate students enrolled in videotaped courses’, Distance Education, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 250-272.

Sweet, R. 1986, ‘Student dropout in distance education: an application of Tinto's model’, Distance Education, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 201-213.

Swift, J.S. Jr. 1987, ‘Retention of Adult College Students’, NACADA Journal, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 7-19.

Szafran, R F. 2001 'The Effect of Academic Load on Success for New College Students: Is Lighter Better?', Research in Higher Education (2001) Vol. 42, No.1 pp.27-50

Tay, R.S. 1994, ‘Students' Performance in Economics: Does the Norm Hold across Cultural and Institutional Settings?’, Journal of Economic Education, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 291-301.

Terenzini, P.T. & Pascarella, E.T. 1977, ‘Voluntary Freshman Attrition and Patterns of Social and Academic Integration in a University: A Test of a Conceptual Model’, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 25-43.

Terenzini, P.T. & Pascarella, E.T. 1980a, ‘Toward the Validation of Tinto's Model of College Student Attrition: A Review of Recent Studies’, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 271-82.

Terenzini, P.T. & Pascarella, E.T. 1980b, ‘Student/Faculty Relationships and Freshman Year Educational Outcomes: A Further Investigation’, Journal of College Student Personnel, Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 521-28.

Terenzini, P.T. & Pascarella, E.T. 1984, ‘Freshman Attrition and the Residential Context’, The Review of Higher Education, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 111-24.


Terenzini, P.T. & Pascarella, E.T. 1990, ‘Twenty Years of Research on College Students: Lessons for Future Research’, Association for Institutional Research, forum paper, pp 33-37

Terenzini, P.T. & Wright, T.M. 1987a, ‘Differences in Academic Skill Development among Men and Women during the First Two Years of College’, American Education Research Association, Conference paper, Washington, 11-15

Terenzini, P.T. & Wright, T.M. 1987b, ‘Influences on Students' Academic Growth During Four Years of College’, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 161-79.

Terenzini, P.T. 1993a, ‘On the Nature of Institutional Research and the Knowledge and Skills It Requires’, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 1-10.

Terenzini,P.T. & Pascarella, E.T. 1978, The Role of Students' Backgrounds and Levels of Academic and Social Integration in College Attrition: A Test of a Model, Syracuse University, New York.

Thomas, L. 2001, ‘Power, assumptions and prescriptions: a critique of widening participation policy-making’. Higher Education Policy, 14(4), 361-376. Thomas, L. 2002, ‘Student retention in higher education: the role of institutional Habitus’. Journal of Education Policy, 17(4), 423-442.

Thomas, R.O. & Bean, J.P. 1988, ‘Student Retention at Liberal Arts Colleges: The Development and Test of a Model’, Association for the Study of Higher Education Conference paper, St. Louis, pp 41-47

Thomas, S. & Mortimore, P. 1996, ‘Comparison of value-added models for secondary-school effectiveness’, Research Papers in Education, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 5-33.

Thomas, S., Sammons, P. & Mortimore, P. 1995, ‘Determining What "Adds Value" to Student Achievement’, Educational Leadership International, pp. 19-22.

Thompson, A.P & Smith, L.M. 1982, ‘Conceptual, computational correlates of student performance in introductory statistics’, Australian Psychologist, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 191-197.

Thompson, G. 1984, ‘The Cognitive Style of Field-Dependence as an Explanatory Construct in Distance Education Drop-Out’, Distance Education, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 286-93.

Tiggemann, M. & A.H. Winefield, 1989, ‘Prediction of employment, unemployment and further study among school-leavers’, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 62, No. 3, pp. 213-221.

Tinto, V. & Wallace, D.L. 1986, ‘Retention: An Admission Concern’, College and University, Vol. 61, No. 4, pp. 290-93.

Tinto, V. 1988, ‘Stages of Student Departure: Reflections on The Longitudinal Character of Student Leaving’. The Journal of Higher Education, 59(4), 438-455.


Tinto, V. 1993, Leaving College: rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition, 2nd edition. Chicago,

IL: The University of Chicago Press, pp 142 -150 Tinto, V. 1996, ‘Reconstructing the first year of college’. Planning for Higher Education, 25(1-6). Tinto, V. 1997, ‘Classrooms as Communities: Exploring the Educational Character of Student

Persistence’. The Journal of Higher Education, 68(6), 599-623.

Tinto, V. 1972, The Effect of College Proximity on Rates of College Attendance, Columbia University Teachers College, New York, 249 pages

Tinto, V. 1975, ‘Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research’, Review of Educational Research, 45, pp. 89–125.

Tinto, V. 1982, ‘Limits of Theory and Practice in Student Attrition’, Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 53, No. 6, pp. 687-700.

Tinto, V. 1988, ‘Stages of Student Departure: Reflections on the Longitudinal Character of Student Leaving’, Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 59, No. 4, pp. 438-55.

Tinto, V. 1990, ‘Principles of Effective Retention’, Journal of the Freshman Year Experience, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 35-48.

Tinto, V. 1993 Leaving University: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (Second Edition). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 153 pages

Tinto, V. 1995, ‘Educational Communities and Student Success in the First Year of University’, Transition from Secondary School to University Conference Paper, Monash University, pp55-65

Tinto, V. 2002 Taking Student Learning Seriously, Maricopa Centre for Learning and Instruction http://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu

Trotter, E. 2003, Enhancing the Early Student Experience, from http://www.edu.salford.ac.uk/scd/documents/docs/enhancing_student_exp.rtf Trotter, E. 2006, ‘Student Perceptions of Continuous Summative Assessment’. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(5), forthcoming. Trotter, E., & Cove, G. 2005,. ‘Student retention: an exploration of the issues prevalent on a healthcare degree programme with mainly mature students’’ . Learning in Health and Social Care, 4(1), 29-42.

Tutton, P.J.M. & Wigg, S.J. 1990, ‘The influence of last secondary school attended, subjects taken in last year of secondary education and gender on preclinical performance of medical students’, Australian Journal of Education, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 168-173.


Twomey, J.L. 1991 Academic performance and retention in a peer mentor program at a two-year campus of a four-year institution. Research report. Alamagordo, NM: New Mexico State University, pp 36-52

Tymms, P. 1995, ‘A Comment on Gray, Jesson, Goldstein, Hedger, and Rasbash’, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 115-17.

UAC Guide 2006 (University Admissions Centre (NSW & ACT) Pty Ltd) UAC Guide www.uac.ecu.au

Umoh,U.J. et al. 1994, ‘Factors Related to Student Retention in Community College Developmental Education Mathematics’, Community College Review, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 37-47.

Universities UK. 2002,. Higher Education in facts and figures. London: HESA. 69 pages University of Western Sydney 2004 UWS First Year Exit Survey, UWS, Sydney [available online at: www.uws.edu.au/quality ] Upcraft, L John N. Gardner, and Associates, 1989 The Freshman Year Experience: Helping Students Survive and Succeed in College, Jossey-Bass/Wiley, 189 pages UWS Performance Portfolio 2006 The University of Western Sydney, 64 pages

UWS Assessment Guide, 2008, UWS, 58 pages

UWS web site http://www.uws.edu.au/staff/adminorg/corpserv/opq/portfolio cited 1.4.2006 UWS 2005 Divisional Review – Project Management Information paper – see Appendix 6

UWS Academic Advising for New Students 2005 A working party chaired by Kim Nemetz – 9 May 2005 UWS Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) 2005 Office of Planning and Quality in association with Graduate Careers Australia UWS Course Guide/Handbook – Engineering cited 1.4.2006 http://handbook.uws.edu.au/hbook/course.asp?course=3621.2 UWS Course Report CSTE 2005 Engineering http://www.uws.edu.au/staff/adminorg/corpserv/opq/stats UWS Literature LEAFLETS 2005 “The Essential Guide”, “Dollars and Sense”, “Sleep Soundly for Success”, “Walk Before you Talk” UWS Retention Action Plan 2005. University of Western Sydney, 25 pages

UWS Tracking and Improvement System for Learning & Teaching (TILT) 2006


UWS VICE-CHANCELLOR’S OPENING ADDRESS SENIOR MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 19 AUGUST 2004 Sustainability UWS What Retains Students & Promotes Productive Learning in Higher Education 2005 Scott, G, Bond, N and Webb, C UWS, 44 pages

Van Rossum, E.J. & Schenk, S.M. 1984, ‘The relationship between learning conception, study strategy and learning outcome’, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 54, pp. 73-83.

Volkwein, J.F. 1991, ‘Improved Measures of Academic and Social Integration and Their Association with Measures of Student Growth’, Association for Institutional Research, Conference paper.

Walberg, H. & Haertel, G. 1990, The International Encyclopaedia of Educational Evaluation, Pergamon Press.

Walleri, R.D. & Peglow-Hock, M. 1988, ‘Case Studies of Non-Traditional High Risk Students: Does Social and Academic Integration Apply?’, Association for Institutional Research, Conference Paper, Phoenix, p 30-64

Walmsley, D.J 1990, ‘How well do HSC scaled aggregate scores predict university performance in geography?’ Geography Bulletin, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 241-245.

Warwick-James, J.J. 1994, Pilot Study: Retention and Withdrawal Among First Year Students in Science, Student Services, University of New South Wales, 52 pages

Watkins, D & Hattie, J. 1985, ‘A longitudinal study of the approaches to learning of Australian tertiary students’, Human Learning (UK) Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 127-141.

Watkins, D & Hattie, J. 1990, ‘Individual and contextual differences in the approaches to learning of Australian secondary school students’, Educational Psychology (UK) Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 33-342.

Watkins, D & Hattie, J. 1992, ‘The motive-strategy congruence model revisited’, Contemporary Educational Psychology (US) Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 194-198.

Watkins, D. 1978, ‘A note on student satisfaction with university: a case study’, Education Research and Perspectives, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 45-53.

Watkins, D. 1979a, ‘Prediction of university success: a follow up study of the 1977 internal intake to the University of New England’, Australian Journal of Education, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 301-3.

Watkins, D. 1982a, ‘Factors influencing the study methods of Australian tertiary students’, Higher Education, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 369-380.

Watkins, D. 1982b, ‘Identifying the study process dimensions of Australian university students’, Australian Journal of Education, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 76-85.


