Chapter 3. Special Aspects of Transition

The Profile of School Leavers Compared With Other Students

More than one in five school leavers (23.1 per cent) expressed definite dissatisfaction with university at the end of the first semester in 1994. This is considerably higher than the proportion of dissatisfied students among those who were not school leavers (14.3 per cent). Following the overview of variables influencing transition (Figure 1, Part 1) it is possible to consider the aspects of transition that may have greater impact on school leavers than other first year students. Table 1 presents a summary of relevant aspects.

With regard to student background, entry characteristics and course context, a higher percentage of school leavers were born in Australia and they were proportionally more likely to come from independent schools. A higher proportion of their parents had a degree. These students gained significantly more financial support from their families and were more likely to live with family members or in college than were the broader population. They were less clear about the direction of their course or their reasons for doing the course. While parental expectations were higher, school leavers were considerably less diligent in their study habits. Far fewer were likely to say that they worked consistently throughout the term, or usually read the suggested material in preparation for classes. They were predominantly full-time enrolled and there was a lower percentage of fee-paying students amongst them. Only slightly more school leavers found it difficult comprehending the material or felt uncomfortable in group discussion.

Considering university structures and processes, the differences between school leavers and others appeared to be especially marked in their expectations of academic staff. Fewer sought advice and assistance from staff, found academic staff approachable or available, believed that academic staff took an interest in their progress, or agreed that teaching staff gave helpful feedback. As well, they perceived the learning climate among their peers as less positive.

With regard to dimensions of satisfaction, significant differences arise in course and overall university experiences. A higher proportion of school leavers were dissatisfied with university, hoped to change course, and received lower grades than expected. As suggested earlier, they were less clear about course direction, and more agreed they had difficulty adjusting to the university style of teaching. In the classroom, a notably lower proportion of school leavers than others found their subjects interesting.

Table 1: Summary of aspects of transition particular to school leavers

In some important respects, however, the two groups had much in common. Apart from differences in reliance on family for financial and accommodation support, they were similar in their reliance on Austudy, part-time work and savings to finance their studies. They were similarly deferring payment for studies through the HEC Scheme. There were no significant differences by which course preference they gained access to university. They were almost identical in the extent to which they liked being university students. Almost 80 per cent in both groups rated the goal of studying in a field of interest as very important, and close to 44 per cent in both instances were enrolled to get training for a specific job. Similarly, there were no marked differences between school leavers and other students in their informal learning support networks, such as the extent to which they discussed subjects with other students, or in their judgements of the enthusiasm of staff, or indeed, the overall rating they gave to teaching.

In summary, school leavers were more problematic than older students particularly in terms of their uncertainty about their roles as learners, in their perception of their relationships with academic staff, their application, and their uncertainty about the course they had taken.

The Uncertain School Leaver

A considerable proportion of school leavers (38 per cent) seriously considered deferring their course at some point in the transition process. As noted above, we selected a sub-sample of students who had seriously considered deferral for what we defined as academic reasons, that is, they indicated that they disliked studying, disliked the course, or wanted to change course. This group comprised 558 students of the 3026 school leavers (18.4 per cent). The students drawn into this group could reasonably be said to be having some difficulties in the transition process and of course there was considerable overlap between this group and those who were identified as dissatisfied. For that reason we have selected a range of indicative comparisons to show the statistically significant differences between those who experienced moments of serious doubt and those who appeared to have been secure and positive in their initial experience.

The responses in this survey revealed the complexity that characterises studies of student attrition and persistence. As indicated in the national report (McInnis and James 1995:50):

No one or two reasons could be said to predominate in the frequency which they were mentioned by most students. Nevertheless, there was a tendency for ‘university-related’ reasons to be mentioned more frequently than ‘non-university’ related reasons (although it is not always easy to make a clear distinction between the two).

And further,

We do not know what weight individual students gave to their two reasons; one may have been much more important than the other, they may have been of equal weight or, as in often the case with life decisions, factors interact. We did note a tendency for reasons to cluster together. For example, students who mentioned emotional health, were more likely to include financial problems, disliking their course and disliking study. Disliking study was associated with disliking the course, financial problems and finding university was not living up to expectations. There was a relationship between disliking the course, wanting to change course and not finding the life as they had expected (McInnis and James 1995:50).

