Objectives for Phase 2 of the student journey are identified as i) identify transferable skills across the college experience which will promote and encourage independence, self-determination and self-advocacy, ii) ensure support systems are fit for purpose by conducting evidence-based research to determine needs and supports, and to monitor performance and delivery of those supports, and iii) identify factors that function as either promoters or barriers to student retention.
The focus of the second phase of the student journey is on building and maintaining a College career. This means continuing to provide reasonable accommodations (AHEAD, 2008;; NAIRTL, 2008;; Trinity College Dublin Disability Service, 2010) that are appropriate to the student, their disability type and their course requirements. In addition, DS seeks to create a balance in the provision of support, the facilitation of independence and the retention and progression of students through College until graduation. Striking a bal- ance between ‘providing support’ and ‘encouraging independence’ need not be a conflict of interests if the supports offered adjust to the student’s needs as they proceed through College.
Retention of students in TCD
Retention and progression are recognised as important outcome measures of HE internationally (Tinto, 1993;; Yorke, 1999;; HESA, 2011;; Seidman, 2012). In the academic year 2010/11 a total of 530 undergraduate students withdrew from courses in TCD. While 260 (49%) were 1st year students, 117 (45%) were repeating 1st year. However, the number of repeating 1st years who withdraw can accumulate over 3 to 4 years. For example, within the 2006/07 cohort (Table 1), the combined total of repeating 1st years who withdrew over 3 subsequent years (n = 131), actually outnumbered the total of 1st years who withdrew as first time 1st years (n = 125).
Table 1: TCD Senior Lecturer’s Report 2010/11
(Table H2 – 2006/07 cohort Standing and Year of Withdrawal)
Students with disabilities in TCD
The Pathways to Education report (UCC, 2010), tracked the progress of students with disabilities within nine HEIs in 2005, finding that students with disabilities who leave HE are - similar to their non-disabled peers - most like- ly to leave in their first year. However, they also found that students with disabilities, compared to their non-disabled peers, are more likely to graduate and to take longer to do so. The retention rate for disabled students in TCD was 93% for the 2005/06 intake (Pathways to Education, 2010), in contrast to the retention rate of the general undergraduate student population in TCD, which was 82.2% (TCD Senior Lecturer’s Report, 2010). *
____________________________
Caution needs to be exercised when comparing the retention rates of disabled and non-disabled students. A skewed comparison is easy to emerge if the total number of students registered with the Disability Service in any one year is used as a basis. This is because a substantial number of 3rd year and 4th year students (who have typi-
cally much higher rates of completion than 1st or 2nd years) tend to register with the
Disability Service for the first time later in the academic year. A fairer comparison is to count only those students who disclosed at entry (as in the Pathways to Education report 2010) and follow them as a cohort against their peers.
Year JF SF JS SS Total 2006/07 125 0 0 0 125 2007/08 93 40 0 0 133 2008/09 31 39 11 0 81 2009/10 7 21 9 1 38 Total 256 100 20 1 377 % 67.9% 26.5% 5.30% 0.3% 100%
Table 2: TCD withdrawal (WD) rates 2007 to 2011 Disability Service Statistics
Persistence and disability type
DS statistics (Table 2) indicate that students with mental health difficulties or who are Deaf or hard of hearing, have shown much higher rates of
withdrawal compared to students with other disabilities. Students with Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), developmental
co-ordination disorder (DCD) or who are blind or visually impaired, are least likely to withdraw.
Home origin
International students with disabilities make up 9.5% of the student in the service compared to 21.5% of the general student population in TCD. Stu- dents with disabilities from the US have withdrawn from courses in TCD at a much higher rate than students with disabilities from the UK (Table 3).
Disability Current DS (820) (A) WD DS (193) (B) Grads DS (744) (C) WD Risk (B/A) % WD of B + C Mental Health 131 (15%) 66 (34%) 94 (12%) 2.26 41% Deaf/HOH 40 (5%) 18 (9.3%) 35 (7%) 1.86 34% ASD 31 (4%) 8 (4%) 16 (2%) 1 33% SPLD 327 (38%) 64 (32%) 404 (54%) 0.84 14% SOI 117 (13%) 18 (9.3%) 99 (13%) 0.71 15% Physical 71 (8%) 11 (5.5%) 57 (7%) 0.68 16% DCD 41 (5%) 4 (2%) 0 0.4 N/A ADHD 41 (5%) 4 (2%) 16 (2%) 0.4 20% Blind/VI 21 (2%) 1 (0.5%) 23 (3%) 0.25 4%
Table 3: Withdrawal rates by country 2007 to 2011 Disability Service Statistics
Progression rates
Students with disabilities progress at a slower rate than their non-disabled peers, compared to the TCD average for progression which is 91% (Appendix D Senior Lecturer’s Report 2010/11). Of 80 students with a disability in their final year in 2011/12, just 44 (55%) had progressed each year since their 1st year.
Grade comparison
Students with disabilities in TCD are less likely to achieve a 1st or 2.1 exam result and more likely to achieve a 2.2 or pass (Table 4) compared to their peers.
Table 4: TCD Disability Service Statistics 2010/11
There are two possible reasons for this: supports are more sought after by students at risk of failing, and the facility to repeat on medical grounds or go ‘off books’ is more likely to be taken up by students with disabilities.
The vast majority of students with disabilities make the transition into and through HE successfully. However, a minority struggle and withdraw at some point after registration. The outcome measures indicate that students regis- tered with DS have a higher rate of retention and course completion, than their peers. Among disability cohorts, students with a mental health difficulty have the highest risk of withdrawing. Students with disabilities are more like- ly to withdraw after attempting to repeat 1st year, as opposed to withdrawing
DS Int. All DS Int. 186 DS Int. Cur- rent 83 DS Int. WD 13 DS Int. Grad 90 UK 96 (5%) 47 (5.4%) 2 (1%) 47 (6%) US 32 (2%) 12 (1.4%) 5 (2.5%) 15 (2%)
Final Grade 1st 2.1 2.2 Pass/3
TCD% 15 53 22 10
during their first attempt at 1st year. They are more likely, as a group, to take longer to complete their degree, and are more likely to attain grades of 1st class or 2.1, in proportionately lower numbers than their peers.
This overview of the areas where DS is establishing an evidence base for students in TCD, is just a beginning. As 50% of students register with DS post-entry, thus far insufficient data has been available to differentiate entry route, beyond a basic level, as a variable in comparison to the other measures discussed here. Further data are also required in order to make meaningful comparisons with the general student population, in areas such as prior edu- cational attainment, home origin and socio-economic status.