1. The role of monitoring and engagement Martin Barker Louise de Raad Andy Yule Photo: Getty Gallery

2. Photos: Free Digital Images What does disengagement look like? Photo: Getty Gallery Linking attendance and attrition Within-course engagement and retention

3. Signs of struggling: Poor/uneven academic performance Poor/uneven attendance What does disengagement look like? Photo: Getty Gallery Why monitor: Compliance with specific learning outcomes Lectures increasingly interactive UK Border Agency Tier 4 monitoring Positive reinforcement, ‘fair play’ Reveal any trends (e.g. time/day/content)

4. Case study 1: Level 2 Exp design | stats Individual attendances cumulative attendance

5. C6C6, C7e-mail ___% attendance session 75% Mean=80% Case study 1: Level 2 Exp design | stats long courses low stakes (?) large classes e-mail prompts when attendance <65%

6. Case study 2: Level 2 Ocean Biology attendance taken randomly x 7 C6s issued to 25 students almost all were interviewed: 1.9am lectures 2.conflicts with paid work 3.Illness 4.boring lectures 5.lack of motivation 6.personal issues MyAberdeen ‘early warning system’ also used is teaching an issue?

7. Case study 3: Level 3 Animal Pop Ecology short courses high stakes N=121 students 19 lectures (70% attendance required) 7 practicals (100% attendance required) Missed 3+ lectures (/4) during 1 st week: emailed Missed practical: submit practical report. Missed 6 lectures: emailed warning of C6. Failure to to take 1 online test: C6 Failure take 2 online tests: C7 21 students 7 students 5 students 78% 98%

8. SCEF questions*: “Did you feel your attendance has contributed to an increased understanding of the course materials and supported your learning?” “During this course, attendance was strictly monitored. Has this contributed to increased attendance at lectures and practicals (i.e, more so than you would have attended without monitoring attendance)?” *40.5% response rate (n=49 students) Case study 3: Level 3 Animal Pop Ecology Not at all ------------------ Totally

9. Case study 3: Level 3 Animal Pop Ecology “ It make me feel like somebody actually cared about whether I showed up or not - and noticed me ". “ It felt that we were being treated a bit like children” ". Student feedback (SCEFs) Photo: Getty Gallery

10. Lower attendance towards the end of the course Attendance Lecture number Pearson correlation = -0.432, p=0.073 (n=18) Case study 3: Level 3 Animal Pop Ecology

11. Attendance Lecture number Kruskal Wallis test Z= 2.19, p<0.05 Morning lecture attendance (65%, n=8) is significantly lower than afternoon lecture attendance (85%, n= 10) Lower attendance in the mornings Case study 3: Level 3 Animal Pop Ecology Morning Afternoon

12. CAS mark Attendance Pearson correlation = 0.375, p<0.001 (n=116) – Median mark = CAS 16 (n=116) Correlation between attendance and coursemark Case study 3: Level 3 Animal Pop Ecology

13. Case study 4: Level 3 Marine Ecology Significant positive correlation (r = 0.529, df = 53, p <0.001). The quadratic fits quite well but probably infers a levelling off at above 60% attendance NB the %age attendance is NOT the whole course simply 7 selected lectures

14. Difficulties with monitoring: Administration / workload Need for follow-up; ‘assertive outreach’ Timing, interventions Resentment? Impersonation The role of monitoring and engagement Photo: Getty Gallery

15. The role of monitoring and engagement Wouldn’t we all like to be known better? Photo: Getty Gallery