Feb 1, 2013 - Hence, tutorials are a resource that most students know and use while the ..... Photoshop, Freehand, Illustrator, ... Illustrator and sent it to us.
Proceedings of the Conference
«Non-traditional students in Higher Education: Looking beyond (in) success and dropout»
31st January – 1st February 2013
School of Education and Communication
University of Algarve Faro, Portugal
Proceedings of the Conference
«Non-traditional students in Higher Education: Looking beyond (in) success and dropout»
31st January – 1st February 2013
School of Education and Communication
University of Algarve, Faro, Portugal
Proceedings organised by: Catarina Doutor Teresa Gonçalves António Fragoso
Published by: Universidade do Algarve, Faro, 2013 © rests with the individual paper authors All rights reserved ISBN: 978-989-8472-29-8 The responsibility for the content of the papers lies entirely with the individual authors, and not with the seminar organisers.
Introduction The papers that are included in this volume represent the outcome of a meeting called to report investigations results and reflections on non-traditional students. It is a theme that comes a long way in certain countries like the United Kingdom or the United States of America. But in the majority of southern European countries this is a very recent interest, triggered mostly by the changes made in higher education that claimed our attention to people who were away from higher education. That is, access was until recently very difficult for those who did not represent the typical traditional students of our universities – the single white young males from privileged backgrounds in economic, social and cultural terms. Widening access was, therefore, a first step for the inclusion of non-traditional students in higher education (HE). It is the organizers view however, that widening access in Portugal was not done under the assumption of benefiting directly non-traditional students, but mainly because the recent decrease on post-secondary students was threatening the financial stability of higher education institutions (HEI). The existence of a “new public” out there combined with certain rhetoric meanings of lifelong learning, lead HEI to “discover” new entrants. The political managers of these institutions, however, work under the assumption that students “are all alike”. Widening access was not followed by the necessary institutional changes that would allow us to better receiving students who are everything but traditional. This was our main motivation to create a research project on mature students of the Universities of Algarve and Aveiro, which by its turn lead us to call for this meeting. And even this small introductory paragraph raises some issues that we would like to see discussed here: A first classical issue is the definition of non-traditional student. The term ‘nontraditional student’ seems useful for describing different groups of students that are in some way underrepresented in HE and whose participation is constrained by structural factors (RHANLE 2009). This category includes, among others, disabled or mature students, women, first generation HE students, working-class or specific ethnic groups who do not fit the ‘traditional’ group. If we choose such a wide definition, the non-traditional student is a fluid concept that we should view according to the context characteristics. The first studies concerning non-traditional students were focused on understanding factors that cause students to withdraw from university, such as adjustment, difficulty or isolation (Tinto 1993). Researchers argue that withdrawal is influenced by the level of academic achievement; academic and psychological factors; student’s background variables and environmental motives such as finances, employment and family responsibilities (Bean and Metzner 1985). Over time, different sets of motives have been determined to be the cause of high dropouts, including social class (Bamber and Tett 1999), gender and ethnicity, the shock of moving to HE accompanied by feelings of personal powerlessness (Bowl 2001) or the level of the student’s expectations (Laing Chao and Robinson 2005). Even if all these issues are important and determinant to non-traditional student’s situation, we also want to look beyond dropout and success or, at least, to challenge the nature of these concepts and debate to what extent are they adequate to non-traditional student’s life contexts. For us, non-traditional students are not a “problem” – even if sometimes HE policy
or academic management view them as such. Hence, and despite the fact that non-traditional student’s perspectives and experiences are central to understand their situation, the learning environment in HEI management guidelines, and specific pedagogical dimensions are also important to take into account. And instead of asking how should non-traditional students “adapt” higher education, maybe it is possible to get a better understanding on the context, uncovering ways in which HEI can be more flexible and adapt, institutionally or conceptually, to the structural conditions present in non-traditional student’s lives. This brings forward the last issue we want to underline in this small introduction: responsibility. Traditionally, HEI treat students as if they are the only ones accountable for their success. It is time for us to state this is not an acceptable position and act accordingly. António Fragoso
References Bamber, J., and Tett, L. (1999). Opening the doors of higher education to working class adults: a case study, International Journal of Lifelong Education, 18(6), pp. 465-475. Bean, J.P. and Metzner, B. S. (1985). A conceptual model of non-traditional undergraduate student attrition, Review of Educational Research, 55(4), pp. 485-540. Bowl, M. (2001). Experiencing the barriers: non-traditional students entering higher education, Research Papers in Education, 16(2), pp. 141-160. Laing, C., Chao, K., and Robinson, A. (2005). Managing the expectations of non-traditional students: a process of negotiation, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 29(2), pp. 169-179. RHANLE (2009). Literature Review from the project Access and Retention: Experiences of Non-traditional learners in HE. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving College: rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.
CONTENTS
Amy Rose, M Cecil Smith, Jovita Ross-Gordon, Amy D. Hitchcock, J. Schwartz & Michelé Robinson Searching for the adult on campus: Issues of persistence, retention, engagement and grit ………………………………………………………………..
1
Lyn Tett Accessing higher education in the UK – problems and possibilities ………... 10 Manuel Deaño Deaño, Sonia Alfonso Gil, Ángeles Conde Rodríguez, Leandro S. Almeida, Alexandra M. Araújo & Alexandra Ribeiro Costa Assessment of academic expectations for Higher Education in Spain and Portugal ……………………………………………………………………………… 20 Rob Mark Lifelong Learning Universities and Change: engaging older adults in the academy ……………………………………………………………………………… 29 Esther Morales Muñoz A new teaching challenge in University: Senior Students …………………….. 43 Stephen P. Gordon & Janis Parham A Nontraditional Program for Nontraditional Students: Transitioning from Military to Teaching Careers …………………………………………………….. 52 Pilar Figuera Gazo, Mercedes Torrado Fonseca, Cristina Pol Asmarats, Franciele Corti & Juan Llanes Ordóñez Study of indicators of adaptation to university in first-year students entering via CFGS (Higher Education Vocational Training Cycles) ……….. 61 Mercedes Torrado Fonseca, Pilar Figuera Gazo, Juan Llanes Ordóñez, Robert Valls Figuera, Cristina Pol Asmarats & Franciele Corti University entrance pathways and dropout during the first year of study ….. 72 António Rodrigues, José Diniz & Carlos Ferreira Euromine Student at Technical University of Lisbon. “To be… or not to be” a Non-Traditional Student. Notes from a preliminary research project ……. 84
Graça Seco, Luís Filipe, Patrícia Pereira & Sandra Alves Non-Traditional Adult Students at the Polytechnic Institute of Leiria (PIL): challenges for the Student Support Service (SSS) ……………………………..
