Student structural influences

This section considers the student characteristics that tutors identify as potentially influencing engagement with learning. ‘Background’ is interpreted here as the student’s upbringing and includes the nature and influence of their parents education and their own previous education experience, and the family’s involvement in the student’s HE studies. ‘Lifeload’

represents the students lived reality (Kahu, 2013) and is acknowledgement of the varying impact all the pressures a student has in their life, including university, can have at different times on their engagement with learning.

4.3.2.1 Background

Key aspects of the student journey are influenced by an individual’s background, from the choice of institution and course of study, to their expectations of the whole university experience. Clarity of understanding and equitable participation in the tertiary system learning process is particularly important to students from ‘non-traditional’ backgrounds (Anderson 2002). First-in-family students for example are less likely to have the experience of university-graduated parents and friends to draw on, and more likely to withdraw when their expectations are not met (Charlton et al. 2006).

T8 claimed she could identify students who did not have parental support available to them, attributing this situation in part to the students ‘background’. T8 stated,

“certainly we know that some [NWU students] have access to resources that others don’t” then added “some of them will be helped by parents or siblings”.

T14 talked of students who “when they are struggling with some of the work, have a parent they can show it to” and who can “go home and talk about placements or volunteering”. The same tutor recalled an occasion where a student struggling with the transition back into HE

146

following a year’s industrial placement eventually decided, with the support of his parents during this difficult time, to continue his studies. The financial realities of attending university, which can be quite bleak for students from less advantaged backgrounds Cooke et al. (2004), can incite hostility from parents (Callendar, 2003) rather than encouraging the emotional support from family required to help the student to succeed (Christie et al. 2001). While few of the tutors interviewed acknowledged the potential impact of family support, limited social support networks are identified by Christie et al. (2004) as a factor in the student decision to withdraw.

Students from disadvantaged backgrounds tend to choose a university where they feel similar to other students enrolled there (Forsyth and Furlong, 2003). It is important that a diverse student body on the same learning journey feels a sense of cohort and togetherness Markwell (2007). This may be a way of reducing any cultural differences that can present barriers to engagement in particular for non-traditional students (Thomas, 2002).

Mentioned in a small number of interviews was the notion of cultural capital, a proxy for parental education according to Bordieu (1977) and various others including Robinson and Garnier (1985) and Jonsson (1987 in Sullivan 2001). Variables such as parent education level and access to stimulating environments are related to the ability of the individual student (Bainbridge and Lasley, 2002). The effects of cultural capital are evident in varying degrees at NWU according to T5 who commented,

“…….I don’t know whether it’s necessarily age, but some students come in at 18 with wiser heads on their shoulders and I think perhaps that’s got to do with cultural capital.”

147

Recalling what he described as a rather modest upbringing T17 identified an ‘inner ethic’

inherited from his parents that drove him to do well.

In Vignette 2, T3 contrasts the levels of cultural capital he witnessed at NWU with those he witnessed as a tutor at a Russel Group university.

The experience recounted in Vignette 2 provides a non-judgemental view of the seemingly advantageous position in relation to study one’s personal circumstances can afford. This illustrates the challenges less advantaged students face and the challenges faced by those who teach them. These challenges could be framed as compensating for the cultural capital they lack or alternatively the need to recognise and value different kinds of cultural capital all of us inevitably own.

The acknowledgement of differences in cultural capital, albeit by a small number of tutors, could potentially pave the way at NWU for the removal of any inefficiencies in pedagogic transmission (Bourdieu 1977) and the recognition and valuing of what Yosso (2005) refers to as ‘outsider knowledge’ and characterises as ‘community cultural wealth’.

Although students from poorer backgrounds are more likely to withdraw prior to the end of the first year (Christie et al. 2004) positive outcomes for the student can be achieved through

“While I was [teaching at a Russell Group university], and this is definitely the case when you talk about some of the elite institutions, the kids who go there are sometimes from privileged backgrounds. I had a student whose father was head of [an MNE], [and]

globalisation wasn’t a word he had heard for the first time at university. He had friends, [and] the parents had friends that did this and that and talked about investments here and investments there. The guy […] didn’t need to be taught any of the basics. He already had that growing up, from 18 years of experience […] in just living it. And there were other students from similar types of backgrounds that had travelled, they had done a gap year and […] came to the table with an experience of the globe, of globalisation, of development…. They might have talked about football, but there were other things going on. There was a level of discourse that was commensurate with the level of writing in academic text books and journal articles.

I am aware that the students who come to our programme aren’t necessarily from these privileged backgrounds. You can just see it, hear it in the way they talk, when you ask them questions about certain things some of them don’t know that certain things are going on in the world or whatever and ok that’s fine and it’s not a judgement at all you know.”

Vignette 2 Cultural capital (T3)

148

assimilation or adaptation processes aimed at ameliorating and bridging any differences between the perceptions of the student and the institution (Walsh et al. 2009). Reflecting on the ways in which NWA manages its’ students early HE experience T8 commented on the difficulties posed by the sheer numbers of students recruited. T8 called for a more meaningful way than alphabetical order to organise students into tutorial groups, though did not offer any alternatives. Smaller groups according to T8 would probably make students feel “less like a number” and would help them in their transition to HE from schools and colleges where many students had been “quite cossetted”.

Although a students’ pre-HE experiences can potentially affect their intrinsic motivations to understand university level learning (Stefani, 2008), there is limited evidence in the interviews conducted for this study, of institutional attempts to understand this. Whilst NWU has a programme of outreach activities, the interviews conducted indicate limited awareness of it.

