Note: this is the original report. Versions in circulation to Schools exclude the ‘suggested leaders’ column in section 11. The online questionnaire is omitted.

Exploring the experience of University of Plymouth home-based students

Professor Pauline Kneale,

Dr Rebecca Turner,

Jane Collings,

Dr Oliver Webb

Dr Karen Treasure

PedRIO - Teaching and Learning Support

1

Contents1. Summary...........................................................................................................3

2. Project aims.......................................................................................................4

Section 1 Experience Elsewhere...............................................................................5

3. Literature Review..............................................................................................5

4. UK HEI support for local and commuting students............................................9

5. The Student Engagement Partnership Report Recommendations.................10

Section 2 The University of Plymouth position........................................................11

6. Defining the home-based population...............................................................11

7. University of Plymouth student numbers.........................................................12

8. Analysis of student attainment data................................................................15

9. Student Voices................................................................................................18

Themes emerging from the focus groups...........................................................19

Section 3 Conclusions and opportunities for further work.........................................21

10. Conclusions from the literature....................................................................22

11. Draft Recommendations for development....................................................22

Further considerations........................................................................................25

Section 4 Resources...............................................................................................26

12. References...................................................................................................26

13. Draft Home-based student survey .............................................................29

NB: most readers will not need to print Section 13. (p29-49)

2

1. Summary

Since the introduction of student fees the number of students choosing to stay at home while studying is increasing (Artess, et al. 2014). The needs and performance of these home-based students, those who do not move away from home for HE study, has been the focus of a number of recent studies, and some UK universities are developing and implementing support mechanisms specifically for these students. Home-based students are generally less likely to achieve a first class or upper second class degree, with younger students more at risk of lower grades (Artess et al., 2014), suggesting we should explore experience and attainment of Plymouth’s home-based students. Tackling the issue of underperformance amongst undergraduates, where the students involved are not easily identified, is difficult for module staff. In any module there are students who perform below their potential. However, the national data suggests there is a gap in attainment for these students, which is effectively invisible to teaching staff, which we should seek to address.

This paper reports a preliminary investigation into the experience of University of Plymouth students, and collates examples of activities and interventions that can support the experience of home-based students. The aim is to:

Capture information about the numbers of home-based students in each of the Schools, and their academic performance (section 7);

Provide preliminary results from focus groups with current second year students (section 9);

Present a literature review which highlights some of the issues which may be relevant for Plymouth students (section 3);

Collate examples of measures which other universities are putting in place to support their students (section 4); and

Highlight the recommendations from The Student Engagement Partnership Report (Thomas & Jones, 2017).

This report would clearly benefit from an in-depth study with University of Plymouth students, staff and UPSU, but that will take time and resources. In the interim, it provides evidence to suggest there are actions which can be taken forward which would benefit our students, based on research elsewhere, particularly from the University of Glasgow where 40% of students are home-based (Browitt and Croll 2015). Suggestions are made for further research, through for example the survey instrument developed for this purpose (section 13)..

On the basis of this preliminary research, the literature and experience of other universities. This report makes some suggestions for raising awareness of the needs of students who live at home during their studies. (section 11 )

3

Need a very short cut? ….. See Table 1 (p13), and sections 8 and 11.

[2.] Project aims

This study aims to provide the basis for developing recommendations and the foundation for further research to:

Capture contemporary information of ‘who’ are our living at home students, including gaining detail on their distribution across Faculties and Schools;

Explore the academic and social integration of living at home students, considering specifically their interaction with the University campus, resources and activities, teaching and learning and their achievements;

Identify additional support and space needs for students commuting daily from across the south west;

Ascertain how programme organisation and timetabling can improve the experience of our living at home and commuting students;

Identify initiatives that other HEIs have implemented to increase stay at home and commuter student engagement.

Methodology: This study involved:

1) To provide context for this study a literature review (section 3) and desk based-research of HEIs that have implemented initiatives for home-based students (section 4) was undertaken.

2) A review of institutional data available through CIS to identify any attainment gap between home-based students and other student groups, which took into account other important moderating factors (i.e. socio-economic status, ethnicity, age, gender, disability, entry qualifications, discipline and tariff points) (section 8).

3) Focus groups were held with second year students to explore their experiences of HE as living at home-based, their experience of teaching and learning and engagement with enhancement activities. (section 9)

[4)] A questionnaire has been developed for implementation with undergraduate students from across the whole University (section 13) if it is decided to take this research further. Some of the questions may provide useful prompts for programme staff in discussion with their own students.

4

Section 1 Experience Elsewhere

2.[3.] Literature Review

Traditionally, undergraduate students have been perceived as young people who leave the parental home, moving away to live communally with their peers throughout their studies. Increasingly, however, this is not the case. Recent research shows that 25-30% of the UK student body is made up of students who have either remained in the parental home or who have continued to live in their existing accommodation (Artess, McCulloch et al. 2014). This number is predicted to rise to 50% by 2020 (Taylor 2011, Wojtas 2014).

The trend to studying from home is not limited to the UK. It is often related to the increasing financial burden associated with HE (Khambhaita and Bhopal 2015), with 78% of students who live in their parental home citing financial reasons as the main motivation for this choice (Patiniotis 2005). In the US, where significant financial costs have a longer history, this trend was identified as early as the mid-1990s: ‘The majority of college students today commute to campus’ (Horn and Berktold 1998). Consequently the US literature is more prolific than from the UK, providing helpful insights into a variety of parallel and different issues.