92
M. Teresa Padilla-Carmona, José González-Monteagudo, José M. LaviéMartinez & Maria F. Freda Profiles and opinions of disadvantaged students starting a narrative course to promote learning to learn in the context of a transnational Project ………………………………………………………………………………. 100 Susana Ambrósio, Maria Helena Araújo e Sá & Ana Raquel Simões A biographical approach to plurilingual repertoires of non-traditional students: an obstacle or an aid to navigation in Higher Education? ………. 109 Rob Evans & Paula Guimarães The good of small things: the uses of biographical narratives in the unraveling of non-traditional learning in difficult times …………………….. 119 Lucília Santos, Joana Bago & Henrique Fonseca Dropout and (in) success of non-traditional students in the Universities of Aveiro and Algarve ……………………………………………………………….. 129 C. Miguel Ribeiro, Teresa Gonçalves, Helena Quintas, Rute Monteiro & António Fragoso Access is not enough: perspectives of mature students’ and professors of the Universities of Aveiro and Algarve ………………………………………… 140
Searching for the adult on campus: Issues of persistence, retention, engagement, and grit Amy D. Rose1, M Cecil Smith2, Jovita Ross-Gordon3, Amy D. Hitchcock1, J. Schwartz2 & Michelé Robinson2 1
Seattle University Northern Illinois University 3 Texas State University at San Marcos 2
Abstract This paper examines different approaches to adult higher education within the US context. It examines models related to persistence and retention and relates these constructs to recent research on individuals’ resilience (grit), and self-regulation. We begin the process of uniting diffuse theoretical strands within a predictive model that provides a fresh look at adult college student persistence and retention.
Introduction In the US, nontraditional students are hardly a new phenomenon, as over 50% of students enrolled in US postsecondary institutions are over age 25. Yet, despite the preponderance of nontraditional students, there is little agreement about their experiences and needs in college. In fact, there is little agreement about the definition of “nontraditional” in the context of postsecondary education. With a large percentage of the student population identified as nontraditional, some writers have noted that the term is inappropriate (Rose, 1994; RossGordon, 2011). Adult participation in higher education has been studied from many perspectives, including barriers to participation (Cross, 1981), motivation (e.g., Aslanian & Brickell, 1980), and supports (e.g., flexible office hours and class schedules) for college success. Others have examined the experiences of adults within postsecondary classrooms (Kasworm, 2003), and of teachers of nontraditional students (Donaldson & Graham, 1999). This paper explores the elements needed to construct a predictive model of nontraditional student persistence and retention. Factors presumed to be significant to the model include resilience or “grit” (i.e., perseverance or passion for long-term goals; Duckworth et al., 2007), and motivation and self-regulation skills, and their interactions as related to students’ institutional and academic engagement and success. Although we do not believe that these are the only variables that predict adult college outcomes, we are interested in developing a theoretical argument that will shed light on the actual experience of adult undergraduates.
Rose et al. Reasons for persistence and success Two key areas of literature can be identified in discussions of adults’ college participation and persistence. The first theorizes about factors both supporting and hindering adult students’ college success in an attempt to build models explaining persistence. The other is descriptive and builds on the early work of Cross (1981) who developed a typology of barriers to adult participation in education. Others have built on this idea of barriers to examine the supports adults need to persist in college.
Models of Adult Participation Part of the discourse centers on the ways that nontraditional students differ from traditional students. Nontraditional students often have many roles and responsibilities. While they may enroll full-time, they are also usually working, parenting, and involved in their communities. Thus, they usually do not (and cannot) participate in campus life to the same extent as younger, traditional students. Kasworm (1990) reviewed more than 300 studies of adult undergraduates in American higher education, 1940-1986, and determined that the traditional expectation of undergraduate students, focusing on inward intellectual and identity development does not easily fit the adult undergraduate experience. Adults experience intellectual and personal development, but also academic growth towards outward roles and experiences – i.e., the classroom, family, and the workplace are equally important. Numerous models describe the experience of nontraditional college students. Among the best known is Bean and Metzner (1985). Their model includes background, academic, environmental, social integration variables, GPA, and psychological outcomes that influence intent to leave. The model presumes that environmental variables, and particularly those outside campus, are more important than social integration for nontraditional students. The model presumes compensatory effects between academic variables and the environment, with persistence predicted if both are good, attrition predicted if both are bad, and students likely to leave school despite good academic variables when environmental variables are negative. Donaldson and Graham (1999) drew on previous research pertaining to adult undergraduate experiences to present a model of college outcomes. They considered adults’ motives, cognition, classroom engagement, life experiences, and outcomes resulting from college experiences. Their model suggests adult students compensate for their lack of campus involvement (i.e., engaging in out-of-class activities) by having clearer purposes about their college participation and compensate for their lack of recent academic experience by using sophisticated procedural and metacognitive knowledge to monitor and manage learning. These models integrate many aspects of adult participation, but we still do not have a clear image of interactions among these elements – partly due to the complex nature of adults’ college participation. Motivation is often viewed as the driving force affecting student participation. Newer research, however, names motivation as only one of several important factors that explain nontraditional students’ success or dropout. New questions about persistence focus on individual psychological attributes that interact with supports leading to
2
Searching for the adult on campus: Issues of persistence, retention, engagement, and grit success in college. Researchers have introduced the idea of resilience or “grit” (Duckworth et al., 2007).
Barriers identified in the research Cross (1981) identifies three types of barriers: institutional, situational, and dispositional. Institutional barriers are practices and procedures that exclude or discourage adults from participating in education (e.g., length of time required to complete programs, inconvenient scheduling). Cross identified situational barriers as those arising from one’s life situation (i.e., home and job responsibilities, childcare, educational costs). Fairchild (2003) observes that financial strain for adult students is related not only to direct costs of schooling, but also to balancing the costs of schooling with basic family needs. Berker, Horn, and Carroll (2003) found 56% of students 24 and older (participants in the 1999/2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study) considered themselves employees who study rather than students who work. Dispositional barriers are related to attitudes and self-perceptions about oneself as a learner (e.g., feeling too old for school, lacking confidence in one’s ability). More recent discussions of barriers to adult student success have referenced Choy’s (2002) report that identified seven characteristics of non-traditional students: (a) delayed enrollment (i.e., not enrolling in the calendar year in which high school is completed), (b) part-time attendance, (c) full-time employment, (d) financial independence from parents, (e) having dependents, (f) being a single parent, or (g) not having earned a traditional high school diploma. Choy categorizes students having any of these characteristics as minimally nontraditional, those with 2-3 characteristics as moderately nontraditional, and those with 4+ characteristics as highly nontraditional. She notes that 73% of college students enrolled in 1999/2000 were nontraditional based on 1+ of these characteristics. The impact of these characteristics can be estimated from the fact that while 54% of traditional students had earned the intended degree after five years, only 31% of nontraditional students had done so, and only 11% of those defined as highly nontraditional (p. 14). Kasworm, Polson, and Fishback (2002) propose six forces that impact nontraditional students’ drop-out decisions: family, work, financial, community, student role responsibilities, and responsibility to self. Work responsibilities are the strongest force influencing the decision to drop-out. Recent studies of adult students’ stress related to multiple roles suggest, however, that role strain is a complex interplay of role overload, role conflicts (between the student role and other adult roles), and role contagion, i.e. preoccupation with one role while performing another (Home, 1998). They also suggest that individuals’ self-appraisal of their role demands are a more important factor in determining how they adapt to multiple roles than the objective time requirements of competing roles (Giancola, Grawitch, & Borchert, 2009; Home, 1998).
