1 / 14

9-10 September 2008 Stellenbosch Eli Bitzer Centre for Higher and Adult Education

Academic and social integration in three first-year groups: A holistic perspective First-Year Experience Conference. 9-10 September 2008 Stellenbosch Eli Bitzer Centre for Higher and Adult Education Stellenbosch University, South Africa. Introduction.

arwen
Télécharger la présentation

9-10 September 2008 Stellenbosch Eli Bitzer Centre for Higher and Adult Education

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Academic and social integration in three first-year groups: A holistic perspective First-Year Experience Conference 9-10 September 2008 Stellenbosch Eli Bitzer Centre for Higher and Adult Education Stellenbosch University, South Africa

  2. Introduction • 40% of university first-years in SA drop out (HSRC 2007). • Some background on Louw’s study at four colleges of Agriculture (2005). • Integration apparently has a major influence on student commitment and study success (Bean 1990; Tinto 1993; Strauss & Volkwein 2004). • Kember’s (1995) notion of a ‘holistic’ view. • Purpose of the study. • First-year integration seemingly has a positive effect on later years of study (Downing 2005; Feldman et al. 2004; Krause et al. 2005). • Background on the ABQ and APQ.

  3. Theoretical considerations • Louw’s (2005) findings on academic indicators for student departure • Unclear study goals • Unrealistic expectations • Gaps in foundational knowledge • Non-ability to adjust • Wrong programme choices • Language difficulties • Complexity levels • Access to students not meeting admission standards. • Social indicators • Inadequate financial provision • Inadequate information • ‘Unhealthy’ social activities. • Ineffective and inefficient time management.

  4. Louw’s (2005) framework for first-year support

  5. Adapted model for 1st year integration

  6. Participants and research questions • Three first-year groups (n=579) - Educational Psychology 124 (low risk, n=163) - Financial Accounting 178 (medium risk, n=304 ) - Chemistry 114 (high risk, n=112) • Main question: Are the integration dimensions as identified by Louw’s study valid for the SU context? • Secondary questions (1) Are there differences in student perceptions of integration factors among the three student groups? (2) Are there links between integration factors and early/mid- year student performance levels (marks)? (3) Are there links between mid-participation perceived integration factors and pre-participation factors as measured by the ABQ?

  7. Instrumentation • A survey instrument (the FYES) to generate students’ perceptions on 20 statements concerning integration was implemented by the end of the fist quarter (slide 5). • Likert-type ordinal scale (1 – Disagree completely to 4 - Agree completely) • Piloted for validity. • Analysis: Three factor ANOVA and the Bonferroni correction was applied for the three groups. Reliability of questionnaire items tested by calculating Chronbach’s Alpha. • To test for relationships between student agreement/non-agreement on statements and their end of semester marks, a forward stepwise regression analysis was used and Spearman’s rank correlation was calculated.

  8. Findings: Applicability of the model • The item reliability test did not support the claim that items contribute meaningfully to the dimensions of the suggested SU integration model. • Individual items were therefore considered for possible trends. • Contexts clearly differ and other reasons might also prevail (e.g. methodology and timing).

  9. Findings: Differences among the three groups • Most prominent differences (p<0.01) found on four academic factors between the low risk (Ed Psych) and medium risk (Fin Acc) groups: - Experienced workload (Q3) (E P > F A) - Sufficient study skills (Q5) (EP < FA) - Lack of motivation (Q7) (EP > FA) - Expectations of programme (Q19) (EP < FA)

  10. Findings: Relationship between integration factors and marks • Three academic factors related strongly (p<0.01) for all three groups (n=164) • - Having academic backlogs (Q2) - Lack of motivation (Q7) - Fair assessment (Q20)

  11. Findings: Relation to marks

  12. Findings: Correspondence between the FYES and the ABQ (n=137)

  13. Discussion and implications • It seems clear that Louw’s holistic integration framework does not directly apply to the SU context. However, some elements do apply. Reasons for difference might include context, method and timing. • Student motivation seems to be strongly related to both first-year integration and actual academic performance. • Perceived academic backlogs and fair assessment (academic factors) as well as students’ financial position, family support and accommodation (social factors) seem to play an important role in integration and performance.

  14. Discussion and implications Implications of findings for • academic staff (determining backlogs; programme information; assessment) • Students (programme requirements; expectations) • support services (backlogs; interventions). Conclusion • At least nine perceived academic and social factors in this study have proven to influence first-year integration. The relationships among these factors remain complex and student motivation remains a prominent and important integration factor. More institution-wide research is needed to develop the model further.

More Related