Residence in university-based accommodation has historically been associated with the process of maturation and was framed by concepts of institutional responsibility towards the care of students, but is now more associated with notions of independence and freedom (NUS 2015). Recent research in the UK has highlighted the extent to which students who do not live in student-centred accommodation during their studies are an extremely diverse group. They include mature students; students with caring responsibilities; students with lower UCAS tariff scores or non-standard entry qualifications; students whose parents work in routine or semi-routine occupations; those with no prior family experience of HE; and students at lower entry tariff institutions (Artess, McCulloch et al. 2014). These students have been shown to be motivated far more by the extrinsic value of HE, the significance of gaining a qualification and how this will lead to future employment, rather than the intrinsic value more generally associated with the significance of being a student (Artess, et al. 2014).

However, making reference to these home-based students as a single group is misleading, and the definition used in different studies compounds difficulties in making comparisons. Student self-define in different ways, adding to complexity. For example, Thomas and Jones (2017) refer to commuter students in their report, and define them as ‘those who travel to their HE provider from their parental or family home, which they lived at prior to entering HE’, but students who live in the immediate vicinity of their University may not relate to the notion of commuting at all. Helsen (2013) points out that, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, a

5

commuter is defined as ‘a person who travels some distance to work on a regular basis’ (Stevenson and Waite 2011), making this a problematic terminology to refer to the groups of students concerned. Students who live within city boundaries will have different issues to those who commute for between two and five hours each day to attend the University.

This point is particularly significant for regional HE institutions such as the University of Plymouth, where a relatively high proportion of this group of these students are drawn from within the city limits (over 1000) and nearly 3000 commute. Institutional literature may refer to both ‘local and commuting students’ (University of York 2017). These terminologies are important because, while the University of Glasgow refers to ‘local’ and ‘commuter’ students’, activities associated with these students are referred to as ‘local student events’ thus eliminating all reference to commuting (Browitt and Croll 2015) and thereby perhaps alienating some of the targeted students. The University of Manchester aims to support ‘living at home students’ through an ‘Off-campus students project’, which incorporates ‘living at home students, mature students, student parents and student carers’ (University of Manchester Students' Union 2017). Pokorny, Holley et al. A2017) use the term ‘stayeducation’ to describe all students who reside at home, but this means a loss of the divisions in the group. Other authors have variously referred to ‘day students’ (Christie 2005) or ‘living at home students’ (Artess, McCulloch et al. 2014). Care is therefore needed in comparing findings between studies as ‘differing approaches introduce potential difficulties in comparing research findings…each study may examine groups that differ to greater or lesser degrees’ (NUS 2015:17).

While accepting that a definitive nomenclature is not available, the literature consistently acknowledges that awareness of the needs of the students and efforts to provide support is limited in HE institutions (NUS 2015), and evidence for performance and influences are contested. Widening participation initiatives have increased the intake of students from non-traditional backgrounds and many of these students choose to stay at home, so their educational attainment will depend upon not only attending university but also of effectively navigating the challenges facing home-based students and transitioning to employment in the long term. While some studies have shown that commuting can lead to lower levels of retention and attainment, for example in nursing in the US (Dante, Fabris et al. 2013), studies from the UK have stated that ‘the association of poor outcomes and living at home mainly reflects the pre-existing characteristics of respondents who stay at home, rather than disadvantages they experience as a result of living at home while studying’ (Artess, et al. 2014:11). More general and recent evidence from the US has also found that ‘after controlling for student and institution characteristics….student residence has an inconsequential effect’ in terms of attainment (Graham, Hurtado et al. 2016). The NUS (2015) report recommends that UK teaching institutions devote time and attention to develop additional support for home and commuter students.

6

Capturing attainment data for this group has some difficulties. Recent studies indicate that evaluations of performance should take account of the age profile of students. While students who stay at home were found overall to be less likely to achieve a first class or upper second class degree, this difference was not present for mature students (Artess, et al. 2014). Age of entry to HE has been shown generally to have an insignificant effect on attainment overall (Blasko 2002), but the fact that the vast majority of mature students, either stay at home or commute (Artess, et al. 2014:9) means that broader discussions of the dynamics in this group are applicable when considering the impact of living arrangements. This is particularly important given that mature students have higher rates of non-completion (Higher Education Statistics Agency 2007), indicating that they already require additional focused support. Furthermore, graduate employment outcomes have been shown by some to be far more significantly affected by living at home for younger rather than for mature students (Purcell 2012), despite the fact that employment outcomes even for mature students have been shown to be linked to levels of engagement with university-based extra-curricular activities (Stuart, Lido et al. 2011). While it could therefore be argued that outcomes for this group could be improved if greater engagement in the wider student experience was facilitated, it is significant that mature students often place value on the maintenance of home-based responsibilities and life patterns. This is what Christie et al. (2005) have referred to as ‘separate worlds’ as opposed to the ‘absorbed worlds’ often preferred by their younger, university-centred counterparts. A distinction between the impact of living at home for mature students and younger ones is thus present in many forms, and suggests that age is one of the key variables in determining the services and support systems required by home-based students.

Some issues identified in the literature are found to affect most students who do not fit the stereo-typical view of what and who a student is. Many of these students report a sense of ‘othering’, as the nature of their experience of HE is not reflected in institutional discourses, where there are often assumptions of youthfulness, social engagements and wider forms of participation which ignore the reality of tiring and often expensive commuting as well as a lack of broader engagement (Thomas and Jones 2017). Wider forms of student engagement are shown to be reduced for home-based students (Kuh, Gonyea et al. 2001). This is significant as research has shown that feelings of isolation, ‘not fitting in’ or being less engaged with peers and institutional activities are amongst the primary reasons for students considering leaving their studies prior to completion (Thomas 2012:12). Students who are unable to identify a common perception of ‘habitus’ are likely to feel that their social or cultural patterns are inappropriate, or that their tacit knowledge is undervalued, and are therefore more inclined to withdraw early (Thomas 2002). Ensuring that a good platform for belonging is provided for students who stay in their own homes throughout their studies is thus central to student retention and success.