Watkins, D. 1982c, ‘Students' personality and satisfaction with an Australian University: a study of interdisciplinary differences’, Higher Education Research and Development, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 155-165.

Watkins, D. 1982d, ‘Academic achievement and the congruence of study motivation and strategy’, British Journal of Educational Psychology (UK) Vol. 52, No. 2, pp 572-581

Watkins, D. 1983, ‘Assessing tertiary study processes’, Human Learning (UK) Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 29-37.

Watkins, D. 1984, ‘Student perceptions of factors influencing tertiary learning’, Higher Education Research and Development, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 33-50.

Watkins, D. 1985, ‘How students explain their academic performance’, Higher Education Research Development, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 89-93.

Watkins, D. 1986a, ‘The approaches to learning of Australian tertiary students: a replication’, Higher Education Research and Development Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 185-190.

Watkins, D. 1986b, ‘Assessing Causal Dimensions’, Australian Psychologist, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 467-472.

Watkins. D. 1979b, ‘The adjustment of mature age un-matriculated entrants to life as internal students at the University of New England: a pilot study’, Vestes, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 48-51.

Watkins. D. 1981, ‘The relationship between student and lecturer educational orientations and voluntary withdrawal at an Australian university’, Education Research and Perspectives, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 79-82.

Watson, G., Johnson, G. C., & Austin, H. 2004, ‘Exploring relatedness to field of study as an indicator of student retention’. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(1), 57 - 72.

Watson, J.M. 1988, ‘Student characteristics and prediction of success in a conventional university mathematics course’, Journal of Experimental Education (US), Vol. 56, No. 4, pp. 203-212.

Waugh, R, 2001, ‘Quality of student experiences at university: A Rasch measurement model analysis’, Australian Journal of Education, 45 (2), pp.183-206.

Weidman, J.C. & White, R.N. 1985, ‘Post-secondary "High-Tech" Training for Women on Welfare: Correlates of Program Completion’, Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 56, No. 5, pp. 555.

West, L.H.T. 1986, ‘Differential prediction of first year university performance for students from different social backgrounds’, Australian Journal of Education, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 175-187.


White, R. T., Gunstone, R., Elterman, E., Macdonald, I. D. H., McKittrick, B., Mills, D., & Mullhall, P. 1995, ‘Students’ perceptions of teaching and learning in first-year university physics’, Research in Science Education, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 465-478.

Wikipedia. (2005). Pierre Bourdieu. Retrieved 26 August, 2005, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Bourdieu Wilcox, P, Winn, S, and Fyvie-Gauld, M 2005 ‘“It was nothing to do with the university, it was just the people”: the role of social support in the first-year experience of higher education’, Studies in Higher Education, 30(6), pp. 707–722.

Wilhite, S.C. 1990, ‘Self-efficacy, locus of control, self-assessment of memory ability, and study activities as predictors of college course achievement’, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 82, No. 4, pp. 696-700.

Willett, J.B. & Singer, J.D. 1991, ‘From Whether to When: New Methods for Studying Student Dropout and Teacher Attrition’, Journal of Educational of Behavioural Statistics, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 41-67.

Willett, J.B. & Singer, J.D. 1995, ‘It's Deja Vu All over Again: Using Multiple-Spell Discrete-Time Survival Analysis’, Journal of Educational and Behavioural Statistics, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 41-67.

Williams, M.L., Waldauer, C. & Duggal, V.G. 1992, ‘Gender Differences in Economic Knowledge: An Extension of the Analysis’, Journal of Economic Education, pp. 219-231.

Willms, J. D. & Kerckhoff, A.C. 1995, ‘The Challenge of Developing New Educational Indicators’, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 113-31.

Wilson, KL, Lizzio, A and Ramsden, P 1997 ‘The development, validation and application of the Course Experience Questionnaire’, Studies in Higher Education, 22, pp. 33–53. Wilson, KL, Lizzio, A, & Ramsden, P 1996 The Use and Validation of the Course Experience Questionnaire, Griffith Institute of Higher Education, Griffith University.

Winefield, H.R., Tiggeman, M., Goldney, R.D. & Winefield, A.H. 1992, ‘Predictors and consequences of tertiary education: A nine-year follow-up of academically capable school leavers’, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 62, No. 1, pp. 148-153.

Wood, R. 1986, ‘The agenda for educational measurement’, in Assessing Educational Achievement, ed. Nuttall, D.L., Falmer Press.

Woodhouse, G. & Goldstein, H. 1988, ‘Educational Performance Indicators and LEA League Tables’, Oxford Review of Education, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 301-20.

Woodhouse, G. Yang, M., Goldstein, H. & Rasbash, J. 1996, ‘Adjusting for Measurement Error in Multilevel Analysis’, J.R. Statist. Soc. A. Vol. 159, No. 2, pp. 202-212.


Wright, R.E. & Palmer, J. 1994, ‘GMAT Scores and Undergraduate GPAs as Predictors of Performance in Graduate Business Programs’, Journal of Education for Business, pp. 344-348.

Yorke, M., 2001, ‘Formative assessment and its relevance to retention’, Higher Education Research and Development, 20(2), pp. 115–126. Yorke, M and Thomas, L 2003 ‘Improving the retention of students from lower socioeconomic groups’, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 25(1), pp. 63–74. Yorke, M. 2002, ‘Formative assessment - the key to a richer learning experience in semester one’. Exchange(1), 12-13. Yorke, M., & Thomas, L. 2003, ‘Improving the Retention of Students from Lower Socio-economic Groups’. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 25(1), 63-74.

Youngs, G.A. Jr., Rathge, R., Mullis, R. & Mullis, A. 1990, ‘Adolescent stress and self-esteem’, Adolescence, Vol. 25, pp. 333-341.

Zahrly, J. 1990, ‘The Use of Discriminant Analyses to Determine Subject Attrition Bias in Field Research’, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 50, pp. 505-514.

Zeegers, P., & Martin, L. 2001, ‘A Learning-to-learn Program in a First-year Chemistry Class’. Higher Education Research & Development, 20(1), 35 - 52.

Zimitat, C, 2006 Improving Quality of Teaching is Improving Retention, a paper presented to the 9th Pacific Rim Conference 2006 QU


Chapter 10

Appendices These materials in the appendices are copies of documents and have not been rearranged.

Page

Appendix 1 DEST Tables of Higher Education attrition and enrolment rates 193

Appendix 2 Notes to accompany DEST Tables of attrition data 207

Appendix 3 Questionnaires to Students regarding (1) Enrolment October 2005 209 and (2) Orientation March 2006 Appendix 4 Orientation Program 2006 222

Appendix 5 Factor Analysis for CEQ Good teaching Scale 1999 226 Appendix 6 Analysis of Mathematics entry and exam data for UWS 228

School of Engineering students 2005

Appendix 7 The UWS College 3-semester program 235

Appendix 8 Report of the Group reviewing enrolment 2005 237

Appendix 9 “First Year Central” website Checklist 242


Appendix 1

DEST Tables of Student Retention

Please note that the DEST tables include data related to all universities across Australia whereas this thesis focuses on UWS and comparisons with other universities in NSW. A comparison is also made with the “total” Australia figures at the foot of each table. Please refer to Appendix 2 for accompanying notes relating to these tables.


Table 1a: Crude student attrition rates for all domestic students by State and Institution, 19 94-2002 (%)

State Institution 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002NSW Australian Film, Television and Radio School 9.1 6.7 2.1 1.2 4.2 6.1 4.5 3.3 1.0 Avondale College 13.8 13.3 13.7 19.1 20.0 16.8 23.6 19.5 17.9

Charles Sturt University 19.3 20.1 19.4 22.5 21.0 20.0 19.4 19.4 20.1 Macquarie University 21.5 23.1 21.0 19.7 20.2 22.4 19.3 16.5 15.9

National Institute of Dramatic Art 5.6 8.8 7.8 4.8 7.1 2.7 7.5 2.6 0.6 Southern Cross University 28.1 25.8 27.7 27.8 26.5 27.9 28.7 32.0 26.7

The University of New England 21.5 21.1 20.8 19.6 21.6 22.6 23.2 22.4 23.5 The University of New South Wales 15.1 14.8 14.1 14.1 14.5 14.6 25.5 14.8 15.6

The University of Newcastle 14.5 16.3 15.9 15.6 15.1 16.0 15.5 12.8 15.1 The University of Sydney 14.0 15.1 15.6 15.5 15.3 15.6 14.7 12.6 13.6 University of Technology, Sydney 14.3 14.5 14.7 15.2 15.4 15.4 15.2 21.4 19.8

University of Western Sydney 24.2 19.1 19.1 18.7 19.0 22.4 22.5 23.7 22.9

University of Wollongong 14.8 14.6 16.0 16.8 15.9 16.7 16.1 14.0 15.0

State Sub-total 17.7 17.7 17.6 17.8 17.8 18.7 19.6 18.2 18.2

Total 18.4 19.3 19.0 18.9 19.3 19.3 19.6 18.6 18.5

Table 1b: Number of all domestic students by State and Institution, 1994-2002

State Institution 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002NSW Australian Film, Television and Radio School 44 45 48 83 71 82 88 91 102 Avondale College 629 661 700 692 611 588 576 523 559 Charles Sturt University 15978 18067 19806 21272 22156 22128 23752 24674 24719 Macquarie University 14158 15885 16074 16643 17706 18098 17769 17986 18177 National Institute of Dramatic Art 126 147 153 147 156 147 160 156 169 Southern Cross University 6377 7064 8644 9098 8654 8614 8291 9205 9508 The University of New England 13920 14083 14424 14977 15671 15881 15750 15752 16705 The University of New South Wales 23515 23548 23887 24069 24085 24752 25741 27334 29396 The University of Newcastle 14127 15151 15657 16251 16411 16403 16208 16433 17990 The University of Sydney 29631 28323 29212 30783 31411 32019 31926 32063 33136 University of Technology, Sydney 20535 20292 20874 21810 21678 21611 21891 22321 22618 University of Western Sydney 19807 21282 23529 25046 26250 26980 26344 25800 24865

University of Wollongong 10291 10558 10669 10708 10706 10665 10448 10599 11390 State Sub-total 169138 175106 183677 191579 195566 197968 198944 202937 209334