The most obvious and unsurprising difference between the uncertain and settled students was that those who had seriously considered deferring were much less likely to have come to university with a career in mind. As Table 2 also shows, uncertain students were proportionally less clear about the reason they came to university.

Table 2: Uncertainty and goals

Perceptions of those not considering deferring (n=2468) and considering deferring (n=558) (%)

Table 3 provides the responses to five items concerning adjustment. What is especially interesting here is that while there were predictable differences in the difficulty adjusting to the university style of teaching and in comprehending material when compared with those who had not considered deferring, there were major differences in the proportion of students who found their subjects interesting. It is reasonable to conclude that the uncertain students were clearly ‘square pegs in round holes’, but more importantly, only 20 per cent found their subjects interesting and only 29 per cent had a clear idea where the course was going. In other words, by the middle of the first year these ‘uncertain’ school leavers were essentially ‘turned off’ the course, if indeed they were ever interested. This dissatisfaction clearly affected their sense of identity as a university student, there being a distinct contrast between them and the more ‘certain’ students (52 per cent cf. 79 per cent).

Table 3: Uncertainty and adjustment

Perceptions of those not considering deferring (n=2468) and considering deferring (n=558) (%)

Table 4 shows some clear differences in perceptions of teaching staff and the quality of teaching between the students who were basically certain about their choice of university and course and those who were not. Although the results were rather negative for all students, in both absolute and relative terms, the uncertain students were seriously disaffected. The most striking difference was on the global items which clearly demonstrate that the ‘uncertain’ students were far less likely to consider the quality of teaching good (49 per cent cf. 67 per cent) and were seriously disaffected with their university experience (29 per cent cf. 66 per cent). It is important to recall that these were the disappointed students who had actually persisted through to the end of the first semester.

Table 4: Uncertainty and staff-student contact

Perceptions of those not considering deferring (n=2468) and considering deferring (n=558) (%)

In summary, the defining features of school leavers who were uncertain about being at university were that they were less likely to have a career in mind and were less clear about their reason for being at university. Four-fifths had not found their course interesting and over two-thirds did not know where their course was going. The ‘uncertain’ group felt teaching quality to be poor and reported being disaffected with academic feedback and interest taken in their progress. They were less likely to enjoy being a university student and, overall, more than two-thirds were dissatisfied with their university experience.

The Dissatisfied School Leaver

Of the 3026 school leavers in the sample, 700 students were defined as dissatisfied. These were the students who responded negatively to either or both the items: ‘Overall, I am very satisfied with my university experience so far’ and, ‘Overall, I am really enjoying my course’. The discussion that follows is primarily focussed on the 23 per cent of school leavers who were dissatisfied with their university experience.

It seems likely that a halo effect is influencing the pattern of positive and negative responses from dissatisfied school leavers. Nevertheless, the large number of statistically significant differences in responses to items—and the absence of notable disparities—point to specific aspects of transition that might be remedied by universities.

Background and entry characteristics

A number of background demographic and associated variables across the sample were examined for patterns of influence on the nature and extent of satisfaction and dissatisfaction with the student experience. Overall there were few clear differences associated with student background. The responses of males and females on satisfaction with the university experience was almost identical. Analysis by place of birth with small cell numbers (other than Australian-born) showed only minor differences. Likewise there was virtually no difference in the distribution of satisfaction by school type.

The influence on first students of their parents’ education levels was analysed in some detail in First Year On Campus (McInnis & James 1995). That analysis revealed fewer differences than anticipated between students with one or both parents who had completed degrees and those whose parents were not tertiary educated, but the differences that did emerge were of note. The students from backgrounds where neither parent had completed a university degree showed a stronger sense of purpose and greater academic application than the others. On the other hand, the students whose parents were both university educated were more likely to rate their parents’ expectations as an important factor in their decision to go to university. Differences of this kind according to parental education level, however, did not show up in the analysis of the school leaver sample by satisfaction/dissatisfaction for the present study.

The distraction of harsh economic circumstances is often cited as a factor interfering with student performance. Income source was not a particularly obvious factor in the level of satisfaction in this sample. Paid work hours, especially the impact of part-time work did not show a clear relationship with satisfaction. Nevertheless, 30 per cent of the dissatisfied group felt pressured by financial commitments compared with 23 per cent of the satisfied group, and a notably higher proportion of dissatisfied students than satisfied students agreed that money worries made it difficult to study (40 per cent cf. 27 per cent).