7

The notion of belonging in educational environments can be viewed from at least two angles, one relating to psychology and the other to a sociological background. Firstly, there is a subjective, individual need to feel a sense of belonging, to be accepted by peers and to feel connected to the social environment or milieu (Goodenow 1993a, 1993b, Vallerand 1997). Secondly, a sense of belonging is associated with structural and social understandings, such as Bourdieu and Passeron’s notions of cultural capital (1977), which are understood to be formed by socialisation and are thus often related to ideas about class in society. Alternatively, a sense of belonging as a student is often related to Tinto’s conceptions of academic and social engagement (1975). In the context of widening participation and the changing social backgrounds of students, [including those who choose to live at home] additional attention needs to be paid to ensure that all students feel connected with their peers and institution, and are able to relate to the HE experience.

Student sense of belonging is thus related both to recognition of academic capacity and the extent of participation in university-linked extra-curricular activities. While stay at home students are known to participate in extra-curricular activities at a lower rate than their peers, they are also known to continue to participate in such activities linked to their home environment (Stuart, Lido et al. 2011). Students who possess significant qualifications and life experience already, may be ‘seemingly unaware of the advantages of…..[extra-curricular] …engagement to their implicitly and explicitly cited goals of achieving the qualification and securing enhanced employment outcomes’ (Thomas and Jones 2017:7). A small but rich study, based on in-depth interviews with a few home-based students, has concluded that: ‘Everything they experience is coloured by the life they lived before, and which they continue to return to at the end of each day’ and thus emphasises the implications of existing social relationships in building a new sense of belonging as a student (Pokorny, Holley et al. 2017). Extra-curricular activities (ECA) are associated with three separate theoretical frameworks, as identified by Seow and Pan (2014:364):

‘First, the zero-sum framework posited that ECA participation has a negative effect on academic performance because students were devoting more time for their ECA activities at the expense of their academic studies.

Second, the developmental framework theorized that ECA participation has a positive effect on academic performance indirectly as a result of the non-academic and social benefits associated with ECA participation.

Last, the threshold framework hypothesized that ECA participation has a positive effect on academic performance up to a certain point beyond which participation leads to negative academic outcomes.’

This demonstrates that a range of outcomes are associated with these activities, and it may be considered that where stay at home or commuting students sustain social activities associated with their non-academic life setting, they may derive the benefits

8

of the ‘developmental framework’ described above without engaging in university based extra-curricular activities. This said, the impact of such externally based experiences is likely to be very different in terms of its contribution to a sense of belonging to an individual’s HE experience.

Students who already live in the locality of their chosen institution may face specific challenges in nurturing a sense of belonging as a student. For example, studies have shown that these students may experience a crisis of identity and find themselves feeling isolated, given the widespread assumption of mutual exclusivity between ‘students’ and ‘locals’ in the cities where HE institutions operate (Holdsworth 2009). An emerging literature highlights the disruption to identities that can occur where a student sense of belonging is being cultivated in a place which is already memory-laden: ‘the action of ‘going to university’ was attached to a period of intense readjustment as they [live at home students] began to re-imagine familiar ‘non-student’ spaces differently as students’ (Holton 2015:823). In many cases, it is identified that ‘local’ students make a conscious decision early in their studies not to fit in or participate in student-centric activities (Patiniotis 2005), even developing a ‘stay at home’ strategy (Clayton, Crozier et al. 2009) in order to minimise risks associated with stereo-typical lifestyle choices.

3.[4.] UK HEI support for local and commuting students

The following examples from other institutions is provided to prompt consideration of support which we might adopt at the University of Plymouth.

The University of Glasgow has a particularly high proportion of local students at some 40% of the total. The University has found offering support to home and commuter students prior to their arrival to be extremely effective at engaging this group of students. Despite commuter students typically being considered less likely to engage in student life, however, ‘demand and enthusiasm for Local Student Orientation events at the University of Glasgow belied this thinking and suggested these ‘at risk’ students could be more readily encouraged to engage early in the transition to higher education’ (Browitt and Croll 2015). Local Student Orientation events, arranged prior to Fresher’s Week, were over-subscribed during the first year they were offered. 320 students participated in the activities, and in 2014 the university increased capacity at such events, but was still forced to close registrations in advance after 650 students had expressed an intention to attend.

An extensive review of the initiatives to support home and commuter student engagement was undertaken by Helsen (2013), on behalf of Kingston University where the majority of the 21,000 student cohort commute to one of four campuses.

The University of St Andrews (2017), with a much lower proportion of these students at 10% of the total, offers a range of engagement platforms for commuter

9

students. Socially, commuter students are invited to join ‘The Townsend Society’ which is open to all students who are not linked to a hall of residence. There is also a common room, with lounge, kitchen and amenity areas available for the use of commuter students.

Universities are increasingly directing students to social media i.e. a Facebook group, for discussion of issues pertaining to commuter students, such as at the University of Manchester where the Students Union provides a support programme (University of Manchester SU, 2017).

The University of Birmingham offers a student-run ‘Freshers’ off campus society’, which runs sporting and social events, as well as providing testimonials from other commuter students so that prospective ones are able to gauge accurately the likely impact of travel on their studies (University of Birmingham 2017), an approach that is mirrored at the University of Sheffield (2017).

The University of Liverpool offers commuter students the opportunity to become an ‘associate member’ of a hall of residence. There is a valuable study of local commuting students issues to Liverpool John Moores University that also considers Liverpool University students (Whalen et al. 2016).

The University of York recommends local and commuting students to sign up for a ‘Student Buddy’, who is a second or third year student ‘who will help you settle into university life and support you through your first year’ (University of York 2017).

