Compulsory Class Attendance

1. Compulsory Class Attendance Marena Lotriet 22 July 2009 Faculty of Humanities: HOD Meeting

2. Concern “If only they attended classes!!!” • Discussion on low pass rates, 8 June - HODs and relevant lecturers • Numerous informally raised concerns UP-wide • Also internationally (Wimshurst, et. al. 2006:141)

3. Request • Dean requested short presentation on the topic at this meeting • Informed decisions and plan of action

4. Problem • Not a policy issue: UP policy exists (Senate decision, 18 April 2007 - S6554/07) • Spelt out in faculty year book (point 2.2) BUT • No sanction specified for those who do not attend • No effective and fair system to monitor class attendance

5. Practical ConsiderationsWhat physical monitoring system to put in place? • Class lists • cheapest, but least effective • signatures can be faked • administrative nightmare – especially in large classes

6. Practical Considerations (Cont.) • Classtests • educationally sound • enforces preparation • Logistical nightmare in large classes

7. Practical Considerations (Cont.) • Student card system • less open to fraud • can be linked to class lists • expensive • longer term

8. Practical Considerations (Cont.) • Fingerprint recognition • probably most reliable • can be linked to class lists (hopefully centrally) • expensive • longer term • will have to put in a request to IT

9. Important Decisions • When to monitor? • Every contact session? • Probably the fairest • What constitutes “acceptable class attendance”? • 50%? • 80%? • More? • Does this include practical sessions? • Separate system for practical sessions?

10. Important Decisions (Cont.) • What happens when a student does not attend enough classes? • Exam refusal? • In combination with semester mark? E.g. 30% attendance, but semester mark of 70% (OBE) • Marks deducted after x absences (x% per lecture)?(Rodgers,2002) • 100% attendance = 5% extra to semester mark

11. Important Decisions (Cont.) • Are there cases of merit (death/illness)? • Who handles those cases? • What are acceptable documentation?

12. And in the Meantime? • Incentives for class participation • Unannounced quizzes that contribute to final grade

13. Implications • To understand the huge implications for: • UP; • the faculty and • individual lecturers… ...we need to look at research done in this regard.

14. Relationship: Class Attendance and Academic Performance • “Absenteeism adversely affects” performance (Rodgers, 2002 – own findings and also referring to American studies) • Independant of incentive/sanction schemes • Attendance per se does not ensure that learning takes place (presence ≠ engagement) • Still unclear why students skip classes “and how they utilise the time so gained” (Rodgers, 2002)

15. Relationship: Class Attendance and Performance (cont.) • Nonlinear: • missing a few classes - really a problem • missing more than four - significant lower performance (Durden & Ellis, 1995)

16. Reasons for Absenteeism • Absenteeism internationally widespread and substantial • Lecturers often feel that students are the reason: that they are not responsible • Many reasons specified in literature:…

17. Reasons for Absenteeism (Cont.) • Higher in: • large classes • classes with non-mathematical content • core subjects (compulsory) • experienced academic staff (as opposed to ‘casual lecturers’) (Romer, 1993)

18. Reasons for Absenteeism (Cont.) • Attendance positively related to: • ability and motivation of student • students financing own studies through work • classes taught by lecturers who won teaching awards • classes taught by interactive teaching style • classes scheduled between 10:00 and 15:00 (Devadoss & Foltz, 1996)

19. Reasons for Absenteeism (Cont.) • UP-case • Assessment (memorisation required) • Studying for semester tests more important (curriculum and workload issue) • Practical sessions extending into lecture time • Teaching methods and difference in learning styles (Pickworth, 2005 - UP)

20. Reasons for Absenteeism (Cont.) • UP-case (cont.) • Lecturers not turning up/not prepared for lectures • Communication gap between staff and students • Lectures too early (e.g. transport problems) • Can get information from friends, or read textbook (no real value-add beyond transfer of knowledge) (Pickworth, 2005 - UP)

21. “Case Against Compulsory Class Attendance” • Differing views • Research has not consistently revealed a positive relationship between attendance and performance • Conclusions from different research cases: • Some students can learn independently • No one intervention will work for all • Explanation of correlation enough – no policy needed • Numerous variables influencing achievement • Poor performance: cause or effect? • Research does not provide enough justification to make attendance compulsory • Course grades should reflect competence in course content – not personality traits (St Clair, 1999)

22. “Case Against Compulsory Class Attendance” (Cont.) • Pintrich’s model or motivation in the college classroom: Academic motivation in the classroom = interaction among: • Classroom context • Student’s emotions and motivational beliefs: • Belief about one’s ability to perform a task • Value or importance • Affect/feelings about self or behaviour • guilt, shame, or anxiety ---- frustration, anger • Student’s observable behaviours (choices to do or not to do) • (St Clair, 1999)

23. Implications • Huge responsibility on UP i.t.o.: • Physical environment(media, enough space, etc.) • Time table clashes • Smaller class sizes • Synchronising periods of high assessment activities • Optimised acad. environment (quality teaching, learning and assessment, curriculum and programme design – including the way that clickUP is used) • Clear value add during contact sessions(beyond transfer) • Truthfulness to the reasons we want them to attendclass(e.g. belief that it will improve thinking skills/academic competencies - lectures should cater for these) • Legal implications • Enrolment implications

24. Implications • Clear Faculty decisions • Consequent application throughout • Clear communication to students • Research implied

25. Class attendance is a complex and multidimentional phenomenon and cannot be simplified to one element only. (EI after Bosman, 2006)

26. References Department for Education Innovation. 2007. Discussion document: class attendance. S6551/07. University of Pretoria. Devadoss, S. & Foltz, J. 1996. Evaluation of factors influencing student class attendance and performance. American Journal of Agriultural Economics, vol. 78:499-507. Durden, G.C. and Ellis, L.V. 1995. The effects of attendance on student learning in principles of economics. American Economic Review, vol. 85: 343-346. Pickworth, G.E. et.al. 2005. The Dilemma of Student attendance of Learning Opportunities. SADJ, 20(2), March 2005:101. Rodgers, J.R., 2002. Encouraging tutorial attendance at university did not improve performance. Australian Economic Papers. September 2002. Blackwell Publishing Ltd/University of Adelaide and Flinders University of South Australia. Romer, D. 1993. Do Students Go to Class? Should They?. Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 7: 167-174. St. Clair, K.L. 1999. A case against compulsory class attendance policies in higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 23(3), Spring 1999: 171-180. Wimshurst, K. et. al. 2006. The impact of institutional factors on student academic results: implications for ‘quality’ in universities. HERDSA, 25(2): 131-145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360600610370, accessed on 15 July 2009.