Review of the dropout study from the University of Aarhus

Transcription

1 Review of the dropout study from the University of Aarhus Christopher Derek Curry Department of Computer Science University of Copenhagen Universitetsparken 1 DK-2100 Copenhagen East Denmark cdcurry@diku.dk December 18, 2001 Abstract This paper is an assessment of the dropout study from the University of Aarhus and a partial fulfillment of the M.Sc. education at the Department of Computer Science, University of Copenhagen. The assessment is entitled to 2.5 ECTS. The subject of the paper is instrumental knowledge to the M.Sc. thesis Business Process Reengineering at the Department of Computer Science, University of Copenhagen. 1 Introduction In August 2000, the Students Council at the University of Aarhus, Denmark, published a 136- page report on study environment and dropout ( Studiemiljø og frafald, Studenterrådet, Århus Universitet, 2000) [9]. The focal point of the report is the University of Aarhus. The report is the outcome of a project initiated in 1998, and sponsored by eight key stake holders, one of which is the Ministry of Education. In a press release dt. August 31, 2000, the Students Council refers to the report as the biggest and most thorough official inquiry into dropout from Universities in Denmark [8]. The Students Council states that many initiatives have failed to reduce the dropout, and that the failure is attributed to lack of knowledge of the cause behind dropout. The report identifies three factors, which pertains to the lack of knowledge of the cause of dropout, in existing research. The data material is too narrow and incompatible with causal analysis. Existing inquiries are mostly descriptive by nature and do not address the cause of dropout. Weak statistical methods are used. These circumstances initiated the inquiry by the Students Council. The Students Council states that the goal of the report is to initiate a debate about dropout, that can inspire new measures to limit the dropout. The report was written by Ulrik Larsen, project manager, who was also head of the project. 2 Objective The goal of project is to answer the question What is the cause of the dropout among students at the University of Aarhus?. 3 Hypothesis The Students Council propose that dropout within the first years of study is a consequence of failed social and professional integration between the individual student and the higher education [9, pp. 31]. 4 Definitions The report employs the following definitions. 1

2 Dropout defines a move to another course of study or its discontinuation [9, pp. 12]. Intrinsic motivation is the degree of motivation based on the subject itself. Extrinsic motivation is the degree of motivation based on the goal, i.e. grades, future career. Social environment is a measure of the individual students social well-being. The social environment is not a subset of the professional environment [9, pp. 31]. Professional environment is a measure of the individual students professional well-being. The professional environment is not a subset of the social environment [9, pp. 31]. 5 Consequences of dropout In a dropout case there are three losers. The student, the higher education and society. Based on a statement by the Ministry of Education, the Students Council identifies the consequences of dropout for each of the three stakeholders just mentioned. For the student, the process of withdrawing may be a painful experience marked by low confidence, disappointment and depression, or it may be a positive step taken with confidence and conviction [7]. The Students Council identifies it as an emotional cost [9, pp. 13]. Resources, in terms of time and money, are wasted once the student drops out. For the higher education, the income to cover cost of teaching diminishes, as it is linked to number of students enrolled. For the society, dropout incurs a significant cost. The Ministry of Finance quantifies the cost to be the equivalent of an increase in the work force of people. Moreover, research shows that people with a lower education spend eight years less on the labour market. [9, pp. 27]. The Students Council states that these consequences alone justify an increased focus on minimizing dropout, without compromising the quality and professional level of the higher educations [9, pp. 13]. This view is partly supported by Peter Naur in his book Utopia [10]. However, Naur argues that a calculated dropout is necessary to maintain the external view of the quality and professional level of the higher educations. 6 Theoretical dropout model The Students Council has developed a theoretical model to explain dropout. The model is based on international and national models, and research on dropout in both colleges and higher educations: Student-Faculty Informal Contact [11, 12], Student Attrition Model [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6], and Student Integration Model [13, 15, 14, 16, 17]. The model is characterized by the Students Council as being simple and generic. It is not the intention to capture all aspects of reality with this model. The purpose of the model is to provide insight into the factors conductive to the students decision to dropout. The model focuses on the students first years of study. The focus is justified by two factors. 1. Statistics from the Danish Ministry of Education document that 56% of the total dropout from higher educations in Denmark, occur within the first year of study, and 79% occur within the first three years of study. International research supports the results from the Danish Ministry of Education [9, pp. 12]. 2. International research confirms that the transition from high school to a higher education is demanding. The model assumes that any student enlisted at a higher education is attributed with intellectual and personal resources. These resources influence expectations as to the social and professional environment, and influence experience with exams negatively. The resources, the expectations to the social and professional environment, and negative experience with exams, influence the students social and professional integration, and satisfaction with the higher education. See figure 1. The six key factors that influence dropout are defined below [9, pp. 31]. 1. Intellectual and personal resources influence the students chance of completing the course of study. The resources define demographic variables (age, sex, ethnic background, standard of living, relocation prior to study), educational prerequisites (admission 2

