Dr Barry Hodges - University of Newcastle - Enabling retention: enabling programs, non-traditional students and retention

Enabling programs:

A pathway for non-

traditional students

Dr Barry Hodges

PhD BA (Hons) Dip Ed

Lecturer in Philosophy

Open Foundation Program, English Language and Foundation Studies Centre

Team Leader OLT project “Enabling Retention …”

March 2015

3 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au

Enabling programs have the

capacity to be a powerful

recruitment pathway for non-

traditional students …

But the path is more complex

than it may initially appear


This presentation

Contents

1. Introduction: Social justice and productivity

2. Enabling programs: A successful pathway for non-traditional

students

… but high levels of drop-out …

3. What we know about student attrition in enabling programs

4. Implications and discussion:

a. Just how big a problem is it?

b. Some implications for practice and policy

5. Conclusion


Introduction

Social justice and productivity

Starting points …

Pathways for non-traditional

students

What are enabling programs?

The OLT project: “Enabling

Retention …”


Non-traditional students do not lack talent ….

Introduction: Social justice & productivity

Starting points …

• Non-traditional students are under-represented in higher

education:

Low SES, indigenous, students from rural and remote areas, students with

a disability

• … for reasons other than lack of native ability

• A waste of talent …

Used to be women …

Not only social justice but also productivity


Some strategies for increasing representation of non-traditional groups

Introduction: Pathways

Aspiration-raising:

• Schools programs

• Community programs

Alternative pathways:

• VET sector

• University-based enabling programs

Direct entry to undergraduate program

All have advantages and disadvantages

• But little hard comparative evidence

• Clarke et al 2000 – never published


What are enabling programs?

Introduction: Enabling programs

Enabling program:

• Access to higher education without the relevant qualifications

• More formally:

“a course of instruction provided to a person for the purpose of enabling the person

to undertake a course leading to a higher education award.” (DIISRT 2012. p. 26)

• Aka:

“University preparation programs”

“Foundation studies”

“Bridging programs”

Here we will be talking about:

• Enabling programs which are free of tuition fees

• Government funded


Aims and purpose


Aims:

• Enable access to higher education for those without the

relevant qualifications

• Provide preparation for successful tertiary study

• Allow a try-out for university life

Some will decide it is not for them …

Some will like it and go on to higher education …

Some will fly ….

‘Second chance’ learners

• Life-long learning

• Changes of career

• Women returning to work, etc.


An area of growth and diversity

Introduction: Diversity of enabling programs

Over 35 offered by Australian universities (2013) (Hodges et al,

2013, p. 21)

A very diverse field1:

• Fees: Often very large fees v no fees

• Entry model: Open entry v restrictive entry

• Mode of delivery: Internal/external

• Mode of attendance: Full-time v part-time

• Many others ….

Different challenges


The OLT project


Recent OLT project:• “Enabling Retention: processes and strategies for improving student

retention in university-based enabling programs”• Barry Hodges (University of Newcastle; Project Leader);

• Tasman Bedford (University of Southern Queensland)

• Jane Hartley (University of Newcastle)

• Chris Klinger (University of South Australia)

• Neil Murray (University of South Australia)

• John O’Rourke (Edith Cowan University)

• Neville Schofield (University of Newcastle)

• Thanks to:• Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching for its support

• My colleagues


The OLT project


Enabling programs of five Australian universities:• University of Newcastle;

• University of Southern Queensland;

• University of South Australia;

• University of New England;

• Edith Cowan University

• 2011 – 2013

• Complete report:• http://enablingeducators.org/resources/CG10_1697_Hodges_Report_2013.pdf

http://enablingeducators.org/resources/CG10_1697_Hodges_Report_2013.pdf


Study of enabling programs of five Australian universities

The OLT study: “Enabling Retention”

The study:

• Three student questionnaires

Initial Week 2

Exit Survey For those leaving

Concluding Second-last week

• Varying rates of return:

Initial Questionnaire: Good to excellent

Exit Surveys: Poor to zero

Concluding Questionnaire: Poor to good

• Initial Questionnaires returned: 1799

• Variously distributed


A successful pathway

Enabling programs

Enable access to higher education

Many are non-traditional students

• Especially open entry programs

Conversion into entry into higher

education

Prepare students for success in

higher education

Caveats:• Low levels of research

• Data patchy and hard to get

• Government review imminent


Numbers and access: University of Newcastle snapshot

A successful pathway: Student numbers

Feature Period Data

Enrolments in enabling programs 1974 - 2013 45,246

Number attaining enabling qualification 1974 - 2013 24,142

Progressing to undergraduate within 1 year of graduation 2013 71.9%

Number in First Year intake from an enabling program 2013 1553

Percentage of First Year intake from Open Foundation 2007 - 2013 c. 10%

Percentage of Open Foundation progressing to university overall 90%

UON undergraduate destinations:

Faculty of Education & Arts 2013 513

Faculty of Health & Medicine 2013 405

Faculty of Science & IT 2013 376

Sources: ELFSC, 2014; Kift, 2014


Numbers and access: Edith Cowan University snapshot1


YearEnrolled in enabling

program

Enrolled in

undergraduate

2006 379 82.3%

2007 418 83.7%

2008 558 83.2%

2009 544 79.2%

2010 477 77.1%

2011 455 82.0%

2012 576 81.9%

1. ECU is not open entry: near-miss ATAR or portfolio of written work (ability and commitment)


Numbers and access: Other programs


Other programs:

• Over 1,500 students each year:

University of Southern Queensland

Central Queensland University

Charles Darwin University

Others …

• 2014 enabling CSP allocation (Australian universities) (Kift, 2014):

Over 1,000: 1

500-1,000: 5

300-500: 7

More ….


High proportions of non-traditional students

A successful pathway: Non-traditional students

Source: Hodges et al, 2013, pp. 56-61

1. Not open entry: near-miss ATAR or portfolio of written work (ability and commitment). Note the closer similarity of

ECU cohort to undergraduate for other than FIF.

2. Misleading: fewer than 50% of respondents answered this question. USQ figures have the Tertiary Preparation

Program at 44.16% LSES (Hodges et al, 2013, p. 58).

.

Demographic groups UoN USQ UniSA UNE ECU1

Overall number of valid responses 1932 156 177 107 366

Identifying as ATSI 2.9% 1.9% 2.3% 2.8% 1.4%

LSES 33.7% 96.1%2 45.2% n/a 15.0%

Identifying as first in family 47.4% 51.3% 46.3% 34.6% 44.4%

‘Second-chance’ learners:

Not completed secondary school 22% 32.4% 21.2% 23.4% 10.4%

Over 10 years since last formal study 18% 33.8% n/a 42.5% n/a


Non-traditional students: Commentary

A successful pathway: Non-traditional students

High proportion of non-traditional students in open entry

programs (including FIF, ECU)

• Less so with the restrictive entry program (ECU) (except FIF)

• Very high proportion of ‘second chance’ or returning learners in

open entry

Open entry is successful as a widening participation

strategy


A successful pathway: Undergraduate success

Successful at preparing their students for success in higher education

Students from UON enabling programs succeed at

roughly the same rate as entrants from other pathways

• Studies by Archer, Cantwell & Burke (mid 1990s) (Archer et al, 1999)

• Internal ELFSC Performance Review 2007-2010

• High achievers, especially Open Foundation (Kift 2014):

• UON 2010-13: 12% Honours students entered via Open Foundation

• UON 2011: 12.7% of University medallists via Open Foundation




Other institutions Harder to find …

UniSA Foundation Studies (2006 – 2008):

Slightly better performance (GPA)

Slightly better rates of retention (Klinger & Tranter, 2009, pp. 8-9)

Overall completion rates: 2012 completions by 2005 entry:

Prior enabling: 63%

Worse retention than Not prior enabling: 73%

But better retention than students with ATAR < 60 K(emp & Norton, 2014, p. 75)

Anecdotal evidence supports this




Provides the transition to university that non-traditional

students are often missing:• Enculturation

• Academic skills

• Practical knowledge of university processes

• Familiarity with expectations

• Etc.

Removes some potential barriers• Already been surmounted in the enabling program

Facilitates engagement in undergraduate studies


Enabling programs: A successful pathway

Summary

Enabling programs:

• Enable access to higher education for significant numbers

• E.g. UON: 24,142 over 40 years

• Substantial numbers are non-traditional students

• Especially open entry programs

• Convert this access into entry into higher education

• Prepare students for success in higher education

Celebrate it !!

Productivity

Fairness

Utilising talents


Enabling programs: But ….