3
Rose et al. Supports Institutions support adult students in various ways. For Kasworm et al. (2002), supporting adult student persistence means addressing the forces that impact students’ decisions to persist (e.g., work responsibilities, financial concerns). Ross-Gordon (2003) suggests that educators should recognize that adult students may have experienced recent life-changing events and provide support through on-campus programs or referrals. Institutions can offer advising, orientations, and counseling to adult students (Kasworm et al., 2002; Levin, 2007). Access to information and resources and extended hours for campus offices address significant barriers for working adults. Cohen (1998) described Smith College’s Ada Comstock Scholars Program which supports adult learners with full scholarships and reduced course loads. By eliminating these barriers, positive outcomes in persistence and achievement were observed. Increasingly, institutions also accommodate adult learner’s life situations by offering distance learning programs, and recognize their prior college level learning through prior learning assessment (PLA) programs (Ross-Gordon, 2011). Faculty, staff, and administrators also act independently of institutions to support nontraditional students. Levin (2007) noted that community college nontraditional students frequently credit a single faculty or staff member who acted as a mentor. Ross-Gordon (2003) described the ways that faculty members can support adult students, stating that “the classroom typically serves as the focal point of the academic experience for adults” (p. 50) since nontraditional students are less engaged in campus life than traditional students. Graham and Long (1998) reported adult students' overall satisfaction with the academic climate (e.g., faculty concern for students, quality of instruction) of the institution plays a more significant role in their learning outcomes than does their campus involvement. Faculty can support adult students through intentional use of students’ on-campus time, and providing opportunities for adults to build relationships with faculty and peers (Ross-Gordon, 2003). Kasworm et al. (2002) agree that personal interaction with faculty supports persistence.
What’s missing? Why individuals choose to engage in learning is less important than what happens once they are enrolled. Pascarella & Terenzini (1991) see student involvement as a critical part of student success. Thus, institutional and academic supports that universities provide may be crucial in keeping students enrolled. However, while such supports may be helpful in eliminating barriers, researchers note that educators need to think more broadly about the issues related to persistence and retention. Thus writers such as Astin (1993) and Kuh (2009) focus on student behaviors while in higher education as critical to persistence. The National Study of Student Engagement (NSSE, n.d.) states that: Student engagement represents two critical features of collegiate quality. The first is the amount of time and effort students put into their studies and other educationally purposeful activities. The second is how the institution deploys its resources and
4
Searching for the adult on campus: Issues of persistence, retention, engagement, and grit organizes the curriculum and other learning opportunities to get students to participate in activities that decades of research studies show are linked to student learning. Astin's (1993) research provides evidence that students' level of involvement in college and the nature of their interactions with college culture lead to higher retention and persistence rates. Several conditions enhance college life, such as involvement in social and academic activities, interactions with peers, and connections to the campus environment. Little direct research on adult education has been conducted. Kuh et al. (2006) note that adults have different patterns of participation than traditionally-aged students. Persistence and retention have also been viewed in terms of motivation (which propels individuals to take part in education) and barriers (which prevent them from completion). Motivation for academic success is obviously critical to adult students’ behavioral selfregulation, including persistence and engagement. Many studies have investigated various dimensions of postsecondary students’ academic motivation, and research has examined differences in motivation between younger, traditional and adult nontraditional students (Bye, Pushkar, & Conway, 2007). Bye et al., for example, observed that nontraditional students demonstrate higher intrinsic motivation (i.e., learning for its own sake) than do traditional students. Motivation is a complex psychological and behavioral construct and a number of dimensions of motivation have been investigated, including the extent to which students believe they are competent in given domains (e.g., mathematics, writing) and possess a sense of agency, or control, over their learning activities. Students’ goal orientations (i.e., to master to-be-learned material, earn a good grade, or demonstrate one’s intelligence) (Harackiewicz, Barron, & Elliot, 1998), subject matter interest (Hidi & Renninger, 2006), and their affect in regards to learning tasks (Pekrun, 2008) have also been studied. Although most research has examined motivation in younger students, it is likely that motivational processes play out similarly in the academic persistence and performance of adults. Beyond engagement, recent writers have explored noncognitive variables that affect and possibly predict academic success. These variables and their effects are not clear. Like motivation, self-regulation is a complex psychological and behavioral construct that has significant influence on adult students’ persistence. Self-regulation is defined as “processes whereby learners personally activate and sustain cognitions, affects, and behaviors that are systematically oriented toward the attainment of personal goals” (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2011, p. 1). Setting goals, selecting and implementing effective learning strategies, monitoring and assessing progress toward goal attainment, contingency management, and maintaining self-efficacy in response to tasks are all important cognitive and behavioral components of self-regulation, according to Zimmerman and Schunk. Adult learners who are able to self-regulate their academic behaviors are more likely to persist in the face of difficulty (Pintrich, 1989). Sedlacek (2004) examines noncognitive variables correlating with success among nontraditional students (primarily members of racial and ethnic minority groups, but also older adults, women, and commuter students). Tracey and Sedlacek (1984) developed the
5
Rose et al. Noncognitive Questionnaire (NCQ) to determine a better predictor of success than current US-based standardized examinations (e.g., ACT, SAT). The noncognitive variables they identified were: positive self-confidence; realistic self-appraisal; ability to deal with racism; focus on long-term goals; having a strong support person (i.e., parent, mentor); successful leadership experience; involvement in community service; and, knowledge gained from a nontraditional field (Fuertes & Sedlacek, 1995). The findings indicate that noncognitive variables are better predictors of college success than are SAT scores for African-Americans, Asian-Americans, and nontraditional students. For Latina/o (Hispanic) students (a rapidly growing segment of the US postsecondary population), the findings were less clear. For this group, only the “dealing with racism” variable correlated with GPA. This is interesting because Sedlacek’s (2004) noncognitive variables bear similarity to what others call resilience. Research on noncognitive factors includes dimensions of individual character. Peterson and Seligman (2004) define character as a developmental yet malleable construct. Cunha & Heckman (2008) examine how noncognitive skills predict social mobility and “success.” Both character researchers and Heckman’s group grapple with the question of what makes individuals successful in life – and, how do we teach or develop these characteristics? Resilience was first introduced in the early 1970s. Building on Garmezy (1971), psychologists have examined how children and adults overcome stress, anxiety, and trauma. Luthar and Zigler (1991) describe various stressors and the competences needed to overcome their impacts. Some researchers emphasize “social competence” as the source of resilience. Others frame resilience as stress resistance. Research on the sources of resilience remains unresolved. Educational resilience tweaks the resilience concept, centering it directly in terms of its influence on children’s, adolescents’ and adults’ school successes. Masten and Powell (2003) identified three attributes of resilience: personal, relationships, and community resources and opportunities. The idea of grit is closely related to resilience (Duckworth et al., 2007). Grit is positively associated with conscientiousness (i.e., being careful and particular in one’s endeavors) but not positively associated with IQ. Duckworth et al.’s work suggests that achieving educational goals requires not just academic talent, but sustained, focused application of one’s skills over time (p. 1099). Grit may be a key individual difference variable in adult student persistence.