Total 554246 570468 595011 612087 618204 618201 616621 629890 653695

Table 2a: Crude student attrition rates for domestic undergraduate students by State and In stitution, 1994-2002 (%)

State Institution 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

NSW Australian Film, Television and Radio School 9.1 6.7 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Avondale College 13.8 13.3 13.4 19.4 19.1 17.3 22.7 19.6 18.1 Charles Sturt University 17.9 18.9 18.5 21.6 20.0 19.1 18.1 18.2 18.7 Macquarie University 15.7 19.0 17.0 14.6 15.7 18.3 15.2 13.5 14.0

National Institute of Dramatic Art 5.7 9.6 7.9 5.2 7.0 2.9 8.1 2.6 0.6 Southern Cross University 27.2 25.2 27.3 26.5 25.9 27.3 28.4 31.8 27.2 The University of New England 21.2 20.6 20.0 18.7 21.1 23.6 23.6 22.6 23.5

The University of New South Wales 11.8 11.3 10.8 10.5 11.1 10.8 20.8 9.5 10.4 The University of Newcastle 13.5 15.3 14.8 14.4 13.5 14.2 14.2 11.3 13.1

The University of Sydney 11.1 11.1 11.7 12.0 12.2 12.3 11.9 10.7 11.0 University of Technology, Sydney 11.9 11.5 11.5 11.9 12.1 12.0 11.4 17.5 15.6

University of Western Sydney 22.8 18.0 18.0 17.1 18.1 21.5 20.6 22.4 19.8


University of Wollongong 12.3 12.1 12.5 13.5 12.5 14.8 14.2 12.8 13.2

State Sub-total 15.6 15.4 15.4 15.4 15.6 16.7 17.2 16.2 15.9

Total 16.3 17.0 17.0 16.6 17.1 17.6 17.7 16.7 16.6

Sta te Institution 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002NSW Australian Film, Television and Radio School 44 45 48 32 10 0 0 0 0 Avondale College 629 611 648 624 554 538 537 500 519 Charles Sturt University 13142 14592 15875 16748 17555 17732 19221 19956 19752 Macquarie University 10547 11947 11860 12077 12866 13364 13162 13317 13129 National Institute of Dramatic Art 123 136 139 135 142 138 149 151 154 Southern Cross University 5361 5910 7225 7635 7536 7510 7230 7952 8065 The University of New England 9818 9800 9794 9835 10690 11592 12009 12332 12957 The University of New South Wales 16832 16562 16482 16669 16718 16779 17560 18454 19372 The University of Newcastle 12603 13503 13896 14123 14138 14152 14060 14027 15117 The University of Sydney 22607 21180 21803 23501 24259 25177 25503 25917 26364 University of Technology, Sydney 14894 14762 15241 15918 15450 15089 15344 15852 15759 University of Western Sydney 16929 18008 19774 21048 22323 22915 22169 22232 21430 University of Wollongong 7959 7936 8025 8217 8364 8691 8655 8907 9534 State Sub-total 131488 134992 140810 146562 150605 153677 155599 159597 162152

Total 22.2 22.8 23.1 22.3 22.9 23.0 22.1 21.2

Table 3a: Crude student attrition rates for domestic commenci ng undergraduate students by State and Institution, 1994-2002 (%)

State Institution 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2002NSW Australian Film, Television and Radio School 9.1 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Avondale College 20.5 18.5 21.4 23.3 30.4 23.3 35.7 28.3 Charles Sturt University 25.3 25.3 25.4 27.7 26.0 22.6 21.3 24.0 Macquarie University 21.9 25.6 23.7 20.6 20.8 20.7 18.7 17.6 National Institute of Dramatic Art 7.7 18.5 7.4 12.7 11.5 5.6 16.1 1.9 Southern Cross University 33.1 30.6 34.4 34.7 34.0 35.9 32.4 32.8 The University of New England 27.8 28.7 28.0 26.7 28.5 30.2 29.9 30.7 The University of New South Wales 14.0 13.0 13.2 12.5 13.5 13.1 13.5 13.3 The University of Newcastle 19.4 21.7 21.1 19.9 18.2 18.5 18.4 18.1 The University of Sydney 16.1 15.7 17.2 16.7 16.8 17.5 17.0 14.6 University of Technology, Sydney 16.0 14.5 15.8 16.1 15.9 15.9 13.8 13.4 University of Western Sydney 31.8 25.1 24.2 23.1 24.1 27.7 25.2 21.3 University of Wollongong 14.9 16.7 16.0 17.3 16.4 18.6 17.1 15.6 State Sub-total 21.7 21.5 21.6 21.1 21.3 21.8 20.4 19.7

Total 22.2 22.8 23.1 22.3 22.9 23.0 22.1 21.2

Table 195b: Number of domestic commencing undergraduate students by State and Institution, 1 994-2002

State Institution 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2002NSW Australian Film, Television and Radio School 44 45 15 0 0 0 0 0 Avondale College 234 243 294 219 230 193 182 180 Charles Sturt University 5194 6485 6334 6520 7288 6834 8084 5917 Macquarie University 3148 4613 4056 3619 4088 4294 3926 2924 National Institute of Dramatic Art 52 54 54 55 52 54 56 53 Southern Cross University 2426 2782 3475 3262 3077 2938 2688 2990 The University of New England 3419 3565 3567 3434 4005 4813 4591 4445 The University of New South Wales 4887 4735 4798 5005 4927 5164 5693 4958

Table 2b: Number of domestic undergraduate st udents by State and Institution, 1994-2002


The University of Newcastle 4225 5342 4983 4951 4371 4541 4596 4949 The University of Sydney 6667 6443 8292 8366 8326 8879 8789 7994 University of Technology, Sydney 4500 4374 4695 5071 4306 4243 4677 4077 University of Western Sydney 6242 7588 8321 8038 8402 8470 7896 7131 University of Wollongong 2480 2601 2655 2752 2779 2919 2864 2982 State Sub-total 43518 48870 51539 51292 51851 53342 54042 48600

Total 148318 160077 169109 168560 168666 170701 171135 162387

Table 4a: Crude student attrition rates in second year after commencement, for domestic commencing

undergraduate students by State and Institution, 1994-2001 (%)

State Institution 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2001NSW Australian Film, Television and Radio School 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Avondale College 6.4 8.6 20.1 9.6 13.0 16.6 9.9 Charles Sturt University 11.6 11.9 12.3 12.0 11.7 11.1 11.7 Macquarie University 11.7 10.2 9.0 11.1 10.6 9.8 9.0 National Institute of Dramatic Art 5.8 11.1 0.0 7.3 1.9 5.6 0.0 Southern Cross University 10.9 12.0 13.9 13.8 13.6 13.2 14.2 The University of New England 12.6 11.8 10.7 12.6 14.2 14.3 14.3 The University of New South Wales 8.4 8.0 8.6 8.1 7.8 9.7 6.6 The University of Newcastle 9.7 9.9 9.9 9.6 10.1 9.8 9.1 The University of Sydney 7.2 7.3 8.0 8.2 8.5 8.5 7.1 University of Technology, Sydney 8.0 7.1 8.3 8.1 7.3 7.5 8.5 University of Western Sydney 9.1 10.2 10.0 10.6 12.8 12.0 9.3 University of Wollongong 9.1 8.3 9.1 8.9 9.8 9.6 8.0 State Sub-total 9.6 9.6 9.9 10.1 10.6 10.5 9.7Total 10.7 10.4 11.7 11.0 11.2 11.2 10.2

Table 196b: Number of domestic commencing undergraduate students by State and Institution, 1994-2001

State Institution 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2001NSW Australian Film, Television and Radio School 44 45 15 0 0 0 0 Avondale College 234 243 294 219 230 193 172 Charles Sturt University 5194 6485 6334 6520 7288 6834 7611 Macquarie University 3148 4613 4056 3619 4088 4294 3899 National Institute of Dramatic Art 52 54 54 55 52 54 59 Southern Cross University 2426 2782 3475 3262 3077 2938 3228 The University of New England 3419 3565 3567 3434 4005 4813 4481 The University of New South Wales 4887 4735 4798 5005 4927 5164 6070 The University of Newcastle 4225 5342 4983 4951 4371 4541 4912 The University of Sydney 6667 6443 8292 8366 8326 8879 8359 University of Technology, Sydney 4500 4374 4695 5071 4306 4243 4755 University of Western Sydney 6242 7588 8321 8038 8402 8470 7995 University of Wollongong 2480 2601 2655 2752 2779 2919 2995 State Sub-total 43518 48870 51539 51292 51851 53342 54536

Total 148318 160077 169109 168560 168666 170701 174714


Table 5a: Crude student attrition rates for domestic commencing undergraduate 'new to higher

education' students by State and Institution, 1994-2002 (%)

State Institution 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2002NSW Australian Film, Television and Radio School 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Avondale College 20.7 16.9 24.7 23.8 29.0 21.4 35.0 29.5 Charles Sturt University 24.5 25.4 26.2 27.1 25.7 23.2 19.4 21.5 Macquarie University 21.4 25.4 23.9 19.5 19.7 20.9 18.1 15.5 National Institute of Dramatic Art 3.7 14.8 8.3 14.3 14.8 7.1 17.2 4.2 Southern Cross University 33.5 29.6 33.8 34.3 32.9 34.9 27.3 32.9 The University of New England 29.2 27.5 26.9 28.0 28.5 30.2 28.0 29.2 The University of New South Wales 13.2 12.6 11.6 10.8 11.5 11.8 13.2 12.1 The University of Newcastle 20.3 22.0 20.9 19.8 17.9 18.6 18.3 17.7 The University of Sydney 15.6 14.9 17.1 15.5 16.1 17.9 18.1 14.3 University of Technology, Sydney 15.0 14.0 14.8 15.3 14.4 14.9 13.0 12.7 University of Western Sydney 28.7 25.2 23.6 23.0 23.2 26.9 24.3 20.4 University of Wollongong 13.3 16.4 14.7 16.4 14.9 16.8 14.9 15.3 State Sub-total 20.9 20.9 20.8 20.4 20.0 21.1 19.1 18.0Total 21.9 22.3 22.5 21.7 22.6 22.7 21.7 20.6


