Influences on performance and progression: differences by gender, age and mode of study Muir Houston1 & Russell Rimmer2 (1) CRLL, University of Stirling (2) University of Paisley

Research Aims To study the interactions between progression and performance at a ‘post 1992’ university having: a substantial non-traditional student population; and, a reputation for widening access.

Dataset: 2000-01 Demographics (age, gender, qualifications on entry, domicile, etc.) Withdrawal and performance data from student registry (N=1982) Survey – random stratified sample (N=231) Telephone surveys of withdrawn and non-returners

Questionnaire: Preliminary Findings Main reasons for entering HE: ‘improve job opportunities’, ‘improve qualifications’ followed by ‘always wanted to’ and ‘personal interest’. Why Paisley? ‘study a particular course’ and ‘convenient to home’. 26% entered direct from school and 40% had been out of school for 10 years or more. 53% had applied to no other university. 19/11/2018

67% attended induction session; 77% found it useful. 31% ‘clearing.’ 79% paisley first choice. 67% attended induction session; 77% found it useful. 32% of full-time worked 16 hours or more. 32% study less than 6 hours per module per week. 44% stay with parents - 19% rent, 31% own. 50% travel by car and 53% are less than 30 minutes away. 19/11/2018

How Worried Are They: 65% worried about financial difficulties affecting studies. 77% worried about meeting work and ‘uni’ commitments. 83% worried about meeting family and ‘uni’ responsibilities. 93% worried about meeting demands of course. 19/11/2018

Support & Integration Lack of awareness of who to contact for problems Less than 1 in 10 had joined a club or used the sports facilities More than half socialised with fellow students 70% made use of catering - but a number of hostile comments were made 30% did not know they had a Personal Tutor 37% did not know who their PT was 44% had contacted PT and of them 83% had found it useful 1 in 5 had contacted Student Welfare 19/11/2018

Reasons for withdrawal Mismatch – course – expectations & reality Family/personal problems Employment & Financial Negative aspects: problems with support/provision Problems: timetable/travelling etc.

But Want to return Studying elsewhere Not university’s fault Return next session

What did they say? Would like to return:  ‘Had been at college for two years doing HNC Social Science and had received funding for that. Came to university and just found I was always struggling for money. My parents helped out as best they could but I just couldn’t keep on. Knew what the course was about and found the university extremely good. I have got two jobs just now, but not serious and am hoping to return, to Paisley, once I get a bit of money behind me.’ Options explained and did return: ‘Direct entrant into third year. My mother’s ill health forced me to leave university. Left before January exams. I had been contacted by someone from Media (unnamed) after leaving and the options were explained. Have been back in contact with university and hope to resume studies dependent on funding.’

‘Positive’ withdrawal The role of clearing in withdrawal decisions  ‘I entered through clearing. Now an Apprentice Electrical Engineer doing day-release at Stow College. No clear idea of what I wanted to do. No clear idea of course or content. I was under a lot of parental pressure plus there was little time to decide. Did think about other courses but job came up instead.’ ‘Positive’ withdrawal  ‘I was a direct entrant and came because of the flexible timetable and thought it would help with employment. Left to take up full-time post in Civil Service. Enjoyed course but decided to take up job offer. Am interested in returning at some point, and my employer has already stated that they would contribute to the cost.’

Misinterpretation, lack of information on course and/or content. ‘The course was not what I expected, and was not going to lead to what I wanted. I was more interested in the practical side of social care and the course was not about that. Left to take up job in a Health Trust providing residential care to autistic children.’ Academic Issues ‘Found university different than expected especially the way lectures were delivered and the amount of self study that was expected. Also had funding difficulties and travel expenses did not help. Left in December/January. May be interested in returning in the future as a part-time student.’ Negative Experience ‘I was on a placement. I was given incorrect details about the placement and it was not sorted out efficiently. I felt that I was not supported by the university at this time…..…………………… I would not return to Paisley.’

Estimation and Modelling Models for: Performance Probability of enrolling in the next level Techniques used include 2 stage least squares regression, ordinary least squares and logistic regression where appropriate.

Factors identified Age Gender Qualifications on entry Discipline Academic performance Number of modules attempted (NOMA) Mode

Full-time

Part-time

References Foster, J., Houston, M., Knox, H. & Rimmer, R. (2002) Surviving First Year, LLRG Occasional Paper No.1, University of Paisley. ISBN: 1903978106 Houston, M. Knox, H. & Rimmer, R. (2003) Progress and Performance, LLRG Occasional Papers No.3, University of Paisley. ISBN: 1903978173 Houston, M. & Rimmer, R. (2005) ‘A comparison of academic outcomes for business and other students’ International Journal of Management Education Vol. 4, No.3, pp11-19 Houston, M. Knox, H. & Rimmer, R. (Forthcoming) ‘Wider access and progression among full-time students’, Accepted by Higher Education