Student success : the identification and support of first year university students at risk of attrition

The engagement behaviour of 1,524 student-enrolments (“students”) in five first year units was monitored and 608 (39.9%) were classified as “at risk” using the criterion of not submitting or failing their first assignment. Of these, 327 (53.8%) were successfully contacted (i.e., spoken to by phone) and provided with advice and/or referral to learning and personal support services while the remaining 281 (46.2%) could not be contacted. Nine hundred and sixteen students (60.1%) were classified as “not at risk.” Overall, the at risk group who were contacted achieved significantly higher end-of-semester final grades than, and persisted (completed the unit) at more than twice the rate of, the at risk group who were not contacted. There were variations among the units which were explained by the timing of the first assignment, specific teaching-learning processes and the structure of the curriculum. Implications for curriculum design and supporting first year students within a personal, social and academic framework are discussed.

Operationalising first year curriculum principles

This project builds on the First Year Curriculum Project that was carried out at the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) in 2006-2007 (QUT, 2007). One of the objectives of that project was “to develop principles for the Course Development processes that capture good design in first year curriculum practice” (p. 1) and this was achieved through the development of a set of broad organising principles for first year curriculum design—the First Year Curriculum Principles (FYCPs) (Kift, 2008).

The evolution of a community of practice at the Queensland University of Technology for lecturers involved in large first year units

Communities of practice (CoPs) may be defined as groups of people who are mutually bound by what they do together (Wenger, 1998, p. 2), that is, they “form to share what they know, to learn from one another regarding some aspects of their work and to provide a social context for that work” (Nickols, 2000, para. 1). They are “emergent” in that the shape and membership emerges in the process of activity (Lees, 2005, p. 7). People in CoPs share their knowledge and experiences freely with the purpose of finding inventive ways to approach new problems (Wenger & Snyder, 2000, p. 2). They can be seen as “shared histories of learning” (Wenger, 1998, p. 86). For some time, QUT staff have been involved in a number of initiatives aimed at sharing ideas and resources for teaching first year students such as the Coordinators of Large First Year Units Working Party. To harness these initiatives and maximise their influence, the leaders of the Transitions In Project (TIP)1 decided to form a CoP around the design, assessment and management of large first year units.

A holistic approach to the support and engagement of first year students : a retention strategy

Institutions should enact holistic approaches that address students’ personal, social and academic engagement in the early weeks of first year to facilitate retention (Nelson, Kift & Clarke, 2008). This holistic approach is central to the FYE program at Queensland University of Technology (QUT), which was established to maximise learning engagement and hence positively influence the retention of commencing students. The program aims to • engage students in their learning through an intentionally designed and enacted curriculum (Kift, 2008) • facilitate timely access to life and learning support • promote a sense of belonging to the discipline, cohort and profession. The FYE program’s aims are achieved by strategic alliances between academic and professional staff across the institution.

A holistic approach to the support and engagement of first year students : a retention strategy.

Institutions should enact holistic approaches that address students’ personal, social and academic engagement in the early weeks of first year to facilitate retention (Nelson, Kift & Clarke, 2008). This holistic approach is central to the FYE program at Queensland University of Technology (QUT), which was established to maximise learning engagement and hence positively influence the retention of commencing students.

How well are Australian children doing in the first year of school?

Background: The transition to school is a sensitive period for children in relation to school success. In the early school years, children need to develop positive attitudes to school and have experiences that promote academic, behavioural and social competence. When children begin school there are higher expectations of responsibility and independence and in the year one class, there are more explicit academic goals for literacy and numeracy and more formal instruction. Most importantly, children’s early attitudes to learning and learning styles have an impact on later educational outcomes. Method: Data were drawn from The Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC). LSAC is a cross-sequential cohort study funded by the Australian Government. In these analyses, Wave 2 (2006) data for 2499 children in the Kindergarten Cohort were used. Children, at Wave 2, were in the first year of formal school. They had a mean age of 6.9 years (SD= 0.26). Measures included a 6-item measure of Approaches to Learning (task persistence, independence) and the Academic Rating Scales for language and literacy and mathematical thinking. Teachers rated their relationships with children on the short form of the STRS. Results: Girls were rated by their teachers as doing better than boys on Language and literacy, Approaches to learning; and they had a better relationship with their teacher. Children from an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Island (ATSI) background were rated as doing less well on Language and Literacy and Mathematical thinking and on their Approaches to learning. Children from high Socio Economic Position families are doing better on teacher rated Language and Literacy, Mathematical thinking, Approaches to learning and they had a better relationship with their teacher. Conclusions: Findings highlight the importance of key demographic variables in understanding children’s early school success.

