See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233200484 Student non-completion of an undergraduate degree: Wrong program selection or part of a career plan? Article in Higher Education Research and Development · April 2011 DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2010.512630 CITATIONS 2 READS 51 3 authors: Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Rural Backhground Study View project Different projects View project Maree O'Keefe University of Adelaide 49 PUBLICATIONS 223 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Gillian Laven University of Adelaide 12 PUBLICATIONS 456 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Teresa Burgess University of Adelaide 36 PUBLICATIONS 194 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE All content following this page was uploaded by Gillian Laven on 19 June 2016. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately. PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE This article was downloaded by: [Laven, Gillian][University of Adelaide Library] On: 17 March 2011 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 914666600] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Higher Education Research & Development Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713423834 Student non-completion of an undergraduate degree: wrong program selection or part of a career plan? M. O'Keefea; G. Lavena; T. Burgessa a Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia Online publication date: 16 March 2011 To cite this Article O'Keefe, M. , Laven, G. and Burgess, T.(2011) 'Student non-completion of an undergraduate degree: wrong program selection or part of a career plan?', Higher Education Research & Development, 30: 2, 165 — 177 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2010.512630 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.512630 Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Higher Education Research & Development Vol. 30, No. 2, April 2011, 165–177 ISSN 0729-4360 print/ISSN 1469-8366 online © 2011 HERDSA DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2010.512630 http://www.informaworld.com Student non-completion of an undergraduate degree: wrong program selection or part of a career plan? M. O’Keefe*, G. Laven and T. Burgess Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia TCaHyEloRr _aAnd_ 5F1r2a6n3ci0s. sLgtmd (Received 9 December 2009; final version received 28 June 2010) 1H0i.g1h0e8r0 E/0d7u2c9at4i3o6n0 R.2e0s1ea0r.5ch1 2&6 3D0evelopment 0O7r2ig9i-n4a3l 6A0r (tipcrlient)/1469-8366 (online) 2T0a1y1lor & Francis 320 0D0r0. 0M0a0r2e0e1O1’Keefe [email protected] Institution wide comparisons of students who leave university before completing their degree and students who complete their studies, have identified ‘wrong course selection’ and a lack of vocational focus as common reasons for non-completion. It is not fully understood, though, whether these trends are constant across different disciplines and programs and whether all relevant contributing factors, in particular career intentions, have been considered. This study was undertaken to explore reasons for student non-completion in more detail in one program. Students enrolled in an undergraduate health sciences degree completed a questionnaire at enrolment and another 12 months later, regarding their reasons for enrolment, career intentions and expectations for/experiences of learning. Students who did not re-enrol after the first year were invited to complete a separate exit questionnaire regarding their reasons for not re-enrolling. Many students who did not re-enrol after the first year of study transferred to another degree that was more aligned with their career intentions. In this context rather than a ‘wrong’ selection, noncompletion of the initial undergraduate degree formed part of a career plan. Keywords: first year experience; health sciences; retention; undergraduate student Introduction Among students who enrol in, but who do not complete, a degree program, the majority leave by the end of the first year (Christie, Munro, & Fisher, 2004; Yorke, 2000). Although important factors influencing the decision of students to enrol in a particular program in the first place are job- and interest-related (Krause, Hartley, James, & McInnis, 2005), a common reason given by students for subsequently leaving is that they enrolled in the wrong program (Harrison, 2006; Yorke, 2000). In addition, it is suggested that a proportion of students who discontinue their studies do so because they lack a clear vocational focus (Harrison, 2006). Students are more likely to complete a degree program if it was their first choice for study at university (Ozga & Sukhnandan, 1998). As a corollary, non-completing students are more likely to have enrolled in a degree that was not their first choice for study at university. When trying to understand why students do not complete their degree programs it is therefore important to know why students enrolled in a particular program in the first place. Processes associated with student non-completion of university degrees are acknowledged to be complex. A range of interdependent student, program and institutional factors are described by students as contributing to their