1 / 9

Enhancing Social Integration in Year 1 University Students: A Case Study at Ulster University

This case study investigates the transition from secondary to higher education for full-time Year 1 students at Ulster University, revealing a lack of social integration as a significant issue. Funded by CHEP, the project explored the impact of social and team-building activities on student retention. Surveys indicated positive feedback regarding meetings with study advisors and the effectiveness of social events. Overall findings suggest improved progression statistics, highlighting the need for further analysis of social interaction efforts and their effects on student success.

magar
Télécharger la présentation

Enhancing Social Integration in Year 1 University Students: A Case Study at Ulster University

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. Socialisation to Address Retention Heather Sayers MairinNicell University of Ulster

  2. Background • Approximately 150 full-time year 1 students enrolled on a number of courses • Study conducted in 2009-10: Investigating transition from secondary to higher education • Findings included: lack of social integration • CHEP-funded project to investigate the effect of incorporating social and team-building activities into year 1

  3. Activities • Semester 1: • Studies Advice • “Meet your Studies Advisor” • Sports Centre: team-building activities • Semester 2: • Night out with David Meade in the Students’ Union

  4. Evaluation • Studies Advice • 92% participation • Staff feedback through Course Committees • All staff had met most of their allocated students individually following the initial event (80% of respondents attended) • Student questionnaires: • 76 responses (58%) • 79% - useful for meeting Advisor • 59% - useful for meeting other students

  5. Evaluation • Positive feedback: • “Useful because my advisor gave me advice and checked up on how I was doing” • “Useful to voice opinions and concerns about my course” • “Useful because issues I brought up were resolved” • Negative feedback: • “Waste of time. I had no problems” • “Not useful – told things I already knew” • “Not useful other than for tracking purposes”

  6. Evaluation • Team Building: • 17 of the 76 respondents had attended these events • All who attended had positive responses: • “I believe it helped me to get to know others and become friends” • “I got to know who was in my course and got talking to some of them” • “It was a bit of craic and made me relaxed with people I didn’t know” • Issues: • Timing

  7. General Feedback • Final questions focused on how well students have managed to get to know others, and by what means. • Findings: • Knew others from school • Talking outside class • Sports (2) • Tutorial and group laboratory work (55%)

  8. Suggestions • Nights out • Planned for semester 2 • A week of events prior to classes beginning • More group assignments • More team building in week 1

  9. Conclusions • Better progression statistics for semester 1 than for the previous year • Many other factors could affect this • Further investigation required to compare cohorts from 2009-10 and 2010-11 • How to measure the effect of actions taken

More Related