Presenters:Julie Prior – University of Glamorgan
Karen Fitzgibbon – University of Glamorgan
Conference Theme:Students of the Future
The Changing Nature of Students’ Social Engagement with University
Context
Student retention literature emphasises the important part that social integration plays in persistence. Whilst Tinto’s (1987, 1993) seminal work in this area has been challenged and revised over time, the importance of academic and social integration continues to be acknowledged in student retention literature. Crosling et al (2008 173) found that ‘Socially and academically engaged students are more likely to remain in higher education and to be successful.’ In their study, Rhodes and Nevill(2004) found that friendliness of other students was a significant factor in satisfaction with university study. Robinson et al(2007 9) identified a major factor of student support as ‘friends on the course’ and that friendship support was rated above support received from family. The National Audit Office (2007 46) report into student retention commented that whilst students withdraw for a range of reasons, one of those is the ‘difficulty in fitting in socially’. In a study considering the influence of personal networks and social support on attainment, Eggens, Werf and Baker (2007) applied multinomial logistic regression analysis to identify a range of factors affecting attainment. They found that‘The extent to which students succeed in integrating…and also the amount of social support received…possibly determines part of their academic success or failure.’ (Eggens et al 2007 553)
As a result of several student experience projects at the case study university, it became apparent that many students continue to attach significant importance to the social side of their university experience. One project that provided data on students’ views was ‘Early Days’. This was an online learner support tool designed to encourage students to self assess their orientation and transition into university. Whilst it was interesting to note that students continued to attach importance to their social experience, more intriguing was that the results of Early Days highlighted that students werenotattaining this social experience through traditionally expected ways.
Methods
The Early Days learner support tool comprised a range of carefully designed questions, which were informed by YorkeandLongden’s(2007) study. The questions were grouped into the following sets: student profile, approach to studying in higher education, living and socialising, awareness of campus facilities and early university experience. Each question had a variety of responses and the option selected determined which relevant automated feedback students received. Careful attention was paid to ensure that the automated feedback was informative, personally relevant and non-judgemental.
Early Days was designed using QuestionMarkPerception (QMP), an online survey tool which allows questions to be constructed in ‘blocks’. By carefully constructing the question sets, it was possible to include questions that forced a jump to the next bock, dependent on students’ answers. Therefore, if a student responded that they did not work during term time, they would not be presented with the remaining employment related questions. In addition, students could also chose not to answer questions, so the number of respondents to each question varies and this is indicated by the ‘number of responses’ in Tables 3 - 6.
Early Days was primarily aimed as first year students, but would be useful for direct-entry students and those participating in an Erasmus or international exchangeprogrammes. It was released in week six of the first term and in 2007-08 and made available via the student portal and the virtual learning environment, BlackBoard; in 2008-09it was emailed directly to first year students.
Findings and Discussion
To give context to the Early Days findings, the profile of the case study university is provided below. The university is a post-92 university in the South Wales Valleys (UK). It has a student population of 21,496 and a long tradition of widening access. A general profile of the student respondents to Early Days (190 in 2007-8 and 150 in 2008-9) is provided in Table 1, alongside the totals for the University population as a whole.
Table 1
Early Days RespondentsAge / University Total / 2007-8 / 2008-9
Under 21 / 33.4% / 38.4% / 43.3%
21-24 / 23.2% / 25.3% / 23.3%
25-29 / 12.7% / 9% / 10.7%
30+ / 30.9% / 24.7% / 18.7%
Not disclosed / 2.6% / 4.0%
Early Days Respondents
Gender / University Total / 2007-8 / 2008-9
Male / 49% / 36.8% / 48%
Female / 51% / 57.9% / 44.7%
Not disclosed / 5.3% / 7.3%
Early Days Respondents
Domicile / University Total / 2007-8 / 2008-9
UK / 84.8% / 85.2% / 73.3%
Other EC countries / 6.9% / 3.2% / 9.3%
Overseas (non-EC) / 8.3% / 7.9% / 14%
Not disclosed / 3.7% / 3.3%
Student participation in Early Days is given in Table 2, with the majority of respondents being the target audience of first year students (78% in 2007-8 and 82% in 2008-9). The high number of partial completions is explained to some extent by the QMP function of jumping blocks of questions which are not relevant, and the following findings include data from partial and full completions.
Table 2
2007-8 / 2008-9Total accessing exercise / 737 / 398
Partial completions / 648 / 324
Total completions / 89 / 74
The responses analysed for this paper were taken from four questions concerning social integration. Supplementary information was also used from students’ comments to three open questions concerning their best and worst experiences, and one significant thing from their early experience that they would change. The first question concerned how students felt they were settling into university and the second, whether they felt part of the university community. The responses to both questions are given in Tables 3 and 4.
