Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs
Dr Jenny Promnitz
Ms Carmen Germain
James Cook University of North Queensland
October 1996
96/10
Evaluations and Investigations Program
Higher Education Division ©
6. Discussion and Recommendations
Appendix A: Enrolled Student Questionnaire
Appendix B: Withdrawn Student Questionnaire
[next chapter] [contents]
To obtain direct empirical evidence of a link between the existence of student
support services and enrolment attrition or positive academic outcomes is
difficult, due to the many extraneous variables which have an impact on
the lives of students. To help clarify the link between support services
and academic outcomes, this project examined student experiences with actual
and contemplated withdrawal and usage of support services.
The method used was a questionnaire administered to enrolled and recently
withdrawn students, and a series of focus groups with students nearing graduation.
Participants responded to questions about their financial support and motivations
for seeking a degree. Detailed comments were provided on factors or circumstances
which influenced contemplation of withdrawal, as well as actions taken which
led to either continued enrolment or actual withdrawal.
It was concluded that the experiences of students generally support the positive role which support services play in both the prevention of attrition and the enhancement of student's experiences whilst at university. Recommendations were made to facilitate social, emotional and academic adjustment, given findings on student financial difficulties, motivations for enrolment and attrition risk factors.
[next chapter] [contents]
Since the inclusion of student support services as a focal point for the
Review Team from the Committee for Quality Assurance in Higher Education
(1994), universities have taken a renewed interest in the performance of
support services. In addition, as recruitment of students becomes a more
competitive exercise, the quality and availability of various support services
within a university form an important element in defining an institution's
quality and competitiveness (Koder 1991). These events which have taken
place in a general climate of mass higher education since the Higher Education
Funding Act of 1988, raise questions about the impact of support services
on academic outcomes.
These issues are further evident in reports such as the 1990 DEET/NBEET, A Fair Chance For All: National and Institutional Planning for Equity in
Higher Education, and the 1993 DEET/NUS EIP project, Student Support Services: Management, Delivery and Effectiveness. These projects elaborated the importance of support services for student
success, and their role in participation and access for disadvantaged groups,
as well as making recommendations about monitoring the performance of support
services.
It is widely assumed that the existence of support services has an impact
on enrolment attrition. This is in fact explicitly stated in many cases;
for example, '...the absence of certain support services could mean an inability
to continue their studies...' (Student Services Australia 1993). To establish
direct empirical evidence of a link between the existence of support services
and enrolment attrition, or positive academic outcomes is, however, a difficult
proposition. The existence of many extraneous variables, such as student
motivation, family and financial circumstances, unforeseen traumas and so
on, makes examination of attrition data in association with service introduction
or usage patterns problematic if we seek establish such a link.
One way in which this link might be examined is to investigate the experiences
of individual students. A useful technique would be to investigate student
contemplation of withdrawal from study and the means by which they arrived
at a decision to either remain or actually withdraw.
The present project, Student Support Services and Academic Outcomes: Achieving Positive Outcomes, was stimulated by a previous study undertaken at James Cook University. The previous study was conducted by a Student Service's Working Party (1994), established by the Vice-Chancellor to review the performance of support services. Findings indicated high levels of support service awareness within the university community, high usage patterns, and the existence of quality assurance indicators across most services. It was judged that two important areas remained to be investigated, namely student experiences with services and the impact of those services on academic outcomes.
The DEET Evaluations and Investigations Program subsequently funded the current study, which had two broad aims to:
This project focussed on support services provided by the University and
the Student Union. Criteria for inclusion was based on a classification
system proposed by Gallagher (1992), which covered learning support services,
survival services, advisory services, recreational services and general
services. Commercial food outlets, university computing services and the
library were not included. A further non-inclusion was the Centre for Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Participation, Research and Development, as this
unit functions in a semi-autonomous manner and is exclusively for those
students of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander heritage.
Learning services included:
Survival services included:
Advisory services included:
Recreational services included:
General services included:
An enrolled student was any person currently enrolled in full or part-time study at the university.
The criteria for inclusion in this category was that the student had cancelled his/her enrolment at any time during 1995.
