Asset-based rather than deficit-based student support Asset-based rather than deficit-based student support. Using coaching-style conversations to support post traditional learners Nathan Ghann Student Success Projects Advisor University of Hertfordshire E: n.1.ghann@herts.ac.uk @nathanghann Nathan Ghann

Post 1992 24,000 students 46% of UG student population BAME background 40% commuting into the university

National and Institutional Non-continuation for post traditional students Deprivation National (2016/17) UH (2016/17) Deprivation Quintile 1 85% 91% Deprivation Quintile 5 93% 94% 2004 HE Act 2011 White Paper “Students at the heart…” Shift towards student lifecycle White Paper endorses further success measures Research evidence Ineffectiveness of bursaries on entrant’s decisions (Callender et al., 2009; Callender and Wilkinson, 2013) ‘Deadweight loss’ (Callender and Wilkinson, 2013) Office for students, 2019

Do Students Need More Support?

Why are students not engaging? Stereotype threat Imposter phenomenon Previous negative experiences (Steele et al, 1997)

How should we engage with post traditional students?

Hammerman and Zimmerman, 2013

Asset based approach Human assets are the skills and abilities of each individual within a community. Social assets are the networks, organizations, and institutions, including norms of reciprocity and the mutual trust that exist among and within groups and communities. Political assets refer to the ability of a group to influence the distribution of resources, financial and otherwise. Financial assets refers to money or other investments that can be used for wealth accumulation rather than consumption. Kretzman and Mcknight 1993

Moving from ‘Preventing Failure’ to ‘Stimulating Success’ Deficit based student support - Preventing Failure Asset based support- Stimulating Success Communication To solve problems or fix weakness. Largely focused on academic context only, places sole responsibility of success on student To foster relationship, identify strengths in relation to challenges, encourage wider institutional engagement Purpose of interaction Reactive – focuses on past failings triggered by negative feedback, prompted by ‘flag’ measures student as ‘At Risk’ Proactive – focuses on past success, triggered by key milestones in student journey, measures student as ‘At-potential’ Accessibility One-off transactional’ often only accessible on campus via drop in Positively promoted allowing for self referral - developmental and relational accessible through multiple channels Gallup,2018 CTA, 2019

Academic Advantage Aim: To develop engaged, confident, self regulated learners Promoted positively to group that would most benefit, allowing for self-selection (WP, Low attainment <2.2) 30 accepted out of 76 applications additional 15 students joined programme in following semesters Coaching advisors are accessible from 7am-11pm, 7 days a week via multiple channels (email, whatsapp, phone call) delivered bi weekly coaching-style conversations The degree courses supported Law, Business, Psychology, Film studies, Health and Social Care, History, English Language and Literature. Students were matched with a fellow Graduate from a non-traditional background that had received a 2.1 or First Class degree. This coach would have either studied from their school or faculty or would have had experience coaching students from their school or faculty before.

Academic Advantage Focus on strengths and successes of students whilst equipping with tools to mitigate, manage and overcome challenges Regular contact via phone call, email, text and messenger apps ‘Feed forward’ conversations

Participants Control Group 16 9 Y1s & 7 returners Spread out Ethnicity – 9 BAME 7 White Commuters – 6 41 in total Gender 13 Male , 28 Female Ethnicity 32 BAME 9 White Commuting status 25 off campus 16 on campus Multidisciplinary backgrounds

Academic Behavior Confidence Sanders and sanders 2009

Findings Studying independently 54% 83% 54% increase Before After Change Academic Advantage Participants 69% 75% 9% increase Control Group Farenga, 2015

Findings Engage in academic debate 50% 71% 42% increase Before After Change Academic Advantage Participants 44% 25% 43% decrease Control Group Farenga, 2015

Findings – Commuters vs ‘locals’ Studying independently 45.5% 91% 100% increase Before After Change Commuters 83% 67% 19% decrease ‘Locals’ Farenga, 2015

Findings – Commuters vs ‘locals’ Engage in academic debate 45.5% 82% 80% increase Before After Change Commuters 54% 62% 15% increase ‘Locals’ Farenga, 2015

Findings – Ethnicity Studying independently 61% 83% 36% increase Before After Change BAME participants 33% 83% 152% increase White participants Farenga, 2015

Findings – Ethnicity Engage in academic debate 56% 67% 20% increase Before After Change BAME participants 33% 83% 152% increase White participants Farenga, 2015

Results Outcomes ABC results Continuation BAME 98% vs (88% Inst) White 97% vs (91% Inst) Attainment BAME 86% (60% inst) White 91% (78% inst) Impact of intervention persisted for 1 year or more for 90% of participants (not comparable due to low student numbers*) Self-directed learners +54% vs +9% Engaged learners +42% vs -43% Confident learners +50% vs +14% Impact on commuters +65-100%

Limitations Limited comparative analysis Control group Small sample size Self-selection bias Control group not strictly like for like Different starting times Didn’t speak to staff Limited comparative analysis Control group

Conclusion A strengths first asset-based approach is more effective in delivering support to post traditional learners Focusing on developing engagement and confidence can be more beneficial than focusing on academic skills alone Targeted student support initiatives can be useful but do not address wider issues relating to the ethnicity attainment gap

Any Questions? Nathan Ghann n.1.ghann@herts.ac.uk (Images sourced from unsplash.com)