2.2.-Procesos de transformación

This study is intended to make a contribution to understanding student success, through insights arising from the application of concepts developed from Bourdieu’s toolkit to higher education in New Zealand. Therefore, the relatively limited New Zealand literature about student success that already exists will be discussed. The international literature will be discussed first, in particular the literature of the United Kingdom and the work of Tinto (1993) in the United States, because a review of the literature in New Zealand suggests that Tinto’s work is often referred to as a starting point and that literature from

the United Kingdom has been influential (Prebble et al., 2004). This section

begins with a discussion of what is considered to be success, before

discussing student retention and success literature in the United Kingdom and New Zealand, and finishes with a discussion about the literature that has addressed Maori and Pacific student success.

Success

Student success is a term that has more than one definition. In the United Kingdom, where a significant body of research about student retention and success has been produced, definitions of success have emphasised completion of a qualification within a certain period of time (Jones, 2008), with some scholars arguing that policy makers have made uninterrupted study to successful completion a “moral imperative” for institutions, with dropping out being seen as failure on the part of institutions and a deficit on the part of the students (Quinn, Thomas, Slack, Casey, et al., 2005, p.17). Further, some have argued that there is an underlying assumption that students begin study with a clear objective, which includes qualification completion, and that

success can be measured by the extent to which students collectively meet those objectives, with judgments seldom being made about individual cases (Bloomer & Hodkinson, 2001).

A similar perspective to the dominant approach in the United Kingdom, is taken in New Zealand government funding policies with “success” in the

higher education system in New Zealand being tied closely to retention and qualification completion within identified periods of time (Leach, 2016; Strathdee, 2011). However, this may be producing misleading data about achievement rates. Scott (2009) argued, based on a study of completion rates over a ten year period, that, by measuring qualification completions within a specified timeframe and basing the measurement on completion of the qualification first entered, achievement in higher education in New Zealand was being significantly underestimated because of the proportion of students who changed providers (20%), or who changed qualifications (40%), or who studied part-time.

As well as the risk of underestimating numbers of students achieving qualifications, defining success by completion of a qualification within a certain period of time is an approach that has been questioned as failing to recognise that dropping out of university can be a rational choice and a learning experience (Quinn et al., 2005, 2006). The focus on completion and retention rates has also been challenged as measures of the quality of college provision because they fail to take into account external influences in the decision to withdraw and further ignore the possibility that learning has taken place even if a qualification has not been achieved (Bloomer & Hodkinson, 2001). The use of completion and retention data reflects a focus on “hard outcomes” (Zepke & Leach, 2010, p.662) and ignores “soft outcomes” (p.662), which address students’ perceptions of their learning and progress towards their own goals. These are measured by such things as attitudinal skills, practical skills, personal skills and work skills.

While is it understandable that education funders seek to contain exposure to cost through setting defined completion times, this is a narrow view of

success. The significant challenges faced in the Business degree to meet this narrow view of success, represented by completion targets set by policy makers, was a factor that was influential in my decision to undertake this study.

Factors supporting retention and success

Student retention, particularly concerning students in their first year of study, has been an area where there has been a sustained attempt to develop theory and has been dominated by models of social and academic integration (Harvey, Drew, & Smith, 2006), which was a model that was first developed by Tinto (1993). A review of the literature shows that, for the most part, early studies focused on reasons for early withdrawal, rather than on reasons for success, and focused on student and institutional characteristics, rather than drawing strongly on sociological theory.

In developing his model in the United States higher education context, Tinto (1993) sought to move away from models of withdrawal that he perceived inferred some shortcoming on the part of that individual. Instead, Tinto sought to bring in the role of the institutions in relation to the individual. His theory was that the extent to which students were academically and socially integrated into universities informed their decisions about persistence or withdrawal. Academic integration is the extent to which students have

experiences that relate to their academic development and motivation. Social integration relates to the connections students make to the university

environment and which support satisfaction. In short, the model addressed both the in-class experience and the out-of-class experience. This has led to the view that universities need to ensure there is a mix of both academic and social experiences for students (Harvey et al., 2006).

There is a body of literature from the United Kingdom arising out of large scale quantitative studies in which attempts have been made to identify particular factors that were reasons for students withdrawing from university early. These include incompatibility between student and institution,

inadequate preparation for university, financial issues, limited commitment and academic progress (Yorke, 1999), personal reasons, wrong choice of course, lack of integration and dissatisfaction with the institution (Davies & Elias, 2002; National Audit Office, 2007; Yorke & Longden, 2008).

