The case institution, so called for purposes of anonymity, is recognised as one of a number of leading HEIs for widening access in Wales and in the UK and, as such has a strong „non-traditional‟ student profile34. It does however, also have
challenging levels of non-continuation rates. It recently gained taught degree awarding powers, competes with numerous universities in the wider region, recruits heavily from the sub-region and has collaborative provision with four out of the six regional further education colleges. It has approximately 8,400 enrolments and 4,300 FTEs, high levels of part-time students and a curriculum profile that extends across all of the HESA Academic Subject Categories (ASCs) with the exception of dentistry, law and medicine. The curriculum is provided from sub-degree to research degree level. The student populations are the highest in engineering and technology and the health professions. A typical student profile [for 2007/08] is shown in
Appendix B.
In 2001, a new Principal and Senior Management Team were appointed. At that time, the institution was not in good academic or financial health and new key appointments were made as Director of Finance, Academic Registrar, Director of Commercial Enterprise, Research and Consultancy (the researcher) and Academic Directors (similar to Deans). From 2001 to 2004 there was a high turn over of staff, including further changes at the senior and middle management levels. These included Director of Finance, Academic Directors and a new Director of Marketing and Student Recruitment but did not include the management of student data, admissions, registry and student services; these have remained constant throughout the period of study.
A new academic structure was introduced in September 2001, not only to recover the institution but to take it to university status. A further academic restructure was introduced in 2004/05 to focus on securing the latter and remained in place until 2009/10. The structure consisted of two Faculties, each led by a Dean/PVC and, seven schools led by a Head: Art and Design, Business, Computing and
Communications Technology; Education and Community; Health, Social Care,
34
A strong non-traditional student profile was a political strength at this time since the widening access policies of the labour government, both in the UK and Wales were gathering momentum which provided a valuable education, social and economic case for retaining the institution during the difficulties of 2001.
Sports and Exercise Sciences; Humanities and Science and Technology. Schools were further delineated into Subjects, e.g. Engineering, Computing,
Communications Technology and Design, with the exception of Business and Humanities where due to the size of operation this was not practical. During this period the case institution operated within a stable management and organisational structure with only minor modifications to the school and subject sub-structure. The period 2004/05 to 2008/09 is therefore used as the time reference for much of the case data analysis.
A new vision, mission and strategic plan were developed in 2001, in consultation with the Board of Governors and staff and informed by the political and funding context at the time. The commitment to widening access and improving student retention is evidenced in the case institution‟s strategic plans (Doc 92,Doc 93) in place over the period of investigation. A newly appointed senior manager had authority for widening access whilst student retention was the collective
responsibility of all senior managers. This changed in 2005, when a single point of authority and leadership was provided through the same senior manager that had responsibility for widening access. The responsibility of all senior managers to improve student retention however, was retained and the message reinforced through Core Executive and Academic Board. In 2006, additional dedicated support was provided across the institution; a student retention manager was appointed reporting directly to the senior manager. This position was a primary point of contact for students contemplating leaving the institution as well as for academic and
operational staff seeking to enhance processes, systems and support for students. In essence, the role was designed to motivate, enthuse and influence behaviours, engage staff and students and determine appropriate interventions.
Since 2001, there has been a focus on enhancing data quality, systems and processes and evidencing decision making, actions and improvements. This was heavily influenced by the requirements of taught degree awarding powers (QAA, 2010b). Over the research period attention was given to the applications‟ process and admission of students into the university. The institution was heavily dependent on „direct‟ and late applications (for full-time). This changed in 2007/08 when the institution changed its policy on „direct‟ applications and, until a date in early summer, only UCAS applications would be accepted. The drivers behind this
change in policy and supporting systems and process were enhancing the quality of input data, student retention (increasing commitment, motivation and information),
performance in league tables (utilising UCAS data) and improved student
experience. Other key processes that received attention during the research period were the validation and approval of programmes, management and administration of assessment boards and timetabling. These all required interaction and engagement with academic and operational staff and have a relationships with student retention. It is beyond the scope of this research to consider the effectiveness of the
leadership and change processes but are provided here as part of the contextualisation of the case data over the period of study.
The case study, described in the following sections, highlights that until recently, the influencing institutional systems, processes and actions were not widely understood and student retention was not located within the research literature context. The case institution, whilst undoubtedly engaged in a number of interventions to improve student retention, was not necessarily aware of their impact potential. The
identification of efficient and effective interventions that maximise potential for realising step improvements in student retention performance is at the heart of this chapter.