Strategic initiatives must be implemented by all Universities (Fenn-Lavington, 2016) as a way of identifying and addressing practices at University that impede student engagement and success. High levels of attrition are morally indefensible and hugely wasteful. To illustrate this, a 2010 study of retention in the Australian higher education sector estimated that the total cost of first-year attrition was more than A$1 billion per year. The cost for each public University was estimated as being between A$20 million and A$36 million (Kift, 2016). Kift adds:
And it gets worse. Official attrition statistics do not account for the significant percentage of students who leave without ever being counted in the first place. This includes those who don’t take-up their offer, don’t make it to O Week or don’t make it to the official week four census date. (Kift, 2016, para.7)
To support this debate, findings were reviewed from many sources, including The First Year Experience in Australian Universities: Findings from a Decade of National Studies (Krause et al., 2005), ACER’s (2009) Engaging Students for Success, AUSSE (Australasian Survey of Student Engagement), NSSE (National Survey of Student Engagement (Kuh, 2017), and First Year in Higher Education Survey (FYHE, 2015). These and other studies have been referred to in various papers from the First Year Curriculum Design Symposium held at QUT in February 2009, as well as at earlier and more recent First Year in Higher Education (FYHE) conferences.
Furthermore, recent data (Universities Australia, 2016) shows that about one in five commencing bachelor degree students in Australia left their original course in 2014, and about 15 per cent dropped out completely. These data also indicate that the number of students not completing their chosen course climbed to more than one million for the first time (Jackson, 2016). Reasons for non-retention reflect not only academic failure or drop-out, but also factors such as cross- institutional mobility, course transfer and temporary deferral. Although the data are both convincing and concerning, caution should be used in applying national data to a specific student body, as the demographics, experiences, expectations and needs of the student body vary between institutions and, indeed, within institutions.
19
The number of students leaving their first-year courses is increasing, whether or not they find another place for themselves in the higher education system. This is a major concern for all Universities, and particularly for the regional University in this study. In terms of national retention data in Australia, the University of Melbourne had the lowest attrition rate at 7.5 per cent. Its adjusted rate (Universities Australia, 2016), after taking out students who had left their course but enrolled in another, was only 3.74 per cent. The research on first year indicates that it is inappropriate for Universities to blame perceived student inadequacies for retention concerns. Rather, there needs to be a more nuanced and complex understanding of the reasons. For example, it might be that some Universities have enrolled students but not provided appropriate University transition support and assistance. According to Kift (2016), Universities need to consciously make first-year student learning, success and retention their core business. This approach was a key aspect of this research investigation.
At the University with the worst reported attrition rate, the University of Tasmania, 42.26 per cent of students left their course during the first year, with most of those – 38.13 per cent of all first-year students – dropping out of University altogether (Universities Australia, 2016). Another major concern, and highly relevant to the rationale supporting this research project regarding graduate students, was suggested by Andrew Norton of the Grattan Institute (2016, para. 2), who summed up the problem very well: ‘Mapping Australian Higher Education 2016, shows that in 2015, only half of bachelor degree science graduates seeking full- time work had found it four months after completing their degrees’.
Elsewhere, Nelson, Clarke, Kift and Creagh (2011) had earlier noted that ‘the study of the FYE is now well established in Australasia as a focus for
research and evidence-based practice. Further, the FYE movement is on the cusp and ready for more sophisticated research such as inter-professional teams implementing institution-wide projects’ (p. vi). From their review of 399 pieces of research spanning more than 40 years, they indicate that, ‘the development and implementation of sustainable FYE policy, practice and associated infrastructure is long-term work’ (p. 44).
20
As mentioned, there are many factors that compound the lack of student engagement at University and especially within the FYE. Lizzio (2006) states that the return of their first assignment may be needed to prompt them to seek assistance, and his 5 Senses model, as shown in Figure 2.1, reinforces this. Lizzio clearly illustrates the need for students to connect with the many facets of University culture and particularly the personnel who offer valuable assistance.
Figure 2.1 The 5 Senses approach to Student Engagement and Success at University (Lizzio, 2006)
The model above illustrates the 5 Senses approach (Lizzio, 2006) to student engagement and success at University. It supports some of the theoretical and conceptual frameworks of this study by emphasising key aspects of culture, connectedness, capability, purpose and resourcefulness. The sense of connectedness is of particular relevance to this study as it aligns with the aspects of student engagement and success and the support personnel who were most helpful to the students in their FYE.
21