The University of Essex (2017) provides comprehensive information for home, commuter and mature students, an online blog, forum and events including a ‘Housewarming’ event for new local and commuter students. They also provide study pods, lockers, showers and common rooms for study or relaxation with hot drink-making facilities fridges and microwaves

4.[5.] The Student Engagement Partnership Report Recommendations

The Student Engagement Partnership Report (Thomas & Jones, 2017) suggests ways to reduce some of the challenges of commuting students:

Sharing information about travelling, e.g. through social media Developing a commuter student community, which could be facilitated by pre-

entry or induction events, regular meetings and through online forum or social media

Provision of lockers and a common room providing a practical and emotional base for commuter students

Bus service, e.g., a transport hub, to reduce of the costs, stresses and risks of travelling

Security campaigns, especially in relation to personal safety, although vehicle security was raised in one workshop

10

Financial support such as subsidised travel, bursaries and a taxi fund Improved parking, including more parking spaces, more permits, free parking

and longer opening hours of the car parks

The same report identified ways in which students academic engagement could be enhanced, including:

Commuter student-centred timetabling Lecture capture as an alternative way of engaging with academic sessions

that they have paid for Greater opportunity to study at home, including provision of software and

hardware, on-line resources, faster internet access, and the option of submitting assignments remotely

Greater awareness and acknowledgement of commuters by staff within the academic context

Thomas and Jones (2017:8) identified ten institutional interventions:

1. Pre-entry information and marketing about commuting to inform decision-making

2. Pre-entry and induction activities and opportunities to meet other (commuter) students

3. Creating an institutional identity and sense of belonging for commuter students

4. Targeted information, opportunities and support for commuter students once in higher education

5. Re-organising the academic curriculum, delivery and resources to support the engagement of commuter students

6. Student partnerships, using students’ expertise and resources to promote engagement and belonging by commuter students

7. Space for commuter students on site8. Financial and travel support for commuter students9. Inclusive strategies, including the use of technology and social media10. Research about the experiences and ‘needs’ of commuter students

Section 2 The University of Plymouth position

5.[6.] Defining the home-based population

While there is a perception that students leave the parental home and live communally with peers throughout their higher education studies, this is increasingly not the case It is currently estimated that 25 to 30% of students remain at home for their studies (Artess et al., 2014) and this number is predicted to increase to 50% by 2020 (Taylor, 2011; Wojtas, 2014). This is a trend seen internationally, and associated with the introduction of fees and an increasing long-term financial associated with degree studies (Khambhaita & Bhopal, 2015).

11

We need, as a University, to agree a nomenclature which suits our purposes in Plymouth, and which our students can relate to. For the purposes of this study we defined three groups, and later in the report further analyse data by subdividing each group into those above and below 21 years of age on entry to look at module results data. Here we distinguish:

1. Stay at Home Students: those with identical term-time and vacation postcodes within the Plymouth city boundaries (PL1-PL9). Many of the students in the 18-20 age bracket on entry will have attended Plymouth city primary and secondary schools, possibly an FE college before joining the University.

2. Commuter Students: those who travel to the University on a daily basis from outside the PL1-PL9 area. Residential addresses from Penzance to Bristol indicate that the daily commute will exceed two hours each way for some of these students.

3. Study Away Students: Students who have moved to Plymouth for their higher education studies. They have term-time postcodes within PL1-PL9 and a vacation postcode outside PL1-PL9

Within the report information derived from or relating to University of Plymouth students uses these three terms. Where reference is made to other studies the term home-based is used where the authors are not distinguishing between their ‘stay at home and commuting groups.

6.[7.] University of Plymouth student numbers

Distinguishing students in groups 1 and 2 is particularly significant for regional HE institutions such as the University of Plymouth. There is a relatively high proportion of students drawn from within the city limits. Other institutions are grappling with the recognition and support provided for this group of students. Work at the University of Glasgow ((Browitt and Croll, 2015) is potentially valuable as a resource.

The numbers of home-based learners for each school in 2015-16 is detailed in table 1. Note that the numbers and the quantitative analysis for this study focussed on all undergraduate students registered in the 2015-16 academic year, but the dataset excludes:

Students whose term-time and or vacation postcode was unknown (most of these were EU or international).

Students who were not pursuing a full Bachelors or Integrated Masters degree (i.e. those taking individual CPD-focused modules).

Students on the BSc (Adult) Nursing programme, due to difficulties in identifying those studying in Plymouth versus Truro.

12

At this stage of the study, the report does not explore the data for variances due to previous school or college experience, or distinguishing those students who have joined the University in second and final year from regional partner colleges. In further work it might, for example useful to explore data on previous educational establishments, attainment and retention, and to look specifically at the attainment of those students who join in years 2 and 3, wherever they choose to reside.

