Reasons for non- attendance at induction by international students Claire O'Leary, University of Birmingham, July 2009

 The idea behind the project proposal  Summary of outcomes  Methodology  Project timescales  Project challenges  Learning points for our own institution and others

 Explore preconceptions about induction held by certain specific groups of students  Identify ways in which our programme is unwittingly exclusive  Use the findings to improve inclusivity and to ensure that we are delivering an induction that is fit-for-purpose for today’s international students Claire O'Leary, ISAS What prompted the project proposal?

Summary of outcomes –Postgraduate Taught and domiciled in the UK at admission. –Postgraduate Taught and domiciled in the EU at admission. –Postgraduate Research and domiciled in the EU, UK and non-EU at admission. 1.Three student groups identified as being underrepresented:-

Summary of outcomes (2)  Survey showed ‘visa delays’ as main reason for non-attendance but not cited as key reason in focus groups  Survey also pointed to practical barriers to inclusion in induction: 1. Didn’t know about Welcome International/didn’t have enough information 2. Tickets for events were ‘sold out’ 3. Not interested/too busy

 Preconception (theirs) - induction aimed at undergraduates and focuses solely on meeting practical/basic needs  Preconception (ours) – all students will suffer culture shock which will be unpleasant and stressful  Some assistance with geographical orientation and administrative formalities welcome  But would like more specialised induction pathways, recognising different start points and prior experience  Not looking to induction to help make friends but possibly useful contacts Summary of outcomes (3)

Summary of outcomes (4) Claire O'Leary, ISAS  PG students more likely to prioritise events led by their department  But dissatisfaction with the disconnect between centralised services and academic departments  Confusing and uncoordinated pre-arrival communications from different sections of the University made it difficult to know what was important to attend and what wasn’t.  Induction should not be limited to a week  Misconception that the international students’ induction programme was not free of charge

Methodology and evaluation  Phase one – (quantitative) data gathered from a large sample of new international arrivals in 2008  Phase two – (qualitative) rich data gathered from a selective number of students via focus groups  Defining a sampling frame:  We identified students who had attended Welcome International ‘activities’. We divided activities into three categories: events; talks; campus and city tours

Methodology and evaluation (2) Claire O'Leary, ISAS  Total number of students who attended at least one category of activity was 908.  Total number of new non-UK students at the University was 2,523.  Demographics were identified as age, gender, nationality, country of domicile and level of study.  Cross tabulations of all of the combinations of the non–attendees by level of study (UG, PGT, PGR) and by country of domicile at admission (UK, EU (non-UK) and non-EU).

Methodology and Evaluation (3)  Survey sent to all non-UK students in the sample  419 students responded  A statistical software programme was used to analyse the data  Conducted four focus groups with 16 participants drawn from the groups identified as underrepresented and also held a focus group with a mixed group of attendees from over represented groups.

Project Timescale Claire O'Leary, ISAS  Recruited our research assistant in August 2008  Started the project in September 2008  Submitted the final report in June 2009.

Project Challenges  Recruitment of suitably experienced staff with necessary availability to help run project  Timing of the project – coincides with very busy time of year for all working in International Student Advice.  Launch of Tier 4

Learning points  It is useful to look at the split of one’s international student population - it may be that a ‘one-size fits-all’ approach still benefits majority  Need to also focus on the upper echelons of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs – PGT and PGR students looking for something more value- added/aspirational  Universities should seize the opportunity for more collaborative working – to deliver a far richer induction experience to students of all study modes and backgrounds

Learning points (2)  university-policy level decision needed on attendance at induction - compulsory or not ? (Visa letters/sponsor agreements)  Overarching lead required for clear induction messages – linking centralised services with academic departments  Greater access to information communicated during induction - self-guided inductions, pod casts, blogs etc., of benefit to September starters and the significant number of PGR students without September start dates.