Presentation on theme: "School of Health and Social Care STUDENT SUPPORT IN THE SCHOOL OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE REVIEWING AND REFOCUSING PROJECT OVERSEEN BY THE SCHOOL LEARNING,"— Presentation transcript:
School of Health and Social Care STUDENT SUPPORT IN THE SCHOOL OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE REVIEWING AND REFOCUSING PROJECT OVERSEEN BY THE SCHOOL LEARNING, TEACHING AND ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE 2005-7 Presenter - Peter Bradley
School of Health and Social Care The review discovered many examples of good practice but also a number of issues for attention including: 1.The confusion of roles and responsibilities in relation to student support. 2.The impact of role change (becoming a student) was underestimated in some instances. 3.Resources for supporting students were poorly targeted and tended to be reactive. 4.Methods of providing core information to students varied and in some instances were inefficient.
School of Health and Social Care Self - referral does not promote retention. Students who need help the most are the least likely to seek it Anderson in Simpson 2005 p42
School of Health and Social Care Models of HE organisation and management (McNay in Ramsden 1998) Collegium model Passive/permissive approach taken by management. The autonomy and authority regarding how and when student support is given to individual members of staff. Corporate model Policy and resource allocation and use determined centrally by senior management Overall focus on efficiency, quality and factors such as attrition and quality of the student experience.
School of Health and Social Care Characteristics of Current/Future provision Some good practice but services were Reactive Inconsistent, Not making best use of resources and Individualistic Characteristics of new model: Proactive approach Consistent provision Efficient Effective
School of Health and Social Care Summary of new strategies. 1.Implement cultural shift in perception about student support – from passive entitlement to pro-active targeting. 2.Review the way information is provided – what, when and how. 3.Review coherence of programmes – constructive alignment. 4.Staff Development – clarify roles and support staff in carrying these out. 5.Facilitate student engagement through specific activities.
School of Health and Social Care What needs to be done to take this forward? Build in processes which recognise and address issues arising from role transition. (publicity material, induction, open days, group tutorials), Build in processes for tracking, identifying, monitoring and responding to disengaged students. (Profiling and formative assessment). Build in processes for enabling student to develop new support networks early in the semester 1 (Groupwork tasks, buddy systems). Clarify roles and responsibilities of staff involved in student support and staff development required to carry these out. Identify and share good practice in effective interaction with students. Clarify the skills, knowledge and attitudes/values necessary to successfully complete the programme and ensure that these are taught, practised and assessed appropriately and that this is clearly mapped and identified. Ensure that students have appropriate access to information about the programme, School and University in the right way at the right time. Seek feedback from students about what makes support effective.
School of Health and Social Care Glasgow Caledonian University 2002 intensive retention programme. Six key factors Preparation and Induction Personal Tutor Profiling Student Goal Setting Tracking and Monitoring of student engagement Absence Management Assertive Outreach Example of the Personal Tutor Profiling used electronically to determine at risk students. Are you living away from your family home? Are you the first person in your family to go to University? Are you working more than 8 hours a week? Do you know anyone in your class at the moment? (Smith and Beggs in Clift 2003).
School of Health and Social Care Bibliography Clift P ( 2003) Student Support and Retention: Models of Explanation and Good Practice. University of Manchester and UMIST Krause, K. 2005 Serious thoughts about dropping out in first year: Trends patterns and implications for higher education Studies in Learning Evaluation Innovation and Development 2(3) pp 1-v1 2005 Ramsden P (1998) Learning to Lead in Higher Education Routledge Simpson (2005) The costs and benefits of student retention for students, institutions and governments. Studies in Learning Evaluation Innovation and Development 2(3) pp 34-43 2005 Somasundaram J, Bowser D, and Danaher P (2005) Retaining attrition Studies in Learning Evaluation Innovation and Development 2(3) pp 1-v1 2005. Taylor R (2005) Creating a connection: tackling student attrition through curriculum development Journal of Further and Higher Education Vol 29 No 4 November 2005 pp367-374. Tinto V. (2005) Reflections on retention and persistence: Institutional actions on behalf of student persistence Studies in Learning Evaluation Innovation and Development 2(3) pp 89-97 2005. Yorke M and Longden B 2006 The vital first year in issue 4 2006 Higher Education Academy Exchange.
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.