Institution 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2002NSW Australian Film, Television and Radio School 12 20 3 0 0 0 0 0 Avondale College 174 172 198 168 183 145 143 149 Charles Sturt University 3309 3894 3987 3988 4324 3610 4450 3215 Macquarie University 2333 3238 2616 2642 2814 2892 2573 2023 National Institute of Dramatic Art 27 27 24 28 27 28 29 24 Southern Cross University 1757 1929 2172 2278 1890 1896 1403 1789 The University of New England 2052 1942 2007 1863 2044 2280 2125 1968 The University of New South Wales 3980 3686 3567 3550 3421 3680 4147 3879 The University of Newcastle 2961 3224 3610 3665 3206 3269 3235 3530 The University of Sydney 4575 4522 6337 5338 5524 6271 6407 5670 University of Technology, Sydney 3296 3279 3201 3429 2979 3024 3437 3182 University of Western Sydney 4622 5560 6183 5924 5598 6060 6096 5606 University of Wollongong 1717 2009 2026 1949 1886 2050 1863 2536 State Sub-total 30815 33502 35931 34822 33896 35205 35908 33571

Total 103500 110025 117508 115565 112107 113606 113172 108663

Table 6a: Crude student attrition rates for domestic commencing undergraduate ' NOT new to higher

education' students by State and Institution, 1994-2002 (%)

State Institution 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2002NSW Australian Film, Television and Radio School 6.7 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Avondale College 20.0 22.5 14.6 21.6 36.2 29.2 37.1 22.6 Charles Sturt University 26.6 27.8 28.0 29.6 26.4 21.9 23.6 27.0 Macquarie University 23.3 26.0 23.5 23.5 23.1 20.4 19.9 22.5 National Institute of Dramatic Art 12.0 22.2 6.7 11.1 8.0 3.8 14.8 0.0 Southern Cross University 31.8 32.7 34.7 35.8 34.6 37.2 29.4 28.3 The University of New England 25.9 30.1 29.9 25.2 28.3 30.2 31.5 31.5 The University of New South Wales 17.4 14.5 17.8 16.6 18.3 16.5 20.1 17.7 The University of Newcastle 18.2 20.2 21.7 20.5 18.9 18.3 18.4 17.8 The University of Sydney 17.7 16.6 17.7 17.6 18.3 16.8 15.7 15.6 University of Technology, Sydney 18.1 15.8 18.1 17.8 19.3 18.0 16.1 16.1 University of Western Sydney 40.9 24.9 26.2 24.7 25.6 28.6 26.9 25.0 University of Wollongong 18.8 18.6 19.6 19.9 17.4 19.1 18.1 17.2 State Sub-total 24.6 23.3 23.7 22.8 23.3 22.7 22.3 22.8Total 23.4 24.1 24.5 23.9 23.7 23.4 22.9 22.5

Table 198b: Number of domestic commencing undergraduate 'new to higher education' students by State and Instit ution, 1994-2002


Table 199b: Number of domestic commencing undergraduate 'NOT new to higher education students by State and Institution, 1994-2002

State Institution 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2002NSW Australian Film, Television and Radio School 30 24 11 0 0 0 0 0 Avondale College 60 71 96 51 47 48 35 31

Charles Sturt University 1636 2191 2299 2253 2959 3219 3631 2700 Macquarie University 815 1375 1440 977 1274 1402 1353 901 National Institute of Dramatic Art 25 27 30 27 25 26 27 29 Southern Cross University 669 853 1046 970 1096 956 296 769 The University of New England 1367 1527 1474 1549 1951 2507 2447 2270 The University of New South Wales 906 1048 1231 1455 1506 1484 1546 1079 The University of Newcastle 1245 1867 1372 1286 1154 1271 1361 1260 The University of Sydney 1236 1359 1933 2433 2802 2608 2382 2324 University of Technology, Sydney 1180 1072 1487 1632 1322 1179 1230 890 University of Western Sydney 1558 1785 1839 1742 2489 2016 1661 1311 University of Wollongong 480 592 581 738 765 592 635 419 State Sub-total 11207 13791 14839 15113 17390 17308 16604 13983

Total 41353 46295 49547 50756 54494 54033 54721 48904


Table 7b: Number of domestic commencing underg raduate 'new to hi gher education' students by State and Institution, 1994-2001

State Institution 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2001NSW Australian Film, Television and Radio School 12 20 3 0 0 0 0

Avondale College 174 172 198 168 183 145 134 Charles Sturt University 3309 3894 3987 3988 4324 3610 3935 Macquarie University 2333 3238 2616 2642 2814 2892 2475 National Institute of Dramatic Art 27 27 24 28 27 28 33 Southern Cross University 1757 1929 2172 2278 1890 1896 2164 The University of New England 2052 1942 2007 1863 2044 2280 1962 The University of New South Wales 3980 3686 3567 3550 3421 3680 1156 The University of Newcastle 2961 3224 3610 3665 3206 3269 3477 The University of Sydney 4575 4522 6337 5338 5524 6271 6033 University of Technology, Sydney 3296 3279 3201 3429 2979 3024 3610 University of Western Sydney 4622 5560 6183 5924 5598 6060 6187 University of Wollongong 1717 2009 2026 1949 1886 2050 2142 State Sub-total 30815 33502 35931 34822 33896 35205 33308

Total 103500 110025 117508 115565 112107 113606 111378

Table 9a: Crude student attrition rates for domestic commencing 'new to higher education' undergr aduate students by State, Institution and Age of student , 1994 and 2002 (%)

1994 2002 Age of student Age of student State Institution 17-20 years Other 17-20 years Othe rNSW Australian Film, Television and Radio School 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Avondale College 20.6 20.8 26.9 40.0

Charles Sturt University 18.7 29.8 15.6 28.3

Macquarie University 20.4 25.6 11.9 30.8

National Institute of Dramatic Art 0.0 7.7 5.0 0.0

Southern Cross University 28.9 39.8 28.6 37.6 The University of New England 25.4 32.5 20.5 36.1

The University of New South Wales 11.8 20.1 11.7 18.2 The University of Newcastle 18.4 26.3 15.6 24.0 The University of Sydney 14.3 24.2 13.1 25.3

University of Technology, Sydney 13.8 17.9 11.8 16.5

University of Western Sydney 28.2 30.2 19.0 24.2

University of Wollongong 11.5 19.1 13.5 23.0

State Sub-total 18.3 27.4 15.0 27.6

Total 20.1 27.0 18.3 28.6


Table 9b: Number of domestic commencing 'new to higher education' undergraduate students by State, Institution and Age of student , 1994 and 2002

1994 2000 Age of student Age of student State Institution 17-20 years Other 17-20 years OtherNSW Australian Film, Television and Radio School 0 12 0 0 Avondale College 126 48 119 30 Charles Sturt University 1587 1722 1720 1495 Macquarie University 1880 453 1640 383 National Institute of Dramatic Art 14 13 20 4 Southern Cross University 1019 738 928 861 The University of New England 961 1091 878 1090 The University of New South Wales 3280 700 3626 253 The University of Newcastle 2270 691 2647 883 The University of Sydney 3971 604 5116 554 University of Technology, Sydney 2279 1017 2625 557 University of Western Sydney 3393 1229 4054 1552 University of Wollongong 1304 413 2041 495 State Sub-total 22084 8731 25414 8157

Total 75482 2801883751 24912

Table 10a: Crude student attrition rates for domestic commencing 'NOT new to higher education' undergraduate students by State, Institution and Age of student , 19 94 and 2002 (%)

1994 2002 Age of student Age of student State Institution 17-20 years Othe r 17-20 years Othe rNSW Australian Film, Television and Radio School 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 Avondale College 30.8 17.0 12.5 33.3 Charles Sturt University 20.4 27.4 13.8 29.6 Macquarie University 17.2 25.9 9.9 28.0 National Institute of Dramatic Art 14.3 11.1 0.0 0.0 Southern Cross University 20.5 34.4 20.3 29.8 The University of New England 25.8 25.9 24.7 32.6 The University of New South Wales 15.4 18.6 10.7 24.2 The University of Newcastle 13.2 21.1 11.6 22.5 The University of Sydney 13.0 19.7 13.3 16.9 University of Technology, Sydney 8.7 21.4 9.3 19.2 University of Western Sydney 37.1 42.2 9.1 33.9 University of Wollongong 12.9 21.3 13.2 19.6 State Sub-total 18.5 26.5 12.9 26.8

Total 18.1 25.5 16.2 25.8

Table 10b: Number of domestic commencing 'NOT new to higher education' undergraduate students by State, Institution and Age of student, 1994 and 2002

1994 2002 Age of student Age of student State Institution 17-20 years Other 17-20 years OtherNSW Australian Film, Television and Radio School 0 30 0 0 Avondale College 13 47 16 15 Charles Sturt University 181 1455 441 2259 Macquarie University 244 571 272 629 National Institute of Dramatic Art 7 18 16 13 Southern Cross University 122 547 118 651 The University of New England 159 1208 332 1938 The University of New South Wales 337 569 516 563 The University of Newcastle 454 791 543 717 The University of Sydney 362 874 842 1482 University of Technology, Sydney 300 880 280 610 University of Western Sydney 410 1148 470 841 University of Wollongong 147 333 159 260 State Sub-total 2736 8471 4005 9978

Total 11639 29714 17058 31846


Table 11a: Crude student attrition rates for domestic commencing undergraduate students by sex, age and 'new to higher education' status, 1994 and 2002 (%)

1994 2002

Not new to

Not new to

New to higher higher New to higher higher Sex and age education education Total Education education Total

Females 20 years and under 19.7 17.2 19.3 18.3 15.8 17.921-24 years 28.1 24.5 25.9 27.6 20.9 23.625-29 years 27.3 25.4 26.2 30.7 28.9 29.430-39 years 25.3 24.2 24.8 27.0 27.4 27.140-49 years 23.1 23.3 23.2 26.4 27.7 26.950-59 years 22.9 26.0 24.7 29.5 28.4 28.460 years and over 30.9 24.5 28.6 25.0 32.9 30.2Total 21.4 22.5 21.7 20.5 22.1 21.0

