The role of social transition in students' adjustment to the first-year of university

This paper, based on research conducted at the main campus of a large Australian multi-campus university, explores the role of social transition in students’ adjustment to the first-year of university. Although traditionally academic achievement has been the measure of success in the first-year of tertiary studies, this research indicates that students who do not have a positive experience in making the social transition at university face increased difficulty in negotiating their way through the challenges of first-year. Due to the increasingly changed nature of the ‘first-year student’ — a consequence of societal and higher educational changes, especially in the last twenty years — the responsibilities of academics have also changed. Particularly for those taking tutorials, demonstrations, laboratory practicals, etc. ‘networking’ these classes to facilitate students’ social transition as part of the first-year experience at university should be an integral part of the teaching program. Introduction The first-year university experience of a significant number of students is neither satisfying (in terms of personal fulfillment) nor successful (if academic achievement is the measure). The final year of secondary schooling identifies the most academically able students to undertake tertiary study. Why then, do approximately one third of students drop out in the first-year of university? Moreover, why do even those students who do proceed achieve relatively less well than the Equivalent National Tertiary Entrance Rank (ENTER) would indicate, and fail to complete in minimum time? A frequent response from past researchers to these disturbing issues has been to apportion blame — this has been directed at the students themselves, and secondary schools — the institutions from which the students have come. In 1957 Matthews said: ‘The temple of learning has many floors but one thing is common to those in charge of every floor — they are dissatisfied with the training on the floor below. It is what you might call an endemic complaint’ (1957: 116 cited by Genn, 1971: 7). This still holds true. In this very mould, Power et al state: ‘At the higher education level, academics often complain about inadequacies in the backgrounds of school-leavers and their lack of commitment to their course’; ‘There are serious academic problems among the younger and academically less well motivated and prepared students . ‘; ‘. the most serious problems identified relate to the low course commitment and lack of preparation of younger students in non-professional courses . ‘; ‘Schools have the role of preparing students academically . ‘; and ‘The type of education provided in some secondary schools can leave students poorly prepared to adjust to the new demands of higher education’ (1987: 2; 40; 42; 48; 50). Power et al are not alone in expressing such views. More recently, in a survey of academics from universities across Australia, McInnis et al found that these same sentiments are not only still being echoed by academics but that: ‘Dissatisfaction with the academic quality of students more than doubled between 1978 and 1993 . Indeed, less than a third of academics in 1993 were satisfied with the academic quality of students’ (1995: 5). In today’s mass education environment, it is not productive to pursue this line of argument that has at its foundation the view that secondary schools exist primarily as preparatory agents for an elite group of students to gain university entry. The shift to a mass education tertiary landscape has created greater diversity, in terms of ability, motivation, interest, commitment, maturity, social skills, etc. of the student population. This necessitates a re-evaluation of academics’ expectations of first-year students, a re-conceptualisation of first-year students and the qualities they bring to the university, and a reconstructed understanding of the needs students have which the university should meet. Some progress has already occurred. Universities have acknowledged the need for counselling, disability, language and learning services, etc. and established these resources within higher education institutions. Such measures have, however, come only a small way in dealing with the issues that affect students because they are removed from students’ most common point of contact: academic staff. The world in which today’s students have grown up is vastly different from that of a generation ago. Changes have occurred at an accelerated rate. Everyday living is more fast-paced; culture is visual and technologically driven; communicative competence and social skills have been eroded; life is a complex web, not the linear progression that it once was. This lack of stasis inevitably means that, along with everything else, the role and responsibilities of the university teacher need to be reviewed and undergo change. This is not a notion that sits comfortably with many academics, as is evident from the comments of McInnis et al above. This research indicates that academics who interface most directly with first-year students will need to take a proactive role in the networking of tutorial, seminar, demonstration, laboratory practical, etc. classes to enhance students’ prospects of social transition, including enculturation into the life and practices of the university. In an economically rationalist world this is not an unrealistic expectation for the paying customer to have. The study: its method and key findings In 1996 a pilot study — the precursor of what was later to develop into a much larger investigation — sought to explore the views of first-year students upon commencement of their studies at the main campus of a large multi-campus university. The sample was comprised of Arts undergraduates taking first-year English. The general characteristics of this sample included a lower ENTER than for more professionally oriented courses with vocational motivation being of less significance. The majority (66.0 %) was school-leaver students. The nature of their university experience included lack of a fixed cohort with whom to establish social networks (due to the fact ‘core’ subjects are not a part of the Arts course structure), large classes and relatively few contact hours compared with those of students in professional courses. A detailed questionnaire, comprised of multiple-item indicator questions as well as structured (closed and scaled) and unstructured (open-ended) questions, was distributed to 100 students; 57 responses were obtained. (The larger study currently being undertaken with more than 1600 respondents from all faculties and campuses seeks to ascertain whether the features identified in this sample will be replicated on a broader canvas.) The data collected from the questionnaires in the pilot study were analysed in the following manner. The structured (closed and scaled) questions, which generated quantifiable results, were tabulated as frequency and percentage distributions with mean, median and standard deviation statistics (where applicable). The unstructured (open-ended) questions used to encourage discursive comments were initially recorded verbatim and then used to draw on for globalised remarks or selected to be reproduced verbatim to highlight either indicative comments that pertained to a substantial proportion of the group or highly idiosyncratic observations. The non-response bias in this survey was negligible. The most common expectations these first-year students had of university prior to commencement can be categorised broadly as: n meeting new and different people;