Student retention

BUT … we all know they lose a lot of students

• Student attrition rates around 50%

• NB. open entry programs (no academic entry requirements)

• Restrictive entry programs far higher

Two questions:

• What do we know about this attrition?

• What are implications for practice and policy?


What we know

Student retention in enabling programs

These are not undergraduate …

• Programs

• Students

Open entry model is the issue …

Standard demographics not

significant overall

Effective retention is higher than it

appears to be

There are some in-program issues


We know a lot more than five years ago …

What we know: A growing literature

Very limited research into enabling programs

Substantial growth in the last few years:

• OLT study: “Enabling Retention …”

• A range of publications …

• Many conference papers – not easily accessible


The Programs and the students are very different

What we know: Not undergraduate programs

These are not undergraduate programs:

• Very different in purpose and nature :

Fee-free

No academic entry requirements

Access & preparation

Invitation to try it out

These are not undergraduate students:

• Outside the standard educational pathway:

Lower levels of prior educational achievement

More often a negative educational experience

Often away from formal study for a long period

Often not clear on their goals … and motivations

A successful widening participation strategy …


Student retention is an issue in open entry programs

What we know: The key is open entry

Open entry enabling programs: Around 50% retention (Hodges et al, 2013, pp. 24-5)

• Variations around this

• Stable over time (1974 – 1987):

Open Foundation completions: “very consistently” around 50% (Smith, 1987, p.

17)

• Externally delivered programs lower

Restrictive entry programs: much higher retention:• ECU University Preparation Course: c. 85% (Hodges et al, 2013, p. 25)

• On a par with undergraduate commencing retention: 70% - 89%

Further research across restrictive entry programs to replicate

High attrition a systemic feature of open entry …? Further research needed


Demographic factors are not significant overall

What we know: It’s not student demographics

Demographic factors are not generally significant (Hodges

et al, 2013, pp. 62 ff.):• E.g. Low SES, first in family, time since last study, prior educational

achievement

• Tend to be significant in discussion of undergraduate

Some exceptions in some programs

Very surprising, especially “time since last study”• Requires replication

Implications:• Non-traditional nature of students is not the source of attrition

• … Prior identification and special treatment of ‘at-risk’ students won’t

work (in general)


Higher rates of retention of “actual commencers”

What we know: Effective retention

Retention rates of actual commencers are

substantially higher than apparent retention (Hodges et al, 2013, pp.

51 ff.)

• Students attending/engaged by Week 2 are retained at a higher

rate than overall

Measured by retention of students completing Initial Questionnaire

• Highest rate of retention of Week 2 students: 96% (Hodges et al, 2013, p.

52)

Contrast: 63% (that program overall)


Higher rates of retention of “actual commencers”

What we know: Effective retention

Definitions

– “Raw” attrition:

(Commencing students – persisting students) / Commencing students

i.e. “commencements” = enrolled in Week 1

– “Effective” attrition:

(Completing Q1 – persisting students) / Completing Q1

i.e. “commencements” = present or engaged in Week 2

Both differ from official attrition rates

i.e. “commencements” = enrolled HECS census date


Students engaged in Week 2 persist better (open entry programs)

‘Effective’ versus ‘raw’ attrition

Uni Program FT/PT Mode Length AgeRaw

attrition*

Effective

attrition**Diff

UoN OF Callaghan PT Internal Full year 20+ 56% 44% 12%

UoN OF by Distance PT External Full year 20+ 63% 45% 18%

UoN OF CCC PT Internal Full year 20+ 49% 32% 17%

UoN OF Intensive Cal FT Internal Half year 20+ 47% 4% 43%

UoN OF Intensive CCC FT Internal Half year 20+ 40% 3% 37%

UoN Newstep Cal FT Internal Full year 17-20 45% 29% 16%

UoN Newstep CCC FT Internal Full year 17-20 41% 30% 11%

UNE PEC Mix External Varies 17+ 60% 38% 22%

USQ TPP Distance Mix External Varies 18+ 75% 62% 13%

USQ TPP On-campus Mix Internal Varies 18+ 63% 60% 3%

Source: Hodges et al, 2013, p. 52.


Early drop-out: Non-commencing students

What we know: Early drop-out

Who are the early drop-outs?