The stated aim of one particular project undertaken by the NWU Learning and Teaching Team (LTT) was to address the question “What can staff learn from a situated study of the prior educational experience of students?” The findings from this project have not been widely communicated, but are available on the LTT web pages for those who care to look for them.

In fact, Very few tutors talked about the influence of a student’s previous educational experience, aspects of which can be significantly different to what they experience at NWU.

Two of the tutors interviewed are involved in high school governance (T1 is a parent governor and T10 a governor) but in both cases, this is a personal rather than an institutional-level undertaking. Whilst T10 did not discuss this experience, T1 stated

“I didn’t really know what was taught in school, I didn’t realise how different university teaching was to the way you’re taught in school” then added “I go and sit in on their sessions and see how they’re taught, they’ve got me teaching on the modules and so I’m far better prepared now for undergraduate teaching than I was”.

The following rather poignant comment from T5 reflects sentiments many tutors will no doubt identify with.

“Actually who are our students when they come in? When was the last time any of us went and looked at a Business Studies ‘A’ Level syllabus?”

149

The previous comments, and logic, suggests a more informed understanding of students’

teaching experience in schools and colleges would benefit all tutors, particularly those teaching first year undergraduates. Reflecting on the challenge facing tutors T2 opined,

“students in many areas don’t come with the expectation that they’ve got to read and articulate and argue…they perhaps haven’t had it at school and it just doesn’t feature on their horizons….but an important part of higher education used to be [that] it wasn’t just about writing, it’s always been about discussing, arguing, conversation”.

Referring to international students specifically, T2 added,

“Some overseas students have been used to rote learning, [taking] notes and regurgitating, and we have a totally different expectation which many of them don’t grasp until they’re several months into the programme.”

This difference according to T2 is something we should probably address, but have not addressed in more detail during induction. T4 proposed diagnostic testing to establish the skills students arrive with then added, “there’s no point in delivering loads of teaching if it’s not even landing cos we haven’t bothered assessing the skill base”.

4.3.2.2 Student ‘lifeload’

A minority of tutors referred to what is described in the Kahu (2013) framework as the student’s ‘lifeload’. Among the few tutors that did, there was a view that “external pressures”, for example from family or friends, were among the reason why students come to university. Referring specifically to accountancy, T17 noted that course choice was often influenced by parents and friends already in the profession rather than “a natural love for the subject”. T4 suggested that university was seen by students as “part of a process to get them to the next stage in their lives”. More important was the prevalent view that in some instances “maybe university is not for them”. Reflecting on the pressures and distractions those new to university face T2 commented,

“… you have so many other things going on in your young life, all your drinking or your away from home or you’re [at university because your] mum and dad said you should get a degree or there’s nothing else out there for you so you’ve got to go and do a degree… a lot of them haven’t really figured out why they want to be here.”

Acknowledging there are many ‘lifeload’ reasons that can affect attendance T5 commented,

150

“You can have a student who’s fabulously engaged with the material but doesn’t turn up because they’ve got caring responsibilities or actually just a job that pays them more money...”

T8 suggest that those who were not facing some form of external pressure were in the minority within the student population. Referring to unanticipated pressures T8 added

“Whether it’s a new part-time job or something that is happening at home, or they get ill, or they get a new boy/girlfriend, even though they’re normally quite reliable, something goes wrong.”

Recalling a survey some years ago of first year students 4-5 weeks into their first year at NWU T8 noted students reported finding it difficult to sort themselves out and to get on with the work they had been given.

There is limited awareness among participants of the lifeload issues students face. The nature and potential influence of these pressures suggest there is a need for a deeper understanding of individual student’s situations among those seeking to support them during their student journey.

4.3.3 Section summary

Tutors do not know who their students are or where they come from so unless they are told by the university or the students they will not be in a position to accommodate all of their students’ needs. They do not have access to the data on individual students and often do not have occasion to speak to the students individually.

The bleak reality in the findings of the present study is that very few tutors acknowledged that these kinds of experiences might be at the root of some of the retention, attainment and progressions problems NWU continue to experience on some of their programmes.

Institutional government policy responses rather than the policies themselves for example larger class sizes to accommodate higher student numbers and conflict in research and teaching commitments resulting from the need to meet government research funding criteria. The nature and impact of the policies rather than the rationale appear to be more of a concern for tutors.

151

A number of tutors express concerns about the imposition of policies and procedures rather than the implementation of policies and procedures designed with their input. A recurring sentiment in the interviews is that the rationale for many institutional policies and procedures is the protection of the institution’s finances and/or reputation rather than the improvement of the student experience.

Attendance is featured in most definitions and measures and often treated a synonymous with engagement. Many HEIs have introduced attendance policies though enforcement differs. The moral and philosophical grounds for mandatory attendance are unclear in post-compulsory education where students are now essentially fee-paying customers. Availability of online resources weakens the mandatory attendance argument. The link between attendance and attainment is not conclusive.

Attainment and progression are institutional measures by which programmes and departments are judged within NWU. The same measures are the basis of external judgements on NWU but there is limited recognition of this in the interviews conducted for this study. The costs associated with HE study have made attainment an even more important measure. Although teaching is a key influence on assessment attainment, other influences include the student’s own input and the calibre of the student. This is determined to a certain degree by the programme entry requirements set by the institution.