Exploring student non-completion in higher education using electronic footprint analysis

1
Exploring student non-completion in higher
education using electronic footprint analysis

• Dr John Buglear
• Nottingham Business School
• This work was supported by funding from the Staff
  and Educational Development Association (SEDA)

2
The Origin of the Thesis

• Retention matters but institutional retention
  data is unreliable
• Why students leave is related to when they leave
• Virtual learning environments are an intrinsic
  part of the modern undergraduate experience
• From an academic management perspective tracking
  electronic engagement is more robust than
  physical registers of attendance
• Electronic engagement data is an information
  resource capability for developing retention
  strategies

3
The studyBuilding on pilot research of business
students (Buglear, 2009)

• Final electronic engagement of first year
  undergraduates leaving their course in 2008/9 by
  type of leaver
• The final electronic engagement by each leaver,
  the last login
• The last visit to the university electronic
  environment as a registered user
• Why first years?
• Most students who leave prematurely do so in
  their first year
• Defining types of leaver
• Notifiers the decided, those giving formal
  notification of their departure, recorded as e.g.
  Transferred to other institution, Gone into
  employment, Other withdrawn.
• Non-notifiers the drifters, those giving no
  such notification, recorded as e.g. Written off
  after lapse of time, Dormant. Academic
  failure is included in this category as the last
  logins preceded the examination period.

4
The case study

• Nottingham Trent University (NTU), UK
• Student population of approximately 25,000 in
  2008/9
• In 2008/9 nine schools located on three campuses

5
Results

• Total last logins to May 2009 435
• 217 last logins in the first half year (October
  to January)
• 228 last logins in the second half year (February
  to May)
• Notifiers 257 (59.1)
• Non-notifiers 178 (40.9)

6
Last logins over time
7
Last logins over time by notification Yes
notification of departure No no notification
of departure
8
Last logins by school and notification Total Yes
notified departures from the school Total No
departures from the school not notified
9
First half year 71/217 last logins were
non-notifiers (32.7)Second half year 108/218
were non-notifiers (49.5)Test for difference
in proportions 0, P-Value0.000Difference is
significant
10
Animal, Rural and Environmental
SciencesDifference in proportions is not
significant(Fishers exact test P 1.000)
11
Architecture, Design and the Built Environment
Difference in proportions is significant at
5(Fishers exact test P 0.016)
12
Art and DesignDifference in proportions is
significant at 10(Fishers exact test P 0.098)
13
Arts and HumanitiesDifference in proportions is
not significant (Fishers exact test P 0.747)
14
Education Difference in proportions is not
significant (Fishers exact test P 0.384)
15
Nottingham Business SchoolDifference in
proportions is not significant (Fishers exact
test P 0.286)
16
Nottingham Law SchoolDifference in proportions
is not significant (Fishers exact test P
1.000)
17
Science and TechnologyDifference in proportions
is significant at 10(Fishers exact test P
0.099)
18
Social SciencesDifference in proportions is not
significant (Fishers exact test P 0.282)
19
Discussion

• Financial aspect
• Approximately 180 first year students drifted out
  of NTU programmes in 2008/9.
• Consequent loss of tuition fee revenue 2m.
• Pedagogical aspects
• first-semester decisions to exit are most
  aptly characterised as driven by external
  factors (Peel et al., 2004)
• second semester leavers seemed more
  disillusioned and unhappy, expressing
  feelings of loneliness, isolation, and lack of
  recognition, feeling that lecturers were never
  there or always regard failure with disdain or
  never gave me the help I needed (Peel et al.,
  2004)

20
Discussion

• The Fitzgibbon and Prior (2003) timeline model
• Zone 1 enrolment, induction and the first two
  weeks of teaching,
• Zone 2 late enrolment, late induction and early
  weeks of teaching,
• Zone 3 middle to end of teaching period,
  first/second assessments,
• Zone 4 final assessment period, revision and
  examination or assessment
• Zone 3 is when students who have poorly
  established study habits, really come under
  pressure and students receive feedback from
  their first assignment constructive feedback
  and reassurance is crucial
• Yet by this stage staff assume students have
  settled but this is frequently not the case
  , students are still seeking significant levels
  of contact with their tutors for a whole range of
  issues

21
DiscussionRetention strategies

• The Beatty-Guenter four-stage retention
  strategies model (1994)
• Sorting students into meaningful subsets to
  create strata that can be matched with
  appropriate targeted retention strategies
• Supporting, making it more likely that they will
  be able to maintain their status as students
• Connecting, bonding between a student and the
  institution
• Transforming students from uncommitted to
  committed, from uninvolved to involved, from
  passive to active, or from failure threatened to
  achievement motivated
• How did we do?
• Sorting partially applied e.g. international
  students
• Supporting Welcome weeks, induction
• Connecting and Transforming assumed to be
  intrinsic

22
Conclusions

• A significantly greater proportion of second half
  year leavers than first half year leavers didnt
  tell us they were going
• Considerable variation between schools
• The majority, 60 of last logins before the
  examination period were by students who told us
  they were going, the decided
• The notification suggests some form of dialogue
  about their departure
• The remaining 40 were by the drifters.
• The lack of notification suggests an absence of
  dialogue about their departure
• The extent of non-notified departure is the scope
  for pay-off from Zone 3 Connecting and
  Transforming strategies
• Not the whole retention picture, but another
  perspective of it

23
References

• Beatty-Guenter, P. (1994) Sorting, supporting,
  connecting, and transforming Retention
  strategies at community colleges. Community
  College Journal of Research and Practice, 18,
  113-129.
• 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,
  381-393
• Fitzgibbon, K and Prior, J. (2003) Student
  expectations and university interventions a
  timeline to aid undergraduate student retention
  online. BEST Conference Creativity and
  Innovation in Academic Practice, Brighton, 9-11
  April 2003.
• Peel, M., Powell, S., and Tracey, M. (2004)
  Student Perspectives on Temporary and Permanent
  Exit from University A Case Study from Monash
  University. Journal of Higher Education Policy
  and Management 26 (2), 239-249.