Table 1. Residential profile of undergraduates, academic year 2015-16

Faculty School Stay at Home

(PL1-PL9) Students

Commuter Students

Study Away

Students

N

Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry

Peninsula Dental School 4.6%

918.6%36

76.8%149 194

Peninsula Medical School 2.9%

74.2%10

92.9%222 239

School of Biomedical and Healthcare Sciences

7.9%39

14.5%71

77.6%381 491

Faculty of Health and Human Sciences

School of Health Professions 12.2%

11236.3%333

51.5%473 918

School of Nursing and Midwifery 1 13.9%1

20266.0%1

96020.1%1

292 14541

School of Psychology8.6%77

15.6%140

75.9%682 899

Faculty of Science and Engineering

School of Biological and Marine Sciences 4.1%

3912.9%124

83.0%796 959

School of Computing, Electronics and Mathematics

10.0%130

16.0%212

74.1%980 1322

School of Engineering4.7%42

16.6%148

78.7%700 890

School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences

3.8%57

8.7%132

87.5%1312 1501

Plymouth Institute of

13

Faculty of Arts and Humanities

Education 10.0%85

20.1%170

69.9%597 854

School of Art, Design and Architecture 5.9%

7216.2%196

77.9%945 1213

School of Humanities and Performing Arts 10.9%

10018.1%166

70.9%649 915

Faculty of Business

Plymouth Business School 8.1%

4516.7%298

75.2%1343 1786

School of Law, Criminology and Government

12.5%114

15.3%140

72.2%661 915

TOTALS 8.5%1237

21.6%3143

70.0%10185 14550

Table 1 shows considerable variation in students’ residential profile across the Schools, but there are students in every category in each year, in each school. There are proportionally fewer in the Peninsula Medical School and the School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences where the student body primarily consists of students studying away from their home location. Taking the institution as a whole some 30% of students are choosing not to move from another location to study at the University of Plymouth. This proportion coincides closely with cross-institutional research findings by Artess et al. (2014).

Students make decisions about how to study for many different reasons. The support that will help an individual is likely to be specific and contextually determined. The reasons for choosing home-based study are diverse. For many students this may not so much be a choice as the only way to make HE financially and practically possible. Students, whose experience is characterised by additional demands on their time, and constraints in terms of residential choices, may neither expect nor welcome additional opportunities for a broader student experience. Arguably further attention needs to be paid to the achievement results for Plymouth considering previous research findings (Artess et al., 2014, Blasko, 2002). and the national non-completion (Higher Education Statistics Agency, 2007). Furthermore, graduate employment outcomes have been shown to be far more significantly affected by living at home for younger rather than for mature students (Purcell 2012), despite the fact that employment outcomes even for mature students have been shown to be linked to levels of engagement with university-based extra-curricular activities (Stuart et al., 2011). A distinction between the impact of living at home for mature students and younger ones is thus present in many forms, and suggests that age is one of the

14

key variables in determining the services and support systems required by home-based students.

7.[8.] Analysis of student attainment data

A snapshot analysis of the attainment of all students in 2015-16 was undertaken. Students were grouped into the three categories (Stay at home, Commuter, and Study Away). Following the approach of Artess et al. (2014), they were then subdivided by age at point of entry to the University: <21 years versus ≥21 years. Note that here again the analysis excluded:

Students whose term-time and/or vacation postcode was unknown (most of these were EU or international).

Students who were not pursuing a full Bachelors or Integrated Masters degree (i.e. those taking individual CPD-focused modules).

Students on the BSc (Adult) Nursing programme, where it was difficult to disentangle those studying in Plymouth versus Truro.

For this study all the data for all students in all three undergraduate years in 2015-16 are considered as a single unit. Students are categorised by their residential status and age, and associations sought with their module results. This provided the high level test for differences in attainment.

The first outcome was analysed using multiple regression and considered the proportion of students’ registered modules that were passed. Modules with conventional percentage-based assessment and pass / fail assessment were both included. For each age category, respective regressions tested for any association between the outcome and residential profile, whilst controlling for potential confounders (i.e. gender, disability, socio-economic status, POLAR, entry tariff1, year of study).

As can be seen from Figure 1, amongst older students there was no significant association between residential status and proportion of modules passed. For younger students, there was a significant difference in the proportion of modules passed between Commuter Students and Study Away Students. It should be acknowledged that the large sample size affords considerable statistical power to identify even small effects. The magnitude of the difference between these two groups (~2%) appears modest in practical terms.

1 Entry tariff was not included in analyses of students ≥21 years as a high proportion have no recorded entry tariff owing to the circumstances of their university admission.

15

The second outcome was analysed using multiple regression and concerned whether students’ combined results from all attempted modules was commensurate with a ‘good degree’ (i.e. averaging >59% - the 2.1 and 1st class category). Modules assessed on a pass / fail basis were excluded from this analysis. For each age category, respective analyses tested for any association between the outcome and residential profile, whilst controlling for potential confounders (i.e. gender, disability, socio-economic status, POLAR, entry tariff1, year of study).

In broad terms, this outcome showed greater association with residential status, compared to the first outcome. As illustrated in Figure 2, older students showed no significant association between residential status and the outcome variable. Conversely, in the younger cohort the likelihood of averaging a good degree was significantly lower for Commuter Students compared with Stay at Home and Study Away Students, who did not differ significantly (see Figure 3). The magnitude of this disadvantage (around -8%) could be significant in practical terms.

16

17

8.[9.] Student Voices

This section reports on focus group discussions set up to capture student’s experiences and to help frame an online questionnaire that could be used with all our students. Focus groups participants were identified using CIS data. Five programmes with a high proportion of home and commuter students were identified, as well as five with a relatively small numbers. Targeted recruitment for focus group participants was undertaken.

One characteristic of stay at home and commuting students is that their attendance on campus is tightly matched to timetabled sessions, which made recruitment to the focus groups unusually difficult. Although four focus groups were arranged to represent the diversity of stay at home and commuting students, only six students attended. A further four students sent e-mail responses as they were unable to attend the sessions.

18

The draft online questionnaire developed through these discussions and with reference to the literature and experience at other institutions can be found in Section 13. It aims to capture a comprehensive picture of the views and challenges faced by these students. The questionnaire will need pilot testing and refining before University-wide implementation.

Themes emerging from the focus groups

Location: As indicated by the literature stay at home and commuting students choose to study at the University of Plymouth because of its location. This convenience allowed participants to stay at home, save money, maintain established home networks and fulfil caring, family and work commitments. Although the course choice was important, this was often of secondary consideration.

