First Year Experience Survey 2014 - Initial Findings

Survey 2014
Dr Ryan Naylor, CSHE, University of Melbourne 12/11/2014
The First Year Experience
Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J (WA), 02637B (NSW)

The First Year Experience
• First year is a time of particular stress for many
students
• Experiences in FY frame the rest of their uni
experience
• FYES – every 5 years for 20 years
• Provides info on changing attitudes etc over that time
• Since 2009:
• The rise of MOOCs
• Ubiquitisation of ICT
• The demand driven system
• What effect have these changes had on the first year
experience?

Methodology
• 30% sample - commencing first year undergrads from 8 unis
• New to higher education
• Excluding non-award & enabling/foundation
programs
• Stratified by BFOE, gender, domestic/international
• All Indigenous first year commencing undergrads
• Including non-award & enabling/foundation
programs
• Wholly online, 2 week collection with regular reminders

Sample
• Mean response rate (by uni) 14%
• Decline in response rates seen in this and other
surveys
• Largely consistent with previous FYES samples
• Largely representative of sector (using 2013 data)

Sample Representivity
• By age
<20
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40+

Sample Representivity
• By age
• Women oversampled: 69% cf 57%
• Full time oversampled
• BFOE largely representative
• Over: Science, Health
• Under: Management
• These largely to be expected: gender weighted in final
report

Sample Representivity: Equity groups
Group Sample Sector
Non-English speaking background 2.7* 3.8
Students with a disability 5.8 4.9
Women in non-traditional areas 29 17.0
Indigenous 3.9 1.6
Low SES (postcode) 20** 18.2
• Total NESB (inc international students): 28%
• Low SES - by postcode; this value calculated by mother’s
education level
• Regional and remote – by postcode

Three interesting findings
• Do not identify as heterosexual: 17% (twice expected!)
• Intending to study abroad: 29% (mostly Europe or US)
• Considering work-integrated learning: 50%
• 10% not offered in my course

How useful and
widespread is ICT?
Is it leading to student
disengagement?

Online learning in first year
• Exclusively online learning not very common, but increased
from 2009
Please indicate if you are
enrolled in any...
% of total
(2014)
% of
total
(2009)
Subjects delivered totally online 13.1 4.7
Online subjects from OUA 1.5 1.3
MOOCs as part of your course 1.0 -
MOOCs for personal interest 1.7 -

Course contact hours continue to decrease,
but total study time increasing
• 63% of students spend less than 15 hours
per week in class (cf 60% in 2009; 42% in
1994)
Estimate number
hours/week (mean)
1994 1999 2004 2009 2014
Course contact 17.6 17.1 16.0 15.3 14.8
Internet-based study - - 4.2 6.5 9.8
Non-Internet private study - - 11 10.6 9.8
Total study - - 31.2 32.4 34.4

Online technologies - part of students’ daily lives
• LMS usage increased from 92% (2009) to 99%
• Lecture recordings increased from 75% to 88%
• Face-to-face increased from 76% to 80%
Usage Daily Weekly Monthly Once/
sem.
Never
LMS 83 15 1 <1 <1
Course-specific online
resources
40 48 8 <1 4
Lecture recordings 14 50 18 6 12
Social networking for study 23 29 14 6 28
Online discussion groups 8 26 20 12 34
Face-to-face study with other
students
12 39 21 8 20

Utility % of users
agree/strongly agree
Correlation with
usage
LMS 89 0.36
Course-specific online resources 78 0.56
Lecture recordings 80 0.71
Social networking for study 55 0.75
Online discussion groups 50 0.73
Face-to-face study with other students 68 0.73
... A useful part

Utility % of users
Correlation with
usage
LMS 89 0.36
... A useful part
• As many people use social networking daily or weekly as
use face-to-face study
• But more people find face-to-face useful

... A useful part
• Generally, more useful → more use
Utility % of users
Correlation with
usage
LMS 89 0.36

Utility % of users
(2009)
LMS 89 87
Course-specific online resources 78 78
Lecture recordings 80 73
Social networking for study 55 34
Online discussion groups 50 52
Face-to-face study with other students 68 67
Perceptions of utility largely haven’t changed over time

What is the student
experience like in first
year?

