First Year Experience Survey 2014 - Initial Findings

Survey 2014Dr Ryan Naylor, CSHE, University of Melbourne 12/11/2014

The First Year Experience

Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of TechnologyCRICOS Provider Code 00301J (WA), 02637B (NSW)

The First Year Experience• First year is a time of particular stress for many students• Experiences in FY frame the rest of their uni experience

• FYES – every 5 years for 20 years• Provides info on changing attitudes etc over that time

• Since 2009:• The rise of MOOCs• Ubiquitisation of ICT• The demand driven system

• What effect have these changes had on the first year experience?

Methodology• 30% sample - commencing first year undergrads from 8 unis

• New to higher education• Excluding non-award & enabling/foundation

programs• Stratified by BFOE, gender, domestic/international

• All Indigenous first year commencing undergrads

• Including non-award & enabling/foundation programs

• Wholly online, 2 week collection with regular reminders

Sample

• Mean response rate (by uni) 14%• Decline in response rates seen in this and other

surveys

• Largely consistent with previous FYES samples

• Largely representative of sector (using 2013 data)

Sample Representivity

• By age

<20

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40+

Sample Representivity

• By age

• Women oversampled: 69% cf 57%

• Full time oversampled

• BFOE largely representative• Over: Science, Health • Under: Management

• These largely to be expected: gender weighted in final report

Sample Representivity: Equity groups

Group Sample Sector

Non-English speaking background 2.7* 3.8

Students with a disability 5.8 4.9

Women in non-traditional areas 29 17.0

Indigenous 3.9 1.6

Low SES (postcode) 20** 18.2

• Total NESB (inc international students): 28%• Low SES - by postcode; this value calculated by mother’s education level• Regional and remote – by postcode

Three interesting findings

• Do not identify as heterosexual: 17% (twice expected!)

• Intending to study abroad: 29% (mostly Europe or US)

• Considering work-integrated learning: 50%• 10% not offered in my course

How useful and widespread is ICT?

Is it leading to student disengagement?

Online learning in first year

• Exclusively online learning not very common, but increased from 2009

Please indicate if you are enrolled in any...

% of total(2014)

% of total

(2009)

Subjects delivered totally online 13.1 4.7

Online subjects from OUA 1.5 1.3

MOOCs as part of your course 1.0 -

MOOCs for personal interest 1.7 -

Course contact hours continue to decrease, but total study time increasing

• 63% of students spend less than 15 hours per week in class (cf 60% in 2009; 42% in 1994)

Estimate number hours/week (mean)

1994 1999 2004 2009 2014

Course contact 17.6 17.1 16.0 15.3 14.8

Internet-based study - - 4.2 6.5 9.8

Non-Internet private study - - 11 10.6 9.8

Total study - - 31.2 32.4 34.4

Online technologies - part of students’ daily lives

• LMS usage increased from 92% (2009) to 99%• Lecture recordings increased from 75% to 88%• Face-to-face increased from 76% to 80%

Usage Daily Weekly Monthly Once/ sem.

Never

LMS 83 15 1 <1 <1

Course-specific online resources

40 48 8 <1 4

Lecture recordings 14 50 18 6 12

Social networking for study 23 29 14 6 28

Online discussion groups 8 26 20 12 34

Face-to-face study with other students

12 39 21 8 20

Utility % of users agree/strongly agree

Correlation with usage

LMS 89 0.36

Course-specific online resources 78 0.56

Lecture recordings 80 0.71

Social networking for study 55 0.75

Online discussion groups 50 0.73

Face-to-face study with other students 68 0.73

... A useful part



LMS 89 0.36






... A useful part

• As many people use social networking daily or weekly as use face-to-face study• But more people find face-to-face useful

... A useful part

• Generally, more useful → more use



LMS 89 0.36







(2009)

LMS 89 87

Course-specific online resources 78 78

Lecture recordings 80 73

Social networking for study 55 34

Online discussion groups 50 52

Face-to-face study with other students 68 67

Perceptions of utility largely haven’t changed over time

What is the student experience like in first

year?

Which groups?• Overall cohort (2014)

• Cf 2009

• First in family – 30% (32% in 2009)

• At risk – “Did you think seriously about discontinuing/deferring at any stage in first semester?” – 20% (23% in 2009)

• Not expecting an offer after receiving ATAR – 11%

Some overlap between the groups exists

25

86

2155

353

167

69

First in family

At risk

Not expecting

Some overlap between the groups exists

First in family

At risk

Not expecting

21% of FIF at risk(cf 15% non-FIF)

15% not expecting offer(cf 8% non-FIF)

27% of not expecting at risk(cf 14% expecting)

Being “at risk” is not entirely to do with ATAR

ATAR At risk(%)

Not at risk (%)

< 60 14 7

60-80 24 21

> 80 61 71

• Grades in 1st semester: evenly spread between higher, lower and the same as expected (same for Not at risk)