• “Non-commencers”: About 10–20% no-shows (Hodges et al, 2013, pp. 53-

5)

UON 20%+ left before program commencement (Exit Surveys) (Hodges et al, 2013, pp. 70-1)

Caveat: Low return rate

Supported by:

Anecdotal evidence across programs

Analysis of VLE activity

Wide-spread phenomenon: “No-shows”, “phantoms”, “ghosts”, etc. (Hodges et

al, 2013, pp. 53-4)

In 2000, Clarke et al noted that, once non-participants are removed, retention rates in enabling

programs tend to be similar to undergraduate. (Clarke et al, p. 221)

• Enabling students are very unlikely to formally withdraw:

Still enrolled at HECS census date

Are counted among “commencements”


Non-commencers


Why do they leave before commencing? (Hodges et al, 2013, pp. 72 ff.)

• “Positive” attrition:

Entering a university with existing qualifications

Getting a job

• Fee-free: “easy in, easy out”

Unlikely to formally withdraw (no cost penalty)

• No academic entry requirements: “easy in, easy out”

Trying it out …

Aspiration-raising … “Maybe not for me …?”

• Early program issues …?

Requires investigation and action

Requires replication: Low evidence base


Early drop-out: “Uncertain engagers”


Who are the early drop-outs?

• “Uncertain engagers” (Hodges et al, 2013, pp. 54-5):

Relatively high numbers are wavering in early weeks

Sporadic lecture attendance / online activity

Greater likelihood of not completing Initial Questionnaire

No submission of assignments: c. 17% (Hodges et al, 2013, p. 54)

Across four institutions

• Why?

Mixed motivations

Giving it a go …

Some problem issues …?


Major self-attributed causes are adverse life-events, “time pressures”

What we know (?): In-program drop-out

Most drop-out beyond Week 2 caused by (Hodges et al, 2013, pp. 72-

82):

• “Time pressures”:

Complex … code for a variety of experiences ?

Lack of time … steepness of learning curve ??

• Life-events:

Employment

Health issues (self and family)

Relationship issues … etc.

• Low levels of take-up of student support

• Some display low levels of engagement with program and peers

Caution: Source is Exit Surveys:• Self-ascription of motives – not always reliable

• Low return rate: Requires replication


Implications & discussion

What are the appropriate responses?

Just how big a problem is student

retention?

Improving student retention

• Early drop-out

• In-program issues

Wider policy implications

• Open entry or restrictive entry?

• Specialist area

• Questions we need answered


The significance of the problem is often over-stated

Discussion: How big is the problem?

The issue is open entry rather than enabling:

• Does not appear to be an issue for restrictive entry programs

The size of the problem is over-stated

• Inappropriate benchmarking: Not undergraduate programs:

Different purpose, structure, student cohorts

• Given the aims, some attrition is:

• Inevitable: changing goals, priorities, etc.

• Desirable: students not suited to / wanting to pursue tertiary study

• Inflation of attrition by false measure of “commencements”

• Retention rate is 15% - 20% better than it appears

The “problem” looks a lot smaller …


But action is required …

Discussion: Responses

The ethical obligation to students is greater in enabling:

• Invitation to try it out

• Aspiration raising:

• Expression of latent demand

• Some creation of demand ?

Action to address student attrition is required

• … and possible


Non-commencers

Improving retention: Non-commencers

Develop procedures …

• To prevent non-commencers falsely

counting as “commencing”

• To encourage a positive exit

experience

• To check for early negative program

experience:

Not easy to do


Uncertain engagement in early weeks of the program …

Improving retention: Uncertain engagers

Develop procedures …

• To engage or

• To encourage a positive exit experience

• Ethical obligation arising from the invitation

Note: Challenging teaching and learning environment

• ‘Mixed’ classroom characteristic of open entry programs

Range of prior educational experience

Range of motivations

Range of academic preparedness

• The very same material may challenge some students and bore

others

• Makes early engagement a challenge


Improve awareness and take-up of student support

Improving retention: Student support

Pastoral care is crucial

• Committed but challenged by learning issues (“time pressures”)

• Suffering impact of adverse life events

BUT … How do we improve low take-up of support?

Embedded support model: E.g. UoN:

Make it comfortable and easy

• Location near central ‘home’ area – in student comfort zone

• Support staff visit lectures, work closely with lecturers

• Easy contact process & positive first experience

• Dramatic improvement in take-up


Open entry model has advantages and disadvantages

Policy implications: Open entry or not?

Success as widening participation strategy:

• Attracts substantial numbers of non-traditional students

Role in aspiration-raising

• Enables access for many non-traditional students

• The most unlikely successes …!

