2: Literature Review
[next chapter] [previous chapter] [contents]
This project is concerned with identifying ways to reduce student attrition and improve progress and completion rates, particularly for those students in the equity groups identified in A Fair Chance for All (DEET 1990) and targeted by the national equity framework since 1991. The focus is to identify strategies and approaches to improve the quality of the teaching and learning environment for the diverse range of students which makes up the University's population.
The first year of university is an important period of transition for all students (McInnis, James and McNaught 1995). School leavers are faced with a style of teaching which is less personal than that in schools and which is based on student-centred learning, with the associated challenges of increased autonomy and self-management. Students from sections of the community that do not have a tradition of university study face the additional challenge of adjusting to what is essentially an alien culture at university and possible isolation from their family and previous peer group. Women students may be faced with the need to overcome the problems created by gender stereotypes and gender exclusive curricula. Full-time mature aged students may have to cope with a reduced income and a change in living standards, while attempting to develop new learning strategies and balance the competing demands of study and their other responsibilities, a particularly difficult challenge when these include paid work. Perhaps it is not surprising therefore that the apparent attrition rate(1) in Australian universities was 24 per cent in 1993-1994.
Studies demonstrate that attrition is a serious problem in north American further and higher education. Lam (1984) and Lenning, Beal and Sauer (1980) estimate that only about 40 per cent of students graduate 'on time' after three or four years of full-time study and that only another 10 per cent graduate at 'some time'. That is, about 50 per cent of students who enter two year colleges or four year universities in north America leave the system and fail to graduate, with the vast majority of these withdrawing during their first year of study. Although there is a paucity of Australian studies into attrition in higher education (Sharma and Burgess 1994), the limited evidence available indicates that about one-third of Australian higher education students either withdraw voluntarily or fail and do not re-enrol (Power, Robertson and Baker 1987). Consistent with the North American evidence, the highest rates of attrition occur during the first year of enrolment (Price, Harte and Cole 1991).
In the literature attrition is often equated with student withdrawal from the institution in which they are enrolled. Price, Harte and Cole (1991) however, argue that there are three main categories of withdrawal:
Students who intermit their studies by taking leave from their course are also likely to be counted in the attrition statistics, particularly if they intermit across years or for an entire calendar year. Since attrition calculations do not differentiate between those on leave and those who withdraw, intermitting students can contribute to increased attrition rates. When, and if, they return from leave this has a statistical counter effect, by decreasing attrition (or increasing retention rates) through adding to the size of the continuing student population.
There is a range of perceptions in the higher education community concerning institutional attrition, in some cases being viewed as a negative and in others as a positive outcome. Highly prestigious institutions, for example, may assume that high rates of attrition are an inevitable consequence of maintaining the competitive academic conditions upon which their reputations depend (Lenning, Beal and Sauer 1980). In this context, high attrition rates may not be perceived as a problem, but rather as a form of quality assurance and hence as a positive educational outcome for the institution. Alternatively, some people may enrol in a course with the intention of completing only a selection of subjects to reach specific personal or professional goals. In such cases, withdrawal can be viewed as a positive outcome, at least from the student's perspective. Withdrawing to take up an employment opportunity can also be considered as a positive outcome.
The dominant view of attrition however, focuses on its perceived negative effects. Such effects are identified firstly as lowering the self-esteem and self-confidence of the withdrawing individuals. Even temporary withdrawal may adversely affect the confidence of individuals and have serious implications for any subsequent study or career path that they may wish to pursue (Lam 1984). Secondly, attrition is seen as causing a social loss in terms of the withdrawal of people who do not, as a result, achieve their potential; their talent is 'wasted', and society does not achieve benefits that would be generated by their further education. Thirdly, attrition can be considered a waste of institutional resources spent on students who withdraw when limited funds could have been devoted to other students. A fourth perspective, in contrast to the perception of 'quality control' discussed above, is the damage attrition can cause to the reputations of courses and institutions by bringing into question the relevance of the courses, the quality of the teaching, and the adequacy of the institution's student services and support facilities. Finally, attrition can be seen to compound other problems associated with falling enrolments and the consequent difficulties institutions may experience in planning and budgeting for their programs, with ramifications for institutional funding (Ewell 1984; Price, Harte and Cole 1991).
