Presentation at Solent Learning and Teaching Community Conference

1. Click to edit Master title style
Student Retention
At SSU
From research presented for the
MA in Professional Practice, March 2016
24 June 2016

2. Click to edit Master title style
Rationale
• As a teaching university with an emphasis on widening
participation, student success should be at the heart of what
we do
• But observations over years at exam boards reveal a situation
where a significant proportion do not ‘get through’
• Students frequently fail in numerous areas
• The head of a former school had commented that there were a
wide variety of approaches and good work going on in the area;
when asked ‘what works?’ he said he didn’t know…

3. Click to edit Master title style
What we think we know
• SSU is really good on widening participation so we have a
high proportion of students from non-traditional backgrounds
• This presents problems, because students do not enter
university with the skillsets they need for success
• In spite of this we do well in supporting our students to
succeed
• Raising application criteria would result in better student
outcomes
• Help which is tailored to the individual student is the key to
reducing student drop-out

4. Click to edit Master title style
Widening participation – myth no 1
Widening participation
indicator
England
average
Sector
best
Southampton Solent
University
Position/
121
University of
Southampton
Position/
121
Entrants from state
schools
89% 99.7% 97.1% 33rd 86% 83rd
Social class 4 to 7
32.8% 54.4% 36.5% 52nd 22% 100th
Low participation in HE
neighbourhoods
10.9% 27.9% 14.7% 27th 8.1% 70th
• While we do well in relation to widening participation
compared to many HEIs, we are not particularly outstanding…
• For low participation neighbourhoods, for example, 11 HEIs have
participation rates over 20% compared to our 14.7%
• So SSU does well, but not exceptionally well, on widening
participation

5. Click to edit Master title style
Student success –
SSU compared to other HEIs
• According to HESA statistics from 2012/13 (the last year statistics were
available at the time of writing the literature review) SSU had the 13th
worst progression rate in England (out of 123 HEIs), with 11.8% of
students failing to progress.
• This compares to 11% in the previous year
• However HESA have generated a benchmark relating to entry
qualifications and subject studied
• For SSU the benchmarks are 10.1% overall, 8.8% for young entrants and 14.5%
for mature entrants
• Relating SSU to HEIs with a similar benchmark should give a more
representative comparison
• The study considered the HEIs with a benchmark of 10.1% +/- 1%

6. Click to edit Master title style
Student progression at Level 4
• Overall we are in the worst third for overall progression relative
to benchmark +/- 1%
• Mature students do better than benchmark (14.0% compared to 14.8%)
• Young entrants do much worse – 11.2% compared to 8.8% - only 3
comparable HEIs perform worse than SSU
• This suggests that the main problem is with young entrants

7. Click to edit Master title style
Student success – myths 2 and 3
• The cause of our poor progression rates is the skillset of
our students
• The statistics do not suggest evidence of this
• 5 comparator institutions perform better than benchmark; we
perform significantly worse
• SSU has a good record in relation to student progression,
given the nature of our students
• The stats mentioned above do not support this perception
• The problem is particularly bad for young entrants

8. Click to edit Master title style
Raising standards – myth no 4
• Simply raising credit points of entrants would raise student
success rates
• An overall increase in entry standards would raise our
benchmark, and given that we perform worse than benchmark
already, a decision like this would need to be taken with care
• Widening participation is something SSU is proud of; it’s a key
element of our USP as an HEI
• From SSU mission statement:
We are dedicated to the pursuit of excellent university education
that enables learners from all backgrounds to become enterprising
citizens and responsible leaders, while also promoting economic
and social prosperity for the communities we serve

9. Click to edit Master title style
Summary of literature findings – myth no 5
• Most recent research is the HEA sponsored “What Works” research
• Phase 1 published in 2012; phase 2 is ongoing
• This supported the conclusions in the rest of the literature…
• To gain real momentum in relation to student success, the institution
needs to focus on policies that work for whole cohorts, not to focus
on the individual student at risk
• One of the projects that formed part of What Works dropped the individual
approach because it proved ineffective
• It is, therefore, likely that the focus on the individual ‘at risk’
student is exactly the wrong approach to improving student success