It seems reasonable to assume that academic performance in the final years of school has some bearing on transition. Tertiary Entrance (TER) scores played a significant part in determining selective admissions and the likelihood of students getting the course of their first preference. There was some difference in satisfaction according to whether students had got into their preferred course. Two-thirds of the sample were in the course of their first preference. Of these students, slightly more (66 per cent) of the satisfied group were in the first preference course compared with 55 per cent of the dissatisfied students, and likewise, as shown in Table 5, a considerably higher proportion of dissatisfied students hoped to change course.

Table 5: Attitude to changing current course

Perceptions of satisfied (n=2326) and dissatisfied (n=700) students (%)

Course characteristics

There was no strong indication of difference in satisfaction by broad field of study and with very small numbers of part-time students amongst the school leavers there was no difference to report by enrolment load. Similarly there was virtually no difference between fee-paying and HECS students.

Student entry goals and motives

We selected three key items from the 1994 survey relating to student reasons for enrolling for the purposes of comparing satisfied and dissatisfied students. There was an issue of timing, and of cause and effect that should be noted here. Students were reflecting back to their motives and goals more than six months prior to completing the questionnaire. Positive or negative experiences of the first semester might of course have shaped their responses. Nevertheless, Table 6 shows that fewer dissatisfied students considered studying in a field of interest as very important.

It is clear, also, that expectations of parents were a stronger influence on dissatisfied students with 37 per cent rating it as an important reason for enrolling compared with 25 per cent of the satisfied group. With regard to training, only slightly fewer dissatisfied students enrolled to get training for a specific job.

Table 6: Student entry and motives

Perceptions of satisfied (n=2326) and dissatisfied (n=700) students (%)

Means: 1= very important, 5= not important

Students who had a strong sense of goal direction are assumed to be more focussed and confident in their initial experience of university. The issue for them, and for the universities, is whether their aspirations and expectations are matched by what the university offers. Table 7 shows sizeable variations between the satisfied and dissatisfied students. A much lower proportion of the dissatisfied students knew the type of occupation they wanted (45 per cent cf. 63 per cent) and 37 per cent clearly had little or no idea. Significantly, only 46 per cent of the dissatisfied students were clear about the reasons they came to university as compared with 77 per cent of the satisfied group. The responses to the third item were particularly telling: fifty-seven per cent of the dissatisfied students believed they were not ready to choose a university course compared with only 28 per cent of the satisfied group.

Table 7: Student goal clarity on entry

Perceptions of satisfied (n=2326) and dissatisfied (n=700) students (%)

Means: 1= strongly agree, 5= strongly disagree

Underlying these items was a most obvious indicator of dissatisfaction: forty-two per cent of the dissatisfied students hoped to change course compared with only 15 per cent of the satisfied group (Table 5).

Initial academic adjustment

In the first weeks and months of the university experience students are inevitably making comparisons between school and university. The perception of the appropriateness of the final year of school as a preparation for university was generally negative. Only 38 per cent of the satisfied students agreed they were prepared, and the dissatisfied students were even more negative, only 23 per cent being in agreement. Similarly, the dissatisfied students were far more negative than the satisfied students in their view of the extent to which their first year subjects built on their study at school (50 per cent cf. 35 per cent).

Quite clearly, negative contrasts in the grading of academic performance between school and university might come as a significant surprise for many students. The correlation between the average grades achieved in first year and dissatisfaction shows the expected positive association of higher academic performance with satisfaction. Further, and perhaps of more salience for students, the responses in Table 8 show a substantial proportion of satisfied students (38 per cent), and a clear majority (58 per cent) of the dissatisfied students, reporting lower marks than they expected.

Perceptions of satisfied (n=2326) and dissatisfied (n=700) students (%)

Worth noting, however, was that 12 per cent of the dissatisfied students were getting higher marks than they expected. Better than anticipated achievement did not necessarily guarantee satisfaction.