Irrespective of whether attrition is seen from a positive or negative perspective, it is commonly investigated in terms of course and institutional loss. As such, two attrition-related matters require further discussion. These have been referred to as the 'stop out' and the 'goal fulfilment' issues (Ewell 1984). The crux of the 'stop out' issue is that university students are displaying increasingly complex patterns of enrolment. A conventional but outmoded view assumes that young people complete year 12, enrol in an undergraduate degree the following year at a university and graduate 'on time' after three to five years of uninterrupted full-time study. However, the Australian student population is becoming increasingly diverse and students are becoming more flexible in their pathways through and between post-compulsory education, employment and training. Combining full-time study with periods of part-time study and paid work is increasingly common amongst students. Furthermore, intermitting studies and taking a period of leave to travel, undertake paid work or for other personal reasons is also becoming more common. Students who take leave usually intend to resume their studies but, while many of them may graduate eventually, this may not necessarily be from the university in which they were originally enrolled. Such students may thus appear as institutional attrition but are not lost to the system and their temporary withdrawal can be viewed from a positive perspective.
The issue referred to as 'goal fulfilment' is more complex. Some students may withdraw because they feel that their studies are not helping them to attain their goals. This can be perceived as a negative reason for withdrawing. However, other students withdraw for more positive goal-related reasons, as mentioned earlier. A student may have no intention of ever finishing a degree program having enrolled in selected subjects for personal or professional interest, to assist career progression or perhaps to gain entrance to another university (Roberts 1984). Thus some students who withdraw do so because they have met their goals, while others redefine their goals or identify other means of achieving them.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that these considerations are particularly relevant for indigenous students. For example, it is argued in this University that a number of indigenous students withdraw from courses at the University of South Australia following offers of employment on the basis of subjects already completed. The attrition of indigenous students is being investigated in a separate Evaluations and Investigations Program project conducted by the University of South Australia, the results of which will enable quantification of the magnitude of this more positively viewed form of withdrawal. Studies into attrition thus need to take into account that not all withdrawals should necessarily be treated as negative outcomes for either the students or their institution.
Studies into Student Performance and Attrition
There is little reported research into student success and attrition which specifically focuses on the equity groups identified in A Fair Chance for All. The more general Australian literature in the area, however, falls into two main categories. The first attempts to develop regression or econometric models of student performance and progress through courses. These studies are usually concentrated on the pre-entry characteristics of students and inform debates concerning appropriate selection criteria for university courses. The second group of studies in the literature attempts to explain pass and retention rates. The results of both types of studies are relevant in the development of a policy framework and initiatives aimed at improving student performance and progression rates. The literature discussed below has been selected from both groups.
West (1985) investigated the effects of three pre-entry characteristics on the performance of students who entered Monash University directly from secondary school in 1975, 1980 and 1982; viz., type of school attended, father's occupation and the student's country of birth. The measures of performance used were:
A least squares regression model and a logit model were developed using these variables. The author concluded that students who undertook most of their secondary education in government schools performed better at the end of first year university than students with the same selection score from independent schools. Neither father's occupation nor country of birth were significant predictors of university performance over each of the three years investigated.
Smyth, Knuiman, Thornett and Kiiveri (1990) investigated the performance of 3734 first year university students who enrolled at the University of Western Australia during the period 1977 to 1980. This research focussed on both individual subject and overall performance. Three statistical models were developed, each incorporating personal data, variables relating to the performance of students in the final year of secondary school, and variables relating to the performance in their first year of university study. The authors did not detail the effect of student characteristics on performance, but among their findings they concluded that prediction models of first year performance needed to be more sophisticated and incorporate pre-entry student characteristics additional to those employed in their study.
