Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Using Data to Improve Student Retention and Success
Sarah Broxton
Overview
• About the University of Huddersfield, strategic position;
• Why we need the data – drivers for change;
• Application overview;
• A year in – what we’ve learnt;
• Next steps
UoH Institutional Performance
• Significant improvements made over last 5 year period:
– Times Higher University of the Year!– 19,500 students– Improving NSS scores– Increasing league table positions– Top 10 Employability– Times Higher Entrepreneurial University of the Year– Award winning estate
University of Huddersfield Strategic Position
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110 72
74
76
78
80
82
84
86
88
University of Huddersfield Institutional Performance
Guardian League Table Times Good University Guide Sunday Times University GuideComplete University Guide NSS Overall Satisfaction
Le
ag
ue
Ta
ble
Ra
nk
NS
S %
Ag
ree
(Q
22
)
University of Huddersfield Retention Record
Total full-time first degree
entrants
Number who transfer to
other UK HEI
Number no longer in HE
Percent no longer in HE
(%)
Bench-mark (%)
2007/08 3415 100 440 12.9 10.7
2008/09 3425 100 425 12.4 9.8
2009/10 3705 100 445 12.0 11.0
2010/11 3700 60 415 11.2 10.0
2011/12 4055 85 380 9.4 8.7
Drivers for Change
• Strategic requirement to improve retention rates;
• Strategic requirement to improve institutional effectiveness and efficiency;
• Introduction of attendance monitoring system;
• Increased cohort sizes;
• Limited access/knowledge by staff about what data is available.
Drivers for Change
• Create own systems– Onerous and bureaucratic– Duplicates effort, associated version issues– Increasing risk of error
• Wider implications– Reputational impact– Financial impact– Social and ethical impact
“The traditional ladder out of poverty is education. Access to university education is seen as countering social exclusion and poverty” (Quinn et al, 2005, p.1)
Starting Point – Where We Were
• Data is retrospective, informative, though limited
• Useful to be able to monitor student behaviour while they are still attending
• Early intervention– Sign post to most appropriate support services
Support Priority Students - Overview
Profile leaver characteristics from previous year:
• Gender• Age• Entry Tariff• Entry Quals• Entry route• Home Postcode• Disability• Ethnicity
Apply to current first year cohort (2013/14) :
• Overlay Attendance Monitoring data
OUTPUT: Report of students more likely to leave:
• Communicated to:
• Nominated staff within schools:
• Personal Tutors via Staff Portal / My Students
What Happens Next?
Support Priority Student
Get in touch
If all ok, occasional check in
Academic Issues – ASTsOther Issues – School or central
support services
Occasional check in
Benefits
• Provides targeted intelligence on where to focus initial attention• Data available on the desktop to academic staff• Facilitates proactive, early intervention – mitigates ‘crisis point’ • Promotes transparency and accountability• Improves communication between schools and services• Creates further data for analysis• Increases institutional intelligence on the retention issue
Evaluation
Current Suspended Withdrawn2013/14 WD & S
Grand Total 13/14 W & Susp
13/14 W & Susp as % of
Total
NON SPS 4096 118 222 4436 4436 340 7.7%
SPS 152 8 34 194 194 42 21.6%
Grand Total 4248 126 256 4630 4630 382 8.3%
Withdrawal and Suspension Rates Comparing SPS Students to Population (to end May 2014)
Population: Fulltime, undergraduate, first year home students
What we’ve learnt so far
• The technicalities are easy
• Organisational culture is the challenge– Feedback meetings with schools– Privacy and ethical issues
Next Steps
• Addition of behavioural indicators• Increase transparency• Training for colleagues• Formal governance structure
– Embedded within T&L strategy– Links with University Solicitor re DP– Collaboration and buy in from SU
Governance
Student Support Steering Group
Use of DataSchool and
Central Student Support
Internal Communications
Next Steps….
• Addition of engagement indicators– Accuracy of AM data;– Library usage data;– Missed appointments;– VLE data;– Module assessment data
• Submission / Non-submission• Results and grades
– SU data
A word of caution……
• Data provided is INDICATIVE• It’s not PRESCRIPTIVE
– Students identified will not necessarily leave– Students not identified will also leave
• An SPS student shares characteristics similar to other students who have left in the past;
• Based on evidence from previous years, these students MORE LIKELY to leave than students with different profile
• Provides starting point for engagement with students
Conclusion
• No silver bullet– Practice is institution specific– Everyone’s problem, all staff have a responsibility to support action to
improve the student experience
• “In the final analysis, the key to successful student retention lies with the institution, in its faculty and staff, not in any one formula or recipe. It resides in the ability of faculty and staff to apply what is known about student retention to the specific situation in which the institution finds itself.” (Tinto, 1993, p.6)
References
• Buglear, J. (2009). Logging in and dropping out: exploring student non‐completion in higher education using electronic footprint analysis. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 33(4), 381-393. doi: 10.1080/03098770903272479
• Cook, A. (2009). The Roots of Attrition. In A. Cook & B. S. Rushton (Eds.), How to Recruit and Retain Higher Education Students: A Handbook of Good Practice (pp. 1-12). Abingdon: Routledge.
• Cook, A., & Rushton, B. S. (Eds.). (2009). How to Recuit and Retain Higher Education Students: A Handbook of Good Practice. Abingdon: Routledge.
• HESA. (2014). PIs: Non-continuation rates (Table T3) Retrieved 06/05/2014 from https://www.hesa.ac.uk/pis/noncon
• Longden, B. (2009). Foreword. In A. Cook & B. S. Rushton (Eds.), How to Recruit and Retain Higher Education Students: A Handbook of Good Practice. New York: Routledge.
References
• Quinn, A et al. (2005)From Life Crisis to Lifelong Learning: Rethinking Working Class ‘Drop-out’ from Higher Education. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
• Thomas, L. (2012). What Works? Student Retention & Success, Building student engagement and belonging in Higher Education at a time of change: a summary of findings and recommendations from the What Works? Student Retention & Success programme. York: Higher Education Academy.
• Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving College. London: The University of Chicago Press, Ltd.
• Yorke, M. (2000). The Quality of the Student Experience: What can institutions learn from data relating to non-completion? Quality in Higher Education, 6(1), 61-75.
• Yorke, M. (2006). Gold in them there hills? Extracting and using data from existing sources. Tertiary Education and Management, 12(3), 201-213.
Contact Details
SARAH BROXTON
Strategic Planning Officer
University of Huddersfield
01484 472069
