Listening to student voices: student researchers exploringundergraduate experiences of university transition

Rachel E. Maunder • Matthew Cunliffe • Jessica Galvin •

Sibulele Mjali • Jenine Rogers

Published online: 1 December 2012� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Abstract This exploratory study presents a different approach to studying transition by

involving students as researchers. The aim was to investigate how students talked about

their experiences of transition in university. Nineteen first and second year undergraduate

psychology students participated in focus groups and semi-structured interviews, con-

ducted by student researchers, to provide in-depth accounts of their transition experiences.

Findings showed that students held internal images about university, shaped through

cultural experience, which were used to form expectations and interpret experiences.

Social relationships were crucial, with the formation of groups facilitating adjustment in an

unfamiliar environment. Students also described how negotiating transition contributed to

personal changes. The research emphasises the salience of sociocultural factors in tran-

sition, and the relationship between transition and identity. Additionally, the value of

including students as researchers to provide authentic access to student voices is

highlighted.

Keywords Transition � University � Sociocultural � Student researchers � Staff-student

partnership � Student voice

Introduction

Transitions occur when individuals are faced with a different situation requiring adjust-

ment to align with new environmental demands (Hviid and Zittoun 2008). We adopt a

sociocultural perspective in this paper, where transitions are conceived as shifts in identity

as a response to periods of uncertainty (Crafter and Maunder 2012). In education, tran-

sitions are common as students encounter new knowledge (such as new subject material),

move between educational stages (such as infants to junior) and adapt to different insti-

tutional contexts (such as starting secondary school) (Hussey and Smith 2010).

R. E. Maunder (&) � M. Cunliffe � J. Galvin � S. Mjali � J. RogersDivision of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, University of Northampton,Park Campus, Boughton Green Road, Northampton NN2 7AL, UKe-mail: Rachel.Maunder@northampton.ac.uk

123

High Educ (2013) 66:139–152DOI 10.1007/s10734-012-9595-3

Starting university is a notable transition due to the changes students experience at this

time. Higher education has particular practices and academic expectations to become

accustomed to, and, for many students, starting university is the first time they have lived

away from home, looked after themselves and been faced with so many new people and

opportunities. Therefore, adapting to university life not only involves academic transitions

in terms of new educational demands, but also involves personal, social and lifestyle

transitions (Hussey and Smith 2010).

Due to these factors, much research on university transition has been orientated towards

first year, when students are undergoing the immediacy of change (e.g. Yorke and Longden

2008). The first year is undoubtedly crucial, and students are particularly vulnerable to

early withdrawals during this period (McInnis 2001). However, transition experiences are

not limited to the early stages of university life. First year is ‘‘an important part of the long

process of cultural, social and academic assimilation into the world of higher education’’

(Harvey et al. 2006, viii). It is therefore important to understand the ongoing transfor-

mations that occur for students as they progress through their degrees (Tobolowsky 2008).

Much research on transition has centred on students’ expectations of university, and

whether these are realised or appropriately aligned with institutional practices (e.g.

Brinkworth et al. 2009; Cook and Leckey 1999; Rowley et al. 2008). Expectations are seen

to be borne out of prior educational experiences, or information provided by friends and

family (Brooks 2003; Leese 2010), suggesting that individuals bring social and cultural

resources which are used as templates to form impressions of new encounters. From a

sociocultural perspective, adjustments associated with transitions present interesting

challenges for an individual as they leave behind previous experiences and ‘become’

something new (Crafter and Maunder 2012; Hviid and Zittoun 2008). Negotiating this

change involves identity work whereby individuals draw on available tools and strategies

to make sense of their experiences (Zittoun 2008). In support of this, some literature has

emphasised how idiosyncratic transition is (Leese 2010; Harvey et al. 2006), and others

have highlighted the salience of personal reflection and shifts in identity through transition

(Britton and Baxter 1999; Hussey and Smith 2010; Warin and Dempster 2007). These

findings stress the importance of studying the process of transition at an individual level,

and seeking to understand how personal histories are used to interpret university life.

Researching these issues suggests methodologies which centre on the student voice.

Whilst there is a proliferation of qualitative studies exploring students’ personal accounts

of transition (e.g. Britton and Baxter 1999; Brooks 2003, 2007; Warin and Dempster 2007;

Wilcox et al. 2005), a larger proportion of research has utilised quantitative survey designs

to study aspects including student preparedness and expectations, belonging and early

withdrawals (e.g. Brinkworth et al. 2009; Cook and Leckey 1999; Pittman and Richmond

2008; Rowley et al. 2008; Willcoxson 2010). These findings have helped to identify

patterns in student reports of transition, but it is more challenging to capture the complexity

of experience, and understand what these issues mean for individuals. Additionally, pro-

jects tend to be staff-driven, designed based on what staff regard as worthy of study.