As the turn of the century fast approaches, the demand for a highly trained
and specialised labour market is steadily increasing. The rapid pace with
which technology in all facets of society is advancing places intense pressure
on institutions of higher education to produce and distribute scientific
knowledge, and supply a steady stream of individuals capable of understanding
and developing that knowledge (Castle 1993). As a consequence, tertiary
institutions are rapidly expanding to facilitate increased student intake.
Although the initial intake of students into tertiary education is steadily
increasing, so is the concern over the high proportion of students who do
not actually graduate. Gerdes and Mallinckrodt (1994) go so far as to suggest
that up to 56 percent of a typical group of entering students will not graduate
from an institution, with attrition rates of up to 29 percent being '...common
during the freshman year alone'. Within Australia, attrition rates within
higher education institutions are estimated to lie between 25 percent to
30 percent, with great variations existing among institutions (Abbott-Chapman,
Hughes & Wyld 1992). Furthermore, an investigation involving seven tertiary institutions across
different states has revealed that approximately 65 percent of entrants
graduate from their degrees or other award programs, 2.5 percent continue
long after the minimum time of completion and 10 percent fail, with the
'true' withdrawal rate being 22.5 percent (West et al. 1987).
Student attrition represents a major concern for tertiary institutions for a number of reasons. The wasting of limited financial resources is amongst the most important issues.
The effect of these graduation rates on the Australian Universities is severe. It consists of time, material and money devoted not only to the education of those who fail and withdraw, but also to those who take longer for their course than is necessary.
(Abbott-Chapman, Hughes & Wyld 1992)
The loss of a student may also represent the loss of an important source
of knowledge, talent, and ultimately the potential member of a skilled work
force; and at a more individual level, '...vocational and personal setbacks
that result from the student's impeded career development and futile expenditure
of time and effort' (Astin 1975). Such concerns have provided the motivating
force behind numerous campus-based attrition studies that have been conducted
during the past decade, with researchers ultimately attempting to provide
administrators with insight into which factors underlie students' decisions
to withdraw from tertiary education, with a view to develop strategies to
reduce student drop-out rates.
For many individuals, the transition from secondary to tertiary education signifies a time of emotional, social and academic adjustment (Gerdes et al. 1994) with a decision to terminate one's studies being a consequence of obstacles hindering this process. Attrition research has revealed numerous student characteristics associated with undergraduate attrition, which can be classified under three main headings:
Vincent Tinto's (1975) model of student attrition, which has featured extensively throughout education literature, attempts to explain how academic, personal and institutional variables interact during the process of deciding to persist or withdraw from study.
...the decision to drop out can be viewed as a process in which an individual's characteristics influence interaction with the social and academic systems resulting in a degree of integration and affecting institutional and goal commitments which in turn lead to the decision to persist or withdraw.
(Castle 1993)
By degree of integration, Tinto refers to an individual's academic performance and psychological
state, which are the bases for institutionally and student initiated withdrawal.
Within Figure 1, institutional factors can be seen to provide an important link between academic and personal student characteristics and students' academic performance and psychological state. Furthermore, research has yielded evidence to suggest that there is potential
for institutional variables to play an important role in reducing student
initiated withdrawal. Johnson (1994) for example found that student psychological state was the variable most strongly associated with student initiated withdrawal,
often characterised by such problems as integrating into social life on
campus, crises such as homesickness and loneliness, financial hardship,
anxiety, low self esteem, depression, lack of motivation and marital/family
conflicts.
Figure 1: A Model of Undergraduate Student Attrition (Johnson 1994) is available
in print copy only.
It is the role of student support services to assist the student through this process of emotional, social, and academic adjustment. In order to fulfil this role, student support services must be perceived by students themselves as providing an avenue by which to achieve academic success and a positive psychological state. However, there seems to be a limited source of research dedicated to investigating student's perceptions of the role of institutional variables, more specifically the role of on-campus student support services. The current study seeks to provide further insight into this issue, by attempting to ascertain students' perceptions of the reasons for their academic success (among a sample of continuing students) or their decision to terminate their studies (among a sample of withdrawn students).
Enrolled Student Questionnaire
Table 1 Enrolled Student Participants Across Disciplines
Withdrawn Student Questionnaire
Methodology for this research was threefold. In the first instance a questionnaire
was administered to enrolled students. Secondly, a questionnaire was mailed
to students who had withdrawn from study over the last twelve months, and
finally, selected students participated in focus groups.
