Home » Conference » LILI 2004 » Is legal education working? » Induction: law and more

Induction: law and more

Chris Gale, Leeds Metropolitan University

This paper outlined the workings of a three year project into the content of undergraduate induction events. At the outset the university envisaged a project which sought ‘best practice’, synthesised it and put together a ‘one size fits all’ induction programme. However, it has become very apparent that one size does not fit all.


Induction is a fact of life for all university students on all courses. The process may range from simply ‘registration’ at which students ‘sign up’ and collect timetables, to one much more complex which covers registration but also includes familiarisation and acclimatisation, providing support and networks for the student. Leeds Law School was asked to pilot a programme for induction over the period 2002-04. It is believed that the induction process may have a bearing on progression and completion by the student. The purposes of this project were:

  • to ascertain the various methods of induction used both in Leeds Metropolitan University and the wider higher education community in the UK
  • to suggest a framework of essential matters to cover in the process
  • to pilot this in one or two schools in academic year 2002-03
  • to evaluate, report and reflect on their success or otherwise
  • to make such adjustments as need be in the light of experience and feedback
  • to run and evaluate this ‘adjusted’ programme in the two schools in 2003-04
  • to offer (if and where appropriate) the structure to the whole of the university for use in 2004-05 onwards

Due to restrictions on time and resources, and bearing in mind that funding for the project came from the widening participation budget, the thrust of this project was to look at induction on undergraduate courses. This is not to say that good practice discovered on postgraduate courses has been discounted or that any suggested framework cannot be used or adapted by such courses, but it explains the focus. The initial focus was also on full time students as they have more time available to the university and, theoretically, with many being away from their home and support networks (often for the first time) may be more vulnerable. This is not to devalue part time students – merely to recognise that a start must be made somewhere. Any final recommendations for an induction model can be adjusted to take account of the time available and needs of part time students.

Methodology

Funding was awarded to Leeds Law School after interest had been registered by that School and the School of Art, Architecture and Design in contributing to both this project and to a project about exit questionnaires. It was resolved in consultation with the university’s widening participation manager that both Schools would be involved in both projects and share available funding equally, but that Leeds Law School would take the lead in the induction project and the School of Art, Architecture and Design in the exit questionnaire project, which will be the subject of a separate report in due course.

E-mails were sent internally in Leeds Met asking course leaders for details of current induction arrangements on their course. They were also asked whether they or nominees would be interested in forming a group to discuss findings in due course. Contact was also made with a number of other universities who had either already established good reputations for induction processes (including Sheffield Hallam, Central Lancs, Glamorgan and Manchester), whose names came up in discussion or in literature on the subject, or simply where the writer had contacts who would be prepared to speak freely.

Initial conclusions

It soon became clear that although a number of different approaches were taken to the induction process, the universities and schools which claimed that it made a difference to students settling in and thus (possibly) to retention, progression and completion did not see induction as a process of a few days at the beginning of Year 1 of a course, but as something which continued for most if not all of the first term or semester of Year 1 and which put in place structures and systems which could be revisited throughout a student’s course. A ‘refresher’ talk at the beginning of subsequent years could underpin and embed their usefulness.

Despite the need for on-going induction, it was also acknowledged that the first week of a course (often known as induction week, but when in reality many students were required to register, had a ‘welcome talk’ and were then left to their own designs until teaching began the following week in the loose hope that the rest of that time would be taken up with settling in to accommodation, meeting others, sorting loan cheques etc) was often a time when students (particularly those away from home for the first time) were vulnerable to loneliness and homesickness, to being swamped with things to do with no one to turn to, and a time when a number simply went away never to be seen again.

What is devised here is an attempt to put together a programme which will give students things to do on each day of induction week, thus giving structure to their time, giving important information and introducing them to their course, while providing situations for social interaction with other members of the course and thus, it is hoped, reducing the possibility of a student leaving for the homesickness reasons considered above. School, faculty and university structures to deal with problems may also be seen as more accessible the more a student is physically in the university, and they may feel more confident about approaching members of staff who they have been introduced to and who they begin to see on a regular basis. It moves from there to have planned ‘induction contact’ with the student through the first semester, and it is hoped it can be evaluated at the end of that period.

The content of the programme was disseminated to those course leaders and nominees who showed interest for their comments. Evaluation was shared with them and in the light of reaction to that, a revised programme set up for 2003-04 which is currently being evaluated with the intent of putting proposals forward for core induction activities for 2004-05 onwards.

At the start of the project in September 2002 the deputy vice chancellor authorised the use of as much lecture theatre time as necessary for the project during induction week. It is recognised that if any model designed suggests heavy use of lecture theatre time by all schools in induction week in the future, timetablers in any institution may simply not be able to arrange this. What is hoped to be delivered is a best practice model; if this does not demand heavy use of lecture space in induction week, well and good – if it does, it will carry with it the recommendation that ‘the best’ may not be achievable, but alternatives will be suggested which would be realistic – all that has happened to date is that every facility has been afforded to the project.