Conclusions: Toward a Predictive model Presently, researchers examine adult participation, retention, and persistence in higher education by isolating variables. Thus, we see research related to motivation, barriers, supports, engagement, self-regulation, and noncognitive skills (i.e., grit). No model has yet been advanced that takes all of these into account. Of particular importance are the interactions among these variables -- which require further study. Currently, we have identified variables, but have not fully developed a model. Our hope is that this review will shed light on the variables so that a predictive model can be developed and tested.
6
Searching for the adult on campus: Issues of persistence, retention, engagement, and grit References Aslanian, C., & Brickell, H. M. (1980). Americans in transition: Life changes as reasons for adult learning. New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board. Astin, A. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bean, J. P., & Metzner, B. (1985). A conceptual model of nontraditional undergraduate student attrition. Review of Educational Research, 55(4) 485-540. doi:10.2307/1170245 Berker, A., Horn, L., & Carroll, D. (2003). Work first, study second: Adult undergraduates who combine employment and postsecondary enrollment. NCES 2003–167. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Bye, D., Pushkar, D., & Conway, M. (2007). Motivation, interest, and positive affect in traditional undergraduate students. Adult Education Quarterly, 57(2), 141-158. doi:10.1177/0741713606294235 Choy, S. (2002). Nontraditional undergraduates. NCES 2002-012. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Cohen, R. M. (1998). Class consciousness and its consequences: The impact of an elite education on mature, working-class women. American Educational Research Journal, 35(3), 353-375. doi:10.2307/1170245 Cross, K. P. (1981). Adults as learners: Increasing participation and facilitating learning. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Cunha, F., & Heckman, J. J. (2008). Formulating, identifying, and estimating the technology of cognitive and noncognitive skill formation. Journal of Human Resources, 43(4), 738-782. doi:10.1353/jhr.2008.0019 Donaldson, J.F., & Graham, S. (1999). A model of college outcomes for adults. Adult Education Quarterly, 50(1), 24-40. doi:10.1177/07417139922086894 Duckworth, A.L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M.D., & Kelly, D.R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087-1101. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087 Fairchild, E. F. (2003). Multiple roles of adult learners. In D. Kilgore, & P. J. Rice (Eds). Meeting the special needs of adult students (pp. 11-16). New Directions for Student Services, no. 102. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. doi:10.1002/ss.84 Fuertes, J. N., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1995). Using noncognitive variables to predict the grades and retention of Hispanic students. College Student Affairs Journal, 14(2), 30-36.
7
Rose et al. Garmezy, N. (1971). Vulnerability research and the issue of primary prevention. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 41, 101-116. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.1971.tb01111.x Giancola, J. K., Grawitch, M. J. & Borchert, D. (2009). Dealing with the stress of college: A model for adult students. Adult Education Quarterly, 59(3), 246-263, doi: 10.1177/074171369331479 Graham, S., & Long, S. (1998). The role of college involvement for adult undergraduate students. Paper presented at the American Education Research Association National Conference, San Diego, CA. Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). Rethinking achievement goals: When are they adaptive for college students and why? Educational Psychologist, 33(1), 1-21. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3301_1 Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111-127. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4 Home, A.M. (1998). Predicting role conflict, overload and contagion in adult women university students with families and jobs. Adult Education Quarterly, 48(2), 85-97. doi:10.1177/074171369804800204 Kasworm, C. (2003). Adult meaning making in the undergraduate classroom. Adult Education Quarterly, 53(2), 81-98. doi:10.1177/0741713602238905 Kasworm, C. E. (1990). Adult undergraduates in higher education: A review of past perspectives. Review of Educational Research, 10(3), 345-372. doi:10.3102/00346543060003345 Kasworm, C. E., Polson, C. J., & Fishback, S. J. (2002). Responding to adult learners in higher education. Malabar, FL: Krieger. Kuh, G. D. (2009). What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6), 683-706. doi:10.1353/csd.0.0099 Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B., K., & Hayek. J. C. (2006). What matters to student success: A review of the literature. National Postsecondary Education Cooperative. Levin, J. S. (2007). Nontraditional students and community colleges: The conflict of justice and neoliberalism. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Luthar, S. & Zigler, E. (1991). Vulnerability and competence: A review of research on resilience in childhood. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61(1), 6-17. doi:10.1037/h0079218 Masten, A. S. & Powell, J. L. (2003). A resilience framework for research, policy, and practice. In S. S. Luthar (Ed.), Resilience and vulnerability: Adaptation in the context
8
Searching for the adult on campus: Issues of persistence, retention, engagement, and grit of childhood, (pp. 1-26). Cambridge, doi:10.1017/CBO9780511615788.003
UK:
Cambridge
University
Press.
