RED DE GESTJON TL

Some studies address the impact on performance and retention for non-traditional students in general. Although not specifically about the first-year experience, Lynch and Bishop-Clark (1998) noted that the majority of research on non-traditional students had been conducted in environments where they constitute a significant portion of the college population. Such research identified few problems and indicated that non-traditional students’ college experiences are positive.

Bowl’s (2003) qualitative study of 32 non-traditional students in higher education in the UK showed some evidence that they were likely to feel isolated, especially in a traditional university where they may be in a minority. This reinforced the tendency of non-traditional students to think of university as ‘not for them’. Non-traditional

students were also prone to financial worries and debt, which also appeared to impact on choice of programme of study. Further, non-traditional students can be put off by large lectures, little formal teaching contact time and inaccessible staff. Bowl argued that breaking down some of the walls between academic staff and students could be very beneficial for non-traditional students.

Christie, et al. (2005) in reporting the experiences of non-traditional students at prestigious Scottish universities, noted that students constructed themselves as ‘day students’. They lived at home and combined studying with commitments to family or to paid employment. This was a pragmatic response to their financial and material circumstances. The authors argued that this disadvantages the students within the university system both through their limited ability to participate in the wider social aspects of student life and through their exclusion from information networks.

5.3.2 Social class

Archer et al.’s (2003) book Higher Education and Social Class, Issues of Exclusion and Inclusion although not specifically about the first-year experience raised issues that impact on it. Noting the persistently low participation rates of people from working class groups, the text discussed the reasons for this exclusion, and

addressed issues around differential access to information about university, the value of higher education to working class groups, the costs of participating and the

propensity to participate. The findings were based on a study that included the views of both working class participants and non-participants in higher education.

Biggs et al. (1991) showed that, in Australia, coming from a lower socioeconomic background and having family problems were both associated with either a

decreased academic performance or an increased attrition rate in the first year. Scott et al.’s (1996) study of 118 mature female students with children in three eastern Australian universities found that those with low socio-economic indicators tended to leave. Reasons for leaving tended to differ with age: younger students tended to leave because of family, financial or child-care reasons, older students were more likely to leave because of practical difficulties or course dissatisfaction.

Liljander (1998), in a study of drop-out and course-switching in Finnish higher education, found that risk of dropping out was inversely related to social class, and that men were at slightly greater risk of dropping out than women.

Musselbrook and Dean (2003) reported a study of 1819 students from classes IIIM- V at five Scottish universities who had accepted a first-year place beginning 2000–1. They showed that a range of factors impacted on students’ experiences of university, which were mediated by students’ own, often complicated, life stories. Of the sample, only 4% felt that they would ‘probably’ or ‘definitely not’ carry on with their studies. Most respondents (85%) indicated that they would select the same university again. The main reason for indicating a preference for another university was that the place of study was too far from home. An environment conducive to mixing and socialising with other students also helped students create an important peer-support network. Those living in student halls and involved in extracurricular activities were the most satisfied with their personal lives and better integrated into university life. Another challenge that institutions faced was helping students develop their time

management, analytical, written, and presentation skills. Performing well in essays and examinations is what students reported as most satisfying and poor performance as least satisfying. Appropriate financial information also had positive benefits for working-class first-year students.

5.3.3 First generation

Grayson (1997a) explored whether Canadian first-generation students confronted greater problems than traditional students. In a commuter university in which the majority were first-generation students, 1849 students were surveyed at the end of the first year and survey results were linked to grades. The results showed that traditional students performed slightly better but that for both groups involvement in various university activities contributed to GPA. Traditional students tended to have higher levels of involvement than first-generation students.

First generation students, with little idea of what to expect from higher education, according to the University of Teesside Retention Team (2005), were particularly

discouraged by the perceived inaccessibility of tutors and the pressure to become independent learners. Such students tended to presume that they would have the same level of academic support they received in school, college or further education. Duggan (2004–5) showed that, after controlling for other variables, first-generation students had a statistically significant, but comparatively minor, negative effect on persistence.