Table 3
How do you feel you are settling into university life?Number of responses / 143 / 117
Response selected / 2007-08 / 2008-09
Not at all / 11.2% / 11%
Pretty well – got some friends and settling in / 63.6% / 65.8%
Really well thanks! / 24.5% / 21.4%
Not answered / 0.7% / 1.7%
Table 4
Do you feel part of the university community?Number of responses / 118 / 93
Response selected / 2007-8 / 2008-9
Yes / 60.2% / 53.8%
No / 38% / 43%
Not answered / 1.8% / 3.2%
It was surprising that only 11% of students (in both years of the study) felt they hadnot settled into university life, yet the majority of students felt settled within the first six weeks of term 1. This contrasts with the next question where a much higher proportion of students, who despite being settled, did not feeling part of the university community. The divergence in views may be explained by the high number of students at the case study university who remain at home for the duration of their studies, and are likely to feel more aligned to their already established local communities. Thomas (2002) reports the role of institutional habitus,and the part that social experience plays in students feeling a sense of belonging, noting that students of some institutions show high institutional commitment even before they have actually enrolled.
To understand students views and how they engage socially with the university, students were asked the questions: ‘Are you a member of any clubs, societies or formal social groups on campus?’ and ‘Do you enjoy the social side of higher education?’.
Table 5
Are you a member of any clubs, societies or formal social groups on campus?Number of responses / 118 / 93
Response selected / 2007-8 / 2008-9
Yes / 13.6% / 21.5%
No, but I’d like to find out more / 39% / 43%
No, I’m not interested in joining any / 46.6% / 34.4%
Not answered / 0.9% / 1.9%
It was interesting to find that despite students being settled into university and to some extent feeling part of the community, so few of them (only 13.6% and 21.5%, Table 5)had signed up to traditionally popular organised social activities. Furthermore it wasn’t that students had not had time within the first few weeks of term because 46.6% in 2007-08 and 34.4% in 2008-09 indicated they were not actually interested in joining any clubs or societies. In addition, responses to the question in Table 6 demonstrate that one third of students in 2007-8 and almost a quarter of students in 2008-9 were not actually interested in the social side of higher education.
An indication of changing student attitudes can be seen from a historical study carried out by Roberts and Higgins (1992).This showed that 69% of first year students were a member of a society, and when this was disaggregated by sector the university figure was actually 87% (with 62% for polytechnic and 54% for college students). One possible explanation provided by Roberts and Higgins was the high number of students living on campus and finding their social networks through clubs and societies. When this is contrasted with the Early Days findings, it suggests a distinct change in the social experience of students’. Low participation in organised social activities on campusmay be explained by the high proportion of commuting students who live at home within the local areaand maintain already established social networks. A contributing factor may also be that many of the Early Days respondents indicated that they have to undertake paid employment in order to fund their studies (67% in 2007-08 and 63.4% in 2008-09), which would significantly curtail the time available for them to engage with social activities on campus.
Table 6
Do you enjoy the social side of higher education?Number of responses / 118 / 93
Response selected / 2007-8 / 2008-9
Yes I’m having a great time / 47.5% / 51.6%
No, it’s not something I’m interested in / 33.1% / 24.7%
No, I want to but I’m not sure where to start / 17% / 20.4%
Not answered / 2.5% / 3.2%
The primary purpose of Early Days was not to survey students for institutional information - although this was a useful by-product. Its purpose was to provide students with the opportunity to self assess their own orientation and integration into the university, with information, guidance and support provided via the automated feedback. However, it was important to givestudents the opportunity to put their feelings about their early experience into their own words – a methodology seen as critical to retention success initiatives by Rhodes and Nevill (2004) – and this was facilitated through the open response questions.
When students were asked about the best aspect of their social experience so far, 46% of the comments in 2007-08 and 41% in 2008-09 related to positive a social integration. This was significant because these were open response questions and students were not prompted in any way on how to answer.Examples of students’ comments were:
‘Living the student life out of my parents’ home’
‘Having my own space and meeting a variety of people from different backgrounds’
‘Meeting new friends and talking with the lecturers, they’re quite human after all’.
When asked about the worst aspect of their experience to date, there were far less student comments relating to social integration (only 15% in 2007-08 and 21% in 2008-09). Examples however included:
‘Living with people who aren’t considerate to others’
‘Balancing studies with social life’
‘Moving away from home’.
The final open comment question asked students: ‘If you could make one significant change to your experience what would it be?’. Very few of the responses related to social integration with only 3% in 2007-8 and 10% 2008-09. However, the comments that were made demonstrated that students’were self-aware and using the Early Days exercise to be reflective about their experience. Examples of changes students’ would have made were:
‘Be more sociable and confident’
‘I’d like to move into halls rather than live at home’
‘Start again and make an effort to make more friends’.