3 Expectations to the social Satisfaction w ith the social Social integration Study related resources Negative experiences w ith exams Dropout Professional integration Expectations to the professional Satisfaction w ith the professional Figure 1: Model for dropout. The model assumes that any student enlisted at a higher education is attributed with intellectual and personal resources. These resources influence expectations as to the social and professional environment, and influence experience with exams negatively. The resources, the expectations to the social and professional environment, and negative experience with exams, influence the students social and professional integration, and satisfaction with the higher education. grade, previous education, duration from graduation of previous education until enlisted at higher education), private economy (income, financial situation, job situation), family (marital status, children), social (family, friends outside education, time spent with friends, loneliness), knowledge of education prior to start (quality of information about the study life and requirements), and motivation (intrinsic and extrinsic motivation). 2. The social environment is a variable that determines the well-being of a student in a social context. The social environment defines contact to peer students (friendship) and teachers (informal contact), social activities (student parties, associations, politics), and physical artifacts conductive to social interaction (canteen, recreational facilities). 3. Professional environment is a variable that determines the well-being of a student in a professional context. The professional environment defines the contents (interest and professional expectations), workload, exam and teaching formats (preferences for specific formats, the teachers professional and pedagogical competence), and physical teaching facilities (auditorium, library, computer facilities). 4. Expectations prior to admission not fulfilled during the first period of study [9, pp. 28]. The dropout can be an indication of the actual contents and social and professional environment meeting the students expectations. 5. Integration as a combination of personal contacts, commitment, and a sense of belonging to the higher education. 6. Negative experience from exams can influence the decision to drop out [9, pp. 28]. The negative influence is increased if the student was used to high grades in the previous education, but receive lower grades at the higher education. 3

4 7 Methodology The analysis encompasses an analysis of student records, such as personal details and admission information, and interviews based on surveys. The data from the survey is correlated with the student records. The survey was conducted in May The sample consist of all 3072 students enlisted in This is consistent with the framework of the theoretical model. At the time of the survey, May 2000, the students have studied for a period of almost two years or dropped out during this period. Given that 79% of the total dropout occurs within the first three years, this sample of students have either just decided to continue or to drop out of their studies. The survey included two questionnaires. One for active students [9, pp. 103] and one for students, who have dropped out [9, pp. 119]. The questionnaires are identical, apart from specific questions made for the students who dropped out. The survey process included a trial run with students from class The survey was then distributed to the participants. The response ratio was 74.7% (2295 respondents out of the initial sample of 3072). The remaining 26.3% do not differ much from the respondents as to gender, previous education, admission grade and age. 8 Questionnaires The questionnaires exhibit the following properties. The questionnaire by active students consists of 15 pages with 51 questions. The questionnaire answered by dropout students consists of 16 pages with 55 questions. The questions are grouped in the following manner (number of questions in parentheses). Activities today (4, only answered by dropout students) Personal details (8) Living and financial situation (7) Time consumption (5) Study habits and attitude towards the higher education (3) Exams (4) Information about the education prior to admission (8) Ideas to minimize dropout (1) Fulfillment of expectations (3) Facilities, social and professional environment (7) Experiences from gained from studying (2) Satisfaction with the higher education (3) The questionnaires employ primarily closedended questions. The respondents had the opportunity to answer one open-ended question. 9 Findings Some key findings from the analysis are mentioned below. The average respondents are in their early twenties and have graduated from the Danish gymnasium. The average admission grade is 9. The parents have at least 3-4 years of higher education. The respondents spent approx. 2.5 years outside the educational system prior to admission. The majority enlisted on the study of their first priority [9, pp. 42]. Students primarily learn the curriculum by themselves, independently of other students. The Students Council had anticipated much more collaboration among students than was eventually documented in the result. [9, pp. 44]. Three factors influence the probability of failing an exam: admission grade, previous education, and faculty of study. The higher admission grade, the lower probability of failure. Students with a mathematical degree from the Danish gymnasium are less likely to fail as opposed to students with a HF education. Students from the Faculty of Natural Science are more likely to fail than students from humanities [9, pp. 49]. 4

