Web site logical path: [www.psy.gla.ac.uk] [~steve] [localed] [dropout] [this page]

Best approach to dropout at Glasgow University

In my provisional opinion, at GU (not for all HEIs), we should adopt these strands of practical policy.

• Calculate a sensible, not baseless, benchmark.
  Estimate what the right comparison or benchmark for GU for dropout should be. The Smith & Naylor (2001) paper establishes convincingly that the government measures are not suitable benchmarks either as published in league tables or in comparing GU to other Russell group HEIs.
  • Use the Smith & Naylor (2001) corrected rankings (if we can get the names of the HEIs), select out the Russell group, look at those.
  • Other factors like 3 year vs. 4 year; average attainment of accepted students incoming; average social class etc. are all reasons that crude direct comparisons are not appropriate. In particular, GU does much, much better than many other Russell group HEIs at widening participation, and this is well known to be in tension with dropout rates. At the very least, should look at the two together in the same table.

• Ignore comparative benchmarks, just attempt improvement.
  (I.e. use benchmark measurements only as comparisons between past and future performances of our HEI, and not between our performance and other HEIs.) From an applied educational viewpoint, we could probably do better than we do now, and should explore this and measure whether we improve.

• Do not treat retention as an independent objective, but as twinned with widening participation. If we really wanted to improve retention in itself, our best move would be to exclude all "widening participation" students and reduce our performance on this to the poor levels most other Russell group HEIs show: our retention would improve immediately. If we don't want to do that, then any policy objective should say so. This might entail:
  • State the policy as achieving both widened participation AND higher retention, or at least a higher combination of the two.
  • All tables showing performance should always show measures of both these together. This will remind us of the tradeoff, and remind our competitors of their poor WP performance.
  • Develop modified measures that illuminate this e.g. show retention figures both for all students and for the subset of our students that don't count in WP figures.

• Ignore retention as a policy initiative in itself, focus on teaching quality.
  My general view, as the short list of proven successes implies, and based on theory and various other things, is that the best general approach at GU for reducing dropout without abandoning widening participation is to improve teaching quality. I.e. a policy of driving up teaching quality would also drive up retention rates, particularly if directed at the first year. So instead of having actions directed at retention, direct them at first year teaching quality. I believe this because:
  • My attempts to measure academic and social integration (operationalising Tinto's ideas) have largely shown no problem with social integration at GU.
  • Work in the UK by Yorke suggests that the single biggest factor, especially at relatively high ranking universities, is "academic integration" or how well a student feels they fit with the course they are doing. For academics implementing improvements at this, it will feel like improving teaching quality particularly aspects that give a student enjoyment and confidence that they are learning successfully at the subject: better real understanding, and better evidence/feedback to the student that demonstrates this to them. Often this will involve interaction with other students in various ways, but where the peer/social processes are subordinated to an academic purpose.
  • Jim Boyle's impressive and sustained success at improving retention at Strathclyde in level 1 Mechanical Engineering (20% dropout reduced to 3%) was done by focussing on better teaching quality / better achieved learning experience: it shows it can be done, and done by focussing on teaching and learning. And it also suggests that focussing on disciplines with relatively higher dropout (nationally) may pay the biggest dividends. But note it also implies that the solutions (better teaching and learning) are discipline specific.

• If retention is retained as a goal in itself, then only support "evidence-based retentioneering" i.e. only measures that have been proved to have had a real effect in at least one context. In this area, commonsense, or the judgement of well meaning academics, has a poor record of achievement. The theory of dropout is interesting, but not well connected with results. The best approach would be to improve, regardless of benchmarks and targets of what we "should" do. For this, the best thing is to look at the few published interventions that have proven effectiveness and apply these, not invent our own. I have a list of those I've come across. And the few proven successes published are also evidence that, regardless of benchmarks, we could probably do better.
  

References