1. Centre for Higher and Adult Education (CHAE) Academic and social integration in three first-year groups: A holistic perspective First-Year Experience Conference 9-10 September 2008 Stellenbosch Eli Bitzer Centre for Higher and Adult Education Stellenbosch University, South Africa

2. 2 Introduction 40% of university first-years in SA drop out (HSRC 2007). Some background on Louw’s study at four colleges of Agriculture (2005). Integration apparently has a major influence on student commitment and study success (Bean 1990; Tinto 1993; Strauss & Volkwein 2004). Kember’s (1995) notion of a ‘holistic’ view. Purpose of the study. First-year integration seemingly has a positive effect on later years of study (Downing 2005; Feldman et al. 2004; Krause et al. 2005). Background on the ABQ and APQ.

3. 3 Theoretical considerations Louw’s (2005) findings on academic indicators for student departure Unclear study goals Unrealistic expectations Gaps in foundational knowledge Non-ability to adjust Wrong programme choices Language difficulties Complexity levels Access to students not meeting admission standards. Social indicators Inadequate financial provision Inadequate information ‘Unhealthy’ social activities. Ineffective and inefficient time management.

4. 4 Louw’s (2005) framework for first-year support I. Student background factors Self-perception of competence Historical experiences School support Academic support Self confidence Learning style Study skills Options and choices. II. Student factorsIII. Institutional factors Academic Perceived low level of academic integration Learning backlogs Heavy workload Inadequate study skills Lacking foundational knowledge Lack of commitment Lack of confidence. Social Perceived low level of social integration Academic/social imbalance Language difficulties Financial constraints Lack of family support. Academic Inadequate learning support Inadequate language & communication in classes Large classes In adequate facilities Inefficient administration Skewed access measures Inadequate teaching Type of assessment Inadequate/wrong course information. Social Limited opportunities Limited facilities Inadequate accommodation.

5. 5 Adapted model for 1 st year integration Student factorsInstitutional factors Academic (1) Perceived control of own academic work (2) Perceived academic backlogs (3) Experienced workload (4) Perceived time constraints (5) Perceived study skills (6) Extent to which the module is enjoyed (7) Level of motivation (8) Perceived confidence. Social (9) Perceived social fit (10) Academic/social balance (11) Financial position/worries (12) Family support. Social (13) Adequate accommodation. Academic (14) Responsibility for academic performance (15) Communication in classes (16) Experience of large classes (17) Relationship between lecturer and student (18) Perceived success of teaching methods (19) Expectations of programme (20) Fair assessment.

6. 6 Participants and research questions Three first-year groups (n=579) - Educational Psychology 124 (low risk, n=163) - Financial Accounting 178 (medium risk, n=304 ) - Chemistry 114 (high risk, n=112) Main question: Are the integration dimensions as identified by Louw’s study valid for the SU context? Secondary questions (1) Are there differences in student perceptions of integration factors among the three student groups? (2) Are there links between integration factors and early/mid- year student performance levels (marks)? (3) Are there links between mid-participation perceived integration factors and pre-participation factors as measured by the ABQ?

7. 7 Instrumentation A survey instrument (the FYES) to generate students’ perceptions on 20 statements concerning integration was implemented by the end of the fist quarter (slide 5). Likert-type ordinal scale (1 – Disagree completely to 4 - Agree completely) Piloted for validity. Analysis: Three factor ANOVA and the Bonferroni correction was applied for the three groups. Reliability of questionnaire items tested by calculating Chronbach’s Alpha. To test for relationships between student agreement/non-agreement on statements and their end of semester marks, a forward stepwise regression analysis was used and Spearman’s rank correlation was calculated.

8. 8 Findings: Applicability of the model The item reliability test did not support the claim that items contribute meaningfully to the dimensions of the suggested SU integration model. Individual items were therefore considered for possible trends. Contexts clearly differ and other reasons might also prevail (e.g. methodology and timing).

9. 9 Findings: Differences among the three groups Most prominent differences (p<0.01) found on four academic factors between the low risk (Ed Psych) and medium risk (Fin Acc) groups: - Experienced workload (Q3) (E P > F A) - Sufficient study skills (Q5) (EP < FA) - Lack of motivation (Q7) (EP > FA) - Expectations of programme (Q19) (EP < FA)

10. 10 Findings: Relationship between integration factors and marks Three academic factors related strongly (p<0.01) for all three groups (n=164) - Having academic backlogs (Q2) - Lack of motivation (Q7) - Fair assessment (Q20)

11. 11 Findings: Relation to marks

12. 12 Findings: Correspondence between the FYES and the ABQ (n=137) FYES Item/factor FYES Agree (f) FYES Agree (%) ABQ Item/factor ABQ Agree (f) ABQ Agree (%) Q7 – I am not motivated. 12994.241 – Feeling depressed.9872.6 Q11 – I am worried about my financial situation. 11785.475 – I am worried about paying for my studies 109 – I would benefit from getting financial assistance for my studies. 60 91 44.1 66.9 Q12 – My family supports me. 13296.3152 – I have support from my family, friends and those who care for me when I have to overcome problems. 12592.3 Q13 – The accommodation where I stay during my studies is pleasant. 1371001 – Do you stay in a university residence? 9166.9

13. 13 Discussion and implications 1.It seems clear that Louw’s holistic integration framework does not directly apply to the SU context. However, some elements do apply. Reasons for difference might include context, method and timing. 2.Student motivation seems to be strongly related to both first-year integration and actual academic performance. 3.Perceived academic backlogs and fair assessment (academic factors) as well as students’ financial position, family support and accommodation (social factors) seem to play an important role in integration and performance.

14. 14 Discussion and implications Implications of findings for academic staff (determining backlogs; programme information; assessment) Students (programme requirements; expectations) support services (backlogs; interventions). Conclusion At least nine perceived academic and social factors in this study have proven to influence first-year integration. The relationships among these factors remain complex and student motivation remains a prominent and important integration factor. More institution-wide research is needed to develop the model further.