7605
Research into student drop-out
Naomi McIntosh, The Open University
Recorder: E M Monkhouse, University of London
For some time past the evaluation of education and of educational programmes has been dominated by techniques dear to psychologists and by the use of questionnaires as vehicles of testing and measurement largely irrelevant to the situation of adult students, subject as it is to many external factors. These have been somewhat superseded by interactive techniques of ethnomethodology based upon participant observation and depth interview. While some redressment of the balance was desirable, the dominance of the currently fashionable techniques is as dangerous as that of their predecessors. The choice of techniques should be dictated by the problems under survey and by the circumstances obtaining rather than by any academic prejudice or vested interest, since the selection of the technique may well affect the outcome of the research.
A good deal of work has been done on the subject of student drop-out in the Open University and there is evidence that admissions policy contributes critically to the determination of who drops out. Three publications shed light upon the question. The first of these: STUDENT DEMAND, PROGRESS AND WITHDRAWAL: THE OPEN UNIVERSITY’S FIRST FOUR YEARS[1] describes an early-warning system indicating, at certain points in the academic year - (provisional registration, final registration, summer schools, examinations) - what trends may be anticipated, and suggesting some of the main causes of drop-out, which is seen to be lower among teachers and housewives and higher among manual, shop and clerical workers. The second: OPEN ADMISSION: AN OPEN OR A REVOLVING DOOR?[2] deals with some of the consequences of an open admissions policy as opposed to the selective processes of conventional establishments of higher education. Those who, upon entry, encounter difficulties may receive a ‘hard’ response and find themselves rejected immediately after instead of before entry, with consequent destruction of self-esteem as they exit through what turned out to be a revolving as well as an open door. They may, on the other hand, be met with a ‘soft’ response which, through counselling, provides at best a constructive alternative, perhaps in the shape of a transfer or at worst, a gentler ‘cooling out’ process than outright rejection. The third: EXCELLENCE, EQUALITY AND THE OPEN UNIVERSITY[3] shows the discrepancy between the high ratio of access, take-up and progress of the student with initial ‘high educational qualification’ and the relatively low rate of all three in the case of students with ‘low educational qualification’.
Diagram I
(1) This group present no problem
(2) In this group either
(a) they drop out, and this does not greatly matter; or
(b) they stay in at considerable cost both to themselves and to the OU which might have allocated their places to better students, i.e. they represent a poor return for the expenditure incurred.
(3) This group includes:
(a) people who do not apply at all;
(b) people who apply but do not take up the places offered.
(4) This group is one with which the OU is arguably not at present concerned. If, however, theOU entered the field of continuing education, a re-definition of this group would be called for.
To achieve the greatest cost-effectiveness and minimum wastage, it would be necessary to improve the counselling and advisory services, refraining from pressing doubtful starters to apply for entry. The same result could be achieved through selection, but this is a solution totally unacceptable to the Open University.
If open access is to continue, the ability of students to survive may depend upon the provision of appropriate support, resulting in the situation illustrated in Diagram II.
Diagram II
(1) and (2) will survive anyway, because they have no difficulties
(3) Will drop out
(4) Will survive because support is available.
Further refinement is necessary in the analysis of the kind of difficulties experienced, since some of these are related to the course or to the working of the University and may be countered by the availability of appropriate support whereas others arise from the circumstances of the students (very frequently in the case of mature students) - and cannot easily be countered by support, as Diagram III shows.
Diagram III Student Difficulties
Support available / None / Course/University related / Student-relatedNone / 1. Student will survive / 4. Student will drop out / 7. Student will drop out
Relevant support / 2. Student will survive, but money wasted / 5. Student will survive at extra cost / 8. Student will drop out and money wasted
Irrelevant support / 3. Student will survive, but money wasted / 6. Student will drop out and money wasted / 9. Student will drop out and money wasted
As the diagram shows, special support in the case of students who have no difficulties (2) and (3) represents waste of effort and loss of money to the Open University. Special support extended to students whose difficulties arise not from the course but from personal circumstances, (8) and (9), will also be wasted. It is in the case of students whose difficulties arise from the course that support is worth providing, and here it must be relevant to the difficulty, (5), since, if it is irrelevant, it once again represents a waste of effort and money (6). The problem therefore is, in a non-selective system, to identify the categories of students, (1) to (9), and to ensure that scarce resources are concentrated where they are effective, i.e. in category (5). The obstacles are great. Firstly, only about one third of the students ask for help, and these are not as a rule those who are most in need of it. Secondly, it is hard to know how much to spend on individual cases. (Is it justifiable to spend £200 on one student in great need rather than £10.00 on each of twenty students with lesser need?) Thirdly, it is hard to distinguish between course-related and personal difficulties when these are expressed in the same terms. ‘I have not enough time’ may mean one of several things, as Diagram IV shows:
Diagram IV
Course-related / Personal(1) The intellectual level is too demanding = / = (3) I have a new job
= (4) I have a new baby
‘I have not enough time’
(2) The course is =
ill-designed / = (5) My motivation is not strong enough for me to make the necessary sacrifices
(1) and (2) may be countered by appropriate academic support. (3), (4) and (5), the personal difficulties which in the case of men are usually work-based while in that of women they are usually domestic, can not. It is hard to interpret the overt expression of difficulty - (‘lack of time’, ‘lack of resources’, ‘dissatisfaction with level of achievement’) - in part because of the subjective nature of individual judgement, in part because a process or rationalisation often masks the real trouble. Self-assessment in these circumstances is difficult and the relations between students and their counsellor/tutor may well be vitiated if the latter tries to combine research in this area with his normal academic advisory/assessing function.
While about one third of Open University students speak of dropping out at one time or another, some 80 per cent survive into each successive year. Though the notion of continuous assessment may be something of an albatross, the grades received over the year do have a ‘cooling out’ effect, those who receive consistently high ones being encouraged to stay on while those who receive low ones re-enforce the poor self-image and sometimes impaired motivation with which they set out. The foundation course year sees a relatively low drop-out but course-related difficulties tend to multiply thereafter, bunching in time. Personal difficulties are distributed over the years for the student body as a whole.
DISCUSSION
Amongst points made in discussion were:
(1) that support was available through summer schools (deemed very effective) and study centres (thought to be used by maths and science students mainly for academic guidance and by students in the social sciences more for affiliative purposes);
(2) that some students had deliberately chosen to study with the Open University because they prefer to study alone;
(3) that teaching through radio and television helped some students to keep up with their studies while to others they proved a positive discouragement;
(4)that the relatively rigid structure of the foundation courses presented more difficulties than the more flexible arrangements in the higher stages whereby a whole year may be spent in gaining a half-credit;
(5) that an SSRC analysis now in progress of the first cohort of OU students will make available data on some of the personal variables involved in student drop-out.
[1]McIntosh, Naomi E. and Morrison, Valerie Higher Education Review, Vol. 7, No. 1, Autumn 1974
[2]McIntosh, Na