Enrolled Student Questionnaire
Students who participated in this survey were selected across all faculties
and from core subjects at each year level in all available disciplines.
A total of 466 students were included and their distribution across discipline
categories is shown in Table 1. The sample had a mean age of 22.33 years
(range 17-48 years). Sixty-two percent of the sample had moved to tertiary
study straight after the completion of secondary schooling, while for 16
percent a period of 1-4 years had elapsed between secondary schooling and
tertiary entrance. The remaining 22 percent had completed secondary schooling
five or more years prior to tertiary entrance.
Sixty-seven percent of the sample were female. For 79 percent of participants
the degree of enrolment was actually their degree of first choice. Only
32 of the 466 were from non-English speaking backgrounds and these were
distributed across 16 different language backgrounds.
Table 1 Enrolled Student Participants Across Disciplines
| Discipline |
Participants | |
|
N |
% | |
| Law/Arts/Behavioural Sciences |
92 |
20 |
| Sciences |
67 |
14 |
| Education |
186 |
40 |
| Commerce/Economics |
100 |
21 |
| Engineering |
21 |
5 |
| Total |
466 |
100 |
The questionnaire used with enrolled students included biographical information,
reasons for study, and a range of information about factors which had impeded
study, along with the means by which these had been overcome. Design of
the questionnaire evolved from previous projects at James Cook University
and a study of attrition at Darwin University (Price, Harte and Cole 1992). A full copy of the questionnaire is shown in Appendix A.
Withdrawn Student Questionnaire
A questionnaire was mailed to 200 students who had cancelled their enrolment
in 1995. Response rate was low (16%), giving a final 32 respondents. To
some extent the low response rate was attributed to a large number of return to sender postages. Questionnaires were mailed to the last known non-semester address
for each student. Unfortunately this was insufficient to locate large numbers
of those included in the mail out. Further, withdrawn students may have
perceived little personal gain from responding to the questionnaire. The
low response rate was disappointing, although consistent with similar retrospective
questionnaire surveys where the target respondents are highly transient
(e.g. NT Department of Education 1989, with a response rate of 17 percent).
Those students who responded had been enrolled in Arts/Law/Behavioural Sciences
(8), Sciences (5), Education (9), Commerce/Economics (7), and Engineering
(3). Twenty-two (67%) of the respondents were female.
Questionnaire design relied heavily on the study by Price, Harte and Cole
(1992). Students were asked to comment on employment, academic preparedness,
course, institution, distance/remoteness, family, health, personal, financial
and accommodation factors which had influenced their decision to withdraw.
They were also asked to comment on services at the university. The questionnaire
is shown at Appendix B.
Three focus groups were conducted with a sample of 3rd and 4th year students living on campus. Participants were asked to elaborate on the link between service usage and academic outcomes.
Enrolled Student Questionnaire
Withdrawn Student Questionnaire
Table 2: Importance of Financial Support Source for Enrolled Students
Table 3: Importance of Reasons for Obtaining a Degree for Enrolled
Table 4 Importance of Factors Influencing Consideration of Withdrawal for Enrolled Students
Table 6: Ranked Importance of Factors as an Influence on Withdrawal
Table 7: Reported Usage of Support Services by Withdrawn and Enrolled Students
This section is organised around the three methodological approaches used.
From question 4 in the Enrolled Student Questionnaire, which concerned sources
of financial support whilst studying, participants reported the information
shown in Table 2. In this case the higher the ranking given, the greater
the importance placed upon the item.
| Source of Support |
Mean Rank |
| Part-time employment |
2.96 |
| Casual employment |
2.99 |
| Austudy |
3.21 |
| Spouse income |
1.66 |
| Parental income |
3.21 |
| Savings |
3.24 |
| Full-time employment |
1.55 |
Mean rankings above three were within the important range and those of note
from Table 2 were savings, Austudy and parental income. Casual and part-time employment had mean rankings just below three, which was perhaps surprising as individual
students often express a high dependence on these sources of income. In
fact, this sample indicated either a reliance on their own or family resources,
or Austudy.
When this information was used in a comparison between those students who
identified themselves as having considered withdrawal at some stage (n=195)
and those who had not considered such a course of action, differences emerged.