Perhaps for the first time, the Early Days learner support tool has provided the university with reliable data about the student social experience, rather than our perception of that experience. This research has clearly shown that the majority of students are having a positive social experience, and whilst they are not joining clubs and societies, social interaction continues to be important to them. Poor social experiences were rarely cited in ‘open’ questions, reinforcing the positive nature of students’ experience at the university. Thus, the authors began to question how the Early Days respondents were getting such a positive social experience if they werenot participating in traditional activities, such as joining clubs and societies.
A university-wide project concerning student expectations carried out in 2007-08 included a social networking poll, and showed that use of social networking features heavily in students’ experiences. Students were asked to name the social networking site they used most often and were also asked where they accessed such sites. 63% of 1521 voters said they used social networking sites whilst on campus, 14% only use it off campus and 20% didn’t use it at all. Whilst it should not be a surprise to find such high usage rates of social networking, the authors were surprised at the distribution of access points. It may be possible that in the world of the digital native, it is becoming preferable to socialise online rather than face to face. If this is the case, there will be ongoing repercussions for institutions who are not aware of, and therefore not addressing the social needs of their students.
Whilst these experiences are drawn from students at one university, they are clearly not hugely different to the experience in other HEIs since the National Union of Students (NUS) are making changes to their provision across the UK. It was reported in 2008 that several university student union bars had closed their doors, and that others were seeking alternative ways of attracting students - including health clubs and juice bars(Kemp 2008). Other research found that the NUS made £1.2 million on alcoholic sales ten years ago, and that this has now fallen to £0.6 million. Inclusivity and diversity, as well as a more health conscious student population, have brought changes to alcohol-based activities. One university in the Midlands has converted a disco into an alcohol free social working space where students can hire laptops and work, drink coffee, and eat sandwiches and snacks. Combining café culture with suitable working spaces seems to be popular and seen as less intense that the traditional library environment. There is some evidence that fee paying students expect more from their Student Union than cheap alcohol and rowdy Saturday nights(Shepherd 2007).
Conclusion
By developing a learner support tool to encourage students to self-assess their orientation into their studies, the authors have uncovered a significant change in the social habits of students. It is clear that this is not confined to one institution and the challenge for those involved in student retention and achievement will be to monitor the impact of these changing habits on accepted retention theory. It is possible that the changes in the way students are interacting socially may lead to a reconsideration of the impact of social integration on student retention in the digital age. This in turn may require those in academia to challenge previously accepted theory. Alternatively, it may be that research recognises that the method by which students achieve social integration is not important, but that it nevertheless remains important that they are academically and socially integrated in order to persist with their studies. A third possibility is that further research may confirm the method of social interaction is critical and that the balance between online and face to face social integration does impact on students’ likely success; perhaps there will be a statistically modeled tipping point in such a blend of socialisation.
In relation to students of the future this early research certainly doesn’tprovide all the answers but it is clear that the literature can not be relied upon in isolation. What is crucial, is for institutions to have a more comprehensive understanding of their students’ changing experience and needs, so that these can be better met – or managed – in the future. Perhaps the remaining challenge is to consider the future role of universities in providing students with a positive social experience and whether, in the digital age, such a responsibility falls solely on the university in the way that it did in the past. The OECD (2002 77)publication ‘Responding to Student Expectations’ noted:
‘It would be unsurprising if university life appeared to a present day first year student as more impersonal, less embracing and required less commitment than it did for students of the past.’
In the seven years that have elapsed since the OECD publication have the digital natives begun to show universities that they can be detached from the university community and yet remain firmly socialised and successful in their studies? If this is the case, the impact on the traditional university community of scholars may be profound.
References
Crosling, G., Thomas, L. and Heagney, M., Eds. (2008). Improving Student Retention in Higher Education. Abingdon, Routledge.
Eggens, L., Werf, M. P. C. v. d. and Baker, R. J. (2007). "The influence of personal networks and social support on study attainment of students in university education." Higher Education55(5): 553-573.
Kemp, J. (2008). The bar is half-empty. The Guardian. London.
NationalAuditOffice. (2007). Staying the course: The retention of students in higher education. London.
OECD (2002). Responding to Student Expectations. Programme, on, Institutional, Management, in, Higher and Education, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Rhodes, C. and Nevill, A. (2004). "Academic and Social Integration in Higher Education: a survey of satisfaction and dissatisfaction within a first-year education studies cohort at a new university." Journal of Further & Higher Education28(2): 179-193.
Roberts, D. and Higgins, T. (1992). Higher Education: The Student Experience. Leeds, Heist.
Robinson, C., Riche, P. L. and Jacklin, A. (2007). "Students' views of support in higher education: a study of current practice and future directions." Higher Education Review40(1): 3-17.
Shepherd, J. (2007). Smoothie transition. The Guardian. London.
Thomas, L. (2002). "Student retention in higher education: the role of institutional habitus." Journal of Education Policy17(4): 423-442.
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving College, Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving Early, Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition’. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Yorke, M. and Longden, B. (2007). The first-year experience in higher education in the UK. York, Higher Education Academy.