ACARREO Y TRANSPORTE DE MATERIALES

The first objective was to identify the nature of non-progression and this involved the development of an accurate database that could collect relevant retention related data. Data was collected on both systemic retention and also on individual student retention related behaviour.

Structural impacts on retention

The demographic make-up of the cohort clearly shows that this is a recruiting type of course, and the characteristics of the students indicate that they can be largely classified as NT. Variations in the cohort in terms of gender, ethnicity, age and so on will potentially impact on retention because of the clear relationship between these variables and likelihood of progressing. The two years where this may have been evident was in 2004 and 2008. Despite the seminar system being in operation in both of these years progression was low, but structural reasons accounted for this. Thus even at course levels there can be significant structural effects that can account for

changes in retention, thus potentially hiding any effects of retention programmes and experiments. What this indicates is that it is often difficult to manage retention and many issues are out of the control of the institution especially after classes start.

Systemic performance and student failure to progress

At a systemic level a key finding was the identification of two types of non- progression student, those that withdrew before the end of the academic year, essentially students who disengaged from the system, and those who remained enrolled but failed to progress. This distinction has been identified in the literature (Baumgart and Johnstone 1977) and is the key to understanding potential solutions. Of particular concern are the students that are classed as fail non-complete. This group of students has been accurately identified in this thesis as a result of the close monitoring and live tracking approaches taken. Due to the inaccuracy of many university recording systems, this type of student is often included in the fail category, but these students are not academic fails, they are highly likely to be students with problems who are simply not identified because of inadequate early warning systems.

Most of the background variables indicative of dropout strongly mirror the findings of most the research with entry qualifications and gender showing strong influences on progression. Females have significantly higher persistence levels and evidence indicates here that it is a phenomenon that seems to be consistent across ethic groups. What is of particular interest, and concern, is the poor performance of the UK Asian group of students. This is evident for both genders with Asian females achieving lower progression rates than all other females, and Asian males, and Black male students are the lowest performers of all groups.

One of the strongest indicators of retention in this thesis was the entry method of students. Students who gain entry onto the first year by any other method than the traditional UCAS system are likely to exhibit NT characteristics, but more importantly it is likely that they will not have prepared themselves for HE. There is ample evidence of the effect of lack of preparation and low motivation on retention (Bean 1982; Eaton and Bean 1995; Lowe and Cook 2003; Mackie 2001; Ozga and Sukhnandan 1998) and some evidence that late enrolment can lead to poor retention, but there is very little on the impact of method of entry. Students who apply outside of

the UCAS system or who are repeating the year have very low progression rates (less than 50% chance). Similarly students who transfer from other courses within the institution are also at high risk and these students will tend to display NT characteristics, and will normally live locally. For these students course changes are indicative of indecision or poor decision making processes, possibly combined with inaccurate university advertising that led them to choosing their first course. Of course recruiting universities often have little choice but to boost recruitment by taking just this sort of student. Repeat students are a direct result of poor retention, and have a similar low likelihood of being retained so in effect there is a vicious circle of poor retention leading to high numbers of repeating students, and this continues until as shown in this thesis, the cycle is broken (Blanc et al. 1983).

Individual student behaviour

The combination of detailed data, early intervention, engagement with students and long term observation of student behaviour has allowed for the compilation of accurate student behaviour profiles. Each individual case was unique but three general categories were identified based on the timing of withdrawal, early leavers, late leavers and circumstantial leavers. The key issue clearly identified in this thesis was that despite the actual timing of withdrawal, most students that eventually failed to progress will have had problems from an early stage, including students who did not withdraw but failed academically or did not complete. Early leavers and circumstantial leavers generally were not problematic in so much as the reasons were relatively straightforward, though unique and complex, and they tended to be receptive of offers of support and advice.

A significant proportion of students though actively engaged in avoidance behaviour when they were having problems. This was most evident in students that were late leavers and those students that were failed without completing. Without early intervention and efforts to engage students from the outset the incidence of avoidance behaviour would have been far worse than it was, and this can go someway to explaining why 50% of students in exit surveys who do not progress fail to give a reason for their leaving. It also in a sense explains other phenomena such as why some students resist offers of support and help and once again cultural capital or the lack of relevant cultural capital goes someway in explaining this. Of course some

students displayed avoidance behaviour for other potential reasons, for example traditional well qualified students who find themselves bored or have made the wrong choice but have the pressure from parents and peers to remain (Bank et al. 1990).

On an individual basis clearly each student that had problems would present a unique combination of issues that would contribute to that problem. In some cases this was relatively clear cut, for example students that were homesick or had a specific event occur such as bereavement. In many cases though the root cause of the problem was difficult to identify and this in conjunction with the avoidance behaviour produced a response whereby the student provided what they saw, and McKeown et al (1993: 81) defined as “appropriate” reasons. One thing is clear and that is that students do not leave because of poor teaching or because of problems related to operational activities within the institution. None of the student logs contained any reference to this issue, nor was it mentioned in conversation. A small minority of students cited problems with the university atmosphere but this was exclusively students who were questioned after they left and were contacted by telephone.