1. The forgotten year: things to remember Dr Clare Milsom, Dr Martyn Stewart, Sue Darwent, Dr Elena Zaitseva Project research team

2. % Students achieving ‘good honours’ Other findings: Level 1: students perform significantly higher on Semester 1 modules Level 3: students perform best on 36 credit modules and least well on 12 credit modules. Initial plan: 1.Characterise the dip: pervasive or local? Discipline? Programme? 2.Investigate causes and develop strategies for enhancing Y2 experience. 3.Develop a model of analysing institutional data How the project came about

3. Data sourceEvidence ‘Mirror’ Survey quantitative data2 nd year: lowest satisfaction scores ‘Mirror’ Survey open answers’ analysis (Leximancer) 2 nd year: attitude to concepts University, Feedback, Coursework and Year changes Faculty attendance recordsIncreased absenteeism SU Advice Centre statistics2 nd year: highest no. of academic enquiries University Student Support Services records 2 nd year: main users of talking therapies and counselling SU survey 2 nd year: priorities are in supporting clubs and societies and improving bar Staff focus groups2 nd year: ‘falling off the radar’ Student focus groups‘My performance dropped in the 2 nd year… Psychological scales 2 nd year: low self efficacy and switch to performance goals.

4. What is the average percentage of students ‘slumped’ in the second year at LJMU over 2008-2011 1.45% 2.33% 3.68% 4.22%

5. Do you think that male students are more likely to slump than female students? 1.YES 2.NO 3.About the same as females

6. Which category of students is most likely to underperform in the second year? 1.BME 2.Part time 3.Mature

7. Individuals at the institutional level: Percentage of students who experienced a dip in performance in second year: IS THERE A SLUMP IN PERFORMANCE IN THE SECOND YEAR OF STUDY? yearyoungmaturemalefemaleBMEWhiteFull time Part time 08-0948.7%48.1%49.1%48.3%56.6%47.6%48.3%51.8% 09-1041.8%51.1%42.0%44.9%52.0%42.8%42.4%61.1% 10-1140.7%45.8%42.1%41.4%49.8%40.5%41.3%49.7% 48% 44% 45%53% 44% 54%

8. Based on 3 year worth data - between 41% and 48% of students drop their performance in the 2 nd year (University level) Good news: the slump has been decreasing year on year (down from 48.6% in 2008/09 to 41.4% in 2010/11) Not so good news: slump is ‘fluid’/not fixed Students on small (less than 20) programmes are more likely to slump Between 18 and 21 large LJMU programmes demonstrate slump each year, but only 8 are consistent slumpers All subject areas are prone to slump (but its characteristics would be different in terms of depth, % of good degrees etc) Institutional picture of slump….

9. Business & Law Education Health Sciences & Practice Media, Arts & Social Sciences Science Technology, Engineering MODULE LEVEL Combined module performance by Faculty (‘09 / ‘10) Level 1 (n=78) Level 2 (n=144) Level 3 (n=119) Level 1 (n=97) Level 2 (n=115) Level 3 (n=114) Level 1 (n=74) Level 2 (n=111) Level 3 (n=66) Level 1 (n=144) Level 2 (n=156) Level 3 (n=163) Level 1 (n=65) Level 2 (n=91) Level 3 (n=94) Level 1 (n=126) Level 2 (n=149) Level 3 (n=126)

10. Degree class equivalent at Level 1 Degree class equivalent at Level 3 Main slumping group appear to be students who started off with high marks at L1

11. μ 2.32μ 2.52μ 2.57 Maladaptive procrastination increases from first to second years Tuckman Procrastination Scale, n=166 Geography students

12. Are student characteristics implicated in the Sophomore Slump? Largest consistently slumping (Psychology, Business Studies) and non- slumping (Law, Accounting and Finance) courses compared. (n=512) Areas of interest determined from existing qualitative data – Stress – Self efficacy – Metacognition – Motivational goals: Mastery approach, Mastery avoidance, Performance Approach & Performance Avoidance – Autonomous learning Scales correlate in expected direction :- Non-slumping programmes have – Higher Mastery Approach – Lower stress – Higher self-efficacy – Higher metacognitive learning strategies

13. Are student characteristics implicated in the Sophomore Slump? Slump x level (year of study) L4

14. Are student characteristics implicated in the Sophomore Slump? Course x level (year of study)

15. Exploratory study to investigate if student characteristics are implicated in the sophomore slump at an individual level Existing data from study in 2006 Self-efficacy Self-esteem Optimism Personality (neuroticism, extraversion, conscientiousness) Business and Law students only (n=162) Compared highest slumping and highest non-slumping students Slump Non- slump 4 or more A-levels 44%22% Ethnicity: BME 22%7% Gender: Female 70% 52%

16. Very challenging cohort… The second years are strategic, but very anxious learners… …better equipped to undertake their studies, but frequently playing the system …more confident in their ability to cope, but often complaining.

17. 1. What is important for the second years? LJMU Survey qualitative data analysis (Leximancer) What we found: 2 nd years are concerned with their academic self- efficacy (able) Time is the second important theme Practical learning, career orientation and skills become more important Context and sentiment direction changed for some ‘core’ concepts – university, feedback, feel -all become unfavourable the 2 nd year Course Module Learning University Feel Interesting Group Able Work Coursework Library Feedback Marks Placement Tutors Skills Students Assignments Teaching Lectures Helpful Staff Support People Study Understand Time Modules Lecturers COURSE TIME

18. Slump Curriculum factors Learner support Individual differences Factors that promote engagement 3 rd year placement intense 1 st semester peer–mentoring professional engagement part-time work Limited induction ‘Difficult’ modules Narrow assessment ‘Students know what they are doing’ Inexperienced staff teaching on 2 nd year summer break personal tutoring ‘over supported’ in 1 st year Integration Emotions and Attitudes Optimism Low motivation Behaviours Strategic avoidance Low attendance Procrastination Lack of Knowledge and Understanding Assessment issues Workload requirements Module choices

19. Performance is secondary factor Slump to be viewed in context of the whole student life cycle Slump is a function of personal growth that could be assisted on various levels Our conceptual journey… Slump in performance ‘Slump’ in attitude and engagement

20. Resources Guide for Personal Tutors Mid year ‘check up’ - Blackboard Quiz for students ‘Watch out for second year blues’ leaflet (in collaboration with the Students Services ) Guide for Leximancer analysis of open text survey comments ‘Make maximum of your HESA submission data’ Guide Case studies Induction resources 2 nd year curriculum guide SEfiA – self efficacy in assessment tool (proposal submitted) Curriculum Learner support Book More detailed accounts of the research and empirical outcomes Approaches to institutional data analysis Institutional data analysis Assessment