There was a significant difference between these groups with regard to casual employment (t= 3.89 p> .0001). Those who had considered withdrawal rated casual employment
as significantly more important. In Table 3 below, the mean rankings given
by enrolled students to question 5, which concerned reasons for obtaining
a degree, are shown. Again the higher the mean rank, the greater the importance.
| Reasons |
Mean Rank |
| To please parents and friends |
1.97 |
| Develop talent and abilities |
4.11 |
| Have a professional career |
4.64 |
| Fill-in time until I get a job |
1.38 |
| Have a financially attractive career |
3.79 |
| To be with friends |
1.78 |
| To study a few subjects |
1.96 |
| Improve job prospects |
4.38 |
| Increase my knowledge |
4.35 |
| Intellectual stimulation |
3.73 |
| Study something that interests me |
4.08 |
The mean rankings given in Table 3 suggest that enrolled students have clear
future oriented ideas about what a degree will do for them. Intellectual
stimulation, although ranked above three, is not as important as career
and financial reasons.
The predominant characteristics of the enrolled student participants were
thus of school leavers enrolled in their degree of first choice, reliant
mostly on their own savings and family resources, with clear career and
financial goals in mind.
Those who had considered withdrawal at some stage rated the items please parents and friends (t= 3.47 p> .0006) and fill in time (t= 2.89 p> .004) as significantly more important reasons for undertaking
a degree than those participants who had not considered withdrawal. On the
other hand those who had never considered withdrawal rated intellectual stimulation (t= -2.04 p>.04) and study something that interests me (t= -2.9 p> .004) as significantly more important than those who had considered
withdrawal.
One hundred and ninety-five (43%) enrolled students reported having considered
withdrawal at some stage of their degree. These students provided the information
from questions 7 and 8, outlined in Tables 4 and 5.
| Influencing Factor |
Mean Rank |
| Employment |
3.36 |
| Academic preparedness |
2.94 |
| Course |
3.17 |
| Institution |
2.36 |
| Accommodation |
2.08 |
| Distance/Remoteness |
2.10 |
| Finance |
3.25 |
| Family |
2.77 |
| Health |
2.15 |
| Other personal issues |
3.35 |
| Chance events outside my control |
2.17 |
Factors of greater importance in considering a withdrawal were thus employment, other personal issues, finances and the course. When these items were examined across age levels, discipline and gender,
no significant differences were found.
| Reasons |
Percent of Responses |
| Advice from family and friends to remain |
21% |
| Need for a career and financial security |
21% |
| Own thoughts about effort already spent |
13% |
| Assistance from support services staff |
11% |
| Own thoughts about long term degree benefits |
11% |
| Direct family pressure to continue |
11% |
| Small amount of work left to complete |
4% |
| Tired of current employment |
2% |
| Achieved good results |
2% |
| Mixture of other reasons |
4% |
The reasons given for remaining at university appear to be dominated by
an awareness of long term career and financial benefits. Most commonly these
students took advice from those close to them. There is an impression of
weighing up the long term benefits and outlay of time and effort already
made, against what would be lost if withdrawal was chosen.
Eleven percent of these students directly attributed their continued enrolment
as being due to assistance from support service staff. This could be seen
as a small percentage given the focus of this study; however, it is worth
noting that it still represents a large monetary and personal resource wastage
should those students have chosen to withdraw. It is also conceivable that
many more students may have utilised various support services before an
issue became a major crisis of a magnitude to raise the possibility of withdrawal.
This point is addressed further in the section on the focus groups.
An examination of possible differences in reasons for not withdrawing from
university across year levels in the study, and across the different lengths
of time since leaving secondary school, revealed no differences.
Correlation analyses with both Tertiary Entrance (TE) and Overall Performance
(OP) scores at entrance and the reasons for considering withdrawal also
revealed no significant results.
Support service usage rates for these enrolled students are shown later
in the section on withdrawn students (refer Table 7).
For the respondents to this questionnaire, the mean time at which most had
actually withdrawn was in the middle of their second year. Twenty-six of
the thirty-two respondents said they fully intended to return and complete
their degrees, and for twenty-eight respondents it was the first time they
had contemplated a withdrawal. Only three of those intending to return said
they would change to a different degree.
