1. Closing the gap: an exploration of first-year students’ expectations & experiences of learning PLAT 2010, Edinburgh Napier University Morag Williamson, Phyllis Laybourn, Janis Greig & Hilary Tait School of Health, Life & Social Sciences Research funded by the Edinburgh Napier University Teaching Fellows’ Research Fund.

2. Overview An in-School qualitative investigation of the 2007-08 first-year cohort of Psychology students identified factors influencing withdrawal in a small sample of non-continuing students In the current study the emphasis has shifted onto successful progression to Trimester 2, by adopting an action research approach to explore first-year students’ expectations and experiences of Trimester 1: o amongst a larger sample, comprising the majority of students in the cohorts of interest o using data in the form of written reflections Data are interpreted within the theoretical framework of the ‘psychological contract’ Findings are informing the design of an intervention for the 2010-11 cohort

3. Context First-year student success and retention are key elements of University strategy, informed by first-year experience (FYE) literature “Good learning” “success” “retention” (Yorke & Longden, 2008) “Students who learn are students who stay” (Tinto, 2006) Strong focus on enabling academic transitions Staff observe: - wide variation in student attitudes & behaviours in relation to study and learning - rapid development of group norms during Tri 1 Importance of social integration for student learning Staff expectations may be implicit rather than explicit to students Analysis of student trajectories

4. FYE: Deal or No Deal? the recurrent theme of a ‘mis-match’ the ‘mis-match’ of interest in the current research is the gap between staff and student expectations of university the better the match, the better the outcomes for the student the notion of a ‘deal’ appears to have currency amongst students (e.g.Smith, 2008) a mis-match occurs if the ‘deal’ struck between institution and students is perceived differently by the two parties psychological contract theory embodies this notion of the ‘deal’; it is used as the theoretical framework for interpretation of the data in the current research

5. The Psychological Contract Rousseau (1995): “... an exchange between individuals and their organisation...” a form of social exchange theory two versions of the concept: unilateral and bilateral research mainly in the employment / organisational context, but......“psychological contract theory is not limited in scope to this specific exchange relationship” (Rousseau, 1995) limited application in educational contexts (Charlton et al, 2006)

6. Psychological contract as an over-arching theoretical framework Range of relevant psychological theories can apply to FYE, including: Individual differences Intrapersonal processes Developmental processes Social-psychological explanations Such processes can influence students’ perception of the ‘deal’, and are thus compatible with psychological contract theory.

7. Research aims Gain in-depth qualitative accounts of first-year students’ expectations and experiences of their first Trimester Interpret their experiences within the framework of psychological contract theory Provide a basis for devising a schedule of extended induction and on-course support to address specific issues at strategic points during the first Trimester

8. Method Two related semi-structured questionnaires were used to obtain written reflections of first-year students from the three degree programmes taking psychology at Edinburgh Napier. Trimester 1 Questionnaire was administered in Week 1 of Trimester 1 and elicited ‘expectations’ of new entrants in the 2009-10 academic year Trimester 2 Questionnaire was administered in Week 1 of Trimester 2 and elicited Trimester 1‘experiences’; this was used with both the 2008-09 and 2009-10 cohorts Data were collected from first-year students at three points in time: 123 Tri 2 Questionnaire 2008-09 Tri 1 Questionnaire 2009-10 Tri 2 Questionnaire 2009-10 (n = 86)(n = 62)(n = 43)

9. Method (continued) The students’ reflections were obtained in a small group context as part of the normal Week 1 induction activities The Tri 1 Questionnaire asked students to consider what they expected to learn, what they might find challenging and how they might meet such challenges The Tri 2 Questionnaire mirrored the first one, asking what had been learned, what the main challenges had been and how they had met these challenges; it also asked them what advice they would give to new first-years No data were available for Tri 1 of the 2008-09 cohort; it was the richness of the Tri 2 data from that cohort that led to more systematic collection of reflections from the new cohort in Tri 1 2009-10

10. Analysis Tri 1 data set 2009-10 Contrast with the rich data from Tri 2 of 2008-09 and Tri 2 of 2009-10 – these data sets were the focus of analysis Search across the data for repeated patterns Analysis procedure: thematic analysis (see Braun and Clarke [2006] )

11. Themes derived from the Tri 2 data wide range of experiences and concerns experiences arising from changed learning environment, changed nature of demands expectation of independent learning, but worries about motivation and help-seeking writing and speaking - students for whom English is not their first language preoccupation with time management – by far the most dominant theme range of specific academic skills featured strongly - some comments showing metacognitive awareness A thematic map was constructed to organise main themes, sub- themes and sub-sub-themes.

14. Rationale for intervention An intervention is in preparation, to address issues arising in the data and promote development of effective psychological contracts. First-year students will be supported in: establishing appropriate expectations from the outset improving self-/time-management developing a more metacognitive approach to their learning developing appropriate perceptions of autonomy v. help-seeking The planned intervention will: make implicit expectations explicit be longitudinal facilitate expression of “the student voice”

15. Planned ‘REAL’ intervention:

16. Planned ‘REAL’ programme of activities, for first-year social sciences students, Trimester 1, 2010-11 Year 1, Trimester 1 Intervention timesTime-specific aims Week 1 Focus on psychological contract & metacognition - Transition to H.E. - Social Engagement - Staff/student expectations Week 3 - 4 Focus on time structuring & metacognition - Learning to learn - Review patterns of study so far - Effective planning Week 6 - 7 Focus on reflection on performance /metacognition - Review experience of first assignment - Link personal actions and quality of learning

17. Further research Evaluation of the ‘REAL’ intervention Social identity / self-categorisation / group membership processes in transition Prospective study of student trajectories from 2010-11 first-year cohort throughout their programme

18. References Baxter Magolda, M. (2004). Evolution of a constructivist conceptualization of epistemological reflection. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 31-42. Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101 Charlton, J.P., Barrow, C. and Hornby-Atkinson, P. (2006). Attempting to predict withdrawal from higher education using demographic, psychological and educational measures. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 11, 31-47. Clegg, S. and Bufton, S. (2008) Student support through personal development planning: retrospection and time. Research Papers in Education, 23:4, 435-450. Rousseau, D. (1995) Psychological Contracts in Organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Smith, I. (2008) Empowering the learner through enhanced engagement at Napier University. In QAA Quality Enhancement Themes: personalisation of the first year, pp.47-52 Tinto, V. (2006) Taking student retention seriously. York: Higher Education Academy Resources. Yorke, M. and Longden, B. (2008). The first-year experience of higher education in the UK: Final Report. York: Higher Education Academy Resources

19. Contacts: Phyllis Laybourn – p.laybourn@napier.ac.ukp.laybourn@napier.ac.uk Morag Williamson – m.williamson@napier.ac.ukm.williamson@napier.ac.uk