Evaluating WP initiatives at Kingston University: Overcoming the challenges 28 February 2019 Katie Rakow Access, Participation and Inclusion

Evaluating widening participation initiatives at KU Kingston University over one-third mature students over 10% declared a disability two-thirds commuting from outside the borough over 40% students self-defined as BAME over 50% first generation in HE Project Aims: Understand the student reach of some support initiatives/services Evaluate the effectiveness of some student support initiatives Develop a deeper understanding of the KU student experience Identify effective ways to enable them to engage with their university studies

Kahu & Nelson (2018) explanatory model of Student Engagement

Possible methods and associated challenges Using available data e.g., case notes, email exchanges Surveys and semi-structured interviews Challenges Ethical issues Double-hermeneutic Triggering stereotype threat Selecting measures for each construct

Possible methods and associated challenges Using available data e.g., case notes, email exchanges Surveys and semi-structured interviews Challenges Ethical issues Double-hermeneutic Triggering stereotype threat Selecting measures for each construct

The educational interface (Kahu & Nelson 2018) Predictor variable Outcome variables I’m confident I have the skills / knowledge… Self-report – passing? Progression – pass first attempt Continuation –enrolled on 01 Dec Trait? State? Emotionality? Appraisal? Academic Integration Social integration Belonging Wellbeing - SWEMWBS Student Groups

Which student groups? Access and Participation Plan – commitment to improve continuation (Level 4 sts) Household income group Gender Age Ethnicity Care leaver Disability group Commuter group (time travelled) Clearing entrant y/n Entry qualification group (BTEC vs non-BTEC) Assuming permissions…So mixed methods approach to gain deeper insight

References Kahu, E. R., & Nelson, K. (2018). Student engagement in the educational interface: understanding the mechanisms of student success. Higher Education Research & Development, 37, 58-71. Pajares, F. (1996) Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66,543-578. Spencer, S. J., Logel, C., & Davies, P.G. (2016). Stereotype Threat. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 415–37. Short Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (SWEMWBS) © NHS Health Scotland, University of Warwick and University of Edinburgh, 2008, all rights reserved. Vallerand, R.J., Blais, M.R., Brière, N.M., & Pelletier, L.G. (1989). Construction et validation de l'Échelle de Motivation en Éducation (EME). Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 21, 323-349. Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Briere, N. M., Senecal, C., & Vallieres, E. F. (1992). The academic motivation scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education. Education and Psychological Measurement, 52, 1003–1017. Vallerand, R.J., Pelletier, L.G., Blais, M.R., Brière, N.M., Senécal, C.B., & Vallières, E.F.(1992-1993). Educational and Psychological Measurement, vols. 52 and 53. Yeager, D.S., Walton, G.M., Brady, S.T., Akcinar, E.N., Paunesku D, et al. (2016). Teaching a lay theory before college narrows achievement gaps at scale. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,113, E3341-E3348.

Thank you for listening K.Rakow@Kingston.ac.uk

Source: Yeager, et al. (2016) E3342