The differences between school leavers and others appear 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. They perceived the learning climate among their peers as less positive.

A higher proportion of school leavers were dissatisfied with university, hoped to change course, and received lower grades than expected. 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.

The uncertain school leaver

A sizable and disturbing proportion of school leavers (38per cent) seriously considered deferring their course at some point in the transition process. These students were those 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. The most obvious and perhaps 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 and were less clear about the reason they came to university.

Only 20 per cent of unsettled school leavers found their subjects interesting and only 29 per cent had a clear idea of 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 in which they were enrolled.

Students were rather negative, in both absolute and relative terms, in their perceptions of teaching staff and the quality of teaching, though the uncertain students were the most seriously disaffected. ‘Uncertain’ students were far less likely to consider the quality of teaching good (49 per cent compared to 67 per cent) and more were seriously disaffected with their university experience (29 per cent compared to 66 per cent) than those who were comfortable with the choices they had made. It is important to bear in mind that these were the disappointed students who had actually persisted through to the end of the first semester – the study did not include students who had discontinued.

‘Dissatisfied’ and ‘satisfied’ school leavers compared

Students were defined as dissatisfied if they responded negatively to either or both the statements: ‘Overall, I am very satisfied with my university experience so far’, and ‘Overall, I am really enjoying my course’.

The distraction of difficult 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 agreed that money worries made it difficult to study (40 per cent compared to 27 per cent).

Not surprisingly, there was some difference in satisfaction according to whether students had gained entry into their preferred course, reflecting the influence of Tertiary Entrance Rank (TER) scores. Two-thirds of the sample were in the course of their first preference. Of these students, 66 per cent of the satisfied group were in the first-preference course, compared with 55 per cent of the dissatisfied students. Likewise, a considerably higher proportion of dissatisfied students hoped to change course.

Fewer dissatisfied students considered studying in a field of interest as a very important reason for going to university. 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.

A much lower proportion of the dissatisfied students knew the type of occupation they wanted, 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, compared with 77 per cent of the satisfied group. Looking back on their first semester, 57 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.

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 compared to 35 per cent).

Differences 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 significance for students, a substantial proportion of satisfied students (38 per cent), and a clear majority of the dissatisfied students (58 per cent), reported lower marks than they expected. Worth noting, however, is that 12 per cent of the dissatisfied students were getting higher marks than they expected. For these students, getting better results than anticipated did not necessarily guarantee satisfaction.

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

Managing the workload is a key contributor to a satisfactory transition, and not coping with the workload can influence decisions to leave university. The responses 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 despite there being no apparent differences between the two groups in their actual contact hours.

Dissatisfied students’ perceptions of the quality of teaching were revealing. 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.

Feedback on progress was of crucial importance for all first-year students. School leavers in particular had typically experienced the close monitoring of their performance by teachers, parents, and peers 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 compared to 37 per cent) stood out on this item.

‘It felt worse at the time’: from first year to second year

On the basis of the indicator of student satisfaction used for study, 14 per cent of school leavers reported that in their second year they were more satisfied with their university than in the first year, an improvement in the overall level of student satisfaction over the previous year. The new attitudes and judgements of students who become satisfied in second year after expressing reservations the year before are especially noteworthy for the insights they might reveal into possible steps to ameliorate transfer difficulties.

The students who became satisfied expressed growing goal clarity in second year. They also reported:

· increased enjoyment at being a university student;

· more relish for intellectual challenge;

· more stimulation from their course; and

· greater agreement that they had been ‘encouraged to become an independent learner’ than they had the year earlier.

The upswing in attitude in the second year is also clearly associated with changing perceptions of the teaching and learning environment. Students who became satisfied were more likely than the others to have developed a clearer sense of the objectives of their course during second year. They were also:

· finding the staff more approachable than they had the year before;

· increasingly agreeing that the staff tried hard to make the subjects interesting;

· in more agreement in second year than the year earlier that the teaching was generally good.

Factors and Problems
in School to University Transition

Merran Evans and Mark Peel

Evidence from the literature indicates that the transition experience can vary according to the nature of the institution, the discipline area and the characteristics of the students. Monash University, with its six Australian campuses and several overseas teaching locations, its ten faculties, its international focus and its different traditions and cultures arising from its pre-amalgamation components, is a large and diverse institution. It may be viewed as a microcosm of the Australian higher education sector and an appropriate "laboratory" for analysing the key factors involved in the transition experience and hence has been our primary research focus.

