House of Commons - Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee

Students and Universities - Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee Contents

Memorandum 91

Further submission from Professor Bernard Longden[343] and Professor Mantz Yorke[344]

RESEARCH DATA SUBMISSION

Part-time undergraduate university provision: aspects of the student experience

ABSTRACT

Part-time student experience in the UK has been under researched.

INTRODUCTION

1. This report is an extract from a paper presented at the Society for Research in Higher Education (Longden and Yorke, 2008).

2. Part-time undergraduate provision in the UK has provided and continues to provide a substantial and significant alternative pathway for those seeking to secure an undergraduate or postgraduate qualification. In 2006/07 there were 706,935 part-time undergraduate degree students in the UK compared to 1,267,470 full-time students, representing around 35% of the provision of undergraduate degree students in the UK (HESA, 2008). About 84% of PT undergraduate degree students were attending classes provided by universities with a residual percentage attending classes provided by further education colleges.

3. Over the past ten years or so there has been strengthening policy emphases on part-time study, the widening of participation and employer engagement in higher education. Despite the emphasis on part-time provision there does not appear to be a commensurate emphasis, at a national level, on analysis of the part-time experience.

4. For institutions seeking to enhance their provision of part-time study the imprecise focus of the NSS data coupled with the broad nature of the student experience scale scores, together with the limited survey of the student experience contained within the Universities UK (Ramsden and Brown, 2006) report presents serious limitations. Hence a more detailed study of the part-time student experience was warranted.

Data source for the study

5. Eleven post-1992 universities (all of which had a broad range of programs) accepted an invitation to participate in this study. The post-1992 university sector was chosen as the focus of the study because of its historical high level of commitment to part-time programs and because of its generally high level of commitment to the widening of participation.

6. The data collection covered a wide range—from taught master's programs to short courses—and attracted 2,871 valid responses. This report deals with the 1,613 responses received from students on part-time undergraduate programs

The survey instrument

7. There were three parts to the survey questionnaire (see the final report by Yorke and Longden, 2008 for full details relating to the questionnaire.).

8. The first section consisted of 28 Likert-type which were grouped for ease of response, some of which were in common with a previous study on full-time first year students' experience (see Yorke and Longden, 2007). The second section consisted of demographic and other background items. It was necessarily fairly lengthy because of the wide diversity of both the part-time student body and the kinds of program on which the students had enrolled. The final section provided an opportunity for "free-response" which allowed students to comment (albeit fairly briefly) on the best and worst aspects of their experience, and on anything that important to them that was not covered by the questionnaire. The questionnaire was made available to the target student population between late April and June 2008.

ASPECTS OF THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Revealing latent variables

9. Exploratory factor analysis (principal components, with varimax rotation) of all but the final "recommend" item suggested a 6-Factor solution for the whole dataset, which accounted for 56.69% of the variance.

10. Two of the six factors have good reliabilities (Cronbach's alpha); three have reliabilities that are adequate for indicative purposes; and the reliability of the last is very poor, indicating that the two items from which it is formed are better treated as separate items. The five factors with reasonable reliability, together with three individual items, are given in Table 1 and are used as the basis for the analysis that follows.

Table 1

FACTORS AND THEIR ASSOCIATED RELIABILITIES


Label or short for of item	Factor	Reliability

Programme quality (10 items)	1	0.902
Coping with demands (6 items)	2	0.683
Feedback (3 items)	3	0.859
Support Services (4 items)	4	0.653
Social engagement (2 items)	5	0.656
Worry about financing through HE	Item	N/A
Not able to attend all sessions	Item	N/A
Would recommend my PT programme	Item	N/A

11. Item-by-item analyses are provided in the final report (see Yorke and Longden, 2008 Statistical Appendices). The dataset falls considerably short in respect of the requirements for statistical testing. However where tests of statistical significance are used they are merely used to provide indicative levels of confidence regarding the significance of the differences. Where differences do occur, therefore, the possibility has to be entertained that these arise through an interaction effects amongst the variables. Such differences, however, invite investigation beyond the scope of this study as to their robustness.

