Abstract
There is widespread recognition that higher education institutions (HEIs) must actively support commencing students to ensure equity in access to the opportunities afforded by higher education. This role is particularly critical for students who because of educational, cultural or financial disadvantage or because they are members of social groups currently under-represented in higher education, may require additional transitional support to “level the playing field.” The challenge faced by HEIs is to provide this “support” in a way that is integrated into regular teaching and learning practices and reaches all commencing students. The Student Success Program (SSP) is an intervention in operation at the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) designed to identify and support those students deemed to be at risk of disengaging from their learning and their institution. Two sets of evidence of the impact of the SSP are presented: First, its expansion (a) from a one-faculty pilot project (Nelson et al. in Stud Learn Eval Innov Dev 6:1–15, 2009) to all faculties and (b) into a variety of applications mirroring the student life cycle; and second, an evaluation of the impact of the SSP on students exposed to it. The outcomes suggest that: the SSP is an example of good practice that can be successfully applied to a variety of learning contexts and student enrolment situations; and the impact of the intervention on student persistence is sustained for at least 12 months and positively influences student retention. It is claimed that the good practice evidenced by the SSP is dependent on its integration into the broader First Year Experience Program at QUT as an example of transition pedagogy in action.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The original name was the Student Success Project when it was part of the Transitions In Project (TIP) (Nelson et al. in press). At the completion of TIP in 2009, it was continued as an integral element of the First Year Experience Program with a slight name change to “Program” to reflect its ongoing nature. However, for convenience, the acronym SSP will be used to represent both the “Project” and the “Program” and in general discussion, “project” and “program” will be used interchangeably.
This is the QUT term for a semester-long teaching activity, variously called “subject” or “course” in other institutions. A unit normally has a 12 credit point (CP) rating.
Such as students with educational, cultural or financial disadvantage or who are members of social groups currently under-represented in higher education.
The list of students deemed to be “at risk” in a specific unit based on a particular criterion such as not submitting or failing an assessment.
Nelson et al. (2009) report outcomes for each of the five units. For brevity, they are presented here in a more concise form.
Conditions for involvement in the SSP are negotiated with unit coordinators and include confidentiality. The specific outcomes for a particular unit are only available to the unit coordinator and, with their permission, to their superiors.
A legitimate question that could be asked is whether the AR-C and AR-NC groups had fundamentally different profiles which may have predisposed them to exhibiting the identified persistence and achievement behaviours irrespective of the intervention. Data were available on gender and international, rural and English language status and two sets of profile comparisons were made—AR-C versus AR-NC and At risk (AR-C + AR-NC) versus Not at risk. Based on statistical significance and effect size data, there were no meaningful differences between the profiles of either set of groups for any characteristic.
Only persistence was investigated. The only index available for achievement was Grade Point Average (GPA) and this was regarded as too broad, its omnibus nature summarizing achievement across a wide range of units not involved in the SSP intervention.
Emphasis and year added to show longer-term impact.
Although the vast majority of comments were positive, there were some of a neutral or negative nature. For example: I can’t remember the call; I don’t think the call had any effect. I was doing OK.
There is an unfortunate overlap of use of the term “at risk” between the SSP where the term indicates that a student has not satisfied a specific criterion such as passing an assessment, and QUT administrative processes where being classified as “at risk” is determined by a combination of the student’s GPA and number of units attempted.
We also contend that the program is likely to be financially viable. While a cost-benefit analysis of the SSP is beyond the scope of this report, the authors have undertaken a relatively small study (Marrington et al. 2010) which would seem to indicate that the SSP is fiscally effective. This tentative conclusion requires further more large scale and robust testing, one of the foci of our future work in student engagement.
References
Adams, T., Banks, M., Davis, D., & Dickson, J. (2010). The Hobsons retention project. Melbourne, Australia: Tony Adams and Associates.
Australian Council for Educational Research. (2009). Engaging students for success. Australasian student engagement report. Australasian Survey of Student Engagement. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Boyle, B., & Lee, A. (2010). The teaching and learning commissioned projects 2007–2009. A strategic initiative of Queensland University of Technology. Final report of the external evaluation 2009. A report prepared for the Real World Learning Project Steering Committee, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Bradley, D., Noonan, P., Nugent, H., & Scales, B. (2008). Review of Australian higher education. Final report. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia. Available at http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Review/Pages/ReviewofAustralianHigherEducationFinalReport.aspx.
Carlson, G., & Holland, M. (2009). AUT University FYE programme. A systematic, intervention and monitoring programme. 12th Pacific Rim first year in higher education conference. Townsville, Australia. Retrieved May 21, 2010 from http://www.fyhe.com.au/past_papers/papers09/content/pdf/14D.pdf.