Qualitative analysis

This analysis was based primarily on focus groups, undertaken by Peel in 1997 involving students from different faculties within Monash and other institutions, selected to contain representative samples of student characteristics. These aimed to assess the extent to which expectations of tertiary study and student life matched experiences, and also explored institutional factors which encourage a successful transition.

A second source of data was a related longitudinal study by Peel of one transition cohort which involved a combination of questionnaires, focus groups and videotaped interviews from 26 schools in metropolitan and rural Victoria. In 1996, 920 Year Twelve students responded to questionnaires and 587 participated in focus groups and Peel tracked the members of these groups to their tertiary destinations in 1997. This was particularly useful in identifying more precisely how the stages and key events of transition varied according to students’ personal characteristics, background and expectations.

Analysis of the qualitative information derived suggests important conclusions about transition experiences and the nature of the university teaching and learning environment. The differences between students generally enjoying university learning and study, and experiencing success, and those expressing (or observing among their peers) dissatisfaction, failure or disenchantment, can be largely explained in terms of four sets of factors. While students recognised and described a widely varying level of student commitment to successful transition and also showed the highly specific experiences of transition predicted in the literature, these factors do have particular implications for university teaching and administration, and help identify potential general strategies. The four factors and their specific features are:

· the perceived quality of teaching, commitment to teaching in different subjects, courses, faculties and universities, and extent of teachers’ enthusiasm and interest, including actively welcoming of first-year students;

· the presence or absence of clear and effective information about subject and course objectives and assessment methods;

· whether or not first-year students took advantage of, or had access to, a range of transition, orientation or introduction activities and student services after initial orientation; and

· the extent to which first-year students were able to achieve a successful ‘social transition’, usually described in focus groups and questionnaires as more important, especially in the first few weeks, than ‘academic transition’.

The analysis suggests a number of possible institutional strategies for handling transition, which are outlined in our conclusions. Four significant findings and implications for institutions stand out:

· the first year of university study may need to be reconceived, in response to students’ concerns about adjusting to a more independent style of learning and to different assessment practices and expectations;

· the repeated emphasis on face-to-face teaching, on access to academic staff, and on meeting senior university students before and during the early stages of transition were all unexpectedly strong;

· the consistent stress on ‘social transition’, on feeling ‘welcomed’ and on the ability to make friends and feel ‘at home’ on often dauntingly large and diverse campuses; and

· the identification of students experiencing transition problems needs to pay close attention to both academic and social factors, and to the likelihood that problems are significantly exacerbated by: expectations and self-perceptions that students should be ‘self-reliant’; failure or inability to engage with and become part of student-student conversation and interaction; and feelings of isolation and insignificance.

Quantitative analysis

This analysis was based on Monash University data files for students enrolled in all first-year compulsory subjects in the Faculty of Business & Economics at three campuses in 1996 and 1997. The pooled data involved nearly 5000 observations for each year. Data were extracted for students’ marks in first year university subjects, secondary school results and personal characteristics such as secondary school type linguistic/cultural background, gender; socioeconomic status, distance from campus and age.

Regression analyses were undertaken of students’ marks in all first year subjects as a function of their secondary school TER, scores in pre-requisite and relevant final year school subjects and a range of personal characteristics. The relevance of various factors in explaining first year university marks sometimes appears to differ according to discipline area and campus, but some factors clearly emerge as significant overall in explaining the variation in first year overall academic performance in the population studied. These include:

· Prior overall academic achievement, as measured by the TER obtained by students’ in their last year of secondary school, which is consistently strongly and positively related to their first year subject marks;

· Prior academic achievement in specific secondary school subjects;

· Linguistic background. English language spoken at home appears to be a significant positive factor in academic performance;

· Gender, with female students generally outperforming males;

· Secondary school type appeared relevant, with slightly lower first year marks achieved overall for a given TER for students from catholic and particularly from independent schools. (See also Evans and Farley 1998)

A questionnaire was issued to all 1997 first year students at Monash in undergraduate courses in four faculties - Arts, Science, Engineering and Business and Economics - at five campuses, with over 2000 responses received. The questionnaire explored students’ expectations and dispositions on entry, including those relating to student, social and institutional characteristics identified in overseas research studies on transition. For the cohort of students in Business and Economics who completed the enrolment questionnaires, further regression models also included attitudinal factors. In predicting overall academic performance several factors, such as an understanding of "learning", appear to differ across campuses. However, two factors appear significant overall: motivated and ‘academically and socially integrated` students generally achieve higher marks, all other things being equal.

The quantitative results clearly demonstrate that the more academically successful students are those who know the type of occupation they want, are motivated to study, study more than the required minimum, consider good grades important, comprehend the required reading material, and feel comfortable participating in group discussions and mix with students from various backgrounds.