Transport was a significant concern, with commuter students, in particular, making decisions as to whether it was worthwhile to attend a session. Students reported making decisions to miss sessions, if there was just one timetabled, or it was particularly early or late in the day. It has to be questioned whether students are best placed to self-determine what is a relevant session to attend, and also the potential impacts on long term academic performance if a pattern of disengagement is adopted regularly. The cost of public transport, fuel and parking was raised;

‘Travelling for 5 hours for the sake of one lecture does not make the best use of time and resources, and has an environmental impact’. (Student 1 e-mail)

Timetabling was a strong theme in discussions. There was recognition of the challenges associated with timetabling, however, days with only one session, large gaps between sessions and late or early sessions led to absences:

‘I think anything that’s not really necessary or relevant you are maybe not going to be a part of , either travelling back it’s not worth coming in for, is it worth putting my child in childcare for, are there other things that I need to be doing, could this time be better spent, and I think that’s the challenge..’ (Student B, FG1)

Belonging and integration represented a complex topic that warrants further investigation. The participants did not express a sense of being ‘excluded’ or poorly integrated into peer networks, rather they indicated that it was their choice whether or not they integrated with their peers, course-related societies or social events:

‘But I do think in a way we have missed out cos it’s the whole part of uni isn’t it, that people go to uni to be social, so partly I’m not very social at all, but partly because we just don’t have the time to come in just to go out.’ (Student A, FG2)

There was also some sense of active exclusion of mature students by younger students:

19

‘…when you’re talking about the groups that you sign up to…chatting to the person [about a student society], and there was an age limit on it, so it’s like a student thinks you’re too old, for their student society, too old.’ (Student B, FG1)

This initial finding has to be framed against discussions in literature about some students’ preference for maintaining established social networks outside the academic community and not seeking or expecting to engage with this aspect of the HE experience. Limited peer integration may affect the engagement of stay at home and commuting student in activities such as group work.

‘I have found it difficult to fully participate in group work because of the distance to university but have made extra journeys to try and be more involved.’  (Student 1 e-mail)

Dedicated study and social spaces: commuting students commented on the time spent on campus between teaching sessions and waiting for their trains or buses. Though they make use of study spaces in the library, at certain times of the year these can be noisy and bookable spaces in high demand. There was a sense that social space (e.g. a common room), where food and drinks could be stored and prepared would be positively received, as this would save considerable money and provide another base on campus. This type of space would potentially also promote networking amongst this group.

‘I did use the library on a few occasions but actually found it difficult to concentrate due to the noise levels throughout the library’. (Student 2 e-mail)

Affordable, occasional accommodation, bookable for single nights to allow engagement in social events or reduce the pressure of travelling for exams and early teaching sessions was also a popular idea discussed. This is an area that needs further consideration, and joint working between UPSU, Estates and Residential Services.

Academic and Social support: There were variable levels of awareness of the support available through schemes such as PALs, and the UPSU Mature Students Forum. There was a tendency for mature students to seek out and draw on likeminded peers (i.e. other mature students) rather than use current mechanisms available through Schools and UPSU, indicating a potential mismatch in what was available and what was used:

‘I went to two [PALS sessions] and gave up, again I had other things to be doing, generally it was meeting for coffee with my older friends who were also on other courses, and then chatting with them about it all instead.’ (Student A, FG1)

‘We weren’t in uni as much we were missing our own peer support…we then realised how much we’d got just from sitting with our friends eating lunch and

20

having a cup of tea, and the things that we would discuss then. That peer support you just can’t underestimate that can you, the value that that gives.’ (Student C, FG1)

Online resources, technology and software to support learning. This area needs further discussion with a wider group of students. In the discussions it was not at the forefront of students thinking. However, this may indicate a lack of awareness of what was available in terms of work at home software, and the potential of Skype for Business, eBooks and Moodle to support activities such as group work. It may indicate that a promotional campaign targeted at these students would be helpful.

There was a positive response to the idea of using technology to support learning, and it was recognised as having the potential to mediate the challenges provided by travel and caring responsibilities that may lead to non-attendance:

‘But that would be brilliant, say if you had one of those days when you didn’t feel quite well enough to travel and your children, that would be brilliant to be able to access, because yes you can get your notes from friends, but it’s like a Webinar type thing maybe.’ (Student C, FG1)

‘I believe the university does not make good use of available technology to alleviate some of these problems.   I understand that lecturers and students benefit from face-to-face interactions but this could be balanced with online lectures etc. (Student 1 e-mail)

Although this report is based on a very limited set of conversations, most of the issues identified apply to both the stay at home and commuting student participants.

Repeating this work with significant numbers of students should enable us to capture the approaches and services provided by different faculties and schools, gain an insight into the effectiveness of different support mechanisms, and potentially begin to discern the expectations of these students and their motivation to engage in-depth in academic and non-academic activities.

Section 3 Conclusions and opportunities for further work

The findings reported here, and resulting recommendations are based on very limited University of Plymouth data, but chime directly with the experiences in other universities. While further work is clearly needed to develop results based on Plymouth student’s experiences, we are able to make some preliminary recommendations that would start to address the needs of this diverse community of students.

21

Primarily, this is a matter of raising awareness of the numbers of students who are home-based, tutors understanding where people have needs and providing relevant support, particularly to younger home-based students.

We need to find sensitive ways to assist home-based and commuter students to understand how their performance may be enhanced, despite the pressures involved.

9.[10.] Conclusions from the literature

This review of the literature makes it clear that there are a number of factors which frame the experience of students who choose to be home-based during their higher education studies. These factors are diverse, generally reflecting personal, family and financial constraints. While different studies have categorised students to different groupings it is generally recognised that the younger students are potentially less successful, and benefit from individual support.

