1. 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:
@nathanghann
Nathan Ghann

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

3. 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

4. Do Students Need More Support?

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

6. How should we engage with post traditional students?

7. Hammerman and Zimmerman, 2013

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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 ( , 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.

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

12. 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

13. Academic Behavior Confidence
Sanders and sanders 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

20. 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 %

21. 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

22. 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

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