McInnis (2001) argued for a change of direction in transition research, where students

themselves have more active involvement.

Consequently, this project adopted a different approach to studying transition, by

including students as collaborators with staff in the research. The co-authors of this paper

were undergraduate students at the time the study was conducted, working as student

researchers. The first author was the academic supervisor, providing guidance and over-

seeing the research process. The student researchers were actively involved in all stages of

the study including design, data collection, analysis and dissemination. Therefore, ‘we’ in

140 High Educ (2013) 66:139–152

123

this paper refers to the research team which represents a collective staff-student

partnership.

The research is especially relevant at a point where UK higher education is undergoing

large-scale change. It reflects the emerging trend in university affairs towards student

involvement in the improvement of their experience, particularly in a competitive market

where students are paying higher fees and wanting more say in their education. Drivers

such as the annual National Student Survey (NSS), which publishes feedback from final

year students about their university experience, and large scale research projects on the

student experience conducted by the National Union of Students, demonstrate a shift

towards student-centred approaches. This makes the study very timely, and provides

potential implications for strategic institutional policy.

This exploratory research aimed to study how students talked about and reflected on

their experiences of transition to university. Both first and second year students were

included as participants in recognition of the importance of the first year, but also

acknowledging the prolonged process of transition. We were interested in personal

experiences, ensuring opportunities for students to explain their stories in their own words.

Therefore, this paper provides a unique insight into transition experiences through

accessing student voices in both the role of researcher, and participant.

Method

Due to the study aiming to explore students’ personal experiences, qualitative methodol-

ogies were selected that would enable students’ voices to take centre stage. The construct

of ‘student voice’ has been a contested one, with debate around questions of definition,

participation, and empowerment (see Seale 2010). Our focus is on transition experiences

rather than exploring this debate in depth, but we strove towards a participatory approach

to researching the student voice. In particular, using semi-structured interviews and focus

groups facilitated in-depth understanding of students’ transition experiences by giving

participants freedom to express their experiences in their own words. Combining focus

groups and interviews in the same study was a form of mixed-method triangulation—

ensuring that a comprehensive approach was taken to researching the issue and giving

improved confidence in the validity of data (Yardley 2008). More crucially, this project

utilised student researchers with the view that they could provide a layer of depth to the

research due to their more equal status as peers, and therefore give students more

empowerment in the research process (Seale 2010).

Student researchers

Four undergraduate students (the co-authors of this paper) worked as researchers on the

study. They were all second or third year Psychology students at the time, seeking

opportunities to develop their research skills and experience. They were part of an insti-

tutional scheme called URB@N (Undergraduate Research Bursaries at Northampton)

which provides undergraduate students with a bursary to work as researchers on a project

supervised by a member of staff (Butcher & Maunder in press). URB@N projects are all

pedagogic in nature, and intended to inform learning and teaching practice. The scheme,

developed by The University of Northampton (UoN) in 2008, allows for staff and students

to work together in the pursuit of knowledge that will benefit the student experience.

Student researchers work collaboratively with staff, contribute to institutional

High Educ (2013) 66:139–152 141

123

development, and develop new skills; and staff benefit from student input into projects,

unprecedented access into the student body, and useful additional resource to undertake

scholarly research. The philosophy of the scheme reflects growing interest in innovative

forms of staff-student partnerships as a means for facilitating educational change (Little

2011). This interest is reflected in published work which has seen students involved as co-

creators of pedagogical planning (e.g. Bovill et al. 2011); strategy development (e.g.

Healey et al. 2010) and as apprentice researchers as ‘change agents’ on learning and

teaching projects (Dunne 2011). Such collaborations have reported widespread benefits,

not just to the students involved, but also to staff, fellow students and institutions as a

whole.

Creating effective staff-student partnerships can present challenges, including ensuring

an appropriate level of skill, overcoming initial wariness, and establishing trust (Little

2011). In order to address this, there was a formal application process to assess students’

suitability for the project in terms of demonstrated interest in the topic, and research skills

and experience. This was supplemented with training in facilitating focus groups and

interviews to prepare students for data collection. Time was also spent building rapport

between staff and students so that students felt valued, and empowered to exercise

autonomy in the research.

Participants

We wanted to study participants who shared particular characteristics with each other and

with the student researchers. The student researchers were all undergraduate psychology

students at UoN, so participants were selected from the same university and subject area.