Content

School or course based induction is regarded as the most relevant to the student, most manageable for the university and most effective all round. Given the size, structures and split campuses of Leeds Metropolitan University, this seems a sensible starting point to adopt. Clearly, there are some aspects of induction that can be shared across courses in schools (for example, the introduction of staff and modules common to more than one course), or across schools (for example, dealing with local facilities). However, simple timetabling and ‘volume’ issues seem to mean that course based induction is the starting point, and movement from that norm is good when it is reasoned, rather than as a norm itself.

Minimum matters to be covered would seem to be:

  1. registration – the completion of any necessary forms, the taking of photographs, issuing of cards
  2. welcome to the course – which can include details of the city, university, faculty and school generally
  3. course detail – modules to be studied, timetabling, expectations, introduction to the course handbook, assessment and progression regulations and other regulatory matters. The course representative system may best be dealt with here, as may skill and ‘skills for learning’ issues
  4. pastoral details – introduction to any administrators, year tutors, personal tutors, academic supervisors – the people to contact on the course if things are not going smoothly
  5. university services – from health centres and chaplaincy to the students union and refectory

Most or all of these issues are probably covered in most courses already. It is ensuring that they are covered and using induction week to best advantage to cover them and then following it through later in the semester that is one of the primary concerns in this report. Courses which already have more practical sessions (for example, art) as well as covering the above are simply further underpinning the philosophy already stated – but no great sense can be seen in ‘over-egging the pudding’ by having would be lawyers trying to get involved in courtroom based mooting when they have yet to encounter any substantive law at all.

Timetabling 2002-03

The new enrolment system and the welcome pack students were sent before coming to Leeds Metropolitan University in September 2002 covered a lot of the detail that could have been covered in induction. The one should not supplant the other – it is good to have the detail in hard copy and at a time when there may not be so much ‘information overload’ as in induction week, but the week itself gives the opportunity to contextualise that information and have meetings, which may have value in their own right as a means of settling a student into study.

In an effort to have something happening every day, Leeds Law School undergraduate courses planned the following:

  • Monday 23 September – registration, collection of cards etc and a timetable of activities on the course for that week (if not already sent previously) – effectively dealing with (1) above
  • Tuesday 24 September – meetings of one hour in lecture theatres to introduce the course – (2) above is introduced
  • Wednesday 25 September – meetings with academic supervisors (Leeds Law School’s name for academic staff who carry out a personal tutor function) – (3) and (4) above are introduced
  • Thursday 26 September – meetings about (5) above
  • Friday 26 September – social gathering with tutors and staff: opportunities for questions about the course, the week in general

There were ‘follow up sessions’ – with year tutors on a one-to-one get to know you basis as soon as possible after teaching starts and again, at the latest, before Christmas, with a final ‘fixed’ session after Semester 1 results are available. There were also further ‘all year’ sessions in the middle of the Semester to pick up any issues necessary and to remind students about assessment and the regulatory side of their course.

Evaluation

Broadly, students enjoyed being kept busy. Anecdotally, some spoke of it getting them out of their rooms, and that they may have not met people with whom they now got on well and may have become homesick, even leave the course, if they had not been occupied during this week. All students who commented felt that if a lot of information was given to them before joining the university or in induction week, that was fine – as long as there were later timetabled sessions to remind them of it when it became important – for example, assessment procedures! It was resolved to have more follow up sessions in future.

2003-04

More students and staff illness made it difficult to match what had been done in 2002-03, let alone improve on contact time. This pushed towards more meetings being needed with academic supervisors. Where this was possible it served to underpin the induction programme and even seemed to be a better way to deliver it in some cases. However, not all staff were able or profiled to give as much attention as they would like, and so delivery became a little patchy.

Final conclusions and recommendations

It is clear that whether dealing with law schools or other academic departments, one size of induction does not fit all. All of the things set out above need to be delivered, but in a context where the students settle and feel at home, and probably it is best if delivered in as small groups as possible on a ‘drip’ basis – maybe induction should continue to Semester 2 of Year 3! Whatever is done, if students feel welcome and valued, they are more likely to settle or, if they do not, to feel confident in going to ask for help from one of the people they have been introduced to in the process. All of the matters listed above will feed into the recommendations which will be made to Leeds Metropolitan University in due course. Very interestingly, students commented that if induction is seen as some sort of retention tool by the university, then it would be better to do nothing at all except hand out timetables than to do something badly or to staff it with reluctant academics! They thought that making sure signs or names were on doors, that parking places were signposted and that other students played a part in the induction process were more important than any of the points the academic members of the school had thought would top their list.

Last Modified: 12 July 2010