NSSE. (n.d.). About NSSE. Retrieved from http://nsse.iub.edu/html/about.cfm Pascarella, E. T., and Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pekrun, R. (2008). The impact of emotions on learning and achievement: Towards a theory of cognitive/motivational mediators. Applied Psychology, 41(4), 359-376. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.1992.tb00712.x Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Pintrich, P. R. (1989). The dynamic interplay of student motivation and cognition in the college classroom. Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 6, 117-160. Rose, A. D. (1994). Moving into the mainstream. Adult Learning, 6(1), 6. Ross‐Gordon, J. M. (2003). Adult learners in the classroom. New Directions for Student Services, 102, 43-52. doi:10.1002/ss.88 Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2011). Research on adult learners: Supporting the needs of a student population that is no longer nontraditional. Peer Review, 13(1), 26-29. Sedlacek, W. E. (2004). Beyond the big test: Noncognitive assessment in higher education. San Francisco, CA: John J. Wiley & Sons, Inc. Tracey, T. J., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1984). Noncognitive variables in predicting academic success by race. Measurement and Evaluation in Guidance, 16, 171-178. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk., D. H. (2011). Self-regulated learning and performance. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 1-12). New York, NY: Routledge.
9
Accessing higher education in the UK – problems and possibilities Lyn Tett University of Edinburgh Introduction Embedding access and progression is a core strategic issue for all UK higher education institutions. Access is broadly defined as all those activities undertaken by higher education institutions (HEIs) to widen access for those from under-represented and disadvantaged groups. It also refers to the measures to support learners when in HE so that they are able to complete their qualifications. As the Scottish Funding Council (SFC) points out: ‘access to learning is important because it is fundamental to creating a fairer and more prosperous society, but it also has the capacity to improve individual well-being, confidence, health and the lifetime earnings of individuals’ (SFC, 2011). The HE sector is expected to develop and deliver these policies in ways that are consistent with their own mission so that the strategy ‘will be sustainable because it will be embedded in HEIs’ policy and practice, becoming part of the norm for the sector’ (HEFCE, 2011). Because there are large discrepancies in the take-up of higher education opportunities between different social groups action to change this is particularly concerned with ensuring equality of opportunity for disabled students, mature students and minority ethnic groups. Policies throughout the UK focus on raising aspirations and educational attainment among people from under-represented communities to prepare them for higher education, ensure success on their programme of study, improve their employment prospects and provide opportunities to return to learning throughout their lives. However, as Bamber and Tett, (1999) argued access is influenced by structural considerations such as social class as well as by individual’s agency and governments are sometimes reluctant to acknowledge the impact of these constraints. With this in mind the paper first outlines some facts and figures on access before exploring the main ways in which access has been encouraged in the UK.
Facts and figures on access to the university sector in the UK and Europe Whilst the UK has a relatively well-qualified population, in comparison with Europe, the UK overall has a high proportion of school leavers with only lower secondary education (figure 1) but also a relatively high proportion, above the EU average, of the population educated to degree level (figure 2). This indicates a bipolar distribution of skills in the workforce. There are a cluster of workers that have either high or low level of skills and qualifications. A smaller group or workers in the middle has intermediate level qualifications (figures compiled by Weedon et al, 2011).
10
Tett, L. Figure 1: Proportion of population of 18-24 year olds with at most lower secondary level (ISCED 1, 2, 3c), LLL 2010 countries, 2008 18
16
14
Percentage
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Estonia
Ireland
Lithuania
Hungary
Austria
Slovenia
UK
Norway
EU-27
Source: Eurostat, Eurostat Yearbook 2010, Eurostat, 2010 Figure 2: Proportion of 30-34 year olds with tertiary education, 2005 – 2010 60
50
Percentage
40
30
20
10
0 Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Estonia
Hungary
2005
Ireland
2007
Lithuania
Norway
Slovenia
United Kingdom
EU-27
2010
Source:http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/europe_2020_indicators/headline_i ndicators These data suggest that inequalities occur at an early stage with a relatively large proportion of young people leaving school with low qualifications, compared to other European countries. These inequalities persist throughout an individual’s lifetime as those with already high qualifications generally have greater access to learning as the National Adult Learning Survey (NALS) 2005 Scotland Report (Ormston, et al, 2007) shows. The survey found that 85% of those with SVQ level 5 (ISCED level 5) had taken part in taught learning in the 3
11
Accesing higher education in the UK – problems and possibilities years preceding the survey. Of those with no qualifications (ISCED level 1-2) only 23% had taken part in taught learning. This survey also showed that 82% of those with parents who had a degree qualification were likely to engage in taught learning compared with only 63% of those whose parents left school at 16. These inequalities are reflected in universities where only 15% of Scottish domiciled entrants to higher education in the UK come from the 20% most deprived areas; and mature students from the most deprived areas continue to be less likely to enter universities than mature students from less deprived areas (Scottish Government, 2011). In terms of progression Scotland continues to have the second highest non-continuation rate for full-time first degree entrants in the UK and students from the most deprived areas remain the most likely to drop-out (SFC, 2011). These socio-economic differences in participation are reflected across Europe as Figure 3 demonstrates using parental level of education as a proxy measure of social class differences since those with higher education qualifications are likely to work in professional and managerial occupations and to have higher incomes (figures compiled by Weedon and Riddell, 2011). As can be seen whilst there has been great success in addressing women’s under-representation in higher education, the social class gap remains firmly in place. Figure 3: Percentage of those aged 25+ who have completed tertiary education (ISCED 5-6) by level of educational background of parents and by gender, 2005 90
80
70
Percentage
60
50
40
30
20
10
-2 5 EU
gd o
m
si a
K in d
U ni te
C ze
High Female
R us
ia
ay
ve n Sl o
N or w
a an i Li
th u
la n
d
y Ire
ia
ga r H un
Es to n
lic
ria
R ep ub
ch
B ul ga
um B el gi
A us
tr ia
0
High Male
Medium Female
Medium Male
Low Female
Low Male
Source: Eurostat, EU-SILC in European Communities and HIS, Hochschul-InformationsSystem GmbH, 2009 The association between parents’ and children’s level of education is particularly marked in the old member states, where participation rates have traditionally been higher. In all countries, children from families with low educational attainment are much less likely to achieve higher education qualifications. This pattern is particularly marked in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovenia, where only around 5% of those whose parents have low
12
Tett, L. educational attainment achieve a tertiary level qualification, compared with the UK, where 30% of those whose parents have low educational attainment achieve a higher level qualification. There is an equally strong association between having higher qualifications and employment as is illustrated by figure 4. Figure 4: Percentage of people with tertiary level education aged 25-34 by level of occupation and gender, 2007 90
80
70
Percentage
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
ISCO 1/2 Female
Czech Republic
ISCO 1/2 Male
Estonia
Hungary
ISCO 3 Female
Ireland
Lithuania
ISCO 3 Male
Norway
Slovenia
Russia
Not ISCO 1/2/3 Female
United Kingdom
EU-27
Not ISCO 1/2/3 Male
Source: Eurostat, EU-LFS in European Communities and HIS, Hochschul-InformationsSystem GmbH, 2009 Note: ISCO = International Standard Classification of Occupation ISCO 1 and 2 refers to legislators, senior officials, managers and professionals; ISCO 3 includes technicians and associate professionals. As can be seen in almost all countries, at least half of those with tertiary level education work in professional and managerial occupations. This means that the value of a tertiary level qualification is clear in relation to an individual’s ability to obtain employment. On the other hand across Europe, less than half of those with lower qualifications are in work, compared with more than 80% of those with graduate level qualifications (Weedon and Riddell, 2011). These data illustrate the importance of developing access to higher education for people that have experienced socio-economic disadvantage and ensuring their progression whilst they are there. The next section discusses the policy context for developing flexible entry routes to higher education and helping participants to make progress.