Lewis (1994) conducted one of the most recent, and probably the largest and most sophisticated studies in Australia, statistically analysing the results of 10 482 commencing undergraduate students who had enrolled at the University of Wollongong between 1990 and 1993. The aim of the study was to assess the performance of students who were admitted to the University by means of its access and equity schemes, in order to determine whether the performance of these groups was comparable to that of other students. Two measures were employed. The first, the mean aggregate mark, was analysed using multivariate regression analysis. The second, whether or not students had passed 75 per cent or more of the subjects in which they were enrolled, was analysed using a logit model. The study concluded that female students, students who had attended government schools and older students who were not school leavers, performed significantly better than the university-wide average. On the other hand, the performance of those from non-English speaking backgrounds and of indigenous students was significantly below the university average. The study recommended, inter alia, that the admissions policies of the University be revised to reflect the findings of the study and also that factors underlying differences in performance of distinct groups of students needed further investigation.
Killen (1994) reviewed the literature on teaching and learning in higher education and concluded that there were a number of factors that could influence student success, as measured by pass rates. The main factors identified in the literature were the motivation of students, their approach to studying, and their cultural expectations, all student characteristics rather than characteristics of the institution or of the higher education system itself. The author then attempted to isolate the factors that resulted in student success by conducting interviews with a sample of students and lecturers at the University of Newcastle. As a result, four groups of factors were identified as significantly affecting performance: two internal to students-self-motivation and effective study techniques and two external-family support and enthusiastic lecturers.
In arguing that institutional factors could play a role in improving pass rates, which would in turn reduce attrition rates, Killen's study represented a shift from a focus on student deficits to a consideration of institutional factors, heralding the current thought in equity planning and analysis. Killen further suggested that universities could, for example, implement programs and strategies to improve study techniques and to increase the enthusiasm of lecturers of first year subjects, to improve the self-motivation of students, and to provide them with the necessary skills to resolve issues related to the pressures of their other responsibilities.
These studies make an important contribution to the debate about student progress and performance and can play a positive role in informing policy development designed to achieve the sector's equity objectives as originally outlined in A Fair Chance for All. Further investigation of such matters as those raised above will inform discussion of both the nature of selection criteria for university entrance and the learning and teaching environment which can enhance performance and progress of a diverse student population.
Over the last ten years a relatively small number of studies have attempted to explain attrition in Australian universities, but there have been some significant contributions within this limited literature. The National Institute of Labour Studies, for example, conducted an investigation into the attrition of first year students in all institutions of higher education in South Australia during 1985 (Power, Robertson and Baker 1987). Two groups of students were identified who did not proceed to the second year of their courses: those who passed and withdrew and those who failed and withdrew. Students in these two different sub-groups had one essential characteristic in common; namely, they had concluded that their course no longer matched their educational goals or interests and consequently they lacked the required level of commitment to continue. The study identified a relationship between reduced attrition rates and the implementation of appropriate strategies and programs both to generate student commitment to their course at entry and then to systematically strengthen and develop this commitment during their initial year at university.
Price, Harte and Cole (1991) conducted a study of student attrition at the Northern Territory University, focussing on comparative attrition rates across faculties, stage of course, attendance status and previous educational background, as well as on the causes of attrition. The population for this study was all students (undergraduate and postgraduate) who were enrolled in three successive years (1988, 1989 and 1990) and who did not re-enrol in the following year. Over 2000 non re-enrolled students were surveyed with a response rate of 23 per cent. The results identified a particular group of students who had a higher tendency to withdraw from the University. They were part-time students (particularly those enrolled in the Faculty of Arts) who had left school more than five years prior to enrolling (that is, they were mature aged), had matriculated at high school, were engaged in full-time employment and were enrolled in the first stage (first year) of their course.