Having communal institutional and disciplinary reference points to draw on would, we

hoped, establish rapport between participants and researchers, facilitate discussions, and

add to the meaningfulness of the data. Additionally, all participants had experienced

transition into a similar context, which reduced unnecessary complexity resulting from

disciplinary and institutional differences.

Nineteen first and second year undergraduate psychology students participated, con-

sisting of nine individual interviews, and four focus groups (of between two and six

students). The University of Northampton has a broad student population, with wide ethnic

diversity and a strong commitment to widening participation. We ensured that our sample

reflected this demographic as far as possible. Participants represented males and females;

several ethnic groups; and mature and traditional-aged students. Recruitment was through a

combination of opportunity and self-select sampling. Advertisements were posted around

the psychology division inviting participation, along with e-mail circulars and messages

posted on the university virtual learning environment. Additionally, some participants were

personal contacts of the student researchers.

Focus groups and interviews

The student researchers made an active contribution to developing the interview schedule

by suggesting topics they felt important to include. There was a deliberate attempt to

structure each interview and focus group around the key stages in the transition process to

help guide participants through the narration of their experience in a logical progression.

Examples of the topics covered included the decision to attend university; feelings about

starting university; expectations about what it would be like; successes and challenges

during transition; and factors that helped or hindered transition experiences.

142 High Educ (2013) 66:139–152

123

All of the data was collected by the student researchers. No staff members were present.

Focus groups and interviews were conducted in the psychology department so the envi-

ronment was familiar to participants. This ensured that the student researchers had

appropriate staff support to draw on if required. A digital recorder was used to enable

written transcripts to be produced. All the data was anonymised at the point of tran-

scription, and any personal identifying information was removed. The study was approved

beforehand by the School’s Ethics Committee.

Analytical approach

The dataset was analysed thematically (Braun and Clarke 2006). The flexibility and

‘theoretical freedom’ offered by thematic analysis made it a suitable tool because we

wanted a data-driven analysis which would enable an open exploration of trends in the

data. Braun and Clarke’s (2006) guidance addresses the lack of consistency in thematic

analysis, by laying out a structured, step-by-step approach for researchers to follow. In the

data familiarisation stage, transcripts were read thoroughly and initial notes made about

points of interest. Next, data segments were systematically coded across the transcripts.

Coding involves assigning labels to sections of text to summarise content and interpreted

meaning. We did this by hand, writing notes in the margins of the text. Codes were then

grouped into potential themes based on perceived similarity in their content and meaning.

For example, in our data, the codes ‘social comparison’, ‘fear of isolation’ and ‘need for

social support’ were grouped together into a theme called ‘Development of social con-

nections’. We reviewed initial themes carefully to look for patterns enabling smaller

themes to be grouped together into larger themes. For example, themes ‘growth and self-

belief’ and ‘independence and responsibility’ were grouped to form the main theme

‘Developmental changes to self’. We each undertook analysis individually, then came

together to integrate individual analyses into an agreed set of themes. Final themes were

reviewed carefully by revisiting the transcripts and ensuring adequate fit with the data.

Analysis

Through exploring how students talked about their transition experiences, three main

themes were identified: Internalised images about university; Expectations versus reality;

and Developmental changes to self.

Internalised images about university

Students held internalised images and beliefs about university life and ‘normal’ students,

rooted in their cultural surroundings, which were used to compare and interpret their own

transition experiences. Firstly, students held images prior to their transition which influ-

enced expectations. For example, they drew on cultural practices about participation in

higher education when rationalising their decision to attend university. Many saw uni-

versity as a logical progression:

It just seemed like the natural route to go really….you’ve done sixth form, now to

Uni. (Female, second year)

I come from a family of academics and Uni was always going to happen….it’s just in

the family that we all go (Female, first year)

High Educ (2013) 66:139–152 143

123

These students positioned higher education on a predicted life course, with participation

in university being a cultural norm. Contextual factors such as family and social circle

were important for shaping their choices. From a sociocultural viewpoint, the ‘student

identity’ which individuals were choosing to adopt was not just about the self, but the

identity of students imposed upon them by others such as family members. Cultural values

towards university were also evident, with many holding images of higher education as

high status. Universities were conceptualised as superior establishments, and university

education was something they looked up to.

I thought that university was more for people who had more money…so I was really

put off… I always thought it was about superior intelligence and stuff (Female,

second year)

Although there have been strides to encourage wider participation in higher education,

some students still held beliefs reminiscent of elite university education. University

symbolized something specific for them, and they had pre-transitional images of what

‘university’ meant. These images varied depending on the students’ cultural world prior to

arriving and could therefore act as a barrier to access. For example, the prestigious posi-

tioning of higher education resulted in anxieties for some students over their ability to

cope.

