Enhancing retention and student success

Mantz Yorke, Liverpool John Moores University

Presentation at UKCLE seminar on retention strategies for law, 2 December 2003

In his address Mantz spoke about the various stakeholders in the retention agenda; students, institution and the state. He argued that education, not retention, is the goal of higher education and that a number of factors such as debt, motivation, academic and social experiences and personal decisions based on self belief affect whether a student is likely to stay or go. Below are some of the main points made at the seminar, with references for those wishing to pursue the ideas further.

To focus solely on retention (because of pressure from performance indicators etc) is to mistake symptom for a major possible cause – the quality of the student experience. If attention is given to increasing the chances of student success, retention is likely to improve.

My view is that the student’s psychological approach to study (and to higher education generally) is a key factor in success (and of course retention). The argument for this can be found in two forthcoming publications; Yorke (2004) and Yorke and Longden (2004).

An outcomes based curriculum focuses quite properly on what the student can do, but the emphasis on performance distracts attention from aspects of the self and the processes that might support or undermine the self. The more that participation is widened, the greater is the need for attention to the self in higher education.

The USEM approach (Understanding, Skilful practices, Efficacy beliefs and self theory, Metacognition including reflection) was developed in respect of employability but applies more generally to student success. Meta-analyses indicate the importance of encouraging the development of self efficacy and metacognition (the E and M of USEM). USEM as it applies to employability is discussed in Knight and Yorke (2004).

Meta-analysis finds that formative assessment is a powerful influence on student learning (Black and Wiliam, 1998). Many students – even privileged ones – find the demands of higher education tougher than they had expected. Hence it is a good idea to set early tasks (they can be quite small in scale) which are formatively assessed, graded as to difficulty. This is likely to pay off. ‘Getting the students up to speed’ requires a more active approach to pedagogy than leaving things to a summative assessment at the end of semester 1.

Enhancing student success makes complex demands on staff and requires sophisticated pedagogical practices. The trajectories of students are determined by a similarly complex set of circumstances – much too complex for simple prediction of the relationship between cause and effect. Hence considerable weight must be placed on the teacher’s (and the learning supporter’s) understanding of the factors that might be in play for the student, and to make appropriate informed decisions as to how to deal with the situation. An extension of the ‘reflective practitioner’ concept, really.

There is no ‘magic bullet’ as regards improving retention rates; only sustained professionalism in approach.

References

• Black P and Wiliam D (1998) ‘Assessment and classroom learning’ Assessment in Education 5(1), 7-74
• Knight PT and Yorke M (2004) Learning, curriculum and employability London: RoutledgeFalmer
• Yorke M (2004) ‘Retention, persistence and success in on-campus higher education, and their enhancement in open and distance learning’ Open Learning (forthcoming)
• Yorke M and Longden B (2004) Retention and student success in higher education Maidenhead: SRHE and Open University Press (forthcoming)

Last Modified: 4 June 2010