Males 20 years and under 20.1 19.0 19.9 17.9 16.9 17.821-24 years 27.6 25.4 26.5 28.7 21.5 24.525-29 years 29.9 26.9 28.4 30.4 28.1 29.330-39 years 28.0 27.3 27.7 30.4 29.6 30.240-49 years 31.3 29.4 30.3 33.7 32.4 33.050-59 years 23.9 32.7 28.3 27.0 28.0 27.360 years and over 33.3 34.0 32.2 35.3 31.7 33.7Total 22.2 24.5 22.9 20.6 23.0 21.5

Table 11b: Number of domestic commencing undergraduate students by sex, age and 'new to higher education' status, 1994 and 2002

1994 2002

Not new to Not new to

New to higher higher New to higher higher Sex and age education education Total Education education Total

Females 20 years and under 43145 6612 50766 49068 10344 6086121-24 years 4620 6420 11383 4462 7137 1205825-29 years 3207 3710 7093 3031 4240 758130-39 years 4808 4666 9709 4096 4695 917040-49 years 2217 2292 4636 2284 2483 497550-59 years 310 350 685 482 676 120660 years and over 68 49 119 48 76 129Total 58375 24099 84391 63471 29651 95980

Males 20 years and under 33602 5032 39449 35107 6722 4279421-24 years 4358 4801 9497 3653 4877 892325-29 years 2766 2887 5820 2523 3001 577230-39 years 3154 3101 6423 2621 2933 579440-49 years 1036 1212 2294 1039 1267 239650-59 years 176 171 357 215 393 63360 years and over 33 50 87 34 60 95Total 45125 17254 63927 45192 19253 66407


Table 12a: Crude student attrition rates for domestic commencing undergraduate school leavers, 1994 and 2002 (%)

State Institution 1994 2002

NSW Avondale College 20.7 21.7 Charles Sturt University 17.0 14.4

Macquarie University 19.6 10.6 National Institute of Dramatic Art 9.1 7.1

Southern Cross University 28.3 26.5 The University of New England 24.8 21.1

The University of New South Wales 11.6 11.3 The University of Newcastle 17.6 14.2

The University of Sydney 13.6 12.8 University of Technology, Sydney 13.3 11.2

University of Western Sydney 27.7 18.2 University of Wollongong 11.8 11.9

State Sub-total 17.6 14.0

TOTAL 19.1 17.4

Table 12b: Number of domestic commencing undergraduate school leavers, 1994 and 2002

State Institution 1994 2002 NSW Avondale College 121 115 Charles Sturt University 1598 1693 Macquarie University 1954 1631 National Institute of Dramatic Art 11 14 Southern Cross University 1061 823 The University of New England 963 791 The University of New South Wales 3455 3907 The University of Newcastle 2413 2692 The University of Sydney 4178 5372 University of Technology, Sydney 2200 2598

University of Western Sydney 3245 3770 University of Wollongong 1394 1694

State Sub-total 22593 25100

TOTAL 77337 86736


Table 15a: Crude student attrition rates for all internat ional students by State and Institution, 1994-2002 (%)


NSW Avondale College 16.1 7.9 30.8 17.8 26.5 26.5 30.7 17.9 41.4 Charles Sturt University 23.1 17.6 15.5 24.4 22.2 16.6 20.8 24.5 28.0 Macquarie University 30.0 30.0 28.6 28.9 32.3 29.1 27.3 24.5 19.0 National Institute of Dramatic Art 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

Southern Cross University 44.7 53.3 46.9 32.5 29.2 26.2 43.5 36.7 26.1 The University of New England 20.6 24.9 21.2 18.1 33.7 22.1 26.6 28.3 25.0 The University of New South Wales 15.0 14.0 12.0 19.2 10.5 10.8 27.6 11.7 11.2

The University of Newcastle 16.8 13.8 15.2 15.5 14.2 14.1 15.8 20.2 18.4 The University of Sydney 16.8 15.5 15.1 13.6 17.8 17.9 12.3 15.7 16.9

University of Technology, Sydney 19.3 17.2 18.4 21.9 20.3 15.7 16.9 20.8 19.6 University of Western Sydney 24.2 24.7 23.5 21.2 20.5 23.1 20.8 26.0 16.6

University of Wollongong 20.1 15.4 15.5 15.6 21.8 18.5 18.4 15.0 20.5 State Sub-total 19.7 18.5 17.7 19.9 19.2 17.7 21.7 20.1 18.9

Total 19.2 19.3 19.3 19.1 19.0 18.7 19.4 18.5 17.7

Table 15b: Number of international students by State and Institution, 1994-2002


NSW Avondale College 31 38 52 45 49 49 101 95 128 Charles Sturt University 981 958 1176 1421 1676 3383 5531 5989 6443 Macquarie University 1046 1282 1494 1569 1720 2047 2747 3773 4412 National Institute of Dramatic Art 0 3 4 3 3 3 3 2 4

Southern Cross University 38 75 179 372 435 439 648 722 1381 The University of New England 431 458 410 398 439 348 549 775 1049 The University of New South Wales 3114 3291 3758 4444 4763 5325 6234 7032 8155

The University of Newcastle 600 623 722 867 961 1036 1093 1408 1980 The University of Sydney 1359 1546 1912 2279 2598 3008 3504 4214 5117

University of Technology, Sydney 616 835 993 1531 2079 2498 3050 3415 4146 University of Western Sydney 1123 1545 1727 1894 2881 3358 4528 5218 6211

University of Wollongong 1341 1499 1862 2149 2024 2035 2378 3218 4666 State Sub-total 10680 12153 14289 16972 19628 23529 30366 35861 43692

Total 40844 47668 56001 65705 75396 85279 101494 120282 142002

Table 16a: Crude attrition rates for international undergra duate students by State and Institution, 1994-2002 (%)

St ate Institution 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002NSW Avondale College 16.1 7.9 29.8 20.5 26.8 27.5 37.1 25.0 43.6 Charles Sturt University 19.8 13.4 14.1 23.8 19.8 15.0 18.2 24.9 27.6 Macquarie University 17.1 16.3 19.3 12.5 17.6 16.4 15.8 16.1 15.5 National Institute of Dramatic Art 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Southern Cross University 16.7 18.8 37.3 24.8 35.1 15.5 52.3 24.9 21.5 The University of New England 18.0 15.5 8.6 10.3 20.8 20.3 18.6 16.1 18.1 The University of New South Wales 10.4 8.9 8.2 16.8 7.8 7.4 17.8 7.4 8.6 The University of Newcastle 10.1 9.7 9.5 13.0 13.5 11.2 13.4 14.3 14.1 The University of Sydney 10.6 9.6 7.8 8.7 12.9 9.3 7.8 11.0 13.0 University of Technology, Sydney 14.5 8.7 20.9 18.4 19.6 16.6 16.6 19.2 18.5 University of Western Sydney 22.6 30.2 23.1 23.2 20.2 20.1 19.8 23.1 14.8 University of Wollongong 16.3 10.2 11.6 13.2 21.3 17.1 19.0 15.0 17.0 State Sub-total 14.5 13.2 13.1 16.4 15.8 13.6 17.2 16.9 16.5

Total 14.2 14.4 15.8 15.6 15.9 16. 6 17. 1 16.5 15.4


Table 16b: Number of international undergraduate students by State and Institution, 1994-2002

Sta te Institution 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002NSW Avondale College 31 38 47 39 41 40 62 68 11 7 Charles Sturt University 637 626 790 974 1198 2230 3818 4025 4002 Macquarie University 434 412 460 423 535 818 1201 1676 2237 National Institute of Dramatic Art 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 Southern Cross University 18 16 59 113 134 148 258 362 963 The University of New England 111 110 116 117 120 118 204 403 541 The University of New South Wales 1932 2027 2305 2662 2874 3102 3433 3904 4490 The University of Newcastle 414 474 545 644 630 607 574 671 1021 The University of Sydney 803 899 1163 1410 1587 1886 2238 2725 3195 University of Technology, Sydney 386 497 671 901 1222 1352 1412 1722 1985 University of Western Sydney 833 987 1035 1114 1858 2189 2712 3148 4044 University of Wollongong 731 764 1009 1269 1280 1066 1078 1378 2032 State Sub-total 6330 6853 8203 9669 11482 13559 16993 20083 24630

Total 29736 34225 40282 46782 54091 60185 69174 78499 90982

Table 17a: Crude student attrition rates for international co mmencing undergraduate students by State and Institution, 1994-2002 (%)

Sta te Institution 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002NSW Avondale College 26.7 15.8 41.7 36.8 33.3 47.6 47.5 38.9 58.3 Charles Sturt University 24.6 13.6 14.5 26.8 21.4 15.6 20.0 19.4 25.8 Macquarie University 24.8 28.2 23.0 13.2 20.9 17.5 17.0 16.0 12.8 National Institute of Dramatic Art 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Southern Cross University 0.0 0.0 35.4 25.6 47.1 14.4 64.4 33.8 58.3 The University of New England 25.0 19.6 14.6 10.5 31.7 28.1 18.0 15.9 18.8 The University of New South Wales 10.1 9.9 8.9 9.5 9.1 8.8 9.5 7.9 9.3 The University of Newcastle 8.4 8.5 9.6 11.5 14.9 13.8 16.1 17.1 14.3 The University of Sydney 16.7 15.5 13.6 14.8 11.6 14.0 9.4 12.1 11.3 University of Technology, Sydney 12.8 9.0 22.7 21.6 23.2 11.9 14.5 12.5 9.9 University of Western Sydney 30.0 43.7 29.2 30.3 21.4 21.3 17.7 16.6 8.0 University of Wollongong 13.5 7.8 11.2 13.2 28.9 21.8 22.3 13.7 15.7 State Sub-total 17.7 17.5 16.1 17.6 19. 0 15.6 17.3 14.8 14.7

Total 18.0 17.7 18.6 18.5 19.1 18.4 19.1 17.8 18.0

Table 17b: Number of international commencing undergraduate students by State and Inst itution, 1994-2002