I was just really scared about that fact…that it’s such a step up. Everyone used to say

A-levels are…a certain level and then like Uni was literally 10, 20 levels above that

so I was really like scared about that and the work I was expecting and the quality

and just the step up. (Female, second year)

Students’ beliefs about university originated from internalising ‘what other people said’,

and then became instrumental in the formation of their own expectations. They held

images about what a normative university experience involved, and this served as a

benchmark for interpreting their own experiences. We saw references to ‘normal’ students

and what was perceived to be the ‘normal university experience’. This terminology was

typically applied to ‘traditional’ students who moved away to university after leaving

school, studied full time and lived in university residences (which is common in UK higher

education).

I know quite a few students who still live at home and they feel they haven’t had the

same experiences as students who don’t live at home….I do think that the whole

university experience is living away and making friends on your own. (Female,

second year).

The construction of ‘normal’ students (described as ‘the whole university experience’),

with students who fall outside of this description being represented as ‘others’, reflects

popular discourse around ‘traditional’ and ‘non-traditional’ students originating from the

movement from elite to mass higher education. The ‘masses’ who can now benefit from

university education are pathologized by comparing them to ‘typical’ students and label-

ling them as ‘non-traditional’ (Leathwood and O’Connell 2003, 599). In our data, students

made consistent comparisons between ‘normal’ or traditional students and ‘others’. Here, a

mature student compared her university experience with ‘normal’ students.

they’re trying to…make the most of the few years they’ve got at university - they’re

not going to get that experience again…it’s like the first time they’ve been away

144 High Educ (2013) 66:139–152

123

from home so they wanna enjoy the partying side of it whereas I don’t feel that I

need to do that. (Female, second year)

She drew on normative ideas about the purposes of university, explaining that for

‘them’, university was a special time in their life with a specific social purpose. By

identifying conflicting priorities and consciously separating herself from ‘others’, it created

division between students. This division was also apparent in the formation of social

groups. When talking about getting to know other students upon arrival, there was a

tendency for students to draw comparisons between themselves and others, and categorise

students into groups or typologies. Students formed allegiances with some of the groups

they identified, and distanced themselves from others. For example, several students

categorised fellow students based on their study orientation by distinguishing between

students who did not take their work seriously and those who worked hard. This was

important in forming working groups.

I think the biggest problem I have is that I don’t want to be with people that aren’t

going be arsed doing the reading outside of lectures and as soon as I’m stuck with

them then I’m not going to want anything to do with them. (Male, second year)

There is tension in the way he speaks about ‘slackers’ in comparison to ‘studious’

students (our terms), and when the two groups were forced to mix through assigned group

work, the perceived clash of study attitudes created frustration. Putting himself in the

‘studious’ group, and separating from other groups, enabled him to position himself within

the student population and provide a sense of identity. His expectations about future group

work and anticipating his feelings shows how transitions can be ongoing. This was further

evidenced by the way students described the development of their social relationships

when they started university. A common anxiety students expressed was about making

friends. They were afraid of being isolated, which seemed embedded within the image of

university as a hub for social relationships – with an active social life forming part of what

was perceived as the normative university experience. The fear of being alone was so

strong that several students spoke about socialising with anyone in the early days.

it was just…latching on to anyone and making sure you had someone to sit with in a

lecture because I didn’t wanna sit on my own. (Female, first year)

The word ‘latching’ implied clingy behaviour, bordering on desperation, to avoid iso-

lation. As a result of this fear of isolation, several students talked about forming initial

social contacts that were not long-standing or particularly meaningful.

I think in the first year it was more about meeting new people and finding out who

you got on with and as you become less reliant on people then you meet people who

you actually really want to hang out with…and my friendship groups have changed a

lot in the second year from the first year. (Female, second year)

This student’s social relationships shifted during her transition. In the early days of

starting university, the bonds formed were more relationships of convenience. Once other

aspects of university life became more settled and she felt more comfortable with the

environment, she became more selective with her friendships and re-organised her social

groups. Transitions are therefore progressive during university life and not just limited to

the pre-university and initial settling in period. This student’s use of the word ‘reliant’

implied that she felt that she ‘needed’ other people at first but over time she felt able to

High Educ (2013) 66:139–152 145

123

exert more control over who she spent time with. The feeling of belonging associated with

being part of a group facilitated a sense of identity and security during a difficult time.