Table 2

LATENT VARIABLE DERIVED FROM FACTOR ANALYSIS WITH MEAN SCORES FOR EACH ITEM


Latent variable name	Descriptive Statistics	Mean

	Getting what expected	3.53
	Showed what needed to do	3.67
	Satisfied with quality/teaching	3.55
	Clear from start	3.74
Coping with the program	Satisfied with tutorial support	3.46
	Program well organised	3.10
	Program is intellectually stimulating	3.90
	Able to contact academics	3.73
	Clarity of asst criteria	3.73
	Feel belong to academic grouping	3.20
	Difficult to balance academic & other	2.54
	Difficult to study at home	3.22
	Not done background reading	3.53
Coping with demands	Coping with acad workload	3.64
	Academic work is harder than expected	3.23
	Scheduling of assts if a problem	3.19

	Feedback-detailed comments	3.30
Feedback	Feedback-prompt	3.04
	Feedback-helped learning	3.41

	Can access inst computing when need	3.74
	Library provision good enough	3.59
Support Services	Institutional catering is adequate	3.26
	Institutional support services sufficient	3.21

Social engagement	Made at least 1 close friend at instn	3.68
	Discuss acad work with others	3.69

Finance worries	Worry about financing through HE	2.97

Attending sessions	Not able to attend all sessions	3.18

Recommendations	Would recommend by PT prog	3.66

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

12. Two propositions are tested.

Proposition 1

Part-time students on full-time programs of study.

Is there a perceived difference in the experience between those students who "fill-in" on full-time programs and that of students on programs designed specifically as part-time provision?

13. Comparing the mean values for the latent variables indication that the type of provision makes a difference.

14. Two distinct types of provision can be identified—part-time study on a part-time program and part-time study on a full-time program (filling-in). It can be seen from Figure 1 that nearly 60 per cent of the students in the survey were on "filling-in" on full-time programs. The latter arrangement can be seen by some providers as a means by which revenue can be secured with little additional expenditure. Teaching space and faculty have already been committed to the full-time program of study and slotting a part-time student into a full-time program is viewed as economically sensible—the part-time student is "filling-in".

Figure 1

TYPE OF PROGRAMS THAT PART-TIME STUDENTS EXPERIENCE

15. Students filling-in on full-time programs commented strongly on the failure of teachers to appreciate that part-time students might not be able to fulfil requirements as rapidly as their full-time peers.

16. Comparing the grouped responses from the two modes of engagement hints at problems in coping with demand "infilling" students' ratings being generally less positive. The item-by-item analysis (refer to Yorke and Longden, 2008 for a detailed exposition of the analysis) shows that the difference between the two modes of engagement is concentrated in the areas of program organisation (a matter that institutions should be able to address) and in the students' inability to attend all sessions (which, for a full-time program, may be less easily amenable to institutional intervention).

Table 3

TYPE OF PROVISION AND THE LATENT VARIABLE: COMPARING MEANS VALUES AND SIGNIFICANCE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEANS


Descriptive Statistics	mean		T-test	signifance

Not able to attend all sessions	3.28	3.04	0.00	***
Social engagement (2)	3.73	3.59	0.01	***
Would recommend my PT programm	3.71	3.56	0.01	***
Support Services (4)	3.49	3/40	0.02	*
Worry about financing through HE	3.04	2.87	0.02	*
Coping with demands (6)	3.25	3.19	0.13
Feedback (3)	3.26	3.19	0.17
Programme quality (10)	3.58	3.53	0.22

17. It is unclear why those studying part-time on a full-time program should evidence a higher level of concern over financing their studies than those who were studying on a part-time program. Part-time students on full-time programs of study exhibit low mean scores for the item relating to not being able to attend all sessions (Table 3). Possible explanations for the difference include: organisational aspects of the program that militate against regular attendance for those students who are part time and irregularity of the program timetable allocation.

Table 4

DICHOTOMISED DATA FOR TYPE OF PROGRAM COMPARING THE MEAN SCORES FOR CONTRIBUTING LATENT VARIABLE ITEMS


Latent variables	Descriptive Statistics	N	Part- time on part time program	Part- time on full- time program
			Mean	Mean	significance

	Getting what expected	941	3.56	3.48	*
	Showed what needed to do	937	3.68	3.66
	Satisfied with quality/teaching	932	3.53	3.60
	Clear from start	942	3.78	3.66	***
Program quality	Satisfied with tutorial support	935	3.47	3.43
	Program well organised	939	3.14	2.98	*
	Program is intellectually stimulating	938	3.91	3.91
	Able to contact academics	932	3.75	3.68
	Clarity of asst criteria	932	3.74	3.72
	Feel belong to academic grouping	897	3.21	3.16

