Centre for Higher Education Practice“Festival of Innovative Practice”

June 16th 2011, Jordanstown Campus

Does placement matter? An empirical study of final year performanceCHEP funded (Round 2)

Project Team

Dr Peter Green (Jordanstown campus) senior lecturer (Project leader)Mrs Helen Foster (Jordanstown campus) lecturerMr Philip Houston (Jordanstown campus) work experience consultantDr David McAree (Magee campus) lecturerMrs Claire McCann (Coleraine campus) lecturerDr Douglas McCulloch (Jordanstown campus) lecturerMr Michael Pogue (Jordanstown camous) lecturerDr Brian Rushton (Coleraine campus) Professor of Botany

INTRODUCTION Employability is the key factor with regard to the inclusion of a

work-based placement within full-time undergraduate degree programmes.

It may be argued that from a students perspective degree classification is the “currency of employment” (Tomlinson, 2008).Knight and Yorke (2004).

If students attribute little “value-added” to taking a work placement year they may opt not to engage in a placement period, despite the views of educationalists and employers on the benefits of work experience.

INTRODUCTION• In 2007, approximately 50% of University of Ulster graduates

had undertaken a recognised placement in some form, but placement is now currently optional on many courses.

• The BSc Business Studies degree for example, has witnessed a fall from 65% in 2007 to 45% in 2009 in students opting to take a placement year.

• Nationally in the UK, whilst the percentage of graduates has increased by 9.1%, those graduating with placement has fallen by 7.1% in the period from 1999 to 2003 (HEFCE, 2009).

Trends at Ulster

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 Business Studies (J) 92 69 59 59 48 45 Business Studies (M) 86 104 93 69 54 17 Marketing 48 43 42 45 50 57 HRM 34 35 26 47 34 41

International considerations Arthur and Little (2010) report that 55% of all

European graduates had undertaken a placement period, with over 80% in Finland, Germany and the Netherlands, whilst the observed figure for the UK is 29%. Given the claimed importance of placement from both educationalists’ and employers, the downward trend in the UK is clearly undesirable (see, the Confederation of British Industry, 2009).

INTRODUCTION An important research question, from both an

educationalists and students perspective is therefore, does the completion of a work placement year, despite the fact that it does not contribute directly to the final degree mark in a mathematical sense, have a positive and significant impact upon final year performance and consequently, upon degree classification?

OBJECTIVE This study investigates the impact of students

taking a work placement (internship) year on the final degree mark and hence classifications achieved by the 2009 cohort of students on nine undergraduate degrees at the University of Ulster.

A number of control variables are explored. Namely, total tariff points on entry, prior tertiary level degree performance, and gender.

THE LITERATURE Bourner and Hamed (1987) provide evidence that the

taking of a work placement year is associated with improved degree results, having controlled for A-level scores on degree entry (see also Davis 2003).

Gomez, Lush and Clements (2004) find that on average, students who take a year long placement gain an advantage of 4% in the final year, compared to students who did not complete a placement year.

THE LITERATURE Rawlings, White and Stephens (2006) conclude

that internship or placement has a significant positive impact upon academic performance (see also Wallace 2002 and Mendez 2008, 2011).

None of the aforementioned studies specifically investigate the impact of a work placement year on business related degrees.

THE LITERATURE Duignan (2002) compared the academic

performance of business undergraduates and reported no difference between the performance of students undertaking a placement year and those not. The failure to produce evidence of a beneficial effect is attributed to a failure to fully exploit the learning potential of placement. In particular, the structure and management of the placement are contributory factors.

THE LITERATURE Essentially, Duignan (2002) argues that the

placement student is a “transient” between the workplace and University, each of which has its’ own value and reward system. Consequently on return to University and study, a student may be demotivated, loosing any potential learning transfer from the workplace.

THE LITERATURE Gracia and Jenkins (2003) provide some

evidence that students who opt to take a year of supervised work experience before their final year, perform better than those who do not, on an undergraduate degree programme in accounting and finance at the University of Glamorgan.

THE LITERATURE In the context of an undergraduate degree in

Economics at the University of Surrey, Mandilaras (2004) similarly finds that there is a statistically significant positive relationship between the completion of a placement year and academic attainment, as measured in terms of degree classification.