non-completion *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] Downloaded By: [Laven, Gillian][University of Adelaide Library] At: 01:16 17 March 2011 166 M. O’Keefe et al. (Christie et al., 2004; Thomas, 2002; York, 2000). Christie et al. (2004) also argue that non-completion of degrees is the result of a complex interaction between a number of student, social and institutional factors. Moreover, for any one student, there is a unique tipping point where a combination of these factors results in their withdrawal from study. Harrison (2006) also offers a retention model that is based on persistence rather than withdrawal. In this model the student’s attachment to a particular program is strengthened over time by social, academic and personal connections. Within the context of this model, having a clear career intention at entry to university is seen as offering the student some protection from poor course selection and subsequent non-completion of their studies. Comparisons of the characteristics of students who leave early as compared with those students who complete their degrees have provided valuable information for planning at an institution level. In addition to the previously described poor choice of degree program, these characteristics include late enrolment (Baxter & Hatt, 2000), academic, social and financial problems (Bennett, 2003; Christie et al., 2004; Harrison, 2006; Lowe & Cook, 2003; Rhodes & Nevill, 2004) and dissatisfaction with the learning and teaching experience (Harrison, 2006; Rhodes & Nevill, 2004; Yorke, 2000). It is not fully understood, though, whether these trends are constant across different disciplines and whether all contributing factors have been considered, including student career intentions. It is plausible that for some students, non-completion is part of a well thought out strategy for achieving their desired careers. This study was undertaken to explore student non-progression in more detail in one degree. In particular, whether student non-progress was associated with a ‘wrong’ program selection, a mismatch between expectations and experiences or an absence of a vocational intention at enrolment or whether enrolment in the first place was part of a vocationally focused strategy. In addition, the extent to which students who did not re-enrol differed from those students who continued on in the program in relation to any of these variables was considered. The aim of the study was to explore the relationship between student reasons for enrolment, student learning expectations and experiences and student re-enrolment into the second year of a generalist undergraduate health science degree. Context for the study The Bachelor of Health Sciences undergraduate program was established in 1990 at a South Australian University to meet the growing need for a workforce trained in a wide range of health and medical research settings. The three-year program offers a general education in health sciences including anatomical sciences, public health, pathology, psychology and pharmacology. In addition students select a wide variety of electives from across the University. A survey in 2000 of program graduates with a public health major, indicated that these graduates valued the generic skills training they received in the program (Houghton, Braunack-Mayer, & Hiller, 2002). The program is offered annually, and between 2001 and 2008 first year enrolment numbers have ranged from 105 to155 students. The proportion of students continuing into the second year of the program has, however, steadily declined. In 2001, 94% of the commencing class of 128 students re-enrolled in the program in the next year. By 2006, only 58% of the commencing class of 125 students re-enrolled in the program Downloaded By: [Laven, Gillian][University of Adelaide Library] At: 01:16 17 March 2011 Higher Education Research & Development 167 the next year. The intervening years, 2002 to 2005 had re-enrolment of 70, 70, 70 and 64%, respectively. Methods In this study a longitudinal cohort design was used. Data was obtained by self-administered questionnaires and by searching the University student enrolment and academic outcome records. There were two phases of data collection for students in the cohort: at enrolment in first year (2007) and 12 months later at re-enrolment in second year. In addition, all students who did not re-enrol (including students who did not complete the first year questionnaire) were invited to complete a separate exit questionnaire. The University of Adelaide Human Research Ethics Committee approved this study. Participants and procedures All first year students who enrolled in the program were contacted by mail prior to first semester commencement and invited to participate in this study. In this letter student received a detailed information sheet describing the study. Students completed the Enrolling First Year Student Questionnaire in the first lecture of the academic year. This lecture was selected as it was an important orientation and information session for students. At this lecture, the questionnaire was distributed together with a consent form. Students who agreed to participate in the study signed the consent form and completed the questionnaire at the conclusion