Why are you here? Reasons for enrollingReason Overall 2009 Groups

Studying in a field that really interests me

96 96(Steady since

1999)

Improving job prospects

87 86

Getting training for a specific job

78 75(Strong upward

trend)

FIF: 81Non-FIF: 76At risk: 73

Developing talents and creative abilities

77 77

Expectations of parents/family

41 35(Strong upward

trend)

Not expecting:45

I am clear about the reasons I came to uni

89 88 At risk: 76Not at risk: 93

Not expecting: 83



96 96(Steady since

1999)


87 86


78 75(Strong upward

trend)



77 77


41 35(Strong upward

trend)

Not expecting:45



Not expecting: 83



96 96(Steady since

1999)


87 86


78 75(Strong upward

trend)



77 77


41 35(Strong upward

trend)

Not expecting:45



Not expecting: 83



96 96(Steady since

1999)


87 86


78 75(Strong upward

trend)



77 77


41 35(Strong upward

trend)

Not expecting:45



Not expecting: 83

Outreach programs have an effect

• Outreach – overall, 54% of people participated• No difference among groups, except Expecting: 64%

• Of outreach participants, 46% said it was influential or very influential• No difference among groups, except Not Expecting: 83%

Academic preparation: largely stable since 2009

Reason Overall 2009 Groups

Year 12 was good preparation for uni

50 51 At risk: 38Not expecting: 27

Received good advice from teachers about choosing course

63 58 At risk: 53

Orientation programs helped get me off to a good start

42(1/3 “actively

involved”)

45 At risk: 29Not expecting: 31

Difficulty adjusting to style of teaching


Parents have little understanding of what I do

37 32 FIF: 49Non-FIF: 32At risk: 44

Not expecting: 45






63 58 At risk: 53


42(1/3 “actively

involved”)






Not expecting: 45






63 58 At risk: 53


42(1/3 “actively

involved”)






Not expecting: 45

Academic application and good teaching

Overall 2009 Groups

I have worked out how to manage my study workload

46 41** FIF: 42At risk: 25

Not expected: 37

Teachers usually give helpful feedback

55 32 FIF: 60At risk: 45

Subjects I’m studying fit together well


Quality of teaching is generally good

89 80 At risk: 80

Overall 2009 Groups


46 41** FIF: 42At risk: 25

Not expected: 37


55 32 FIF: 60At risk: 45




89 80 At risk: 80


Overall 2009 Groups


46 41** FIF: 42At risk: 25

Not expected: 37


55 32 FIF: 60At risk: 45




89 80 At risk: 80


Academic and social engagement

Overall 2009 Groups

Finding my course intellectually stimulating


Not expecting: 71

Overall, I am really enjoying my course

80 74 FIF: 76At risk: 53

Not expecting: 73

Confident at least one teacher knows my name

59 55 FIF: 55At risk: 52

Made at least one or two close friends


Not expecting: 59

Overall, very satisfied with my uni experience



Overall 2009 Groups



Not expecting: 71


80 74 FIF: 76At risk: 53

Not expecting: 73


59 55 FIF: 55At risk: 52



Not expecting: 59




Overall 2009 Groups



Not expecting: 71


80 74 FIF: 76At risk: 53

Not expecting: 73


59 55 FIF: 55At risk: 52



Not expecting: 59




Overall 2009 Groups



Not expecting: 71


80 74 FIF: 76At risk: 53

Not expecting: 73


59 55 FIF: 55At risk: 52



Not expecting: 59



Conclusions

• FYES was drawn from a relatively representative sample

• Exclusively online learning not very common, but increased from 2009• Blended learning ubiquitous, and largely well regarded• Social networking for study use has nearly doubled in 5 years• Students spending less time in class, but more in private study

Conclusions

• Indicators of academic and social engagement continue to improve

• First in family largely coping well with university – less able to manage workload, parents less likely to understand, more satisfied with feedback from teachers, less sense of belonging

• Some differences in motivations for enrolling – specific training

• Still to come: Indigenous students, other equity groups

Conclusions

• Overall, clarity of reasons for study continue to sharpen – except for At risk students

• At risk – less well prepared, less satisfied with teaching, less academic and social integration

• There are fewer of them – but still too many

• Those not expecting an offer are more likely to be at risk, show some signs of a lack of preparation/engagement, but some are doing very well

Implications for policy and practice• Investment in high quality transition programs, monitoring is proving effective

• Keep doing what we’re doing (?)

• Changes from DDS may not have been as destabilising as expected—but monitoring remains essential

• Further strengthen interactions between academic staff and students, and between students – academic and social engagement

• Maintain focus on “at risk” students – not just members of particular groups

For more information:

cshe.unimelb.edu.au

[email protected]

[email protected]

Education

First Year Experience Survey 2014 - Initial Findings