The most consistent reasons identified by respondents for withdrawing over all three years (ranked in order of importance) were: employment ('I could not cope with full time work and study'), unspecified personal decision, family commitments, and course ('I was dissatisfied with the course teaching'). Less important reasons varied over the three years but health, academic preparedness and finances featured in each year among the eight most significant reasons given for withdrawal. Recommendations from this study include the implementation of strategies to monitor and attenuate attrition, with these being designed to recognise the characteristics of groups of students 'at risk' of discontinuing. Suggested strategies include:
These recommendations recognise the needs of a student population which has high proportions of mature age and part-time students, a population which is far removed from the élite group of school leavers which was once the primary focus of universities.
In a more general study, Sharma and Burgess (1994) surveyed 855 undergraduate students who withdrew from Swinburne University of Technology during 1993, with a 43 per cent response rate. This study identified eleven factors which students saw as important considerations in their decision to discontinue studies. At least 30 per cent of respondents identified the following as a significant consideration for withdrawing. In order of importance:
It was argued that there is a strong inverse relationship between student success and attrition; that is, actions taken to improve student pass rates will reduce attrition rates. Sharma and Burgess concluded that a range of largely extraneous factors were important determinants of attrition, including financial status, student information, employment conditions and personal/family situation.
The studies discussed above indicate that there are some differences in the reasons for withdrawal identified by first year and later year students. The latter group may temporarily interrupt their studies in order to deal with problems that are adversely affecting progress. Universities should aim to ensure that such students do not become systemic withdrawals, but are able to re-enrol as easily as possible. A commitment to the principle of lifelong learning within the institution provides a framework for actions to facilitate easy return to studies for those students in this 'stop out' category.
The reasons first year students withdraw and do not re-enrol are more complex; for both groups of students, however, the focus of initiatives designed to reduce attrition should be on identifying and remedying factors within the university itself which may cause students to withdraw. Power, Robertson and Baker (1987) and Price, Harte and Cole (1991) argued that universities can help reduce attrition, particularly in the initial years, by implementing programs that:
These and other studies demonstrate that student attrition is the outcome of a complex relationship between students, their personal or professional situations, and the university environment in which teaching and learning occurs. Some of the causes of attrition arise from factors in students' wider lives, well beyond the influence or responsibility of higher education institutions. However, universities can take steps to ensure an appropriate environment conducive to successful progress and educational outcomes for the full range of their students.
A Framework within which to Consider Student Progress
The literature on appropriate theoretical frameworks in which to analyse and explain the performance of university students is dominated by the Student Integration Model developed by Tinto (1975), and the Model of Student Departure developed by Bean (1980). There is considerable overlap between these models and Cabrera, Casteneda, Nora and Hengstler (1992) argue that it may be possible to integrate them into a single model with greater explanatory power.
Tinto argues that attrition is an outcome of the interactions which occur between students and the learning environment of the university which they attend. His theory is based on the hypothesis that student persistence is a function of the match between the motivation and academic ability of students and the academic and social characteristics of universities. This Student Integration Model predicts that the match between student and university characteristics determines the level of students' commitment to completing their course of study (goal commitment) and of their commitment to their university (institutional commitment). The probability of persistence, it is argued, is directly related to the degree of both goal commitment and institutional commitment. However, the model does not take into account factors that exist outside the University, in the wider community, which may affect the degree of match between universities and their students (e.g. government policies on fees and unemployment rates). This is increasingly being regarded as a shortcoming of the model.
The Model of Student Departure is based on organisational behaviour theory (Bean 1980) and essentially posits a two stage decision-making process in student withdrawal. The first stage involves students developing a set of beliefs, which in turn affect their attitudes towards both the course they are studying and the university they are attending. In the second stage, these attitudes influence students' intentions about their course of study, which in turn affect their behaviour in either withdrawing or persisting with their studies. This second analytical model departs from the Student Integration Model by recognising that the attitudes and behaviour of students can be significantly influenced by factors in the wider community. Both these models conclude that student attrition is the result of a complex set of interactions between the personal characteristics of students and the institutional characteristics of the university at which they study. Consequently, attrition rates can be reduced if the match between students and the characteristics of their university can be improved. Cabrera, Casteneda, Nora and Hengstler (1992) argue that students who are at risk of withdrawal can be identified by monitoring the factors that affect their intention to persist at university. An understanding of these factors can then assist in developing relevant strategies to reduce attrition.