Downside:

• Substantial student drop-out

• Highly challenging teaching and learning environment

• Specialist area for teaching and student support

“Transition pedagogy” but more so

… “Enabling pedagogy”


Is open entry worth it?

Policy implications: Open entry or not?

Are the widening participation benefits of open entry

programs worth the associated costs?

• Institutional

• Personal costs to student

Another failure …?

• A central strategic institutional decision:

Open entry or restrictive entry?

“Yes …” ?

Requires detailed cost/benefit analysis …

• An urgent task


The student attrition assumption

Policy implications: Accept some attrition

Underlying assumption on student retention:

• Students enter the program with:

(relatively) clear goals, and

(relatively) settled motivations to success in higher education, and

within a (relatively narrowly specifiable) range of academic preparedness

• Used to be true of undergraduate programs

• Less applicable now even in undergraduate

• Similarly applicable in restrictive entry enabling programs

• Not all applicable for open entry enabling programs

Each difference contributes to lower retention …


Open entry model inevitably increases attrition

Policy implications: Accept some attrition

Some attrition is inevitable as a consequence of open

entry:

• “Easy-in, easy out”

• Mixed motivations

• Mixed ability classes Too hard / easy

Some attrition is desirable

• Students deciding higher education is not the right goal

• … Sorting function of enabling programs

• Attrition as a rational response …? (Quinn et al 2005, p. 67)

• … in undergraduate …

• More so in enabling programs


Open entry enabling programs: Specialist area with specialist needs

Policy implications: Specialist area

‘Mixed’ classroom

• Reassurance and challenge in one learning space

• Engaging one student is boring / frightening another

• Especially in early weeks of program …

• Requires a very skilled teacher

Specialist staff

• Very challenging for typical undergraduate lecturer

• Finding the right people

• Professional development

• Costs …


A strategic decision

Conclusion

Enabling programs:• A good pathway for non-traditional students

• A successful widening participation strategy

… especially open entry programs

• Student attrition is a problem …

• … especially open entry programs

• Student attrition can be addressed

Not a simple recruitment pathway• A strategic decision …

• … to develop a specialised area …

• ... requiring appropriate resourcing.


References

Archer, J., Cantwell, R., & Burke, S. (1999). Coping at University: an examination of achievement, motivation, self-regulation,

confidence, and method of entry, Higher Education Research & Development, 18(1), 31-54.

Clarke, J., Bull, D., Neil, C., Turner, L., & Birney, D. (2000). The Cost and Effectiveness of Enabling and Related Programs in

Australian Tertiary Education. Unpublished report.

DIISRT( 2012).. Other grant guidelines (Education). Retrieved from

http://www.commlaw.gov.au/Details/F2012L00281/Html/Text#_Toc314566242

ELFSC (2014). ELFSC at a glance. English Language and Foundation Studies Centre, University of Newcastle.

Hodges, B., Bedford, T., Hartley, J., Klinger, C., Murray, N., O’Rourke, J., & Schofield, N. (2013). Enabling retention: Processes

and strategies for improving student retention in University-based Enabling Programs. Sydney: Australian Government Office for

Learning and Teaching.

Kemp, D. & Norton, A. (2014). Review of the Demand Driven Funding System. Australian Government Dept of Education and

Training. Downloaded 25/02/2015 from http://education.gov.au/report-review-demand-driven-funding-system

Kift, Sally (2014). Enabling equitable access, participation and success: Leveraging the Lessons of 40 years. Brian Smith

Inaugural Lecture, University of Newcastle, 10 November 2014.

Klinger, C.M., & Tranter, D. (2009). Firm foundations for the future. In Bedford, T. Huijser, H. and Muller, S. (eds) 2009, Enabling

Pathways: Proceedings of the 3rd National Conference for Enabling Education, University of Southern Queensland,

Toowoomba, 25-27 November 2009 (CD). Toowoomba: University of Southern Queensland

Quinn, J., Thomas, L., Slack, K., Casey, L., Thexton, W., & Noble, J. (Eds.). (2005). From life crisis to lifelong learning:

rethinking working-class 'drop out' from higher education. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

http://www.commlaw.gov.au/Details/F2012L00281/Html/Text#_Toc314566242

http://education.gov.au/report-review-demand-driven-funding-system


Thank you

Qu

es

tion

s ?