13
Accesing higher education in the UK – problems and possibilities Policy context This section will focus on Scotland where the Scottish Funding Council (SFC) is the body responsible for carrying out the Scottish Government’s policy in relation to access and progression through its strategy for widening participation. The main aims of this strategy are to increase the numbers of students from the most deprived areas progressing on to degree programmes and to increase articulation from those with qualifications other than those gained at school into HE. Progress on these aims is reported on annually through the document Measures of Success for Learning for All (SFC, 2011). This document monitors access to, and retention in, higher education using a basket of measures. It provides statistical data in order to identify trends and both monitors and influences a collective response from all the institutions in Scotland to the widening access challenge. The Scottish Government has argued that Post-16 education in Scotland must be: Sustainable: Open to all: Flexible: Learner-centred: Focussed on jobs and growth: Diverse: Excellent: International: Well-led (2011, paragraph 21). This document points out that the current economic situation and difficult financial climate requires adjustments to expenditure and expects to achieve this by reforming and refocusing the system through placing more ‘weight on young people’ (paragraph 2). This may have implications for future policy in relation to measures to facilitate the participation of older learners through the lifelong learning strategies that promote social inclusion. The other policy of relevance is the lifelong learning strategy Skills for Scotland: a lifelong learning skills strategy (Scottish Government, 2007). As the title indicates, it has a strong emphasis on skills development and employability and aims to provide a cohesive system for the provision of skills across the lifespan. It recognises the need to articulate clearly the skills that employers need now and what they may require in the future with HE providers of education and training. In 2010 the updated policy also emphasised the importance of developing workplace cultures that enable people to develop and best use their skills (Scottish Government, 2010). The importance of this policy for access and progression is that it encourages both employees and employers to find ways of using and developing their skills in employment and working with the university sector to accredit these existing skills. One way in which this can be done is through giving students ‘advanced standing’ and the SFC (2011) reported that in 2009-10 the total number of Scottish-domiciled students entering a full-time first-degree course into the second or third year with advanced standing (i.e. articulating) increased across Scotland. Another aspect of the development and accreditation of experience is the recognition of prior learning (RPL). The legal framework through which this is done is the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF). The SCQF partnership promotes lifelong learning through assisting ‘people of all ages and circumstances to access appropriate education and training over their lifetime to fulfil their personal, social and economic potential’ (SCQF, http://www.scqf.org.uk/The%20Framework/). The Framework enables the recognition of different types of learning in a wide range of settings - for example, learning in the workplace
14
Tett, L. or in the community - and enables such learning to be allocated to the appropriate level and credit points on the Framework. The Framework was developed as part of the 'Bologna Process' in higher education and the framework for qualifications of higher education institutions in Scotland is compatible with the framework for the European Higher Education Area (EHEA).
Implementation of access and progression opportunities in the UK There are three main ways in which access to HE, and progression once enrolled, can be facilitated – outreach and pre-entry development courses; special entry qualifications; recognizing prior learning. In this section why these different approaches have been taken and examples of how they operate are given.
Outreach and pre-entry development People who have found school a negative experience and live in communities where few have participated in post-compulsory education are unlikely to see participation in HE as a possibility for them (Reay et al, 2010). This means that universities need to engage with people in their communities and demonstrate that university can be for them. Many university lifelong learning departments have worked closely with particular communities or groups to encourage them to participate through providing effective information, advice and guidance (IAG) on what opportunities are available and on the specific application process. In addition taster courses provided in communities, and targeted open days have been found to be successful in encouraging participation. Another aspect of pre-entry development involves preparing people with the study skills that they will require that will enable them to engage fully with university level study. Special preparatory courses for adults wishing to go to university are provided under the auspices of the Scottish Widening Access Programme (SWAP). This early preparation has been shown to promote later progression once people are in the university. An example of this kind of provision is the pre-entry access course to Strathclyde University. This one year evening programme is focused on those who completed school education and who have gained some further life or work experience, who could benefit for taking a higher education degree programme, but who do not have the general entry requirements of the university, or who have been away from study for some time. It aims to equip adult students with the necessary skills for undergraduate study and to familiarize them with what a university has to offer. Participants study an Arts module (e.g. English, History, Modern Languages) and one Social Sciences module (e.g. Politics, Psychology, Sociology, Geography), as well as one further module. Students can apply for help with costs through a Scottish Government individual learning account award.
15
Accesing higher education in the UK – problems and possibilities Special Entry qualifications Research shows (e.g. Cree et al, 2006) that, to a very large extent, inequalities in entry to higher education can be explained by differences in achievement of entry qualifications gained in school. The lower an individual’s socio-economic status the more likely they are to leave school with few or no academic qualifications. This shows that an important means of facilitating access is by having special entry qualifications for such students. In some cases this might mean waiving entry qualifications altogether and instead accrediting experience from life or work especially in the vocational areas of child-care, social work and community education. In these professions life experience derived from living in a disadvantaged area and working within the community on a voluntary basis is seen as providing very important experiential knowledge that is as useful as having academic qualifications in identifying a person’s suitability for the profession (e.g. Tett, 2000). Once people have entered the university additional support is often necessary to enable them to manage the new environment. An example of provision is the Bachelor of Arts in Community Development (BACD) programme offered by the University of Glasgow. People living in particularly disadvantaged communities who have experience of working in their community on a voluntary or paid basis can enter the programme without any educational qualifications. This is because their experience of community work is deemed to be the equivalent of academic qualifications. Students undertake a special study skills course at the start of their programme and have the support of dedicated tutors to help them during the whole programme. Work experience forms a large part of the programme where students need to demonstrate their skills, knowledge and understanding of the communities in which they live and work. The BACD has a very high retention rate that is mostly due to the continuing support offered to students.