	Difficult to balance academic & other	934	2.58	2.44
	Difficult to study at home	932	3.27	3.14	*
	Not done background reading	923	3.51	3.54
Coping with demands	Coping with acad workload	937	3.66	3.60
	Academic work is harder than expected	936	3.23	3.26
	Scheduling of assts if a problem	938	3.23	3.16

	Feedback-detailed comments	916	3.32	3.24
Feedback	Feedback-prompt	919	3.06	2.98
	Feedback-helped learning	905	3.43	3.35

	Can access inst computing when need	871	3.77	3.71
	Library provision good enough	907	3.62	3.56
Support Services	Institutional catering is adequate	826	3.31	3.20
	Institutional support services sufficient	824	3.26	3.11	*

Social engagement	Made at least 1 close friend at instn	901	3.74	3.59	*
	Discuss acad work with others	926	3.75	3.61	***

	Not able to attend all sessions	909	3.28	3.04	***
	Worry about financing through HE	827	3.04	2.87	*

	Would recommend by part-time program	926	3.71	3.56	*

*** p<0.01
* p<0.05

18. When the two means for type of provision with respect to the variable "social engagement" are considered the difference indicates that the difference is not a chance event (Table 4). It could be argued that part-time students on a part-time program are all in the same boat and therefore that social interactions are facilitated. In contrast those students on full-time programs may "feel" that they are missing out or are less able to integrate into the class, with barriers possibly reinforced unwittingly by faculty when they treat the class as a homogenous group of full-time students pay insufficient attention to the presence of part-time students with specific needs and concerns.

19. Where a part-time student was on a full-time program of study the data suggest that there is a significant difference (p>0.01) in attendance with those students on part-time constructed programs. It could be argued that a difference of this nature could be down to the lack of recognition by the teaching staff that part-time students are on the program.

20. For quite a large number of respondents co-presence (ie part-time and full-time on the same full-time program) gave rise to difficulties. This can be exemplified by the three comments which part-timers felt that they missed out on administrative information:

Failure to recognise the fact that part-time students may be in full-time employment and that by giving a return time of 4pm for an assignment on the first day of College means that time must be taken off from work as annual leave ….

21. The trade-off between the negative and positive aspects derived from part-time study is clearly expressed in the following extract.

The best of times, the worst of times! Being invisible—part time students get left out of the general buzz. We're left out of even university admin level information …. It's assumed we know things about our course work because full time students have been given info on days we don't attend. Our experience is fragmented—we don't form the bonds that full time students make. On the plus side, it gives us a fantastic opportunity to study and improve our situation. It offers stimulation and challenge that everyday life fails to offer ….

22. While if organisation and communication issues fro part-time students had been considered in advance the experience would have been improved and appreciated.

The fact that part-time students are virtually treated like second class citizens. The provision made for support, administration, such as handing in or picking up coursework is poor. Furthermore, full-time students get far more information regarding career advice and have greater access to guest speakers or other student activities.

23. Where both full-time and part-time students were on the same program (or part thereof), the bias seemed to be towards the circumstances of the former rather than the latter.

A large proportion of the students on this course are part-time and hold down full-time jobs, but a lot of tutors/admin support do not take this into account and consequently have unrealistic expectations of the amount of time that we can devote to the course outside of the scheduled lectures.

Proposition 2

relates to costs—tuition and maintenance expenses and sources for payment

What are the sources of funding for part-time study and what is the impact that the source has on coping with the academic demand of part-time study?

24. The mean score for the latent variable item relating to "worried about finance" (highlighted in Table 2) implies that financial matters were a concern for the part-time student population. The mean scores for the dichotomised item "worried about finance" when tested against each of the latent variables reveals a significance difference for "coping with the demands of part-time study" (p<0.01). The mean differences are shown in Figure 2.

25. What can be deduced from this? It could be argued that the concerns over finance were impacting on the smooth operation of part-time study and creating secondary tensions that were materialising in an increasing concern over the academic demands of the program.

Figure 2

MEAN SCORE RESPONSES FOR DICHOTOMISED DATA ON LATENT VARIABLE ITEM "COPING WITH DEMANDS" AND "CONCERN ABOUT FINANCE"

26. Worry about finance has at least two elements of importance. The first is the tuition fees levied by the university for attending the program, receiving tuition, marking work, assessing performance using resources. For some students financial support for paying these fees is crucial aspect of part-time study. Figure 3 shows that many students managed to secure funding from their employer (43%). In contrast, over 50% were responsible for their own charges. When the various mixes of funding elements are taken into account, those relying on a mixture of self funding and support from the LEA pushes the percentage of self funding exceeds the percentage support from the employer alone.