Harnessing assessment and feedback in the first year to support learning success, engagement and retention

It has been argued that intentional first year curriculum design has a critical role to play in enhancing first year student engagement, success and retention (Kift, 2008). A fundamental first year curriculum objective should be to assist students to make the successful transition to assessment in higher education. Scott (2006) has identified that ‘relevant, consistent and integrated assessment … [with] prompt and constructive feedback’ are particularly relevant to student retention generally; while Nicol (2007) suggests that ‘lack of clarity regarding expectations in the first year, low levels of teacher feedback and poor motivation’ are key issues in the first year. At the very minimum, if we expect first year students to become independent and self-managing learners, they need to be supported in their early development and acquisition of tertiary assessment literacies (Orrell, 2005). Critical to this attainment is the necessity to alleviate early anxieties around assessment information, instructions, guidance, and performance. This includes, for example:  inducting students thoroughly into the academic languages and assessment genres they will encounter as the vehicles for evidencing learning success; and  making expectations about the quality of this evidence clear. Most importantly, students should receive regular formative feedback of their work early in their program of study to aid their learning and to provide information to both students and teachers on progress and achievement. Leveraging research conducted under an ALTC Senior Fellowship that has sought to articulate a research-based 'transition pedagogy' (Kift & Nelson, 2005) – a guiding philosophy for intentional first year curriculum design and support that carefully scaffolds and mediates the first year learning experience for contemporary heterogeneous cohorts – this paper will discuss theoretical and practical strategies and examples that should be of assistance in implementing good assessment and feedback practices across a range of disciplines in the first year.

Introduction of a short writing task to measure and develop academic literacy in first year health undergraduates

This paper describes an initiative in the Faculty of Health at the Queensland University of Technology, Australia, where a short writing task was introduced to first year undergraduates in four courses including Public Health, Nursing, Social Work and Human Services, and Human Movement Studies. Over 1,000 students were involved in the trial. The task was assessed using an adaptation of the MASUS Procedure (Measuring the Academic Skills of University Students) (Webb & Bonanno, 1994). Feedback to the students including MASUS scores then enabled students to be directed to developmental workshops targeting their academic literacy needs. Students who achieved below the benchmark score were required to attend academic writing workshops in order to obtain the same summative 10% that was obtained by those who had achieved above the benchmark score. The trial was very informative, in terms of determining task appropriateness and timing, student feedback, student use of support, and student perceptions of the task and follow-up workshops. What we learned from the trial will be presented with a view to further refinement of this initiative.

Intentional first year curriculum design as a means of facilitating student engagement: some exemplars

The importance of student engagement to higher education quality, making deep learning outcomes possible for students, and achieving student retention, is increasingly being understood. The issue of student engagement in the first year of tertiary study is of particular significance. This paper takes the position that the first year curriculum, and the pedagogical principles that inform its design, are critical influencers of student engagement in the first year learning environment. We use an analysis of case studies prepared for Kift’s ALTC Senior Fellowship to demonstrate ways in which student engagement in the first year of tertiary study can be successfully supported through intentional curriculum design that motivates students to learn, provides a positive learning climate, and encourages students to be active in their learning.

An economic case for systematic student monitoring and intervention in the first year in higher education

Previous work has established the effectiveness of systematically monitoring first year higher education students and intervening with those identified as at-risk of attrition. This nuts-and-bolts paper establishes an economic case for a systematic monitoring and intervention program, identifying the visible costs and benefits of such a program at a major Australian university. The benefit of such a program is measured in savings to the institution which would otherwise be lost revenue, in the form of retained equivalent full-time student load (EFTSL). The session will present an economic model based on a number of assumptions. These assumptions are explored along with the applicability of the model to other institutions.

The development of a "Good Practice Guide" for first year curriculum development, revision and evaluation : a moving feast

Since 2002 QUT has sponsored a range of first year-focussed initiatives, most recently the Transitions In Project (TIP) which was designed to complement the First Year Experience Program and be a capacity building initiative. A primary focus of TIP was The First Year Curriculum Project: the review, development, implementation and evaluation of first year curriculum which has culminated in the development of a “Good Practice Guide” for the management of large first year units. First year curriculum initiates staff-student relationships and provides the scaffolding for the learning experience and engagement. Good practice in first year curriculum is within the control of the institution and can be redesigned and reviewed to improve outcomes. This session will provide a context for the First Year Curriculum Project and a concise overview of the suite of resources developed that have culminated in the Good Practice Guide.

Communicating with first year students ; so many channels but is anyone listening? A practice report

Communicating with first year students has become a far more complex prospect in the digital age. There is a lot of competition for limited attentional resources from media sources in almost endless channels. Getting important messages to students when there is so much competing information is a difficult prospect for academic and professional divisions of the university alike. Students’ preferences for these communication channels are not well understood and are constantly changing with the introduction of new technology. A first year group was surveyed about their use and preference for various sources of information. Students were generally positive about the use of social networking and other new online media but strongly preferred more established channels for official academic and administrative information. A discussion of the findings and recommendations follows.

Talking the talk : oracy demands in first year university assessment tasks

With more constructivist approaches to learning in higher education and more value on teamwork skills, students’ oracy (speaking and listening) features more prominently in curriculum, pedagogy and assessment. The paper reports on a study of two first-year Australian university courses in disciplines with explicit industry orientations and high proportions of international students. Drawing on classroom observations and interviews with the lecturers, this paper investigates their pedagogical designs on oracy and the oracy demands of their assessment tasks. The study found that talk-based assessment tasks (a group project and a group oral presentation) featured in both courses but the two courses treated students’ oracy differently: as product or process. The contrast between the two assessment designs explicates issues around EAL student needs, authentic links to industry, the provenance of criteria used to assess performance, perceptions about the relevance of talk and the ‘hidden assessment’ of oracy.