The forgotten year: things to rememberDr Clare Milsom, Dr Martyn Stewart, Sue

Darwent, Dr Elena ZaitsevaProject research team

% Students achieving ‘good honours’

Other findings:

Level 1: students perform significantly higher on Semester 1 modules

Level 3: students perform best on 36 credit modules and least well on 12 credit modules.

Level 1 Level 2 Level 320

30

40

50

Level 2 performance dip

Initial plan:1. Characterise the dip: pervasive or local? Discipline? Programme?

2. Investigate causes and develop strategies for enhancing Y2 experience.

3. Develop a model of analysing institutional data

How the project came about

Data source Evidence

‘Mirror’ Survey quantitative data 2nd year: lowest satisfaction scores

‘Mirror’ Survey open answers’ analysis (Leximancer)

2nd year: attitude to concepts University, Feedback, Coursework and Year changes

Faculty attendance records Increased absenteeism

SU Advice Centre statistics 2nd year: highest no. of academic enquiries

University Student Support Services records

2nd year: main users of talking therapies and counselling

SU survey 2nd year: priorities are in supporting clubs and societies and improving bar

Staff focus groups 2nd year: ‘falling off the radar’

Student focus groups ‘My performance dropped in the 2nd year…

Psychological scales 2nd year: low self efficacy and switch to performance goals.

What is the average percentage of students ‘slumped’ in the second year at LJMU over 2008-2011

1 2 3 4

25% 25%25%25%1. 45%2. 33%3. 68%4. 22%

Do you think that male students are more likely to slump than female students?

1 2 3

33% 33%33%1. YES2. NO3. About the same as females

Which category of students is most likely to underperform in the second year?

1 2 3

33% 33%33%

1. BME2. Part time3. Mature

Individuals at the institutional level:

Percentage of students who experienced a dip in performance in second year:

IS THERE A SLUMP IN PERFORMANCE IN THE SECOND YEAR OF STUDY?

year young mature male female BME White Full time Part time

08-09 48.7% 48.1% 49.1% 48.3% 56.6% 47.6% 48.3% 51.8%

09-10 41.8% 51.1% 42.0% 44.9% 52.0% 42.8% 42.4% 61.1%

10-11 40.7% 45.8% 42.1% 41.4% 49.8% 40.5% 41.3% 49.7%

48%44% 44% 45% 53% 44% 44% 54%

• Based on 3 year worth data - between 41% and 48% of students drop their performance in the 2nd year (University level)

• Good news: the slump has been decreasing year on year (down from 48.6% in 2008/09 to 41.4% in 2010/11)

• Not so good news: slump is ‘fluid’/not fixed• Students on small (less than 20) programmes are more likely to

slump• Between 18 and 21 large LJMU programmes demonstrate slump

each year, but only 8 are consistent slumpers• All subject areas are prone to slump (but its characteristics would

be different in terms of depth, % of good degrees etc)

Institutional picture of slump….

Business & LawEducation Health Sciences & Practice

Media, Arts & Social Sciences ScienceTechnology, Engineering

MODULE LEVELCombined module performance by Faculty (‘09 / ‘10)

Level 1(n=78)

Level 2(n=144)

Level 3(n=119)

Level 1(n=97)

Level 2(n=115)

Level 3(n=114)

Level 1(n=74)

Level 2(n=111)

Level 3(n=66)

Level 1(n=144)

Level 2(n=156)

Level 3(n=163)

Level 1(n=65)

Level 2(n=91)

Level 3(n=94)

Level 1(n=126)

Level 2(n=149)

Level 3(n=126)

Degree class equivalent at Level 1

Degree class equivalent at Level 3

Main slumping group appear to be students who started off with high marks at L1

μ 2.32 μ 2.52μ 2.57

Maladaptive procrastination increases from first to second years

Tuckman Procrastination Scale, n=166 Geography students

Are student characteristics implicated in the Sophomore Slump?• Largest consistently slumping (Psychology, Business Studies) and non-slumping

(Law, Accounting and Finance) courses compared. (n=512)

• Areas of interest determined from existing qualitative data– Stress– Self efficacy– Metacognition– Motivational goals: Mastery approach, Mastery avoidance,

Performance Approach & Performance Avoidance– Autonomous learning

• Scales correlate in expected direction :-

• Non-slumping programmes have– Higher Mastery Approach– Lower stress– Higher self-efficacy– Higher metacognitive learning strategies

Are student characteristics implicated in the Sophomore Slump?Slump x level (year of study)

L4

Are student characteristics implicated in the Sophomore Slump?

Course x level (year of study)

Exploratory study to investigate if student characteristics are implicated in the sophomore slump at an individual level

• Existing data from study in 2006• Self-efficacy• Self-esteem• Optimism• Personality (neuroticism, extraversion, conscientiousness)

• Business and Law students only (n=162)• Compared highest slumping and highest non-slumping students

Slump Non-slump

4 or more A-levels

44% 22%

Ethnicity: BME

22% 7%

Gender: Female

70% 52%

Very challenging cohort…

The second years are strategic, but veryanxious learners…

…better equipped to undertaketheir studies, but frequently playing the system

…more confident in their ability to cope, but oftencomplaining.

1. What is important for the second years? LJMU Survey qualitative data analysis (Leximancer)

What we found:•2nd years are concerned with their academic self-efficacy (able)

•Time is the second important theme

•Practical learning, career orientation and skills become more important

•Context and sentiment direction changed for some ‘core’ concepts – university, feedback, feel -all become unfavourable the 2nd year

Course

Module

Learning

University

Feel

Interesting

Group

AbleWork

Coursework

LibraryFeedback

Marks

PlacementTutors

Skills

Students

Assignments

Teaching

Lectures Helpful

Staff

SupportPeople

Study

Understand

Time

Modules

Lecturers

COURSE

TIME

Slump

Curriculum factors

Learner support

Individual differences

Factors that promote

engagement• 3rd year placement • intense 1st semester• peer–mentoring•professional engagement•part-time work

• Limited induction

• ‘Difficult’ modules

• Narrow assessment

• ‘Students know what they are doing’

• Inexperienced staff teaching on 2nd year

•summer break• personal tutoring• ‘over supported’ in 1st year•Integration

Emotions and AttitudesOptimism

Low motivation

BehavioursStrategic avoidance

Low attendanceProcrastination

Lack of Knowledge and Understanding

Assessment issues Workload requirements

Module choices

Performance is secondary factor

Slump to be viewed in context of the whole student life cycle

Slump is a function of personal growth that could be assisted on various levels

Our conceptual journey…

Slump in performance

‘Slump’ in attitude and engagement

ResourcesGuide for Personal Tutors

Mid year ‘check up’ - Blackboard Quiz for students

‘Watch out for second year blues’ leaflet (in collaboration with the Students Services )

Guide for Leximancer analysis of open text survey comments

‘Make maximum of your HESA submission data’ Guide

Case studies

Induction resources

2nd year curriculum guide

SEfiA – self efficacy in assessment tool (proposal submitted)

CurriculumLearner support

Book More detailed accounts of the research and empirical outcomes

Approaches to institutional data analysis

Institutional data analysis

Assessment