With thanks to our Sarah Carter, OVC for sharing
A HEPI policy note What affects how much students learn? was released today.
The note reports the statistical analysis of the HEPI Student Academic Experience Survey (2017) question on self-reported learning gain. The analysis combined influencing variables to determine which aspects had the greatest effects for students to report they’d ‘learnt a lot:.
- Access to high quality teaching (as judged by combining the 10 survey questions relevant to teaching quality) was highly statistically significant. This included aspects such as helpful and supportive staff, useful feedback, how effective staff were in explaining concepts. This was significant across the whole range of student prior attainment (judged by UCAS entry points).
- The volume of independent study – students reporting 20+ hours of independent study were significantly more likely to report ‘learnt a lot’
- Personal wellbeing was a significant threshold effect – students reporting low wellbeing were negatively associated with having ‘learnt a lot’
- More than 17 hours of paid work per week had a negative effect
- Students entering with 144+ UCAS points were more likely to report having ‘learnt a lot’
- Whether the student was from a gold TEF rated institution had a significant independent effect and increased the likelihood the student reported learning a lot. Interestingly there were no step level effects – only a gold rating produced this effect, silver didn’t result in higher ‘learnt a lot’ ratings than from a bronze level provider.
- There were also London effects (negative influence) and coming from a non-graduate family background (negative influence)
“Being at a London institution, at an institution that did not achieve a Gold in the TEF, and having non-graduate parents all appear to depress the odds of reporting having learnt a lot.”
The report goes on to speculate what the findings mean for the current push for accelerated degrees from Government:
The findings have implications for the Government’s proposals for more two-year degree programmes as a ‘cheaper’ option to three-year programmes. Currently an undergraduate degree is 360 credits, each credit based on 10 hours of study. Students on accelerated degrees are expected to study for 1,800 hours a year, in excess of the 1,600 hours of many full-time jobs. If they undertake paid part-time work as well, as most students do, the pressure on them is likely to be considerable, with a risk of putting in too few independent study hours and their wellbeing suffering, both potentially leading to doing less well in their degree than pacing their study over three years.
So there is a danger that many students will do less well than their potential taking two-year degrees, and that it will be students from less affluent backgrounds who are tempted by the offer. Indeed, if it is more affluent students who choose this route, and who may do so because their higher prior attainment means they can cope with the intensity, that will leave their less affluent peers with the greater debt and loss of earnings from a year less in the labour market.