The responses of the dissatisfied students to a range of issues concerned with their initial adjustment shown in Table 9 suggests they were extremely negative in some important respects: only nine per cent strongly agreed that they found university study more fulfilling than school compared with 31 per cent of the ‘satisfieds’ and, at the other end of the scale, 43 per cent of the dissatisfied students were clearly negative.

Table 9: Initial academic adjustment

Perceptions of satisfied (n=2326) and dissatisfied (n=700) students (%)

Means: 1= strongly agree, 5= strongly disagree

Many more of the dissatisfied students had difficulty adjusting to the university style of teaching (49 per cent cf. 28 per cent), and likewise had difficulty comprehending the material they were asked to read (43 per cent cf. 24 per cent).

These were large differences, but perhaps the most telling indicator of the positive or negative initial academic adjustment was the extent to which the students had a clear idea of where their course was going. Almost half the dissatisfied students responded negatively to that item compared with 17 per cent of the satisfied group. Interestingly, the two groups were roughly similar in their perceptions of the standards and demands of university work compared with school.

In summary, it is in the areas of entry characteristics, entry goals and motives and initial academic adjustment that the most significant aspects of dissatisfaction arose among the school leaver group. There was some relationship between TER scores and gaining of first preferences that was reflected in levels of satisfaction. A higher proportion of those who were dissatisfied wanted to change their course. Dissatisfied students showed less desire to study for either interest or training. There was stronger parental expectation reported by this group, but the students did not have clear occupational goals, were not clear about their own reasons for studying and did not see themselves as ready to choose a university course.

Further, they were less likely to find their final year at school to be a good preparation for university and did not think that university subjects built on their school subjects. A higher proportion of them received lower marks than expected (although even those with marks higher than expected were still dissatisfied). They reported difficulties adjusting to the university style of teaching and did not have a good idea of where their course was going.

Perceptions of the instruction

A limited range of items on aspects of instruction is shown in Table 10. It should be noted that student responses to specific aspects of instruction were generally somewhat more negative than their global judgements. This made the relative and absolute responses of the dissatisfied students especially noteworthy since only 39 per cent thought the quality of teaching was generally good in stark contrast to 72 per cent agreement from the satisfied students. This suggests an exceptionally high level of disenchantment, reinforced by a similar pattern of responses on the perception of academics’ enthusiasm about the subject they were teaching.

Table 10: Perceptions of teaching

Perceptions of satisfied (n=2326) and dissatisfied (n=700) students (%)

Means: 1= strongly agree, 5= strongly disagree

Feedback on progress was of crucial importance for first year students. School leavers had mostly experienced teachers, parents and peers closely monitoring their performance throughout the final years of secondary school. For many, the decline in attention at university was an abrupt jolt. The negative response of the dissatisfied students (60 per cent cf. 37 per cent) stood out on this item.

The extent to which students believed that the aims and objectives of the course were made clear is a straightforward indicator of effective instruction. There were some differences between the two groups, but mainly around the mid-range of the Likert scale.

Perceptions of the learning climate

We selected three items to represent the notion of a learning climate, recognising that there is considerably more to the student learning experience than indicated by items focussed on the nature and quality of instruction. Creating a learning climate where students work together and see one another as belonging to a group whose primary motives are concerned with learning is to a considerable extent within the control of university faculties and departments. The nature of the learning climate is a particularly important performance indicator with respect to the transition process since peer influence is crucial in establishing positive attitudes towards academic achievement and support for learning. A positive learning climate should also be one where the students are encouraged to contribute to discussions.

As indicated in Table 11, a far higher proportion of dissatisfied students (44 per cent cf. 20 per cent) had negative perceptions about the attitude of their peers to learning. Similar differences were evident in the extent to which the students found their subjects interesting with only 17 per cent of the dissatisfied students at all positive. There was some difference in the extent to which the students felt uncomfortable in group discussions with a third of the dissatisfied students agreeing compared with 23 per cent of the satisfied students.

Table 11: Learning climate

Perceptions of satisfied (n=2326) and dissatisfied (n=700) students (%)

Means: 1= strongly agree, 5= strongly disagree

Workload

Managing the workload is a key contributor to a satisfactory transition, and not coping with the workload can influence decisions to leave university. Contrary to the view that students would instinctively complain about their workload, our experience suggests that students make considered judgements in their responses, and that student perceptions of workload effectively discriminate between some important categories of students.