In summary, it appeared that the images students held about university created attitudes

and beliefs about university life and other students. Alongside anxiety about establishing

social bonds in a new situation, students engaged in social comparison in order to identify

others who they could align themselves with and separate themselves from. This facilitated

the development of social groups which relieved anxiety and established a sense of

belonging.

Expectations versus reality

Students drew comparisons between what they expected from university before they

started, and what is was like on arrival. There were often conflicts between expectations

and reality. For example, several students expected more difficult work and increased

pressure, and were surprised that it was not like this.

I thought it was going to be…extra extra difficult…like if you want to increase your

earning potential by x amount you’re going to have to be really really intelligent in

order to do that but I think with university your hard work can cut it…you don’t have

to have all this natural ability…. a lot of the time people expect that it’s going to be

extra difficult and….it’s often not as difficult as you expect (Female, first year)

We might relate these expectations back to first theme where several students associated

university with status. Ideas about higher education being superior meant they were

concerned about measuring up to the challenge. This expectation contrasted with the way

some other students described an image of university as a leisurely lifestyle. They said

university was more demanding than they anticipated.

It’s not as easy as everyone said…During school like everyone told us that ‘Uni’ll be

easy…’, but…it’s a lot harder…. (Female, second year).

She had internalised views that she had been exposed to at school and used these to

form her initial expectations. Other students recognised the pervasiveness of social ste-

reotypes about students and how they shaped their own impressions:

I thought (university) would be all about partying and stuff and I suppose that’s what

the stereotype is about students, that they don’t actually work but that’s the big thing

that struck me about the discrepancy about my expectation and about what’s hap-

pened here. (Female, second year)

It is important to note that conflicting expectations were sometimes observed within the

same accounts. For example, this quote is from the same student who expected university

to be ‘extra extra difficult’:

I was expecting a…lazy kind of laid back life…I’m not a lazy person but I did expect

there to be…times when you can just kind of like chill out and not really do any-

thing….I think a lot of the time university and university work is slightly underes-

timated…and that people don’t actually think that there is this amount of work to do

(Female, first year)

There was an inherent contradiction between reporting university to be easier than

expected, but harder than people think. This contradiction seemed to be rooted in con-

flicting cultural messages about the image of university which students drew on to

146 High Educ (2013) 66:139–152

123

formulate their expectations – with tensions between the ideas of higher education as elite

and studious, and the stereotype of students as idle, inebriated ‘loafers’.

Expectations were used by students to help them mentally prepare for periods of

uncertainty. Not knowing what to expect created anxiety, so they tried to reduce this

uncertainty by drawing on cultural resources available to them. They internalised what

they had heard from others about university and used these ideas to formulate expectations

so they could prepare themselves.

you don’t expect it to be too much different to school so I think that’s mainly where

(my expectations) came from… using the template of school life to adapt it and make

it into university…because there wasn’t really anyone that I knew that was at uni-

versity at that point in time so obviously I had no reference point…so it was just

using…whatever limited experience I had to sort of make up this idea of what would

be expected. (Female, second year)

We see overlaps here with the first theme, where ‘messages’ transmitted through cul-

tural exposure were used by students to construct images about university life. Another

strategy for uncertainty reduction was hearing other students’ experiences. Student voices

were perceived to provide more authentic perspectives.

I think what would make it easier is hearing it from someone who’s already done it.

Not with tutors, not with parents, but just the student themselves (Female, second

year)

Further evidence for this was the way the shared experience of participants and student

researchers was actively voiced and used productively in the research situation. Here,

participants involved the student researcher in their focus group discussion about second

year, and drew on her experiences to help them.

Participant (1): It would be nice to know more about year three….from year three

students cuz like…I’m expecting hard work and stuff…

Participant (2): Yeah

Participant (1): Yeah we’re looking at you (said towards the researcher who was

currently in third year)

(group laughter)

Researcher: it’s much much easier than the second year actually

…..

Participant (2): Do you have any advice for us?

…..

Researcher: I don’t think I’m supposed to be speaking (group laughs) umm…no

just…kind of relax into it because…honestly it’s so much easier…

Despite the student researcher facilitating the focus group, the participants treated her as

a fellow student and included her in the conversation. The group laughter when she

questioned the appropriateness of her contribution (which was supportive and friendly in

tone) highlighted how she assumed a dual role in the research process (as both researcher

and participant), and was able to transition between the two depending on the situation.