Conclusions

This research confirms that there are common transition issues which are likely to arise in all institutions and for all groups within each transition cohort. But the data suggest that there are also issues, which are specific to particular institutional environments and to particular groups within each cohort, whether identified by social factors, educational background, or motivations and perceptions upon commencement. As a large and diverse institution, Monash shows particularly clearly both common issues and important differences. Indeed, the Monash campuses offer something of a microcosm of the Australian university system, and it is likely that the highly variegated pattern revealed here will be repeated throughout the system as a whole.

The data suggests that students’ educational background, varying approaches to learning, balance of vocational and ‘general educational’ objectives, and expectations of the purposes of tertiary study, lead them into particular institutions and courses and have a major impact on the likelihood of successful transition. Within each transition cohort, then, common problems will be shaped and magnified by specific combinations of expectations and early experiences, and by specific teaching and learning environments. The anticipation, measurement and management of those problems must therefore combine general strategies to alleviate factors which lead to unsuccessful transition with more fine-grained, student-focused and institution-sensitive practices.

Performance Indicators in the Measurement of Institutional Success
in Transition

Ian Dobson

First year is a stumbling block for many students, and in particular to students with no prior experience of higher education. Although the passage to second year is most usually seen in terms of students’ success, it simultaneously provides a measure of institutional success. From a university’s perspective, it is a reflection of its capacity to select students with the ability to succeed, and/or to ‘value-add’ to the students selected, as they move from secondary to tertiary education. One of the ways universities could enhance students’ opportunity to succeed beyond first year is to ensure that first year is adequately resourced.

Universities derive government funding for teaching local students by meeting agreed student load targets. This income stream is loosely based on a funding formula which takes into account the relative costs of teaching different course levels and subject disciplines. Anecdotally it is acknowledged that in a strict ‘formula’ sense, income ‘earned’ by universities to teach large classes of first-year students is used to cross-subsidise students in smaller classes in later years.

School leavers are the largest cohort of students entering bachelor courses, and several variables have been shown to be strong predictors of student success. These include Tertiary Entry Rank, gender, enrolment type (full-time, part-time or external), and the discipline being studied (eg. Dobson & Sharma 1993; Dobson, Sharma & Haydon 1996). In terms of aiding school leavers in their transition from school, universities should really establish how much of their resources should be committed to teaching the various groups of commencing undergraduates.

Characteristics of the student body

In 1995, 448,630 students were enrolled in bachelor courses in Australia which included 147,920 non-overseas commencing bachelor students. Of these, 79,764, or 54 per cent, were admitted as school leavers. (This average belies the wide variation between universities. For instance, Melbourne (74 per cent) and Deakin (72 per cent) had the largest proportions of school leavers in their commencing bachelor cohort, and at the other extreme Charles Sturt drew only 26 per cent of its intake from this source). At least another 22 per cent of entrants had prior higher education experience. Controlling for university-experienced students means that school leavers represented 69 per cent of ‘new to higher education’ commencers. But it is also true that if one were to look more closely at those with higher education experience, it would be found that the majority had been school leavers when they first entered universities. This merely confirms the importance of the school leaver cohort as the principal student intake source.

Other key characteristics of the bachelor student population naturally include gender, enrolment type and field of study:

· Women have been in the majority since the mid-1980s, and in 1995 comprised nearly 57 per cent of all bachelor commencers;

· About 74 per cent of all commencing bachelor students were enrolled full time, with 15 per cent part-time and 10 per cent external enrolments. Among school leaver commencers, the proportions enrolled were 92 per cent, 6 per cent, and 2 per cent, respectively. External and part-time enrolment were more commonly the choice of students with prior experience of higher education;

· Over 26 per cent of bachelor degree commencing students were enrolled in ‘technical’ courses (Agriculture, Architecture, Engineering, and Science).

Performance of commencing students

One of the measures available to universities to assess students’ success is the Student Progress Unit (SPU). SPU are generated when subjects are successfully completed by students: that is, one SPU is produced by the successful completion of subjects weighted at one Equivalent Full Time Student Unit (EFTSU). This measure provides a useful indicator as to which students do better than others.

Previous studies (eg. Dobson & Sharma 1993; Dobson, Sharma & Haydon 1996) have also shown that women outperform men, and that full-time students do better than either part-time or external students. There are also performance differences by discipline. In Table 2, it can be seen that the lowest performing students, for both school leavers and other commencing students, were in Mathematics/Computing and Engineering, although not far behind were those in Business/Administration/Economics.

Table 2: Performance of Commencing Bachelor Students - 1995 SPU rates