Recognizing prior learning (RPL) The RPL process enables the recognition of previous learning that has taken place in informal, formal or non-formal contexts in order to gain credit or exemption for qualifications. This encourages a wider concept of learning that enables people to go beyond formal learning and rewards wider experience. RPL can help universities create more flexible learning paths, ranging from offering partial exemptions through to individual learning routes and so can break down barriers and expand the horizons of learners and institutions alike. Universities have worked on the development of materials to support learners through the formative stages of demonstrating their prior learning as they grow in confidence, recognise the skills and knowledge they have and develop capacity to think and write reflectively. In Scotland, the existence of a comprehensive lifelong learning framework (the SCQF described above), in which all mainstream learning is expressed in terms of learning outcomes and carries credits, makes it much easier to make fair comparisons of learning from different contexts. Many of the projects in Scotland have strong elements of training and support for academic staff as a key means of ensuring consistency and high standards. Many also involve
16
Tett, L. collaborative approaches with a range of partners and stakeholders that is helpful both in ensuring the success of the RPL itself but also the acceptance of the approach and results by stakeholders. One example of this kind of access is the project at the University of the West of Scotland (UWS) that uses interactive workshops to enable participants to reflect on their significant learning and then link this to specific learning outcomes. Learning outcomes are indicators of what is expected of the student designed to show clear links between learning and assessment and engage students in the learning process. Students can evidence learning outcomes through written reports, a portfolio of evidence, presentations or taking an assessment. Once this evidence is assessed then students are given credits towards specific qualifications. For example the BA Management Bridging Programme enables students with experience to claim 240 credit points that means they only need to complete the remaining 120 to gain the qualification.
Discussion and Conclusion This chapter has demonstrated the importance of developing access to higher education for people that have experienced socio-economic disadvantage and ensuring progression whilst they are there and shown some ways in which opportunities have been provided for mature adults. However, gaining entry to higher education is a risky business for both potential students and for universities. Students for whom HE is an alien environment need to negotiate a series of attitudinal transformations in order to build on and integrate their learning and also need financial support to make study possible. As Bamber and Tett (2000) demonstrated, using experience for learning is not straightforward, but requires a two-way process of change and development on the part of both students and institutions. Research has shown that engagement with learning is bound up with other life events and experiences where activities and choices are both constrained and enabled by an individual’s horizons for action, which, as Hodkinson (2004, 7) argues, ‘are influenced both by opportunities which a person has access to, and also to a person’s perception of self, of what they want to be, and of what seems possible’. Despite this research, within policy discourses there is often little explicit acknowledgement of the social and emotional components of learning, even though problems of student dropout and mental health problems have been well publicised. For institutions one risk is that students need sustained support throughout the course in relation to the external and internal factors that affect the learning process. This requires them to adopt more inclusive policies that are expensive in terms of resources and this is a risk that might not pay off in today’s financial climate. There is also a risk that if an institution’s admissions policies give a high weight to prior experience through special entry qualifications or RPL then others without this experience may see this as unfair and object. This means that all those involved in admissions must be prepared to examine their practice from a moral and ethical perspective and remain open to change and to challenge. This requires universities to accept that the implications of offering access to non-traditional students does not end, but rather begins, at the point of entry because if non-traditional students are to engage
17
Accesing higher education in the UK – problems and possibilities productively with HE then fundamental pedagogical and institutional change is necessary. Whilst it is true that policy is currently focusing on improving the current unfair system that denies access to the most disadvantaged population the financial climate is not conducive to the costly investment that this will require if education is to be truly transformed.
Acknowledgements The work on which this paper is based was funded as part of the EU DIALOGUE project under the access and progression theme.
References Bamber, J., and Tett, L. (1999). Opening the doors of higher education to working class adults: a case study, International Journal of Lifelong Education, 18(6), pp. 465-475. Bamber, J., and Tett, L. (2000): Transforming the Learning Experiences of Non-traditional Students: A perspective from higher education, Studies in Continuing Education, 22:1, 57-75. Cree, V., Croxford, L., Halliwell, J., Iannelli, C., Kendall L. and Winterstein, D. (2006) Widening participation at an ancient Scottish University, Scottish Affairs, no. 56, pp. 102-120. HEFCE (2011, December 19) http://www.hefce.ac.uk/widen/.
Widening
participation.
Retrieved
from
Hodkinson, P. 2004. Career decision-making, learning careers and career progression. Nuffield Review of 14–19 Education and Training Working Paper 12. Ormston, R., Dobbie, F., Cleghorn, N. with Davidson, A. (2007) National adult learning survey (NALS) Scotland report. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. Reay D., Crozier, G and Clayton, J. (2010), “Fitting in” or “standing out”: working class students in higher education, British Educational Research Journal, 36, (1), pp. 10724. Scottish Funding Council, (2011, December 19) Learning for all 2011: Fifth update report on measures of success, Retrieved from http://www.sfc.ac.uk/access/learningforall/LearningforAll2011.aspx Scottish Government (2007) Skills for Scotland: A Lifelong Skills Strategy. Edinburgh: The Scottish Government. Scottish Government (2009) Scotland's Future: Join the Debate: Education and Lifelong Learning, Edinburgh: The Scottish Government.
18
Tett, L.
Scottish Government (2010) Skills for Scotland Strategy Update. Edinburgh: The Scottish Government. Scottish Government (2011, December 19) Putting Learners at the Centre – Delivering our Ambitions for Post-16 Education. Retrieved from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/09/15103949/2. Tett, L. (2000) 'I'm Working Class and proud of it - gendered experiences of non-traditional participants in Higher Education’, Gender and Education 12 (2), pp. 183-194. Weedon, E. and Riddell, S., Tett, L. and McGovern, M. (2011) Skills for Scotland: Learning in and for businesses, Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, CREID. Weedon, E. and Riddell, S. (2012) Chapter 7: Reducing or reinforcing inequality: assessing the impact of European policy on widening access to higher education, in Lifelong learning in Europe: Equity and Efficiency in the Balance (Eds.) Sheila Riddell, Jörg Markowitsch and Elisabet Weedon, Bristol: Policy Press.
19
Assessment of academic expectations for Higher Education in Spain and Portugal Manuel Deaño Deaño1, Sonia Alfonso Gil1, Ángeles Conde Rodríguez1, Leandro S. Almeida2, Alexandra M. Araújo2, & Alexandra Ribeiro Costa3 1
University of Vigo
2
Institute of Education, University of Minho
3
Instituto Superior de Engenharia do Porto
Abstract Expectations may be defined as what students hope to achieve in their academic lives, for both school achievement and social integration. The study of students’ initial expectations for HE is facilitated by the development of an assessment measure with good psychometric properties. Therefore, and based on a multidimensional definition of expectations, in this study we present the psychometric validity of a questionnaire of first-year students’ expectations. Participants are 759 first-year students enrolled in the University of Vigo - Ourense Campus (Spain) and the University of Minho (Portugal). These participants answered a total of 68 items analysing their expectations, which are arranged around a theoretical structure composed of seven dimensions. Factor analysis of the items, with factor loadings above 0,35, as well as Cronbach’s alphas between 0,75 and 0,90, in terms of internal consistency, suggest that the items of the Academic Perceptions Questionnaire (APQ) are distributed by seven dimensions: Training for employment/ career, Personal and social development, Student mobility, Political and civic involvement, Social pressure, Quality of education, and Social interaction. With this questionnaire, it is not only possible to assess the construct of students’ expectations, but also to contribute to understand school failure and dropout, infer guidelines for the development of interventions to promote students’ academic and social adjustment, and further the study of expectations as a predictor of academic success in higher education.