Sta te Institution 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002NSW Avondale College 15 19 24 19 24 21 40 36 60 Charles Sturt University 248 317 495 567 781 1531 2330 1682 1088 Macquarie University 153 142 239 144 253 451 631 777 763 National Institute of Dramatic Art 0 3 0 0 3 1 1 0 2 Southern Cross University 9 5 48 82 87 104 177 160 218 The University of New England 52 46 48 57 41 57 133 145 260 The University of New South Wales 631 700 843 987 981 1115 1238 1530 1135 The University of Newcastle 178 212 272 338 242 232 248 334 414 The University of Sydney 264 271 447 555 623 773 989 1067 1062 University of Technology, Sydney 133 266 396 514 643 513 580 874 698 University of Western Sydney 433 503 497 535 1048 1187 1609 1762 1718 University of Wollongong 282 344 509 589 439 367 516 795 869 State Sub-total 2398 2828 3818 4387 5165 6352 8492 9162 8287

Total 12226 15172 18914 22030 24626 27978 33247 37403 29624


Table 20: Crude student attrition rates for all domestic students 2001 - comparison of rates calculated using data at 31 March 2001 and Full Submission data

Attrition rates (%)

State Institution 31 March data Full submission

data

NSW Australian Film, Television and Radio 3.3 3.3 Avondale College 19.5 19.8 Charles Sturt University 19.4 18.1 Macquarie University 16.5 15.9 National Institute of Dramatic Art 2.6 2.6 Southern Cross University 32.0 28.9 The University of New England 22.4 21 .2 The University of New South Wales 14.8 13.7 The University of Newcastle 12.8 12.7 The University of Sydney 12.6 12.1 University of Technology, Sydney 21.4 20.4 University of Western Sydney 23.7 19.8 University of Wollongong 14.0 13.0 State Sub-total 18.2 16.8

TOTAL 18.6 17.5


Appendix 2 Notes to accompany DEST Tables of attrition data

• The sources for data in this report are the enrolment and completion files in the Higher Education Student Collection, DEST. Due to data availability, and for consistency over time, enrolment data at 31 March each year has been used rather than full submission data (for example, as published in the Selected Higher Education Statistics 2002). It should be noted that the use of 31 March data may result in slightly higher attrition rates than would be obtained by using the full submission data. A test on full submission data for all domestic students was undertaken to measure the extent of this effect. The results are provided in Table 20. The overall attrition rate for domestic students for 2001 using all submissions data was 17.5%, which is slightly lower than the rate calculated using the 31 March higher education data (18.6%). This should be taken into account when interpreting the results. The data excludes the Australian Maritime College, Open Learning Studies, other than major sole courses, Enabling, Cross-Institutional and Non-award courses.

• In 2002 a change was made to the definition of a commencing student. In simple terms, prior to 2002 the count of students in a reference year included students who were enrolled in a course between 1 April of the year prior to the reference year and 31 March of the reference year. From 2002, the count includes those enrolled between 1 September of the year prior to the reference year and August 31 of the reference year. The calculation of first year attrition rates for 2001 and second year attrition rates for 2000 for commencing students may be affected by this change and are therefore not included in this paper. Care should also be taken in comparing the rates for the years prior to 2001 with rates for 2002 as the population of commencing students is not identical.

• Most of the tables provide first year crude attrition rates. This measures the proportion of students in a year who neither graduate nor continue studying at the same institution in the following year. For example, the 2002 figure refers to the proportion of 2002 students who neither graduate nor continue studying at the same university in 2003. Students who enrol at another institution in the following year will be counted in those that have 'dropped out', as will those that deferred.

• For commencing undergraduate students, and commencing undergraduate ‘new to higher education’ and ‘not new to higher education’ students, second year crude attrition rates have also been calculated. The crude attrition rate for the second year measures the proportion of students in a year who neither graduate nor continue studying at the same institution in the year after the following year. For example, the 2001 figure refers to the proportion of 2001 students who neither graduated in 2001 or 2002 nor are enrolled at the same university in 2003.

• The calculation of attrition rates involves matching administrative data from a number of different files from one year to another. Whilst all care has been taken to ensure that the matching is undertaken accurately, it is possible that some changes in the administrative data of some institutions have not been accounted for. This may result in some anomalies


in attrition rates from one year to another at the institution level. In addition, small numbers at some institutions may lead to variability in the calculated rates. As a result, care should be taken in comparing rates from one year to another at the institution level.

• The categories of students used in the tables (such as domestic commencing undergraduates, international students, etc) are not homogenous, being made up of different sub-populations in varying proportions. These subpopulations may very well have different attrition rates, due to different characteristics, study patterns and so on. Unfortunately, it is not possible to disaggregate the groups further in this paper (for example to look at attrition rates of overseas students who reside in Australia and those that reside overseas). However, when interpreting the rates, it should be borne in mind that the aggregate attrition rate may not provide the whole picture. It should also be borne in mind that a change in the student mix may result in changes in the attrition rates at an aggregate level over time.

• Only award courses are included in the calculations of attrition rates. Students undertaking enabling or non-award courses are not included. For example, if a student leaves a Bachelor course in one year and starts an Enabling course or Non-award course the following year, the student would be counted as part of the attrition. However, if the student left a Bachelor course and enrolled the next year at the same institution in a Postgraduate course or in any award course then he would not be counted as attrition.

• A student is classified as a commencing student in relation to a particular course. A commencing student is one who has enrolled for the first time to undertake a particular higher education course at a particular higher education institution in the reference year.

• New to higher education refers to those commencing undergraduate students who have never commenced a higher education course prior to the first enrolment in the current course.

• School leavers are defined as students who completed their final year of secondary education in the previous year or the year prior to the previous year. For example, 2002 school leavers are defined as students who commenced at the university in 2002 and completed their final year of secondary education in 2000 or 2001. The variable used to identify school leavers is 'a prior secondary education course at school' (e365). It does not include those who completed secondary education at a TAFE.

• The age of a student is calculated at 31 December in the year prior to the reference year. For example for 2002 students, age is calculated at 31 Dec 2001.

• Citizenship and residence status are used to determine if the student is considered to be a ‘domestic’ student or an overseas (or international) student. Domestic students include those who are Australian citizens, New Zealand citizens and students with permanent resident status. Overseas students are the remainder.


Appendix 3 Questionnaires to Students regarding (1) Enrolment October 2005

and (2) Orientation March 2006

“Review of Enrolments

Autumn session 2005

13/5/05

Questionnaire to First year Students on advice and support given to students.

“Research is being carried out into the reasons why some First year students decide to leave

UWS before the end of their course. The Questionnaire on this sheet will help us to provide

an improved service to future students.

Please circle one number 1 to 6 OR “NOT AWARE” OR “DID NOT

PARTICIPATE”

Please turn the sheet over to state ONE area for improvement regarding your UWS studies

Please insert your completed form into the envelope, seal it and hand to one of your teachers

by 14th October 2005. This questionnaire remains anonymous. Please ask for help if needed.

[1 corresponds to VERY POOR , 6 corresponds to VERY SATISFIED.]

1. When you first made contact with UWS, were the staff friendly and helpful ?

2. Was academic advice given in a friendly and helpful manner ?

3. Were you aware of recommended minimum standards in English and mathematics for

your course ?

4. When you visited UWS for the orientation program, were the staff helpful and friendly ?

5. Was the procedure for registering for tutorials and laboratory sessions made clear to

you ?


6. Was the importance of attending tutorials and laboratory sessions made clear to you ?

7. Was the importance of regular participation in WebCT and e-mails made clear to you ?

8. Did you find the peer mentoring useful to you ?

9. Did you find the academic mentoring useful to you ?

10. Have academic staff been helpful, approachable and friendly to you ?


[INFORMATION SHEET accompanying the enrolment 2005 Survey] UWS Letterhead Survey into the retention, performance and satisfaction of students. You are invited to take part in a survey of first year students which is planned to collect information which will be used to improve the advice and support given to first year students in future years. This survey is purely voluntary and should take you about 5 minutes to complete. The survey is looking into the reasons why some students discontinue their studies during their first year. A number of measures have been recently introduced to offer help and assistance to students and your answers will help us to make any adjustments in future years. The researcher is Graham Bishop, Teaching Fellow from the School of Engineering and Industrial Design, telephone 2105, [email protected] For each question, please circle ONE NUMBER 0 to 6 with

0 indicating VERY POOR and 6 indicating VERY SATISFIED OR circle NOT AWARE OR circle DID NOT PARTICIPATE. The results of this survey will enable the School and the University to modify the measures described so that the retention, performance and satisfaction of future students can improve This survey is anonymous and completely confidential. The results will be posted on WebCT for information. You are free to withdraw at any time without explanation. Please contact the researcher at any time for further explanation. NOTE: This study has been approved by the University of Western Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee or Panel (indicate Committee or Panel). The Approval Number is …………………… If you have any complaints or reservations about the ethical conduct of this research, you may contact the Ethics Committee/Panel through the Research Ethics Officers (tel:: 02 4736 0883 or 4736 0884). Any issues you raise will be treated in confidence and investigated fully, and you will be informed of the outcome. PLEASE RETURN YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE, WITH THE SIGNED CONSENT FORM, TO GRAHAM BISHOP BY 1 st OCTOBER 2005 IN THE ENVELOPE PROVIDED


The following pages list the 2006 Survey questions, 1 to 26, referred to in Chapter 4:


Appendix 4 Orientation Program 2006 for the School of Engineering

Assembly in Lecture Theatre K

10.00 am Welcome by

Chair of School – Professor Steven Riley

10.20 am Careers and Employment Jackie Simpson

10.30 am Engineers Australia Pamela Noal

10.40 am The Learning Centre Lyn Armstrong

10.50 am Introduction to key Staff Bruce Campbell

Eric Bohemia, Phil Madigan, John Gal, Ataur Rahman

10.55 am Library Services Rohini Patil

11.00 am Separation into Tutorial Groups in X Building

Academic Mentors will each then conduct tutor groups of 22 students to allocated

rooms in X Building to introduce, with the Peer Mentors, the Orientation topics

listed below, using prepared OHP slides.

12.00 noon BBQ Lunch provided for Staff and New Students

Further re-enforcement of topics, and answering of queries from students, also

scheduled for the first week of the semester during a one hour timetabled tutorial

session.