All students need to find a sense of belonging with their cohort, which is cultivated by a range of practices which are part of programme and module support, through online and personal tutoring practices. While mature students are more easily recognised by academic staff, stay at home and commuting students in the under 21 age group probably invisible and unlikely to be offered additional support. For the University of Plymouth, it is particularly relevant to consider how ‘local’ PL1-PL9 students are able to find a sense of belonging in their HE cohort, given that they already have an established sense of place which is difficult to match with their student identity.

The literature review has identified that mature students rely on different factors for both educational attainment and satisfaction of the student experience requiring very different demands of their HEIs.

10.[11.] Draft Recommendations for development

This section provides a series of suggestions based on the findings. These have been categorised into those which could, to some extent, be implemented in the next six months to start to make a difference from September 2018; and those which will need longer term thinking and in some cases significant investment.

This is intended to provide a very preliminary starting point for discussions, ideally with:

1. Service leaders to look at collate what is already happening, and what might be possible in the next year.

22

2. ADTLs and Programme Leaders to share practice already in place, and potential developments at School and Programme level

3. What else?

March – September 2018 – Quick wins

Issues and potential actions Suggested Leaders

1 Disseminate this report through PedRIO workshops and committees to start to challenge institutional understandings of these students support needs. Encourage programme leaders to explore their cohort data to identify current PL1-PL9 and commuter students, and consider opportunities for supportive interventions with current and next cohorts

Report to faculty programme leads, with suggestions for interventions by September 2018

2 Programme staff would benefit from being able to access CIS information on stay at home, commuter, and study away students, stratified by age for their program. Ask CIS if dashboard data could be made available.

CIS

3 Stay at home students and commuter students gravitate towards

each other, but generally achieve this by chance. They identified knowing other home-based students as important. Consideration by Programmes and Schools of ‘buddying’ and peer support for these individuals

Programme leaders

4 Welcome week organising teams to review opportunities for events and activities that will attract home-based students. Recognising their availability is generally limited to between nine and five.

Welcome week organisers

5 ‘Work at home software’, lecture capture, eBooks, online submission via Moodle and other technologies promote flexible learning on and off campus. Module leaders to disseminate information about their availability and use, providing regular reminders and signposting when they can be utilised.

Module leaders

Library

ASTI6 Prioritise the advertising and promotion of student ambassadors,

mentors and PALs opportunities to stay at home and commuting students to encourage their engagement in wider academic and extra-circular activities that fit within the ‘university day’.

Programme leadersPALSEvents teamCareers

7 Process is determined to identify ‘live at home’ and ‘commuter students’ and inform tutors and personal tutors so that tutorial support can be appropriately developed,

Faculty registrarsAcademic Registrar

8 Discussions with UPSU and other students to establish a systems nomenclature (currently: home-based, stay at home, commuter, study away) that students will find helpful and which will encourage engagement in activities by people in these groups.

UPSU PedRIO

9 Develop specific forums, societies for stay at home and commuter students

UPSU

23

24

Longer term Actions

Issues and potential actions

11 Schools to consider ways to allocate tutorial groups and group work activity based on travel geography. (eg Newton Abbot, Bristol and Taunton residents in same group; Exeter and Barnstaple students together)

AHSTL and module leaders

12 Use of Panopto to record teaching sessions becomes the norm. Move to an ‘opt out’ action.

DVC SE TISAcademic Regulations

13 Identifying new students with PL1-PL9 addresses during the August admissions process, and proactively invite them to campus in mid-September, to give them a sense of group cohesion, that they are a valued part of the group, and offer the opportunity to be ambassadors with the new cohort

Programme leaders. Admissions CIS to find ways to identify this group

14 Consider developing a social media presence for commuting and stay at home students, to allow them to share information about the practicalities, such as travel. Develop a society or student forum to encourage networking amongst these individuals.

Admissions

UPSU

15 Programme teams, Schools and Placement Officers explicitly consider student’s home location when allocating placements and work experience opportunities.

CareersPlacement officers

16 ASTI, TLS and Library staff continue to offer academic staff CPD sessions to further understand the use of webinars, Skype tutorials, group work, accessibility of resources and support the use of pedagogies such as flipped classroom. The sessions will promote the advantages of these technologies to support commuting students.

ASTITLSLibraryTIS

17 While commuting and living at home students use the library and SU, a space for quiet study, making drinks and locker storage would be appreciated.

Residential services

Estates18 Create opportunities for commuter students to stay occasionally

overnight in Plymouth relatively cheaply. Creation of a backpacker style dormitory? Lockers to store sleeping bags etc.

EstatesResidential Services

19 Timetabling staff aim to minimise, or eliminate undergraduate timetables with a single hour commitment in one day. Academic staff setting tutorial times are asked to consider their students’ timetable patterns to minimise expense of attendance for a single session.

Timetabling teamTutors

20 Establish a mechanism to regularly prompt programme leaders to schedule non-standard, extra activities (induction, networking, careers development etc.) within the day time rather than in evenings. Ask faculty registrar's to add notes to staff and program managers handbooks

Faculty registrar

Programme managers

25

21 Development of pre-entry information for stay at home and commuter students, given prominence on the University website

Admissions

22 Student voice stories from stay at home and commuter students on individual programme webpages

School admissions web page developers

23 Understanding the ‘student journey’ from application to alumni - to recognise stay at home and commuter students’ experiences and needs. Survey the wider student population and expand focus group work.Suggest first cycle running of the survey in June 2018 (after NSS and SPQ is closed).

PedRio staff

24 Further analysis of student data for The School of Nursing, to explore BSc (Adult) Nursing student numbers for those studying in Truro and Plymouth. Future work the Exeter student data.

Nursing; PedRIO CIS

Further considerations

In addition to the actions proposed above we recognise the following areas as needing further consideration:

This report has centred on the undergraduate experience. In the future consideration should be given to the experiences of stay at home and commuting PGT and PGR students;

Qualitative, focus group data were drawn from a very small number of second year students. Attention should be paid to first year students’ experience of integration.