The responses shown in Table 12 indicate that 56 per cent of dissatisfied students agreed that the volume of work was a problem for their learning, indeed just over a quarter strongly agreed, twice the proportion of the satisfied students.

Table 12: Workload

Perceptions of satisfied (n=2326) and dissatisfied (n=700) students (%)

Means: 1= strongly agree, 5= strongly disagree

However, the impact of contact hours on task completion did not appear to be a major point of difference between the two groups, nor, as Table 13 shows, were there any apparent differences between the two groups in their actual contact hours.

Table 13: Weekly class contact hours

Perceptions of satisfied (n=2326) and dissatisfied (n=700) students (%)

The staff-student relationship

New students are particularly sensitive to the way in which academic staff relate to them and the interest staff show in their academic development. The contrast between school and university is potentially stark. The responses to the three items in Table 14 showed distinct differences between satisfied and dissatisfied students. More than two-thirds of the satisfied students agreed that staff were approachable whereas only 39 per cent of the dissatisfied student agreed. While a considerable proportion of the satisfied students disagreed that staff were available (17 per cent), the dissatisfied students were particularly negative (35 per cent). Finally, the perception that staff took an interest in their progress was a particularly important indicator and here it was clear that an overwhelming majority of dissatisfied students (65 per cent) did not believe that the staff did so. Indeed, the level of 35 per cent strong disagreement on this item was one of the highest negative results for the entire survey.

Table 14: Staff approachability, availability and interest

Perceptions of satisfied (n=2326) and dissatisfied (n=700) students (%)

Means: 1= strongly agree, 5= strongly disagree

Learning support networks

The four items in Table 15 provide some indication of the structures and processes that support effective learning outcomes. While it may be argued that these aspects of the student experience are to some extent the responsibility of the student, it is possible and desirable that universities ensure that students have the opportunity to use these kinds of learning resources.

Most students agreed they had a quiet place to study and although there was not a great deal of difference between the two groups, the proportion of dissatisfied students was lower across the scale. A similar pattern of responses was evident with the use of the student peer group as an academic resource but a notably lower proportion of the dissatisfied students discussed their subjects with other students (22 per cent cf. 34 per cent). Likewise, a considerably higher proportion of dissatisfied students had not made close friends at university (35 per cent cf. 18 per cent).

Table 15: Learning resources

Perceptions of satisfied (n=2326) and dissatisfied (n=700) students (%)

Means: 1= strongly agree, 5= strongly disagree

Worth noting was the support students got from their families for their study. There was little difference between the satisfied and dissatisfied groups in the general support their parents gave to their university study, but only 37 per cent of the dissatisfied students discussed their university work with their family compared with 54 per cent of the satisfied students. Likewise, a higher proportion of dissatisfied students agreed that their parents had little understanding of their university life (40 per cent cf. 28 per cent). There was very little difference between the groups in the importance they attached to family support in their first year of study.

The Student Contribution: Learning and Study Habits

We made it clear in the assumptions underlying the design of the national survey that students have a responsibility to contribute to their learning at university. The differences between the groups in levels of application should not be overstated. Indeed, as with some aspects of academic adjustment (Table 9) they were not as strong as might be expected.

Table 16: Student application and study habits

Perceptions of satisfied (n=2326) and dissatisfied (n=700) students (%)

Means: 1= strongly agree, 5= strongly disagree

From the responses shown in Table 16 it was hardly surprising that 56 per cent of the dissatisfied students also acknowledged that they did not work consistently through the term compared with 39 per cent of the satisfieds. There were also some differences in the extent to which the students sought assistance from academic staff but these differences were not so clear. The notable result was that 29 per cent of the dissatisfied students strongly disagreed that they sought advice and assistance from staff. Again the question of cause and effect cannot be resolved but the likelihood is that this reflects a negative cycle of disengagement and cynicism.

It is also of significance to note that there was a difference in the extent to which students read the suggested material in preparation for classes. Fewer dissatisfied than satisfied students prepared for classes (30 per cent cf. 42 per cent).

In summary, the responses of dissatisfied students suggested that they were not as able or willing to be pro-active in their own learning. They showed greater reluctance to approach academic staff for advice or assistance but neither did they see their own contribution as consistent or well-prepared.