Coley, C., & Coley, T. (2010). Retention and student success. Staying on track with early intervention strategies. Malvern, PA: SunGard Higher Education.
Crosling, G., Heagney, M., & Thomas, L. (2009). Improving student retention in higher education: Improving teaching and learning. Australian Universities’ Review, 51(2), 9–18.
Duncan, M., & Nelson K. J. (2008). The student success project: Helping students at risk of failing or withdrawing from a unit—a work in progress. Paper presented at the 11th Pacific Rim first year in higher education conference. Hobart, Australia. Available at http://www.fyhe.qut.edu.au/past_papers/papers08/FYHE2008/content/html/sessions.html.
Gillard, J. (2010). Address to the universities Australia annual higher education conference. Retrieved May 28, 2010 from http://www.deewr.gov.au/Ministers/Gillard/Media/Speeches/Pages/Article_100303_102842.aspx.
James, R., Krause, K.-L., & Jennings, C. (2010). The first year experience in Australian universities: Findings from 1994 to 2009. Melbourne, Australia: Centre for the Study of Higher Education.
Johnston, H., Quinn, D., Aziz, S. M., & Kava, C. Y. (2010). Supporting academic success: A strategy that benefits learners and teachers. How can we demonstrate this? A “Nuts and Bolts” presentation at the 13th Pacific Rim first year in higher education conference. Adelaide, Australia. Available at http://www.fyhe.com.au/past_papers/papers10/content/pdf/1F.pdf.
Kift, S. M., Nelson, K. J., & Clarke, J. (2010). Transition pedagogy: A third generation approach to FYE—A case study of policy and practice for the higher education sector. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 1(1), 1–20.
Lodge, J. (2010). The benefits of using social networks to increase student engagement—Not so obvious? Paper presented at the HERDSA 2010 international conference. Melbourne, Australia.
Marrington, A., Nelson, K. J., & Clarke, J. (2010). An economic case for systematic student monitoring and intervention in the first year in higher education. A “Nuts and Bolts” presentation at the 13th Pacific Rim first year in higher education conference. Adelaide, Australia. Available at http://www.fyhe.com.au/past_papers/papers10/content/pdf/6D.pdf.
Nelson, K. J., Duncan, M., & Clarke, J. (2009). Student success: The identification and support of first year university students at risk of attrition. Studies in Learning, Evaluation, Innovation and Development, 6(1), 1–15.
Nelson, K. J., Smith, J. E., & Clarke, J. (in press). Enhancing the transition of commencing students into university: An institution-wide approach. Higher Education Research and Development.
Potter, A., & Parkinson, A. (2010). First year at risk intervention pilot project: An intervention to support first year students experiencing early assessment failure. Paper presented at the 13th Pacific Rim first year in higher education conference. Adelaide, Australia. Available at http://www.fyhe.com.au/past_papers/papers10/content/pdf/4B.pdf.
Queensland University of Technology. (2008). QUT blueprint. Updated May 2008. Available at http://www.frp.qut.edu.au/services/planning/corpplan/documents/2008_QUT_BLUEPRINT.pdf.
Scott, G., Shah, M., Grebennikov, L., & Singh, H. (2009). Improving student retention: A University of Western Sydney case study. Journal of Institutional Research, 14(1), 9–23.
Simeoni, R. J. (2009). Student retention trends within a health foundation year and implications for orientation, engagement and retention strategies. Paper presented at the 12th Pacific Rim first year in higher education conference. Townsville, Australia.
The National Audit Office. (2007). Staying the course: The retention of students in higher education. London: The National Audit Office. Available at http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0607/student_retention_in_higher_ed.aspx.
Tinto, V. (2009). Taking student retention seriously: Rethinking the first year of university. Paper presented at the FYE curriculum design symposium 2009, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. Retrieved March 4, 2009, from http://www.fyecd2009.qut.edu.au/resources/SPE_VincentTinto_5Feb09.pdf.
Wilson, K., & Lizzio, A. (2008). A ‘just in time intervention’ to support the academic efficacy of at-risk first-year students. Paper presented at the 11th Pacific Rim first year in higher education conference. Hobart, Australia.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the work of Tracy Creagh who carried out the student interviews and the initial collation of the interview data and Wayne Duxbury who implemented and maintains the CMS which supports the SSP’s operations and facilitates this detailed level of reporting.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nelson, K.J., Quinn, C., Marrington, A. et al. Good practice for enhancing the engagement and success of commencing students. High Educ 63, 83–96 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9426-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9426-y