Orientation Topics :

a. The physical environment, as applied to the School –

Layout of the campuses

Parking arrangements

Bus travel between the campuses and to/from Kingswood Rail Station

Code of Conduct within the buildings


b. The electronic environment, as applied to the School

Activating and using MyUWS Account

Using WebCT

Regular checking for messages - * IMPORTANT *

Regular checking for course information, notes, assessments

Checking for available supplementary Learning Skills programs

Useful web sites, including the Orientation site for 2006

[ http://www.uws.edu.au/students/orientation2006/faqs ] and the School site

[http://www.uws.edu.au/about/acadorg/cste/seid ]

Referring students to the e-learning resource page [

http://www.uws.edu.au/students/onlinesupport ].

c. Staff information

First Year Teaching team

Names, with photographs

Contact details, rooms, e-mails etc

Consultation procedures

Administrative staff [with photographs] and locations, access

d. Help ? - as applied to the School –

Referring to the School Student Handbook

The role of the Course or Unit Co-ordinator

Notice Boards

Academic mentors, their role, names, locations, access

Peer mentors, their role, names, locations, access

Student Support Services

Careers, Employment, Counselling, Disabilities

Learning Skills Unit and Bridging programs - * IMPORTANT *

The Student Centre

Central and School Student Administration – their role


Minimising stress and anxiety

Key contact numbers, e-mail addresses and web sites

e. Administration

School Printing facilities

Computer access within the School

E-mail access within the School

Census Dates: 31st March, 31st August 2006

Honours or Non-Honours Stream choice

f. Class/Course procedures – Referring to the School student handbook

Registering procedure for tutorials

Registering procedure for practical classes

Your weekly timetable

The School timetable/Dateline 2006

[http://www.uws.edu.au/about/adminorg/academic/oar/info/dateline/2006] ,

referring to student vacations, public holidays etc.

Importance of attendance at lectures

Importance of full attendance at tutorials and other sessions

What to do if sick or absent for classes

Importance of prompt arrival at lectures, tutorials etc.

Code of Conduct in lectures, tutorials etc

Your work must be your own

Accumulation of marks/scores during the first year

Obtaining recommended text books and materials

Security issues – responsibility for student belongings, including USB

drives.

g. Occupational Health & Safety – Referring to the School student Handbook:

The Importance of a safe learning and working environment


Risk assessments

Using equipment and facilities

h. Laboratory work – Referring to the School student handbook

Procedures for the completion of assessment and assignment work

Importance of following safety procedures in the laboratories

The role of the Technical staff

Pre-work, recording and location of laboratory work

8. Examinations – Referring to the School student handbook

Attendance and procedure “If I cannot attend”

Timing

Code of Conduct

Food & Drink

Mobile phones

ID checks

Deferred examinations

h. Questions and answers on:

The academic culture and expectations

School policies and procedures

The common First Year

The 10 Generic Attributes

Degree structures

The transition from School to University

“Engineers Australia”


Appendix 5 Factor Analysis for CEQ Good teaching Scale 1997

The factor analysis for this study is as follows:

Factor Scale Name 1 2 3 4 5

Academic and Intellectual Development (AID)

I am satisfied with my own intellectual development

since coming to this university.

In class experiences have had a positive influence on

intellectual growth.

I am satisfied with my academic experience at this

university.

Most of my courses this year have been intellectually

.756

.572

.722

.693

.444

Peer Group Interactions (PGI)

Since coming to this university I have developed close

personal relationships with other students.

Student friendships have been personally satisfying.

My interpersonal relationships with other students have

had a positive influence on my personal growth.

Inter-personal relationships with students have had a

positive influence on my intellectual development.

It has been easy to make friends. (RV)

.857

.824

.786

.741

.700

Interaction with Academic Staff (IWF)

Out of class interactions with teaching staff have had a

positive influence on my personal growth.


positive influence on my intellectual growth.


positive influence on my career goals.

I have established a close personal relationship with at

l t t hi t ff b

.734

.831

.798

.752


Institutional Goal Commitment (IGC)

It is important I leave university with a degree.

I am confident I made the right decision coming to this

university.

.600

.619

.753

It is important that I graduate from this university. .755

Faculty Concern for Students (FCS)

Most of the teaching staff I have had contact with .810

Most teaching staff are outstanding or superior

teachers. .797

Most teaching staff are willing to spend time out of

class to discuss issues with students. (RV)

.791


Appendix 6 Analysis of Mathematics entry and exam data for UWS School of Engineering students 2005

Sheet 1


Sheet 2


Sheet 3


Sheet 4


SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.928056 R Square 0.861288 Adjusted R 0.854493 Standard E 20.37926 Observation 191 ANOVA df SS MS F significance F Regression 3 484806.9 161602.3 389.1083 4.06E-80 Residual 188 78079.11 415.3144 Total 191 562886

Coefficient standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0% GM 0.301412 0.046388 6.497648 7.12E-10 0.209904 0.392919 2U 0.670722 0.030543 21.95962 8.73E-54 0.61047 0.730974 3U 1.069308 0.042173 25.3551 1.42E-62 0.986114 1.152502 ANOVA : ANalysis Of VAriance between groups df = degree of freedom SS = sum of squares MS = mean square = ss/df T stat = difference between two means p-value = statistical significance R = coefficient of determination: r squared = square of R F=(found variation of the group averages)/(expected variation of the group averages)


Analysis of Autumn 2005 Maths for Engineers 1 Results [See previous] data sheets 1 to 4 1. In the original dataset (of 218 students), the following have been removed: Concepts students 2 Students AF/I +1 other(with raw mark of 0) 23 Student with 2U & 3U mark>50 1 Student with Gen Maths & 2U 1 leaving a data set for analysis of 191 students. 2. In the spreadsheet, there are a number of worksheets with sub-analyses according

to the Highest HSC Maths the students have attempted. Also, for uniformity in later analyses, ALL 3 Unit marks have been converted to a mark out of 100 (by doubling the 3U mark for 2U students who also completed 3U).

On these sheets, for each group there are:

a. A Grade Distribution for the relevant group of students; b. Correlations of their UAI, and HSC Maths and the Maths for Engineers 1

Raw score; c. Summary statistics for each variable within each group: d. A regression of the Maths for Engineers Raw score vs. all HSC maths e. For the first 2 groups a further regression of raw mark vs. 3U mark (for

reasons given below). f. For the 2-unit and 3-unit students, Grade Distributions by HSC Performance

Band. 3. Here are comments based on these linear analyses. More elaborate analyses (eg

more sophisticated data transforms) could be performed but would reveal little, if any, additional information.

The 3U score looks to be the best predictor from among the HSC Maths results.

Models with only 3U result (ie omitting 4U or 2U) are comparable to models with 2 results and do not have co-linearity issues.

All models fitted have standard errors of around 18-20 suggesting that it is possible

to fit a single model to the overall data and that greater sophistication (of models) provides little improvement. This is not too surprising as the background error includes such factors as effort in Maths for Engineers, adjustment to Uni, etc.

The results in Maths for Engineers tend to decline as the level of HSC Mathematics

drops. Of the 61 students who studied 3-unit Maths at the HSC, 22 received a result in Band 1. Of these 22, only 2 achieved Band 5 or better in 2-Unit Maths and 12 of the 22 (55%) failed Maths for Engineers 1.


For students who only studied 2-Unit Maths, the results in Maths for Engineers 1 also decline as the Performance Band drops. For students with a result in Band 3 or lower, the failure rate in Maths for Engineers 1 is a staggering 80% (28 failures in 35 students).

The correlation between Gen Maths mark and Maths for Engineers mark is

NEGATIVE!

For all groups other than 2U only, the UAI is as good a predictor as the HSC Maths score(s). This is, though, a within group comparison.

4. The worksheet “Overall Model” gives a simple, "rule of thumb" model to predict

the Maths for Engineers 1 Raw mark from HSC scores. The model says: For HSC 3U: take the 3U result (as a %) and add about 7%; For HSC 2U ONLY: take two-thirds (67%) of the 2U result; For General Maths: take 30% of the Gen Maths result. Overall, the clear picture (trend) is: 3U students should be quite OK (as long as their 3U HSC performance was satisfactory, ie Band 2 or better); 2U students need to work hard to pass. Students below Band 3 should not be moving straight into Math s for Engineers 1 (failure rate for this group is 80%); General Maths students also do not really stand a chance of passing (failure rate also 80%) and should also not be moving straight into Maths for Engineers 1. Assoc Prof John MacFarlane 7th September, 2005


Appendix 7

The UWS College 3-semester program

The UWS College 3-semester program “University Foundation Studies” prepares students for university study in a university environment. UWS licenses UWSCollege as its agent, to manage and teach its Academic programs. Students undertaking Academic Pathways programs are UWS students.

On successful completion of University Foundation Studies, students gain direct entry into the first year of a Bachelor degree program at the University of Western Sydney (UWS).

University Foundation Studies, three semesters (incorporates one semester of Advanced Standing). This program allows students to complete three semesters of Foundation Studies studying approximately 24 hours per week face-to-face in semester one, followed by the University Foundation Studies Standard Program. It begins with a general course prior to selecting a specialised stream of study.

Assessment

Each subject is assessed through a combination of continual assessment, mid semester and final examinations. In general, for subjects studied over two semesters, the weighting of the assessment is greater in second semester and on the final examinations. Details for each subject are contained in the individual subject outlines. For further information, visit Furthering Your Study at University.

Academic Intakes: February, June, October

Minimum Entry Required: Academic: Equivalent to successful competition of Year 11 in Australia. Click here for more specific country entry requirements. Entry to Science/Engineering and IT/Computing streams requires previous study of Mathematics at the level of Preliminary HSC, or HSC, or equivalent. English: IELTS 5.5/TOEFL 525 / (Computer based = 195) / UWSCOLLEGE SSEP or equivalent. Click here for more details on English entry requirements.

Subjects Students in the three semester program study the following in their first two semesters:

• Computer Literacy • Foundations of Business • Foundations of Science • Living Skills


• Mathematical Foundations • The Structure of English

*This list is subject to change. Note: Students who have advanced standing of one semester applied will complete these subjects for one semester only.

• Click here for Subject Descriptions

Choose your Study Specialisation for the remaining two semesters Streams • Arts/Humanities/Education • Nursing • Science/Engineering • Business • Information Technology/Computing

Exit: 1st Year University

Exit: Diplomas:

Information Technology Business (8 months)

Exit:

2nd Year UWS


Appendix 8 Report of the Group reviewing enrolment 2005

Staff of the Enrolments and Student Finance Unit met and evaluated the process, with the

following comments:

What went well.