5.3.4 Mature students

Simonite’s (1988) quantitative study showed that student performance was shown to increase with age and that this relative performance advantage for mature students was established in their first year of study. Richardson (1994, 1995) conducted a literature review on the academic performance of mature students, which contained no good evidence that mature students perform any less well than younger students on courses of study in higher education. The review and an empirical study

suggested that mature students exhibit more desirable approaches to learning. Furthermore, the subsequent academic performance of the mature students on their degree courses was at least as good as that of the non-mature students. This is a view reflected in Harris and Brooks’ (1998) questionnaire survey of 209 older students in the US. It showed that many older students adapted to college at least as well as traditional-age students. Hispanics and Anglos showed similar patterns. Surprisingly, though, older students reported fewer barriers towards getting a higher education than did younger students, particularly institutional obstacles, such as poor treatment from professors and dispositional obstacles, such as lack of self-

confidence. However, older students did report feeling more guilt about being in higher education.

Most of the studies on mature students’ persistence or withdrawal do not focus specifically on the first year. For example, Ozga and Sukhnandan (1998), drawing on a report commissioned by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (Ozga and Sukhnandan, 1997), reported the results of a small-scale qualitative study of undergraduate non-completion. They suggested that withdrawal for ‘conventional’ and ‘mature’ students differ. Factors of central importance for conventional students were lack of preparedness (dependence on inadequate sources of information, no clear orientation towards higher education, and a reactive entry route rather than pro-active choice), compatibility of choice (match between students and their choices especially the extent to which students’ choices fulfilled their expectations and also the extent to which students fulfilled the institution’s expectations), and time of exit (the time it took a student to recognise, accept, and act on, the fact a poor choice had been made). For mature students, external circumstances often forced them to withdraw.

Lynch and Bishop-Clark (1998) suggested that a lack of age diversity may have an impact on the non-traditional students’ experience on traditional campuses, where older students constitute a small percentage of the student population, compared to branch campuses where there is a substantial number of older students, which reflects the general studies on non-traditional students in a traditional setting,

mentioned above (Section 5.3.1) (Bowl, 2003; Knox, 2005). Bowl (2003) suggested that some mature students think very strategically about what course to study

because their key aim is to earn more money and have a more secure job to support themselves and their families. Further, mature students are more likely to have significant family responsibilities alongside their studies and are, therefore, more

likely to withdraw for family reasons. Mature women, in particular, may experience difficulties because of family responsibilities conflicting with their studies; this adds to an already low self-esteem.

McGivney’s (1996) book, among other things, had also pointed to social isolation, not fitting in and financial and family worries of mature students. There were gender differences: men were more likely to cite course-related, finance- or work-related reasons (getting a job; the demands of a current job) for leaving courses before completion, whereas women were more likely to withdraw for reasons such as family commitments and the lack, inadequacy or costs of childcare. Strategies for dealing with the most common causes of withdrawal and for improving retention rates were suggested.

Thomas et al. (1996) found that financial problems could be particularly acute for mature students in the UK. According to Yorke (1999) mature students are more likely to leave for financial reasons than younger students. However, the University of Teesside Retention Team (2005) study did not find finance a major issue for mature students. Indeed, the key issues for mature students in the study were feedback, timetabling and support facilities. The quality and timeliness of feedback is directly related to the mature student’s ability to progress and succeed. Feedback helps to guide the student through their course and helps to maintain their self- confidence. Mature students who have been absent from education for a significant period of time often feel insecure about their academic ability. In addition to suffering from lack of confidence, very often mature students have to juggle work, family and study responsibilities, which sometimes leads to problems with timetabling and the need for appropriate provision of childcare facilities. It appeared also that in some cases mature participants perceived university staff as being unaware of their needs and felt that staff did not communicate with them appropriately. Mature participants occasionally expressed the opinion that they wanted staff to treat them in a more adult way. However, although the prospect of higher education may be

overwhelmingly daunting for some younger, less confident, non-traditional students, it seems that some older students do not feel this sense of foreboding when

encountering their new environment.

5.3.5 Gender

Gender-based analyses are not numerous and tend to be mentioned as a side issue in other studies (McGivney, 1996; Liljander, 1998, Bowl, 2003; Trueman and Hartley, 1996). For example, Nora’s et al. (1996) wide-ranging study noted that, for females, the most significant positive effect on college persistence came from

mentoring experiences in the form of non-classroom interactions with academic staff. Porter and Swing (2006) stated that here is general agreement in the literature that males have lower persistence rates than females in the United States and cited Leppel (2002) and Mortenson (2001). Leppel (2002) used national-level data to explore factors influencing college persistence of men and women. Surprisingly, having children has a negative impact on men’s persistence but a positive impact on women’s persistence. Being Black raises persistence significantly for women but not for men. Age, marriage, and hours worked have a negative impact; and family income, GPA, and being Asian have a positive impact on both men and women’s persistence.