Although the numbers of enrolled and withdrawn students surveyed differed
markedly, it is worth noting that mean age of enrolled students was 22.3
years compared to 28.3 years for those who had withdrawn.
Since the response rate to the withdrawn student questionnaire was so low, it was decided not to conduct statistical analysis on the data, but to simply report descriptive information. Each of the factors influencing withdrawal is presented in turn, along with the particular items nominated by more than a quarter of the sample as extremely important.
Those items were:
I had difficulties organising my study time.
The workload was too heavy.
Academic resources were inadequate.
Living away from home, I felt isolated from familiar people and places.
I couldn't afford to travel or phone home as often as I would have liked.
I could not juggle family, job and study.
I became pregnant and it interfered with my study.
I felt there were insufficient facilities for disabled persons and this caused me physical access problems.
A health condition developed or worsened during the year.
I felt overworked and exhausted.
I needed a break from study to think about my life and where I was going.
Withdrawing was the only way of resolving the conflicts that being a student created in my life.
I had doubts about the value of the course I was doing.
I was tired of studying.
I lost my job and couldn't afford to continue.
I couldn't earn enough through part-time work to pay for living expenses, rent etc.
There was too much pressure from parents to study.
My family didn't appreciate the demands of my course.
I had inadequate study facilities.
Table 6 below gives the mean ranks when respondents were asked to rank order
the factors according to importance as an influence on withdrawal. Lower
ranks were the more important.
| Factor |
Mean Rank |
| Personal |
3.5 |
| Family |
4.8 |
| Health |
4.8 |
| Employment |
5.0 |
| Course |
5.4 |
| Institution |
6.7 |
| Finance |
6.8 |
| Distance/Remoteness |
7.1 |
| Academic Preparedness |
8.0 |
| Accommodation |
8.4 |
The factors given high importance ranking (i.e. personal, family, health,
and employment) would seem to be areas where a number of support services
could potentially be of assistance. Reported usage of services by these
withdrawn students are shown in Table 7.
| Support Service |
Withdrawn Students |
Enrolled Students |
|
% |
% | |
| Counselling |
31 |
17 |
| Study Skills |
28 |
25 |
| Careers |
28 |
28 |
| Accommodation |
24 |
25 |
| Disability Services |
4 |
1 |
| International Student Support |
3 |
3 |
| Student Equity |
3 |
3 |
| HECS Office |
20 |
- |
| Union Welfare/Education |
14 |
5 |
| Loans |
10 |
4 |
| Fitness Centre |
14 |
30 |
| Sporting Facilities |
17 |
42 |
| Medical Service |
25 |
40 |
| Union Shop |
38 |
76 |
| Bookshop |
72 |
95 |
| Transportation |
31 |
22 |
| Student Employment |
10 |
22 |
Due to the large difference in numbers it is difficult to draw meaningful
conclusions from this data. Nonetheless, there is nothing to suggest that
those who withdrew from study failed to use support services whilst at university.
The issue of how relevant or effective those services were is discussed
in the next section.
A general consensus that support services were adequate in themselves, with
some concern over the low staff levels, was reached. Withdrawn students
frequently commented that they should have utilised the services more. In
circumstances where a student failed to attend compulsory classes, a number
of students suggested that academic or support staff should have made contact.
Whether this is feasible or effective is open to question. A number of other
students took the view that it really should be the student's responsibility.
Comments that on-campus accommodation should be made less expensive were
common.
To assist a student who is trying to balance employment and study, many
students felt that some means of offering core subjects in the evening,
in alternate years, should be introduced.
An interesting observation from the focus groups was that 50 percent of
these 3rd and 4th year students claimed not to have considered withdrawal
at any stage of their degree. Those who agreed that at some point the notion
of withdrawal was considered, expressed views which were consistent with
the information obtained from the questionnaires. Not having sufficient
funds, unforeseen personal issues and dissatisfaction with courses were
repeatedly mentioned as potential withdrawal triggers. A mid point in the
second year of study appears to be a high risk time for withdrawals, or
at least some consideration of that course of action.