Introduction Higher Education (HE), in Portugal and Spain, has included wider and more heterogeneous groups of students, moving from an "elite education" to an "education for the masses" system. In the last years, we have witnessed a progressive heterogeneity of students who attend this type of education (OECD, 2011). Social and economic needs of better technical and cultural training and education, followed by a general expectation of evolving financial and socially
20
Deaño Deaño et al. through HE, led to its progressive massification. Contrary to a traditional education, directed to teaching the social and cultural elite, today’s HE includes older students, coming from lower social class families, with no family tradition of attending HE, minority ethnic groups, or students with special educational needs, among others, that approach HE based on social development and equal rights policies to obtain a higher academic level (Bradley, Kish, Krudwig, Williams, & Wooden, 2002; Diaz-Infante, 2010). Therefore, we can speak of new publics or non-traditional students, who assess HE for the first time, presenting a wide variety of features regarding their level of knowledge and cognitive skills (Almeida, Guisande, & Paisana, 2012; Deano, García-Senoran, & Sepúlveda, 1997), motivation and vocational projects (Deano, Senoran Gomez, & Garcia, 1997), psychological maturity, and autonomy and psychological well-being (Salanova, Martinez, Bresó, Llorens, & Grau, 2005; Soares, Guisande, & Almeida, 2007). Along with these personal variables, students’ initial academic expectations are described as an important dimension for the adaptation to the university context (Almeida, Guisande, & Paisana, 2012). Expectations can be defined as what students expect to perform and achieve in their academic life, and include a school and a social adjustment dimension. Such expectations can be seen as cognitive and motivational orientations in learning environments, and influence students’ engagement in their school life, as they meet academic and social challenges associated to college (Kuh, Gonyea, & Williams, 2005). Academic achievement and social adaptation are central to students’ adaptation to HE (Tinto, 1993), and two developmental tasks of young adults in college (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Understanding the experiences of students in these domains, which include their expectations, may help the understanding of school failure and early dropout. Therefore, students’ expectations and experiences should be analysed in order to define guidelines for improving teaching and learning, as well as students’ satisfaction with college-related services. In recent years, several studies have advocated the advantages of knowing what students expect when they come to HE, in terms of their satisfaction and needs, in order to establish objective and subjective indicators of their adaptation, and thus to make more efficient decisions. However, research lacks a clear definition and adequate measurement of expectations. There are also few national or international instruments, for the study of expectations for educational purposes. The most commonly used are scales, questionnaires or structured interviews.
Method Participants Participants were 759 first-year students, attending different undergraduate programs at University of Minho, Portugal (n= 372) and University of Vigo-Ourense, Spain (n= 387), aged from 17 to 53 years old (M= 20,03; SD= 3,76), both women (n= 475) and men (n= 281; missing data= 3). The sample was arranged by convenience, based on students’ availability to voluntarily participate in the study, at a class period, which was allowed by the teacher. There
21
Assessment of academic expectations for Higher Education in Spain and Portugal was a deliberate choice to diversify the undergraduate programs and study domains that students attended in this sample.
Instrument Students expectations were assessed using the Academic Perceptions Questionnaire (APQ), which has two forms: Expectations (APQ-Expect) and Experiences (APQ-Exper). These forms assess the same dimensions, contents and have equal number of items in order to facilitate the analysis of differences in initial expectations and students’ achievements or experiences in the first year of college, or throughout their undergraduate program. The initial form of this questionnaire was composed of a total of 68 items. Students answered these items on a six point likert-type scale, that vary form 1 – Strongly agree to 6 – Strongly disagree. Items were composed based on the literature review (Almeida, Vasconcelos, & Mendes, 2008; Cole, Kennedy, & Ben-Avie, 2009; Fernández-Ortiz, González, Fernández-Losa, & Segura, 2010; Almeida, Costa, Alves, Gonçalves, & Araujo, 2012; Araujo, Costa, Gonçalves, Almeida, Deaño, Alfonso, Conde, Iglesias-Sarmiento, & Tellado, 2012), around seven hypothetical dimensions: (i) Training for employment/career: "Training to have a good job"; "Having a necessary preparation to play the desired occupation", (ii) Personal and social development: "Having new life experiences"; "Being confident in my potential", (iii) Student mobility: "Having a traineeship in another country"; "Participating in university student exchange programs (Erasmus, Leonardo, etc.)"; (iv) Political and civic involvement: "Participating in discussion groups about social problems"; “Participating in volunteer activities in the community"(v) Social pressure: "Corresponding to my family’s expectations"; "Participating in study activities in order not to be excluded by my peers"; (vi) Quality of training: "Furthering my knowledge in the area of my studies"; "Participating in debates or scientific conferences to further my knowledge in my undergraduate program"; (vii) Social interaction: "Having moments of conviviality and fun"; "Being involved in a student group (student association, club, etc.)".
Procedure The assessed classes of students were selected based on the heterogeneity of study domains and teacher’s availability to allow time for assessment. Data collection was carried out by members of the research team, in classrooms, at school hours and through the collective administration of the questionnaire (APQ), Expectations form. After providing information about the nature and main goals of the research, students were asked to voluntarily participate, and guaranteed the anonymity of their responses.
22
Deaño Deaño et al. Data analysis Data were analysed with SPSS 19.0. Analyses included descriptive statistics as well as the study of the extent to which the items measure a multidimensional construct. In order to do so, data were subjected to an exploratory factor analysis using principal components analysis with varimax rotation. Reliability analysis of the scale was also calculated, using internal consistency method (Cronbach's alpha).
Results Descriptive statistics, the results of factor analysis, and the results of the analysis of the internal consistency of items (Cronbach's alpha) are presented in Table 1. The mean, standard deviation, corrected item-total correlation coefficients (ritc), and the subscale’s alpha if item deleted, were calculated for each item. Table 1 also presents the eigenvalue and percentage of variance explained for each factor. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy of 0.94 and the Bartlett sphericity index (X2 = 21607.64, df = 1540, p