Mortenson (2001) did not really address the first-year experience as such but demonstrated that the gender distribution of bachelor’s degrees awarded in the

United States showed a redistribution from men to women that has been underway for a very long time; at least 130 years. Around 1980 the proportions of bachelors reflected the population balance of men and women. Since 1980 women have

predominated and the redistribution of bachelor’s degrees from males to females has been broadly based. This redistribution has occurred in all 50 states, in all

racial/ethnic groups of the population, and in both public and private higher education institutions. In all fields traditionally dominated by men, women have made

substantial gains over the last 30 years. There appear to be no remaining male reserves in bachelor degree awards, although engineering and computer science seem to be struggling to hold on to their historic male dominance.

5.3.6 Ethnicity

The research evidence about the impact of race or ethnicity on persistence is varied and suggests specific contexts are more important than ethnicity.

Grayson’s (1995) Canadian study of about 1000 students, showed that some outcomes of the first-year experience, including self-assessed intellectual

development and knowledge, grade-point averages, and intentions to return to the university, vary by racial group. However, race per se explains little, if any, of the total variance. Explanations for differences in outcomes are to be found in classroom experiences, contacts with faculty and academic involvement.

Grayson (1998) also noted a lack of research on race and student retention in Canadian universities. Using administrative records and end-of-year surveys carried out in 1993, 1994 and 1995 he examined voluntary and involuntary withdrawal of first-year students of various racial origins enrolled full-time at a large university. (Students who withdraw involuntarily are those who because of low academic standing are debarred from continuing for a second year.) In general, differences in overall retention rates for blacks and students of South Asian, Chinese, ‘other’ non- European and European origins were small. Moreover, a logistic regression analysis indicated that while racial origin was not a predictor of voluntary withdrawal from university at the end of the first year, it had a slight effect on involuntary withdrawal. This differed from the situation in the US where research had shown that particularly black students and those of Hispanic origin have far lower retention rates than white students and those of Asian origin.

Research has shown mixed findings on the effects of academic and social integration for African American students in the United States. Overall, social integration is a stronger predictor of persistence than academic integration for African American students. Nora et al. (1996) noted that for minorities, the biggest detrimental effects on dropout behaviour were derived from pull factors in the form of family

responsibilities and working off-campus. No significant positive effects from informal and formal interactions with academic staff, close personal relationships with peers and academic experiences during their first year in college were found to negate the large negative influences from the pull factors.

Mallinckrodt (1988) and Mallinckrodt and Sedlacek (1987) found that measures of social integration influenced retention rates for African American students. In both studies, it was found that African American students who either perceived greater social support or participated in social activities were more likely to persist in college. However, Zea et al. (1997) found that for African American students’ there was a positive correlation between students’ intention to persist at their respective institutions or another postsecondary institution and their degree of academic

integration (as measured by GPA). Flowers (2006) explored the impact of attending a two-year (as opposed to a four-year) institution on African American male students’ academic and social integration experiences in the first year of college. Descriptive and multivariate analyses of the 1996–1998 ‘beginning postsecondary students longitudinal study’ showed that African American males attending four-year

institutions were more likely to report higher levels of academic and social integration in the first year of college. These findings suggested that student affairs/services professionals at two-year institutions should seek to develop appropriate

interventions to ensure that African American males are engaged in academic and social integration experiences during their first year of college. Amelink (2005) also found that first-generation students who are Asian American are likely to experience academic success whereas first-generation, male African American, Mexican

American and non-native English speakers have greater odds of being academically less successful.

Attinasi (1989) reported an analysis of in-depth, open-ended interviews of persisting and non-persisting Mexican American university students, which yielded two

conceptual schemes for interpreting their perceptions of college-going experiences. These, respectively, corresponded to pre- and post-matriculation attitudinal and behavioural patterns, and served as the basis for hypotheses about the socio-

psychological context of freshman-year persistence decisions. Burford’s (2004) book investigated the reasons university students in the South Central United States have to retake first-year English composition. The study sought to discover if cultural difference of teachers and students was significant. Most of the students were Hispanic, and most of the faculty were of Anglo-Saxon/European heritage. The book expresses the views of Mexican American students and their teachers.

The US research reflects the studies of the ethnic variation in the predictive potential of the scholastic aptitude test, discussed above (section 4.1.2). Those studies also showed that ethnicity alone was not a factor but was mediated, inter alia, by the context in which the students were studying.