Surridge (2009) finds that there is statistically significant better performance for students completing placement on accounting and finance degrees.

THE LITERATURE Higson (2011) also concludes that undertaking a placement

year improves degree performance, but that “better” students take a placement year using data from all students studying Combined Honours Business Administration who graduated from Aston University between 2002 and 2008.

Green (2011) provides evidence from a study of a single cohort of Business Studies students at the Jordanstown campus which suggests that the completion of a placement year on average, improves the final year classification award achieved by students from 2.2 to 2.1.

THE LITERATURE HEFCE (2009) provides some interesting statistics with regard to this

study: 71% of students graduating with a placement year in 2003, achieved a

2.1 or above, compared with 60% of other three year courses (based upon classified degrees).

“... that students who studied abroad for part of their course entered with higher qualifications than other students, and placement students entered with lower qualifications than other students.” (page 25)

With regard to entry and classifications, “....the higher overall (classification) rate for those who studied abroad or did a placement can not be entirely explained by differences in entry qualifications.” (page 27)

DATA The empirical evidence presented is based upon data

gathered relating to the graduating cohort of students on nine undergraduate degrees in 2009. Only students who entered on the basis of UK entry tariff points were included, thus students entering with Irish Leaving Certificate or joining the programme of study either in second year, or third year (via franchise or alternative qualifications, such as HND) were excluded. In addition, students were excluded if extenuating circumstances prevented them from taking all of the final year modules.

DATA Students who had repeat assessment to complete,

in final year modules were included on the basis of their first attempt results. Similarly, when gathering data on second year degree marks, the mark employed was that achieved on the first attempt for those students who had to complete repeat assessment before either proceeding to work placement, or directly into final year. The final sample thus consisted of 530 students.

TABLE 1: Student profile on graduation 2009 Total tariff points on entry Descriptives BSJ BSC BSM ACC HRM CS CAM ECON MKT TOTAL Mean 304 255 254 338 295 264 378 280 287 296 Median 300 240 240 340 300 280 370 270 280 300 Mode 300 240 240 320* 240* 280 400 260 260* 240 Standard Deviation

41 41 55 38 45 53 34 42 38 58

First Quartile 280 240 220 310 260 220 340 255 260 249 Third Quartile 325 280 290 360 330 300 400 313 320 340 Number of students

97 91 79 88 25 30 54 14 52 530

Final year degree marks Descriptives BSJ BSC BSM ACC HRM CS CAM ECON MKT TOTAL % % % % % % % % % % Mean 59 60 61 57 63 62 65 64 61 60 Median 59 61 61 60 63 61 65 63 62 61 Mode 54* 61* 58* 60* 63* 60* 65* 63 54 60 Standard Deviation

7 6 7 12 5 8 5 4 9 8

First Quartile 55 57 57 53 60 54 61 62 58 57 Third Quartile 64 64 66 63 67 69 68 68 68 65 Second year degree marks Descriptives BSJ BSC BSM ACC HRM CS CAM ECON MKT TOTAL % % % % % % % % % % Mean 55 56 57 57 56 61 63 54 57 57 Median 56 55 56 55 54 63 63 53 58 57 Mode 62 52 60 55 53 63* 63* 51* 59 62* Standard Deviation

6 8 7 8 6 5 6 6 6 7

First Quartile 49 50 53 52 60 58 59 51 53 52 Third Quartile 61 62 63 63 67 64 66 60 62 63 *Multiple modes exist, lowest value is taken. BSJ Business Studies, Jordanstown, Ulster Business School BSC Business Studies, Coleraine, Ulster Business School BSM Business Studies, Magee, Ulster Business School ACC Accounting, Jordanstown, Ulster Business School HRM Human Resource Management, Jordanstown, Ulster Business School CS Consumer Studies, Coleraine, Ulster Business School CAM Communications, Advertising and Marketing, Jordanstown, School of

Communications. ECON Economics, Jordanstown, Faculty of Social Sciences MKT Marketing, Jordanstown, Ulster Business School

METHODOLOGY A combination of both parametric and non-

parametric statistical tests is employed to investigate the issues of interest. Both parametric and non-parametric tests are employed due to the relatively small sample sizes which may invalidate any standard assumptions regarding the distribution of the variables investigated when employing parametric tests.