5 Students seek advice from peer students rather than through established channels such as the university council. Students rate advice from peer students the highest [9, pp. 56]. Extrinsic motivation for studying is dominant among students from natural sciences [9, pp. 68]. 23.5% of students admitted in 1998 have dropped out. 13.5% have moved to another study, and 10% have discontinued their studies. The variables conductive to dropout are professional integration, HF as previous education, admission on second or lower priority, admission grade, disappointment with exams, and lack of intrinsic motivation. The report includes in total 52 pages with analysis of survey responses. 10 Key conclusion The analysis of the interview data and student records cannot completely verify the Students Council s initial hypothesis (Section 3). The primary cause for dropout is found to be the lack of professional integration between the student and higher education. Integration with the social environment is important to the students, but not conductive to the students decision to drop out. Students, who drop out, can be classified in 3 categories. 1. The young, satisfied, and well functioning students are dissatisfied with the professional environment. The majority change to another subject. 2. The young, dissatisfied, and lonely students are dissatisfied with both the professional and the social environment. They either change to another subject or discontinue their studies. 3. The old and socially disintegrated students name external factors as their reason for dropout, e.g. financial situation and personal issues. The Students Council notes that the formats of the education and exams should be subject to further investigation [9, pp. 5]. 11 Criticism Both positive and negative. The six factors conductive to the dropout described on page include four and not six factors. The remaining factors can be found on page 28, but not as extensively described as the first four factors on page The amount of literature, in English, on dropout is sparse, because higher education tend to write in their national language. Despite the author s complaints about this issue, the Students Council is a prime example of this trend. The report includes references to international research and existing inquiries from the University of Aarhus University. The authors should have included a description of the algorithm for the regression models and/or explained the model with data from one respondent. The interview guides, but a few exceptions, are based on closed-ended questions. Despite the cost of analysing responses to open-ended questions, the students provided more detailed information than originally anticipated. The Students Council designed the questionnaire so as to enable the students to pin-point areas they found problematic, but did not receive response as to why these areas were problematic. Interview guides for both active and inactive students were sent to all recipients. This indicates that the Students Council did not have advance knowledge about the recipients status. Fully recognizing the goal of the project, the report is reactive and not proactive. The report describes, and finds the underlying factors for dropout, but does not give any strategic directions to address the evident problems identified during the analysis. 5

6 The authors do not address the issue of dropout in relation to the perceived market value of the higher educations in the sense Peter Naur does [10]. The report clearly demonstrates a thorough research on dropout based on both international and national sources. The summary of each theory is invaluable to other researchers and practitioners. The interview guides are despite their length invaluable to other researchers. Given the high response ratio, a 15-page interview guide evidently does not deter respondents from answering. The interview guides can be regarded as best practice in this field. The report does not document the survey process in detail. Although not a vital part in the main report, the lessons learnt from the process would have been valuable to others if included in an appendix. References [1] J. Bean, Dropout and turnover: The synthesis and test of a causal model of student attrition, Research in Higher Education 12 (1980), [2] J. Bean, Conceptual models of student attrition: How theory can help the institutional researcher, Studying Student Attrition, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass (1982). [3] J. Bean, Student attrition, intentions, and confidence: Interactions effects in a path model, Research in Higher Education 17 (1982), [4] J. Bean, The application of a model of turnover in work organizations to the student attrition process, The Review of Higher Education 6 (1983), [6] J. Bean, Why students leave: Insights from research, The Strategic Management of College Enrollments, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass (1990). [7] R. Cope and W. Hannah, Revolving College Doors, New York, John Wiley & Son (1975). [8] S.denterrådet Aarhus Universi tet, Danmarks største undersøgelse af frafald på universiteterne. [9] U. Larsen, Frafald og studiemiljø, Studenterrådet ved Århus Universitet (2000). [10] P. Naur, Utopier, Teknisk Forlag (1967). [11] E. T. Pascarella and P. T. Terenzini, Patterns of student-faculty informal interaction beyond the classroom and voluntary freshman attrition, Journal of Higher Education 48,5 (1977), [12] E. T. Pascarella and P. T. Terenzini, Predicting freshman persistence and voluntary dropout decisions from a theoretical model, Journal of Higher Education 51,1 (1980), [13] V. Tinto, Dropouts from higher education; a theoretical synthesis of recent research, Review of Educational Research 45 (1975), [14] V. Tinto, Defining dropout: A matter of perspective, Studying Student Attrition, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass (1982), [15] V. Tinto, Limits of theory and practice in student attrition, Journal of Higher Education 53,6 (1982), [16] V. Tinto, Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition, University of Chicago Press (1987). [17] V. Tinto, Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition, Second edition, University of Chicago Press (1993). [5] J. Bean, Interaction effects based on class level in an explanatory model of college student dropout syndrome, American Educational Research Journal 22 (1985),