Firstly this highlights the value of including student researchers in the study as they were

High Educ (2013) 66:139–152 147

123

able to establish a unique relationship with participants – challenging traditional

researcher-participant dynamics. Secondly, it shows that the students themselves did not

see transition as a static experience and expected transitional changes throughout their

degree. Thirdly, it illustrates the strong group identity students felt with fellow students.

The experiences of ‘insiders’ were valued and taken more seriously than those of ‘out-

siders’ (such as staff, or parents). One student who had the opportunity to engage with

other students and hear their experiences and advice found this very useful.

in the first year I met some previous second years…they were all telling me how bad

the second year was…I think coming in with the idea that this year is gonna be really

difficult…has made it not as tough coz if I’d come in with not knowing… I could

have like screamed…pulled my hair out and dropped out whereas I haven’t…I’ve

come in assuming that it’s going to be really difficult which is probably why I don’t

think it is difficult as they said… (Male, second year)

Hearing from other students enabled him to mentally prepare himself for the challenge

ahead, which relieved anxiety, and enabled him to form coping strategies. Having contact

with fellow students and sharing experiences seemed to assist in the establishment of a

collective group identity as ‘students’, which contributed positively to transition

experiences.

Developmental changes to self

Students reflected on how they had changed personally since starting university. They

reported developments in their sense of self, and this shift in personal identity was per-

ceived to be linked to transition experiences. This was a sustained experience, not confined

to an abrupt ‘rupture’ upon arrival (Crafter and Maunder 2012). For example, some stu-

dents reported changes in the way they managed their studies and the personal responsi-

bility they took over their learning. The independence they reported encompassed different

aspects. For some, it was a tangible construct relating to taking responsibility for their own

well-being (such as cooking for themselves). However, independence was also abstract,

with students taking initiative and transitioning from a passive to active study approach.

They drove their own learning by organising their schedule, identifying learning needs and

seeking help from tutors.

I think at school I was relying on the lessons to give me all the things I need…at Uni

I have had to not only go to the lectures and use them, but you’ve also got…to do a

bit of outside work…to be able to understand something….you have to be a lot more

independent and a lot more committed to what you are doing. You have to…make

yourself do it…you aren’t required to go to most of the lectures…but you still have

to make yourself go because otherwise you are going to miss out (Female, second

year)

Saying ‘you have to’ indicated that she saw this shift in thinking as a requirement for

success at university. Higher education forced her to change, and the development of her

independence was attributed to her adapting to the demands of the new environment.

Students also reflected on their growth as a person during their time at university and

how some of their self beliefs and goals had developed. This personal growth manifested

itself in different elements, the first being an awareness of their own skills and capabilities

whereby students felt more in touch with themselves and more able to express their

148 High Educ (2013) 66:139–152

123

strengths and weaknesses. This student talked about gradually recognising her own abil-

ities as a result of overcoming difficulties.

I see (university) as like an elite thing…I would never go to Uni…this year’s been

really tough it has made me aware that I can do things… and get really good grades

even though it’s stressful and hard work…I think my biggest fear with starting Uni

was like oh my god uni’s all the way up there like this massive thing and here’s little

me coming into it (Female, second year)

The internal ideas she held about university being elite (linking to the first theme) were

initially at odds with her self-image. Over time her sense of identity assimilated with the

new environment and she developed self-belief about her abilities as a result of success-

fully negotiating the demands she faced. Some students also expressed growth in confi-

dence in social situations as well as their academic ability.

I found that being at university has actually made me more extraverted, like with

random people that I don’t actually know, I am more willing to start a conversation

with them than I was before…it’s given me that comfort (Female, second year)

It also developed their sense of direction, with several students talking about their

growing aspirations and where they wanted to go after graduation.

I do feel more positive about myself and I know where I’m going and the person I’m

becoming than I did before. (Female, second year)

Referring to who she was ‘becoming’ is pertinent because it highlighted that she felt

that her transition was incomplete. The second years were still reporting developments, and

noticing changes between their first year and second year experiences. These ongoing

changes seemed to be focussed more on personal developments, implying that they per-

ceived the personal changes to be occurring as a result of the other aspects of transition.

I just think that … it changes you as a person…it’s just an amazing life experience

cos it just changes you so much and although its difficult and hard I’ve learnt so

much about myself that I didn’t know a few years ago…you go through some bad

times you go through some good times but they just help you…learn more about

yourself and just become a better person I think…. (Female, second year)

The developing awareness and reflection on personal identity was a consequence of

experiencing and successfully negotiating other demands. Students were aware of changes

that had occurred to them personally and how various facets of their personality, attitudes

and behaviour were shaped by their transition experiences.