10. Click to edit Master title style
Three levels in addressing the issue
• Level 1 focus: What the HEI is
• Student outcomes can be predicted quite accurately from a
knowledge of the student demographic
• We can’t change outcomes without a change of demographic
• Benchmarks are based on this
• Level 2 focus: What the student does
• It’s all about student engagement; if we can identify non-
attenders and turn them round, we can solve the problem
• Level 3 focus: What the HEI does
• Interventions need to be embedded in the core curriculum and
be geared to all students
• Encompasses organisational policy and management activity

11. Click to edit Master title style
Research approach
• Interviews carried out with staff responsible for student progression
in two of the former schools from two different faculties in the
previous university organisation
• Both heads of school were interviewed
• Also staff members with responsibility for level 4 students as course
tutors/progression tutors etc
• The aim was to identify:
• What the school policy was and how well this was disseminated
• What was actually happening ‘on the ground’
• Whether there were any theoretical underpinnings to policy and how well
this was understood
• Approaches were compared with actual progression statistics

12. Click to edit Master title style
Summary of research findings
• Nobody interviewed had any knowledge of recent
research in the area
• Policy is geared around what we think we know rather
than adopting an evidence-based approach
• The literature review, especially the statistical breakdown of
HESA data demonstrates that what we think we know is
substantially wrong
• BUT everyone involved cares deeply about their students
and is passionate about helping them to succeed

13. Click to edit Master title style
Pockets of sound practice
• Most respondents were doing some things right, examples
include:
• Interviewing students to ensure a good fit to course
• Pre-start activities/social networking
• Changes had been made on a piecemeal basis to address
specifically identified problems, for example:
• Provision of a ‘studio pack’ for students to purchase early in the
course so that they would not be disadvantaged by running out of
money later

14. Click to edit Master title style
Areas of concern
• Widespread lack of knowledge about how well different
courses are doing – despite this information being readily
available
• My sincere thanks to the Information Office for their very timely
assistance with this
• Lack of consistency between courses and with recognised good
practice because of a lack of evidenced understanding
• One Academic Leader (in the small number interviewed)
suggested a mixture of encouragement and threats was an
appropriate approach…

15. Click to edit Master title style
Characteristics of sound approaches
• Mainstream
• Proactive
• Relevant
• Well-timed and in a suitable format
• Collaborative
• Monitored

16. Click to edit Master title style
Conclusions
• Caring isn’t enough
• no evidence that any tutors failed to care, if caring is expressed
through being concerned about student outcomes
• Evidence-based approach is more important; the most effective
courses are where academics actively review the gaps in their
strategy, and put actions in place to address these
• Prescription or reflection
• One size does not fit all
• Essential to recognise differing needs of differing groups
• “the problem of poor retention will not be fixed by
micromanagement or by edict”

17. Click to edit Master title style
Any Questions?

18. Click to edit Master title style
Recommendations
• Working group to develop a university-wide approach
• Looking at areas that need to be cohesive, e.g. providing student
support with problems, whether finance, residential, mental
health. Ensuring support is available in a timely manner.
• Providing guidance, but not policy or procedures, to staff with
responsibilities for recruitment, retention, course development,
pastoral care, student support and so on.
• Find out what works at other comparable HEIs
• Forum for sharing good practice
• Effective dissemination of ‘What Works’

19. Click to edit Master title style
Recommended reading
• ANDREWS J, CLARK R and THOMAS L, 2012; Compendium of effective practice in higher education
retention and success; York, Higher Education Academy
• Higher Education Statistics Agency 2015a; Table T3a - Non-continuation following year of entry: UK
domiciled full-time first degree entrants 2012/13; accessed 14/4/15 at
https://www.hesa.ac.uk/pis/noncon
• Higher Education Statistics Agency 2015Bb; Table T1a - Participation of under-represented groups
in higher education: UK domiciled young full-time first degree entrants 2012/13; accessed 2/3/15
at https://www.hesa.ac.uk/pis/urg
• National Audit Office; 2007; Staying the course: The retention of students in higher education.
Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, HC 616 Session 2006-2007. London: The Stationery
Office
• THOMAS L 2012; Building student engagement and belonging in Higher Education at a time of
change: final report from the What Works? Student Retention & Success programme. London: Paul
Hamlyn Foundation
• THOMAS L and HILL M, 2013; Briefing report on the What works? Student retention and success
change programme; Higher Education Academy, accessed 30/3/15 at
http://www.lizthomasassociates.co.uk/student_retention.html