Identification of relevant factors that may lead to withdrawal is useful for universities to enable them to address those that they can, but it has been

argued that withdrawal cannot be attributed to one variable and is instead the result of combinations of student characteristics, external factors and

institution related (Harvey et al., 2006), suggesting that a more holistic and student-centred approach is useful.

A more student-centred approach recognises that the use of terms such as retention, completion and drop-out reflect a managerial approach, whereas a focus on success reflects more of a student perspective (Yorke & Longden, 2004). Yorke and Longden (2004) emphasised the importance of the student experience, noting that “to focus on student success is, implicitly, to focus on the enhancement of the student experience” (p.133). In this study I have taken a similar approach in that I have investigated why students have succeeded, rather than focusing on why students have withdrawn, and thus have focused on the student perspective, rather than the managerial

perspective. A focus on the student perspective of success and how that was achieved has the potential to add to the knowledge of which experiences could be encouraged for all students, so as to provide aspirational goals for educators, whereas a focus on withdrawal tends more towards suggesting which experiences should be avoided.

In a more holistic approach than the identification of individual variable factors leading to withdrawal, Yorke and Longden (2004) identified a three-way responsibility for student success that rests with institutions, students and the higher education system, with a call for the latter to take a more relaxed view of retention and completion. Their view was that seeking a “grand theory” (p.75) of student retention and success is likely to be futile. Rather, they concluded that student retention and success are “influenced by a complex set of considerations which are primarily psychological and sociological, but which are in some cases influenced by matters which might be located under other disciplinary banners such as that of economics” (p.78). This approach has parallels with Bourdieu’s thinking tools in that the forms of capital could be recognised under the sociological and economic considerations and habitus linked to psychological considerations. As such, Yorke and Longden’s (2004) three-way approach and recognition of the complexity of student success has

attraction as adding an holistic and individually-focused dimension, which builds on approaches that identify individual variables, to enable complexities of the individual student to be recognised.

Student success in the widening participation context has also been

considered. Intra-university quantitative (Hixenbaugh, Dewart, & Towell, 2012) and qualitative (Thomas & Hanson, 2014) studies, and cross-university

quantitative studies (Thomas, 2012b) have continued to emphasise the importance of social integration and a sense of belonging. Recognition of the individuality of the student and institutional commitment to the student

experience have been found to be common factors in institutions that exceed national benchmarks in terms of widening participation and completion targets (Yorke & Thomas, 2003). The focus on the individual student has led to a strand of literature that has parallels with, and in some cases draws directly upon, Bourdieu’s work on habitus. Kuh & Love (2000) in the USA developed propositions about student departure that focused on the culture of origin of the student and the culture of the institution, suggesting that the greater the difference between the two, the less likely a student might be to persist with their studies. In the United Kingdom the student’s fit with the institution has been identified as important and has led to the development of the concept of institutional habitus (Reay, David, & Ball, 2001; Thomas, 2002), which builds on Bourdieu’s concept of habitus (Bourdieu & Passerson, 1977) and has broad similarities with Kuh and Love’s (2000) approach to the fit between institutional and student culture. The use of adjectives such as “institutional” in front of the term “habitus” has been criticised as risking a lack of analysis of the field in question and moving away from the relational approach intended by Bourdieu (Maton, 2012). However, what this strand of literature does do is to highlight that universities do have different cultures that include not only the institutional approaches and, in the United Kingdom, the pre-dominant class of students, but also the attitudes of the students to learning, and this too can have an impact on the student’s fit with the institution (Reay et al., 2010). Harvey et al. (2006), after reviewing significant literature in this area and noting the predominance of social and academic integration models,

suggested that theory does not take us closer to solving “the puzzle” of why students stay or leave university (p.34). While seeking a “grand theory” may be futile (Yorke & Longden, 2004, p.75), approaches that give holistic

consideration to the relationship between the individual student, the institution, and external factors bring the literature more into alignment with the relational approach suggested by Bourdieu’s thinking tools. Such approaches reflect the supplementing of the literature with sociological approaches (Harvey et al., 2006) as part of recognising the complexity of factors that lead to persistence or withdrawal for an individual student and support the value of a study such as this one, which sets out to examine the complexities that led to that relationship being the way it is.