Participants felt that during first year a lack of understanding with regard
to certain procedures might lead to unnecessary withdrawal. An example of
this would be a student who had some personal upheaval (e.g. the death of
a family member living some distance from the university) which coincided
with a crucial test or assessment. Unless the student had knowledge of assessment
deferral and how to arrange that, it was felt that an assumption of withdrawal
as a necessity or the only option, might eventuate.
In response to a probe concerning the apparent high risk time during second
year, participants suggested the following. First year was seen as exciting
and challenging, and unless other extraneous factors intervened, withdrawal
was perceived as unlikely. Second year, however, was perceived as the time
that students engaged in some questioning of the degree they had chosen.
For various reasons some evaluated their choice positively and continued,
while others decided to withdraw. Interestingly, students felt that withdrawal
would be unlikely during the third year as a judgement about the amount
of effort and money already expended would be made.
Students felt that a lack of teaching facilities would be another key factor
which might influence withdrawal. During further discussion of this point,
participants said they would look for another institution with adequate
facilities. Relevant factors would include adequate library and computing
facilities, existence of suitable staff supervisors for the final year,
and sufficient subject choices for their area of speciality. Participants
felt that second year was the time when a student would take this point
seriously if current facilities were inadequate.
All focus group participants had used some of the support services at some stage during their enrolment. Thirty percent of the participants held strong views about the role support services had, or could, play in preventing attrition. These views encompassed statements such as the following.
I wouldn't be here if it weren't for their help.
Without the information and reassurance they gave me, I don't know how I would have lasted.
The skills they taught enabled me to get far more out of my degree than I would have otherwise.
My eyes were opened to the many options my degree would provide, and this helped me through a period of doubt.
The practical help when my family was not around kept me going many times.
Another group of participants (40%) took what could be described as a value added perspective to the provision of support services. These participants felt
very positive toward support services but did not perceive them to have
direct impact on attrition, when compared to the former group. Family and
friends were perceived as more directly influential on the continuation
of enrolment when a problem arose. Support services were perceived as important,
but only one amongst a range of information and support sources available.
Of the remaining participants the majority were favourably disposed to the
support services. Two participants suggested they would have preferred the
money spent on computing facilities. Other comments included an appreciation
that the university cared sufficiently to provide support services and that
publicity of service availability could be improved.
A general consensus existed that support services were necessary and played an important role in both reducing attrition rates as well as enhancing the experiences of many students. When asked about that services were not available but should exist, students mentioned a range of commercial services. These included chemists, hairdressers, food stores, newsagents and second-hand clothing stores.
Factors Placing Continued Enrolment at Risk
This project set out to examine the link between student support services
and academic outcomes, and to define additional service needs. By examining
student experiences and decision making with regard to withdrawal and continued
study, information has been obtained about the role of support services.
For enrolled students, savings, parental income and AUSTUDY were given as
the major sources of financial support. Casual employment was shown to be
significantly more important for those who had considered withdrawal, compared
to those who had not considered such an option. Students who had actually
withdrawn from study, ranked employment as the fourth most important factor
to influence withdrawal. Losing a job or having insufficient funds from
part-time work, were suggested as the key elements in the employment area.
Unless sufficient savings or other private income existed, these students
relied heavily on part-time or casual employment. It would be useful for
prospective students to have a realistic idea of costs associated with study.
Education during the final years of secondary school and first year at university
would seem to be the logical target groups. Support services such as student
employment, student loans, student equity, accommodation and union welfare
should take on this responsibility.
The existence of a loans service, although important, can only assist so
far, which makes the employment service vital. Universities at an institutional
level need to fully support employment services and examine ways in which
part-time work within the institution could be made available for students.
Further, lecture timetables need to take account of student's needs for
employment.
It is recommended:
Career and financial reasons dominated the motivations of enrolled students,
although important differences emerged when students who had considered
withdrawal were compared with those students who had not considered withdrawal.
Those who had considered withdrawal gave significantly greater importance
to pleasing others and being with friends as reasons for enrolment. Those
who had not considered withdrawal gave greater importance to intellectual
stimulation and interest. It is hardly surprising that withdrawal is considered
when the motivation for study is external.