1) Set up and flow of students through the process.

Staff commented that the set up of the rooms at Werrington South meant that

students moved through the process well, with few bottlenecks. Most students easily

completed enrolments within 2 hours.

2) Change of approach to academic advising: having non-compulsory advisory sessions meant

that students had flexibility in terms of when they could enrol

3) The introduction of a colour-coded enrolment pack system meant that distribution of the right

type of enrolment forms to students went smoothly.

4) Student satisfaction with process: surveys conducted by The UWS Planning and Quality

Unit indicated that overall, students were satisfied with the overall enrolment event.

5) Bus service: provision of the bus service from the station to the venue was well received.

6) The hours of opening – 8am – 8pm on 13 consecutive work days, and 10 – 3 pm on 2

Saturdays, meant that students had ample opportunity to attend an enrolment session.

7) Being at one venue meant that staff could pool resources and adequately resource each

other. It was a more effective use of resources. Casual staff undertaking data could

check their work and the way to manage particular issues with each other to ensure

consistency of approach.


What Needs Work

1) Academic Advising – more pre-set units should be explored, as many students still

seemed unclear as to what units they needed to select.

2) External Packs – Students enrolling by mail do not receive enough advice as to what

units to select, which meant that the error rate was very high.

3) Times for advising – some advising sessions went for 4 to 5 hours. Some academic

staff seeing each individual student, and attempting to solve academic credit issues

on the spot.

4) Technology failures: E&SF had two major technology failures that had a major

impact on the effectiveness of enrolments:

• Failure of the admissions upload/pre-enrolment job meant that manual enrolment

forms had to be created by staff for the first week of enrolment. This meant that

no students could obtain their ID card at their enrolment session; and staff had no

way of checking if student had a valid offer. This affected approximately 1/3rd of

all Autumn session enrolments.

• COFI job corrupting the production database, resulting in a 48 hour roll back

meant that much data was lost and could not be retrieved, and forms had to

collected and entered again. For data entry to be completed by tute reg opening,

work had to be prioritized in order of tute reg opening times and staff were

required to work on weekends, in addition to long days during the week.

5) Quota problems: many units had quotas on them (including core units), and these

enrolments remained unresolved for some time, despite numerous correspondence

with the college and schools and delayed tute reg

6) Late Enrolment: Feedback, particularly from academic staff, indicated that staff and

students would prefer that late enrolment should be conducted at the student


centres, rather than making late enrollers go to the Hawkesbury campus to enrol. It

was also noted that staff spent a lot of energy dealing with students who are

attempting to enrol late (after the last agreed day)

7) Conditional Offers – many students seemed unaware of their conditional status. The

letter received from UAC needs to be changed to emphasise the conditional nature

of the offer

8) Enrolling special groups: despite having a mail enrolment option, many Schools and

Colleges would like E&SF to arrange special enrolment sessions for different groups

of students. This usually entails much resource allocation, and when offered, is

underutilized by the groups being targeted by this special service.

9) Courses that are not flagged as external, but contain externally taught units. E&SF

will organise mail enrolment for any externally coded course. However many courses

are not flagged as external, even though the units contained within the course are.

This caused problems with students expecting a mail enrolment package, but E&SF

unable to identify them

10) Parents and friends caused some problems with queue flow.

11) Arrangement to cover “base camp”. Arrangements with the student centres to

cover base operations during the enrolment period was not considered a success, as

there was confusion over when the arrangement finished

Issues concerning enrolment are listed below to indicate the efforts made to address the

comments from staff and students from previous years:

i) To ensure that the feedback on advising session be given to the academic staff and

their assistance in better management of these sessions is sought.

ii) E&SF to liaise with Systems and Admissions to ensure that pre-enrol

problems experienced in Autumn session will not be replicated in Spring


Session

iii) E&SF to develop a merge template pre- set up to be ready in advance if problem

does re-occur

iv) Ensure that we have high speed printers to print off manual enrolment forms

(current printers very slow)

v) To liaise with Systems to ensure that invoicing of students does not occur during

the same week of enrolment

vi) To determine an agreed escalation process with the Colleges and Schools to

resolve quota restriction issues in a timely manner.

vii) That late enrolling students be allowed to enrol via the student centres. Good

training and support materials (such as a check list) should be provided to Student

Centre staff to assist them in this.

viii) That all students be allowed to enrol up to the end of week 2 of session, without

having to apply for late enrolment. No new students to be charged the late fee.

Continuing students may be charged the late fee after the session starts only. The

issue of these students not receiving an invoice may be alleviated by the ad hoc

statement of account functionality that is proposed for mid year.

ix) To discuss with admissions the possibility of amending the UAC offer letter to

make the conditional enrolment more prominent.

x) To provide three types of enrolment services only: mail enrolment, or enrolment

during standard sessions, or late enrolment through a student centre.

xi) To send an email to the School Administrative Coordinators, advising of the

courses we intend to mail enrol, and giving them the opportunity to add ones


where E&SF cannot easily determine eligibility for mail enrolment.

xii) To organize a separate area for friends and parents to wait at the enrolment event,

and provide free tea/coffee for them. To display signs asking friends and family to

wait and not join the queues.

xiii) To revisit the arrangement of covering base camp during enrolment period with

the student centres, to ensure that the basis of the arrangement is clear for both

parties.

Other Issues Identified:

• The organisation of a Prayer room for students

• To investigate child care arrangements with the UWS Childcare centre.

To buy lollies, as the benefit of this outweighs the minimal costs.


Appendix 9 “First Year Central” website Checklist

• Starting out checklist

o Do you have a copy of your enrolment form showing which units you are

enrolled in?

o Have you completed your Commonwealth Assistance Form?

o If you do not qualify for Commonwealth support, have you paid your tuition

fees?

o Have you paid your student activities fee?

o Do you have your student ID card?

• FAQs for first year students

o - How will I find my way around the campus?

o - How do I know I am enrolled in a Unit?

o - What is an elective?

o - What if I don't hand my Commonwealth Assistance Form (CAF) in by the

approved census date?

o - When do I get my timetable?

o - What is the difference between a lecture and a tutorial?

o - Are lectures and tutorials compulsory?

o - How do I register for tutorials?

o - How do I know which text books I will need?

o - Where can I get text books?

o - I am not very confident taking notes or writing essays. What can I do?

o - Does the University have computers I can use?

o - Do I have a UWS email account?

o - How can I gain access to the University computer network and activate my

email account?

o - How do I use the library?

o - Can I park my car on campus?

o - Am I entitled to travel concession?

o - Where can I find out about clubs and social activities?

o - What costs are involved with studying?

o - How do I contact my lecturer or tutor?

o - What do I do if I miss a compulsory component of my course?


o - Can I change or drop a unit?

o - What UWS rules and policies apply to me?

o - What do I do if I change my residence or telephone number?

o - What is stuvac?

o - Where can I get my exam timetable?

• Where do I go if...

o I need info about getting to/from Uni?

o - I lose my student card?

o - I am having problems with my studies?

o - I am having financial troubles?

o - I am having personal problems?

o - I am being bullied or harassed?

o - I have a disability (temporary or permanent)?

o - I have a complaint?

o - I want to find out about career and employment opportunities?

o - I want help to plan and manage my career?

o - I want help writing a resume and brushing up on my interview technique?

o - I can't find the answer to other questions that I have?

• Personal finance matters

Referring to the “Dollars and Sense booklet 2006

• Key Dates for 2005

o 23-25 February: Orientation days. Check your orientation timetable for the

dates at your home campus.

o 28 February: Week 1 of Autumn Session. Classes begin.

o 25-28 March: Easter break

o 31 March: Census Date for the standard Autumn Teaching Session.

o 25-29 April: Anzac Day Holiday and intra-session break

o 6-12 June: Stuvac

o 13 June: Autumn Session examinations commence

o 4-22 July: Inter session break

o 25 July: Week 1 of Spring Session

o 31 August: Census Date for the standard Spring Teaching Session


o 12-16 September: Intra session break

o 31 October-6 November: Stuvac

o 7 November: Spring Session examinations commence

o 28 November: Inter session break, followed by Christmas/New Year break

• WebCT

Describing e-learning WebCT and how to log on

• Enrolment matters

• Timetables and Tutorial Registration

• Fee matters

• Exam matters

• Course matters

Listing the degree courses and Schools

• College matters

Listing the Colleges

• University Policies & Procedures

With an emphasis on

o Leave of absence from studies

o Assessment and examinations

o Transfer of course

o Student misconduct

• Mature age students

Describing MASK, a workshop and mentoring program specifically designed for

mature aged students returning to study after a gap.

• What to do if you're thinking of dropping out

Which suggests


o Take a short break

o Manage your stress

o Get back on track

o Improve your study skills

o Drop a unit or transfer to part-time study

o Change your Course

• Time management

Giving advice on

o Be aware of how you spend your time each day.

o Set priorities so you know what's important to you - and what isn't.

o Establish goals for your personal, work and family life.

o Plan a strategy to meet your goals.

o Develop habits that will help you get what you want in life.

• Tips for success at uni

suggesting 10 handy tips developed by the UWS Counselling Service to help students survive

university study.

1. Go to class!

2. Keep up with your readings

3. Talk to other students in your class and think about forming a study group

4. Talk to your lecturer or tutor

5. Know what is expected of you

6. Be prepared for assignments and exams

7. Know your resources

8. Have a study plan

9. Ask for help if you need it

10. Have fun!

• Helping to Make the Most of your First Year Experience with

o Handy Guides some of which are distributed at the orientation session


o Surf the Web , with links to careers advice and a student chat room, and

o Programs and Workshops where students are directed to Student Support

Services, learning support workshops, where needed and the peer mentoring

program.

• Ask Us

Directing students to [email protected] [fyc = first year central] id required

• Updates

REVIEW FINDING: Students have access to a significant amount of online information

when selecting UWS or their course or available help and facilities – often supplemented by

telephone numbers and other contacts or links.

(xi) Borrowing books from the Library

Access to the UWS Libraries requires a Student ID card, after which students can

borrow books and materials in a similar way to most libraries. Also students have

access to a worldwide library of e-material necessary for their studies.

(xii) Clarifying the course timetable