Conclusion and implications

Our study explored how students talked about their transition experiences in higher edu-

cation. We adopted a methodology which positioned the student voice at the heart of the

study, firstly by including student researchers and secondly by yielding in-depth participant

accounts through qualitative data collection techniques. Findings show that the students we

spoke to held particular images about university which they used to form prior expecta-

tions, and interpret their experiences upon arrival. The importance of student expectations

and their comparison to the reality of higher education has already been discussed in

transition literature (Cook and Leckey 1999; Leese 2010; Rowley et al. 2008), and our

High Educ (2013) 66:139–152 149

123

findings add insight into the role of social and cultural factors in the construction of these

expectations. Students’ motivations for entering higher education and their beliefs about

university were influenced by others in their past and present (for example, family, friends,

other students) (Brooks 2003; Leese 2010). These findings resonate with sociocultural

perspectives which see individuals as positioned in different social and cultural contexts,

each having differing norms and practices guiding behaviour. When faced with uncer-

tainty, people draw on available cultural resources (such as interactions with others and

participation in social institutions such as school) to make sense of the new experience

(Zittoun 2008).

Previous literature utilising sociocultural perspectives to understand transition has

emphasised the role of identity processes when undergoing change (e.g. Crafter and

Maunder 2012; Hviid and Zittoun 2008; Zittoun 2008). Students in our study reported

changes in their sense of self and personal developments as part of transition (Britton and

Baxter 1999; Hussey and Smith 2010; Warin and Dempster 2007). These changes were

ongoing, showing that transitions to university are progressive and not limited to the start

of first year (Harvey et al. 2006). Despite some common elements, transition experiences

were also unique and personal. Individuals were negotiating the personal linkages between

their previous sociocultural contexts and current situation in order to position themselves in

the new environment. An important part of this process was the development of peer

groups, with lots of students’ talk being centred on the social aspects of starting university.

Brooks (2007) discusses how coming into contact with diverse students makes individuals

more aware of their social positioning, and sensitive to how they compare to others. We

saw this in our data by students engaging in social comparison between themselves and

others, and grouping students based on perceived similarities and differences. In this way,

we feel that social groups enabled individuals to find their place and establish an identity in

an unfamiliar context.

Successfully negotiating transitions served particular functions by contributing to stu-

dents’ personal development, indicating that hurdles experienced during transition may

have unanticipated benefits. University staff may therefore want to rethink approaches

which aim to ‘smooth’ transitions. Additionally, given the personal nature of transition in

terms of different sociocultural worlds and identity processes, a ‘one-size fits all’ approach

to supporting transition would not seem feasible or personally productive. However, some

things might help individual transitions to occur more easily. For example, facilitating the

development of social relationships between new students early on seems paramount in

aiding students to feel supported and successfully integrated into university life (Brooks

2007; Pittman and Richmond 2008; Wilcox et al. 2005). Our students also wanted

opportunities to meet with existing students in order to hear ‘authentic’ advice and help

them prepare. This could help to manage expectations by providing a resource which

students could draw on to formulate realistic ideas and beliefs about university. Educators

also need to recognize that transition is not limited to the induction period (Palmer et al.

2009). Our students reported progressive transitions through first and second year, and we

recommend further research into ongoing transitions experienced by undergraduate stu-

dents in order to explore this and identify what support might be appropriate at various

stages during degree study.

We recognise that our findings are limited to students from one university and one

subject area. However, we have noted numerous parallels to previous research suggesting

that our findings are not unique to our participant group and represent existing trends in the

literature. Furthermore, we believe that the student-as-researcher model adopted for this

study contributes to the legitimacy of the findings. The data presented represents an active

150 High Educ (2013) 66:139–152

123

dialogue between students engaged in a collaborative discussion about transition without

input from staff. Although the student researchers assumed a particular ‘researcher role’

during data collection, their status as fellow students enabled a particular relationship to be

established with participants which, we argue, would not have been possible for a staff

member to achieve. This student-led approach gives unique, authentic insight into student

life. It also highlights the value of staff and students working together in partnership to

improve understanding of educational issues and facilitate change (Little 2011).

In conclusion, through utilising qualitative methodologies which enabled students to

talk freely about their experiences, we have shown that cultural experience, personal

identity and social factors are salient in accounts of transition. Given the congruence

between core features of sociocultural perspectives and key elements of our findings, we

recommend further research into personal experiences of transition in university with

particular emphasis on social and cultural factors. We also suggest that researchers con-

sider working collaboratively with students on research into student experiences of higher

education.

Acknowledgments We are grateful to the students who participated, and shared their experiences with us.