When this information is considered along with the finding that second year
appears to be a critical time for many students, as far as remaining in
the system is concerned, two possibilities emerge. Firstly, that second
year is a time when many student engage in a questioning process. Choice
of degree and future options are examined in some depth. Certainly the information
acquired in the focus groups would indicate that this is a real phenomenon
for many students. The second possibility is that for those whose motivations
are externally bound (i.e. pleasing others etc.), or perhaps also for students
who are unclear about their goals and motivations, it is simply the passage
of time which brings their continued enrolment to a crisis point in second
year. Students in this study did comment that first year was often perceived
as exciting, with undoubted engagement in many social activities. With the
passage of time, excitement wears off and the student engages in a serious
consideration of his/her position.
Focus group participants also commented that the most likely trigger for
withdrawal in first year would be some unforeseen personal event. In a sense
this suggests that the availability of counselling is crucial and particularly
so for first year students. While unforeseen personal events cannot be controlled
or planned for, knowledge that help is available may in fact prevent a hasty
decision to withdraw. This is related to the comment that a lack of knowledge
concerning ways in which assessments can be deferred, might also trigger
unnecessary withdrawal. Publicity about the availability of services and
procedures is therefore vital.
The questioning which can occur in the second year of enrolment is something
that can be controlled to some extent. Proactive career decision making
advice from careers services and help with general goal setting and decision
making from counselling services and study skills advisers should be undertaken.
Clearly students again need to be educated about tertiary study at secondary
school. This emphasises the importance of the university's participation
in school information programs, as well as ongoing liaison with school guidance
officers and services such as careers, personal counselling and study skills
advice.
It is recommended:
Enrolled students reported employment, personal issues, finances, and issues associated with actual courses as important factors which might lead to withdrawal. For those students who had withdrawn, similar issues were also ranked as important. These included:
We thus have a situation where finances are problematic and any small change
in circumstances can trigger a crisis. Further, there is a sense that balancing
employment, family roles and study is a precarious process. These factors
appear to fit the Personal Student Characteristics box in Tinto's (1975)
model (refer page 7 of this report). An important means of assisting students
clearly lies in the education and crisis activities of various support services.
Students report seeking advice from family, friends and support service
staff. This is balanced with due consideration given to career outcomes
potentially foregone and the effort already expended toward the degree.
In retrospect, withdrawn students suggest that a higher usage of support
services may have helped maintain their enrolment, with perhaps some unrealistic
assessment of their own responsibility in that regard.
The risk factors and actions taken by students did not differ significantly
across gender, year level, number of years since school or TE/OP entry levels.
It seems that these risk factors are a reality of student life across a
range of backgrounds. Logically there will be students who are at greater
financial risk than others which accentuates the already stated recommendations
concerning employment and timetabling of lectures.
It is recommended:
Abbott-Chapman, J., Hughes, P. & Wyld, C. 1992, Monitoring Student Progress: A Framework for Improving Student Performance
and Reducing Attrition in Higher Education, Hobart: National Clearinghouse for Youth Studies.
Astin, A. 1975, Preventing Students From Dropping Out, London: Jossey-Bass.
Castle, E. 1993, Minority student attrition research: higher education's
challenge for human resource development, Educational Researcher, 22 (7), pp. 24-30.
Cleveland-Innes, M. 1994, Adult student drop-out at post-secondary institutions. The Review of Higher Education, 17 (4), pp. 423-445.
Gallagher, M. 1992, Student services: the view from DEET, Journal of the Australian and New Zealand Student Services Association, 4, pp. 9-23.
Gerdes, H. & Mallinckrodt, B. 1994, Emotional, social, and academic adjustment
of college students: A longitudinal study of retention, Journal of Counselling and Development, 72, pp. 281-288.
Johnson, G. 1994, Undergraduate student attrition: A comparison of the characteristics
of students who withdraw and students who persist, The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 11 (3), pp. 337-353.
Koder, L. 1991, The role and contribution of student services in the changing
world of higher education, Journal of the Australian and New Zealand Student Services Association, 39, pp. 17-21.
Price, D., Harte, J. & Cole, M. 1992, Student Progression in Higher Education: a Study of Attrition at Northern
Territory University, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Student Services Australia 1993, Student Support Services: Management, Delivery and Effectiveness, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
West, L., Hore, T., Bennie, C., Browne, P. & Kermond, B. 1987, Students Withdrawing From Full-time Higher Education, Melbourne: Higher Education Advisory and Research Unit, Monash University.