Figure 3

SOURCE OF FUNDING FOR UNDERGRADUATE PART-TIME STUDY

27. The second element is the maintenance costs for travel and material and perhaps loss of pay.

Figure 4

SOURCES OF MAINTENANCE FUNDING FOR PART-TIME STUDY

28. Self funding (82%) is made up of a "self funding" alone (71%), plus a mixture of "self funding" supplemented by "other sources" (11%) such as employer and LEA (Figure 4). The following student comments succinctly identify elements of the additional costs that part-time students incur without recourse to financial aid:

Travel/car parking costs/accommodation for residential weekends far from ideal (but little can be done about it).

Juggling workloads, lack of free time/social life, costs for travelling, parking around campus, the price of coffee.

ISSUES RAISED BY THIS PAPER

29. Some methodological caveats need to be reiterated. Although there are nearly 2,000 undergraduate responses in the analysis, these are a small proportion of the number of part-time students in the participating institutions. Reiterating the view expressed earlier in the paper, where statistical measures have been used they provide indicative pointers of possible underlying influences and worthy of further investigation. Hence caution needs to be taken when drawing inferences and conclusions. The picture suggested by the data is more like a pen-and-ink sketch than a finely-detailed photograph. A sketch can, of course, draw attention to features of interest.

30. This study has shown that, in general, the respondents had a strongly positive view of their part-time studies. Part-time study is particularly demanding for many students who have to juggle more commitments than (especially younger) students on full-time programs. The responses to this survey indicate that considerable respect needs to be accorded to those who take the part-time route.

31. The present study does, however, raise a number of issues which merit further attention.

Issues for consideration by institutional providers

32. The analysis, inclusion of part-time students on full-time programs, implicitly invites institutions to consider whether their provision for part-time students stands in need of enhancement. Some felt that institutional provision reflected a bias towards full-time study, and that the needs of part-time students were not adequately taken into account. Maybe this is related to the absence of clearly defined performance measures comparable to a full-time student, a point identified by King (2008: 10) in her report on part-time study to the Secretary of State.

33. From the free response comments to the survey questionnaire there are some clear messages that need to be addressed.

— The making of appropriate allowances for the particular circumstances of part-time students, in which the balancing of time between employment, home and academic study is rather different than for those who are enrolled as full-time students.

— Increased opportunity for greater interactions with peers (for learning and mutual support), and to having more of an opportunity to engage in the explicitly social aspects of higher education.

34. A briefing paper from Birkbeck College cited in King's report (2008) implies that Government's unwillingness to support part-time students is based "on the erroneous assumption that they can afford it, or that their employers are helping them".

35. Evidence of a widespread concern over financial aspects of part-time study has been provided in this submission—it is clear that Government's assumption needs further testing.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are grateful to Lola Adegbulu, Mark Barrett-Baxendale, Diana Dunn, Pat Eastwood, Helen George, Helena Lim, Anne McGillivray, Tony Nandi, Sarah Riches, Sue Smith, Amber Stephenson, Jane Thomas & James Williams for their support and contribution to this paper.

REFERENCESHESA. (2008). Higher Education: Statistics for the United Kingdom. Reference Volume. Cheltenham: Higher Education Statistics Agency

King, C. (2008). Part-time study in higher education DIUS: Review of the future of the HE sector. London: Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills

Longden, B., and Yorke, M. (2008). The experience of part-time students in UK higher education. Paper presented at the Society for Research in Higher Education, 11 December 2008, Liverpool. From http://www.hope.ac.uk/cherd/centre-for-higher-education-research-and-development-cherd-2.html

Ramsden, B., and Brown, N. (2006). Strand 1: a quantitative data analysis of 2003-04 HESA data. Part-time students and part-time study in higher education in the UK. London: Universities UK

Yorke, M., and Longden, B. (2007). The first year experience of higher education in the UK: Report of Phase 1 of a project funded by the Higher Education Academy. Last date when retrieved 13 November 2008, from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/ourwork/research/surveys/fye

Yorke, M., and Longden, B. (2008). The experience of part-time students in higher education: A study from the UK. U. a. S. Department for Innovation: DIUS: Review of the future of the HE sector. London. from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/ourwork/research/observatory

January 2008

343 Bernard Longden-professor of Higher Education Policy at Liverpool Hope University. Back

344 Mantz Yorke-visiting professor of higher education at Lancaster University. Back



© Parliamentary copyright 2009	Prepared 2 August 2009