METHODOLOGY

In addition, multivariate models to explain final year degree mark are developed. Specifically, the following models are investigated:

 

Y = α0 + α1X + α2M + α3DIS + α4GEN + μ

Y = β0 + β1X + β2M + β3MDIS + β4GEN + σ

Question 1

Is there a relationship between the average final year degree mark and total tariff points on entry?

Table 2

Yes. There is a positive and statistically significant relationship.

Question 2

Is the completion of a work placement year associated with a higher final year degree mark?

Table 3

Yes. Those students who complete a placement year have a statistically significant higher average final degree mark, which transcends a classification boundary (62.98 compared to 58.94).

Question 3

Do students who complete a work placement year have higher total tariff points on entry?

Table 4

Yes. Students opting to proceed directly to final year on average have lower total tariff points (295.78 compared to 296.59), but the difference is not statistically significant.

Question 4

Do students who complete a work placement year have higher average second year performance?

Table 4

Yes. Those students who complete a placement year have a statistically significant higher average second year degree mark, which does NOT transcend a classification boundary (58.14 compared to 55.95).

Question 5

Is the average final degree mark for students taking placement higher than the average mark they achieved in second year?

Table 5

Yes. Those students who complete a placement year have a statistically significant higher final year mark than the second year degree mark, which transcends a classification boundary. (62.98 compared to 58.14)

Question 6

Is the average final degree mark for students opting not to take a placement year higher than the average mark they achieved in second year?

Table 5

Yes, but although the difference is statistically significant it does NOT transcend a classification boundary. (56.94 compared to 55.95)

Question 7

Does gender impact upon the final degree mark achieved by students?

Table 6

Yes. Female students have statistically significant higher average marks which transcend a classification boundary (61.65 compared to 57.22)

Question 8

Is the taking of a placement year a surrogate for gender?

Table 7

No. Individual analysis reveals that for both male and female students those who complete a placement year have higher average final year marks which are statistically significant and represent a difference in classification (male students, 60.4 compared to 54.54, and female 63.86 compare to 58.39).

Table 8: Ordinary Least Squares estimation of multivariate model (Full

sample)

Y = α0 + α1X + α2M + α3DIS + α4GEN + μ (1)

α0 α1 α2 α3 α4 RA2

22.264 (0.000)**

0.008 (0.120)

0.593 (0.000)**

4.492 (0.000)**

-1.986 (0.001)**

0.446

Number of observations is 530.

Table 9: Ordinary Least Squares estimation of multivariate model

(Placement students)

Y = β0 + β1X + β2M + β3MDIS + β4GEN + σ (2)

β0 β1 β2 β3 β4 RA2

29.680 (0.000)**

0.009 (0.091)

0.433 (0.000)**

0.085 (0.018)*

-1.718 (0.007)**

0.409

Number of observations is 293.

IMPLICATIONS Does a work placement year results in tangible gains? Will students be able to afford to do placements? Students’ would appear to be more concerned with a

placement year extending their period of study, which is a particular dimension of affordability.

Perhaps the answer to the question of affordability lies in more innovative ways of incorporating placement within the curriculum design of undergraduate degrees, which explicitly recognise the contribution of a work placement year to student learning and employability.

FUTURE RESEARCH

CHEP funding round 4.Student engagement and employability: An empirical investigation into the impact of a work placement year.

FUTURE RESEARCH This study seeks to investigate whether

employability, as measured by employment at a graduate level within six months of completing university study is associated with student engagement as measured by the completion of a one year work placement. As such this study builds upon the research of Foster et al (2011), but extends it specifically into the area of student engagement and employability.

FUTURE RESEARCHThe methodology employed will consist of both parametric and non-parametric analysis, specifically employing correlation analysis and binary logistic regression. The dependent variable in the latter will be a dummy variable taking the value of 1 for those students gaining graduate level employment within six months of graduation and zero otherwise. The form of the model to be estimated is

FUTURE RESEARCH

FUTURE RESEARCHWhere, pi is the probability of a student (i) gaining graduate level employment within six months of completing university study, β0 is a constant term introduced to capture the impact of omitted variables and the independent variables, are a combination of dummy variables (for the completion of a placement year, final year degree classification, degree specialisation, the nature of the work experience gained on placement and gender) and other control variables including total tariff points on entry, and second year degree performance