Which groups?
• Overall cohort (2014)
• Cf 2009
• First in family – 30% (32% in 2009)
• At risk – “Did you think seriously about
discontinuing/deferring at any stage in first semester?”
– 20% (23% in 2009)
• Not expecting an offer after receiving ATAR – 11%

Some overlap between the groups exists
25
86
2155
353
167
69
First in family
At risk
Not expecting

Some overlap between the groups exists
First in family
At risk
Not expecting
21% of FIF at risk
(cf 15% non-FIF)
15% not expecting offer
(cf 8% non-FIF)
27% of not
expecting at risk
(cf 14% expecting)

Being “at risk” is not entirely to do with ATAR
ATAR At risk
(%)
Not at risk
(%)
< 60 14 7
60-80 24 21
> 80 61 71
• Grades in 1st semester: evenly spread between
higher, lower and the same as expected
(same for Not at risk)

Why are you here? Reasons for enrolling
Reason Overall 2009 Groups
Studying in a field
that really interests
me
96 96
(Steady since
1999)
Improving job
prospects
87 86
Getting training for
a specific job
78 75
(Strong upward
trend)
FIF: 81
Non-FIF: 76
At risk: 73
Developing talents
and creative
abilities
77 77
Expectations of
parents/family
41 35
(Strong upward
trend)
Not expecting:
45
I am clear about
the reasons I came
to uni
89 88 At risk: 76
Not at risk: 93
Not expecting: 83

Outreach programs have an effect
• Outreach – overall, 54% of people participated
• No difference among groups, except Expecting: 64%
• Of outreach participants, 46% said it was influential or very
influential
• No difference among groups, except Not Expecting: 83%

Academic preparation: largely stable since 2009
Reason Overall 2009 Groups
Year 12 was good
preparation for uni
50 51 At risk: 38
Not expecting: 27
Received good
advice from
teachers about
choosing course
63 58 At risk: 53
Orientation
programs helped
get me off to a
good start
42
(1/3 “actively
involved”)
45 At risk: 29
Not expecting: 31
Difficulty adjusting
to style of teaching
29 28 At risk: 45
Not expecting: 36
Parents have little
understanding of
what I do
37 32 FIF: 49
Non-FIF: 32
At risk: 44
Not expecting: 45

Academic application and good teaching
Overall 2009 Groups
I have worked out
how to manage my
study workload
46 41** FIF: 42
At risk: 25
Not expected: 37
Teachers usually
give helpful
feedback
55 32 FIF: 60
At risk: 45
Subjects I’m
studying fit
together well
79 75 At risk: 60
Not at risk: 83
Quality of teaching
is generally good
89 80 At risk: 80

Overall 2009 Groups
I have worked out
how to manage my
study workload
46 41** FIF: 42
At risk: 25
Not expected: 37
Teachers usually
give helpful
feedback
55 32 FIF: 60
At risk: 45
Subjects I’m
studying fit
together well
79 75 At risk: 60
Not at risk: 83
Quality of teaching
is generally good
89 80 At risk: 80
Academic application and good teaching

Academic and social engagement
Overall 2009 Groups
Finding my course
intellectually
stimulating
79 78 At risk: 61
Not at risk: 84
Not expecting: 71
Overall, I am really
enjoying my course
80 74 FIF: 76
At risk: 53
Not expecting: 73
Confident at least
one teacher knows
my name
59 55 FIF: 55
At risk: 52
Made at least one
or two close friends
65 74 At risk: 51
Not at risk: 68
Not expecting: 59
Overall, very
satisfied with my
uni experience
75 72 At risk: 47
Not at risk: 82

Conclusions
• FYES was drawn from a relatively representative sample
• Exclusively online learning not very common, but increased
from 2009
• Blended learning ubiquitous, and largely well regarded
• Social networking for study use has nearly doubled in 5
years
• Students spending less time in class, but more in private
study

Conclusions
• Indicators of academic and social engagement
continue to improve
• First in family largely coping well with university –
less able to manage workload, parents less likely to
understand, more satisfied with feedback from
teachers, less sense of belonging
• Some differences in motivations for enrolling – specific
training
• Still to come: Indigenous students, other equity groups

Conclusions
• Overall, clarity of reasons for study continue to sharpen –
except for At risk students
• At risk – less well prepared, less satisfied with teaching,
less academic and social integration
• There are fewer of them – but still too many
• Those not expecting an offer are more likely to be at risk,
show some signs of a lack of preparation/engagement, but
some are doing very well

Implications for policy and practice
• Investment in high quality transition programs, monitoring is
proving effective
• Keep doing what we’re doing (?)
• Changes from DDS may not have been as destabilising as
expected—but monitoring remains essential
• Further strengthen interactions between academic staff and
students, and between students – academic and social
engagement
• Maintain focus on “at risk” students – not just members of
particular groups

For more information:
cshe.unimelb.edu.au
rnaylor@unimelb.edu.au
ncsehe.edu.au
ncsehe@curtin.edu.au

First Year Experience Survey 2014 - Initial Findings

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (6)

Similaire à First Year Experience Survey 2014 - Initial Findings

Similaire à First Year Experience Survey 2014 - Initial Findings (20)

Plus de National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education

Plus de National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

First Year Experience Survey 2014 - Initial Findings