References

Bovill, C., Cook-Sather, A., & Felten, P. (2011). Students as co-creators of teaching approaches, coursedesign, and curricula: Implications for academic developers. International Journal for AcademicDevelopment, 16(2), 133–145.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology,3, 77–101.

Brinkworth, R., McCann, B., Matthews, C., & Nordstrom, K. (2009). First year expectations and experi-ences: Student and teacher perspectives. Higher Education, 58, 157–173.

Britton, C., & Baxter, A. (1999). Becoming a mature student: Gendered narratives of the self. Gender andEducation, 11(2), 179–193.

Brooks, R. (2003). Young people’s higher education choices: The role of family and friends. British Journalof Sociology of Education, 24(3), 283–297.

Brooks, R. (2007). Friends, peers and higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 28(6),693–707.

Butcher, J., & Maunder, R. (in press). Going URB@N: Exploring the impact of undergraduate students aspedagogic researchers. Innovations in Education and Teaching International.

Cook, A., & Leckey, J. (1999). Do expectations meet reality? A survey of changes in first-year studentopinion. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 23(2), 157–171.

Crafter, S., & Maunder, R. (2012). Understanding transition using a sociocultural framework. Educationaland Child Psychology, 29(1), 10–18.

Dunne, E., & Zandstra, R. (2011). Students as change agents: New ways of engaging with learning andteaching in higher education. England: ESCalate/Higher Education Academy Publication.

Harvey, L., Drew, S. & Smith, M. (2006). The first-year experience: A review of literature for the HigherEducation Academy. Higher Education Academy Publication.

Healey, M., Mason O’Connor, K., & Broadfoot, P. (2010). Reflections on engaging students in the processand product of strategy development for learning, teaching, and assessment: An institutional casestudy. International Journal for Academic Development, 15(1), 19–32.

Hussey, T., & Smith, P. (2010). Transitions in higher education. Innovations in Education and TeachingInternational, 47(2), 155–164.

Hviid, P., & Zittoun, T. (2008). Editorial introduction: Transitions in the process of education. EuropeanJournal of Psychology of Education, 23(2), 121–130.

Leathwood, C., & O’Connell, P. (2003). ‘It’s a struggle’: The construction of the ‘new student’ in highereducation. Journal of Education Policy, 18(6), 597–615.

Leese, M. (2010). Bridging the gap: Supporting student transitions into higher education. Journal of Furtherand Higher Education, 34(2), 239–251.

High Educ (2013) 66:139–152 151

123

Little, S. (Ed.). (2011). Staff-student partnerships in higher education. London: Continuum.McInnis, C. (2001). Researching the first year experience: Where to from here? Higher Education Research

and Development, 20(2), 105–114.Palmer, M., O’Kane, P. O., & Owens, M. (2009). Betwixt spaces: Student accounts of turning point

experiences in the first-year transition. Studies in Higher Education, 34(1), 37–54.Pittman, L. D., & Richmond, A. (2008). University belonging, friendship quality and psychological

adjustment during the transition to college. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76(4), 343–361.Rowley, M., Hartley, J., & Larkin, D. (2008). Learning from experience: The expectations and experiences

of first-year undergraduate psychology students. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 32(4),399–413.

Seale, J. (2010). Doing student voice work in higher education: An exploration of the value of participatorymethods. British Educational Research Journal, 36(6), 995–1015.

Tobolowsky, B. F. (2008). Sophomores in transition: The forgotten year. New Directions for HigherEducation, 144, 59–67.

Warin, J., & Dempster, S. (2007). The salience of gender during the transition to higher education: Malestudents’ accounts of performed and authentic identities. British Educational Research Journal, 33(6),887–903.

Wilcox, P., Winn, S., & Fyvie-Gauld, M. (2005). ‘It was nothing to do with the university, it was just thepeople’: The role of social support in the first year experience of higher education. Studies in HigherEducation, 30(6), 707–722.

Willcoxson, L. (2010). Factors affecting intention to leave in the first, second and third year of universitystudies: A semester-by-semester investigation. Higher Education Research and Development, 29(6),623–639.

Yardley, L. (2008). Demonstrating validity in qualitative psychology. In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitativepsychology: A practical guide to research methods (2nd ed., pp. 235–251). London: Sage.

Yorke, M., & Longden, B. (2008). The first-year experience of higher education in the UK. England: HigherEducation Academy.

Zittoun, T. (2008). Learning through transitions: The role of institutions. European Journal of Psychology ofEducation, 23(2), 165–181.

152 High Educ (2013) 66:139–152

123