The recent Australian higher education equity framework, arising from A Fair Chance for All, has required annual institutional equity planning and reporting based upon numerical data relating to student entry, participation and success rates for specified equity groups. One outcome of this approach has been a tendency to focus on the pre-entry characteristics of students in the different equity groups as the main source of both the causes and hence the solutions to their inequality of educational opportunity and outcomes. This approach is commonly referred to in the discourse of equity practitioners as a deficit model for equity planning. At its most simplistic this approach implies that the current differential patterns of access and outcomes experienced by the different equity groups can be altered towards greater parity by strategies directed at remedying the shortcomings or limitations arising from the students' own characteristics. Emphasis has been placed on selection and admissions policies, bridging programs and remedial support in order to ensure that students have, or develop, the skills required to succeed in the existing system, rather than exploring factors arising from the characteristics of the universities themselves, or the sector as a whole, which may contribute to the educational inequalities evident for identifiable and significant groups in the wider community.
Since the publication of Higher Education: A Policy Statement (Dawkins 1988) and A Fair Chance for All, however, equity policy and planning in Australian higher education has increasingly moved away from, and indeed has openly challenged this so-called deficit model. The focus is now on a more comprehensive investigation of the reasons why particular characteristics appear to advantage or disadvantage different groups in relation to university participation and outcomes, and how the system can be changed to respond more adequately to an increasingly diverse, mass higher education population. The Higher Education Council has clearly identified equity issues as central to the future role of the higher education sector and has focussed attention on the importance of responsiveness to student needs as a core characteristic of quality teaching (DEET 1995). This focus has been sharpened and made more explicit by the recent review of the national equity framework. While the final report and recommendations had not been released at the time of writing, the circulated discussion paper Equality, Diversity and Excellence: Advancing The National Framework clearly focuses on the need to address the causes of educational disadvantage, including attention to the need for cultural change within the system. This focus moves the emphasis from student characteristics to aspects of the system itself which may be dysfunctional for different groups of students. A suggested future goal for the system outlined in the discussion paper is 'to ensure that the system is able to respond to the diverse needs of society so that Australians from all groups in the population have the opportunity to participate successfully in higher education' (DEET 1995, p. 35). This goal emphasises the responsibility of the higher education system to interrogate itself in the context of efforts to ensure equity in participation and outcomes for all Australians.
The literature suggests that student attrition is a result of a complex relationship between students and the teaching and learning environment. Tinto's Student Integration Model and Bean's Model of Student Departure can be integrated into a single analytical framework to provide insights into these relationships. The recent policy discussion paper on advancing the national equity framework (DEET 1995) supports this analytical framework by moving the focus of addressing educational disadvantage in participation and outcomes from the student equity groups themselves to the higher education system as a whole, including the relationship of different groups of students to the system. Studies into general student performance and attrition have concluded that universities can and should implement programs and strategies to improve pass rates and reduce attrition rates, with the focus of these interventions being at the first year level. While such studies isolate student characteristics relevant to progression and attrition rates, they also identify institutional factors which contribute to poor outcomes, and various strategies for improvement are proposed.
Despite the paucity of research into student performance and attrition in higher education in Australia, particularly in relation to specific equity groups, the limited evidence that is available suggests that these students have an increased risk of poor performance and systemic withdrawal. It is unclear however, whether strategies designed to enhance the performance and reduce attrition among students in general are the most effective for students from specific equity groups. The present study is an attempt to partially fill this gap.