Broadening the study to interview alumni in the stay at home and commuter categories would provide valuable additional insights.

26

Section 4 Resources

11.[12.] References

Artess, J., et al. (2014). Learning from Futuretrack: studying and living at home. BIS Research Paper Number 167, Higher Education Careers Service Unit (HECSU).

Blasko, Z. (2002). Access to What? Analysis of Factors Determining Graduate Employability. . Bristol, HEFCE.

Bourdieu, P. and J. Passeron (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture. Translation: R. Nice. London, Sage Publications.

Browitt, A. and N. Croll (2015). Enhancing engagement of local ‘commuter’ students at induction to support transition and promote student retention and success. Enhancement and Innovation in Higher Education. University of Glasgow.

Christie, H., Munro, M. and Wager, F. (2005). "‘Day Students’ in Higher Education: widening access students and successful transitions to university life." International Studies in Sociology of Education 15(1): 3-29.

Clayton, J., et al. (2009). "Home and away: Risk, familiarity and the multiple geographies of the higher education experience." International Studies in Sociology of Education 19: 157-174.

Dante, A., et al. (2013). "Time-to-event analysis of individual variables associated with nursing students' academic failure: a longitudinal study." Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 18(5): 1047-1065.

Goodenow, C. (1993a). "The psychological sense of school membership among adolescents: Scale development and educational correlates." Psychology in the Schools. 30(1): 70-90.

Goodenow, C. (1993b). "Classroom belonging among early adolescent students: Relationships to motivation and achievement." Journal of Early Adolescence 13(1): 21-43.

Graham, P. A., et al. (2016). Living on Campus: Does it still make a difference? Bloomington, Indiana University.

27

Helsen, E. (2013). The Role of Student Services and Support in Attaining Commuter Students. Amosshe: The Student Services Organisation, Kingston University.

Higher Education Statistics Agency (2007). Students in Higher Education Institutions 2005/06. Cheltenham, HESA.

Holdsworth, C. (2009). "Between Two Worlds: Local Students in Higher Education and 'Scouse'/Student Identities." Population, Space and Place 15: 225-237.

Holton, M. (2015). "‘I Already Know the City, I Don't Have to Explore it’: Adjustments to ‘Sense of Place’ for ‘Local’ UK University Students." Population, Space and Place 21(8): 820-831.

Horn, L. J. and J. Berktold (1998). Profile of undergraduates in U.S. postsecondary education institutions: 1995-96. Washington, DC, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.

Khambhaita, P. and K. Bhopal (2015). "Home or away? The significance of ethnicity, class and attainment in the housing choices of female university students." Race Ethnicity and Education 18(4): 535-566.

Kuh, G. D., et al. (2001). The Disengaged Commuter Student: Fact or Fiction? National Survey of Student Engagement, Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research and Planning

NUS (2015). Reaching home: Policy and practice for students living in the parental home. https://www.nus.org.uk/PageFiles/12238/Reaching%20Home.pdf

Patiniotis, J. a. H., C. (2005). "‘Seize That Chance!’ Leaving Home and Transitions to Higher Education." Journal of Youth Studies 8(1): 81-95.

Pokorny, H., et al. (2017). "Commuting, transitions and belonging: the experiences of students living at home in their first year at university." Higher Education 74(3): 543-558.

Purcell, K., Elias, P., Atfield, G., Behle, H., Ellison, R., Luchinskaya, D., Snape, J., Conaghan, L., and Tzanakou, C. (2012). Futuretrack stage 4: transitions into employment, further study and other outcomes Manxhester, HECSU.

28

Seow, P.-S. and G. Pan (2014). "A Literature Review of the Impact of Extracurricular Activities Participation on Students’ Academic Performance." Journal of Education for Business 89(7): 361-366.

Stevenson and Waite (2011). Oxford English Dictionary.

Stuart, M., et al. (2011). "The impact of engagement with extracurricular activities on the student experience and graduate outcomes for widening participation populations." Active Learning in Higher Education 12(3): 203-215.

Taylor, R. (2011). University cities thrive on students. The Guardian.

Thomas, L. (2002). "Student Retention in Higher Education: The role of institutional habitus." Journal of Education Policy 17(4): 423-432.

Thomas, L. (2012). Building student engagement and belonging in higher education at a time of change. Final report from: What works? Student retention and success programme.

Thomas, L. and R. Jones (2017). Student engagement in the context of commuter students. London, TSEP.

Tinto, V. (1975). "Dropout from Higher Education: A Theoretical Synthesis of Recent Research." Review of Educational Research 45(1): 89-125.

University of Essex (2017) Commutershttps://www1.essex.ac.uk/students/groups/commuters.aspx

University of Birmingham (2017) Commuting student testimoials https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/welcome/before-you-start/connect-with-other-students/Local-and-commuting-students/a-week-in-the-life-of-local-students.aspx

University of Manchester Students' Union (2017). "Living at home students." https://manchesterstudentsunion.com/livingathome

University of Sheffield (2017) Living at Home https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/ssid/local-students/living-at-home

University of St Andrews (2017) Commuter students, https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/study/support/commuter-students/

University of York (2017). "Local and commuting students."https://www.york.ac.uk/students/support/off-campus-students/

29

Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Advances in experimental social psychology. M. P. Zanna. New York, Academic Press.

Whalen, J., Clarke, C.and Laber V., (2016) Our Sector: Understanding Commuter Students, ChangeSU Report for Liverpool John Moores University. http://www.changesu.org/?p=608

Wojtas, O. (2014). Making sure the locals feel part of the community. Times Higher Education Student Experience Survey

30