of the class. Signed consent forms and completed questionnaires were then placed in two separate marked boxes as the students left the lecture room. Any students who did not wish to participate were free to leave at any time or, if they wished anonymity, were invited to place a blank questionnaire and consent form in the boxes. As name badges were issued during this lecture, any students who were not present were identified. These students were sent a consent form and questionnaire in the mail together with a reply paid envelope. The University student identification number was the only identifying information requested from students on the questionnaire. This number was used to link student responses after 12 months. One year later students who re-enrolled in the program were contacted by mail at the beginning of the subsequent academic year and invited to complete the Re-enrolling Student Questionnaire. Any student who did not re-enrol following the first year of study (both cohort and non-cohort students) was contacted by mail and invited to complete the Exit Questionnaire. A reply paid envelope was provided with all mailed questionnaires with two follow-up mailings to non-responders. Measures Enrolling first year student questionnaire The enrolling first year student questionnaire contained a combination of fixed response, Likert scale and free text questions. Most of the questions used were obtained from related published studies. Students were asked their reasons for enrolling in the program using the fixed response categories used by Krause et al. (2005) in an Australian-wide survey of first year university students (Table 1). One additional alternative was added for this study, giving students the option of nominating a reason for enrolling that was ‘to gain access to another program’. Downloaded By: [Laven, Gillian][University of Adelaide Library] At: 01:16 17 March 2011 168 M. O’Keefe et al. Students were also asked to nominate their career intentions as a free text question, ‘What career do you wish to pursue after graduation?’ Questions relating to student expectation for learning at university were drawn from questions previously included in an institution wide survey of first year student expectations undertaken the previous year at the same university (Crisp et al., 2009). These expectation questions comprised one fixed response item regarding time spent in study and seven 5-point Likert scale questions. To each of the Likert scale questions, students could respond strongly agree, agree, not sure, disagree or strongly disagree. Information was requested also on student age, gender and enrolment status (full-time or part-time study). Re-enrolling student questionnaire Re-enrolling students were asked to complete the same questionnaire again one year later with minor modifications to reflect the fact that students had completed a year of the program. For example, instead of nominating their reasons for enrolment, students were asked why they had chosen to re-enrol in the program using the same categories as the year previously. These modifications meant that students provided information on their actual experiences permitting comparison with their expectations one year earlier. In addition, students rated their overall satisfaction with the program on a Likert scale. Exit questionnaire Students who did not re-enrol in the program were invited to complete the exit questionnaire. Students were asked their reason for enrolling in the program, using the same categories as in the enrolling first year questionnaire. This question was included as some exiting students had not consented to be part of the study cohort at enrolment in first year and had therefore not previously provided this information. Students were also asked their main reasons for leaving the program, using both a fixed choice and a free text question. Information regarding future intentions regarding study was sought by free text comments. Finally, in a free text response question, students were asked whether the program had met their expectations. Table 1.Comparison of student reasons for enrolling in the current study and results from a previous national study of ﬁrst year students. Number of students (%) n = 81 Krause et al. (2005) (%) n = 2344 Main reasons for choosing the programa Gain access to another program 65 (80) N/Ab Study in a field that really interests me 56 (69) 95 Improve my job prospects 25 (31) 83 Develop my talents and creative abilities 11 (14) 75 Get training for a specific job 8 (10) 74 Meet the expectations of my parents/family 4 (5) 30 Note: a More than one response could be selected; b not included as a response option in this study. Downloaded By: [Laven, Gillian][University of Adelaide Library] At: 01:16 17 March 2011 Higher Education Research & Development 169 Academic outcomes Student Tertiary Entry Rank (university entry scores based on school academic performance) at enrolment and Grade Point Average after the first year of study were obtained by searching university databases using student identification numbers. Analysis Frequency distributions were calculated for student questionnaire responses. Where student agreement levels are reported for Likert scale items, the percentage of students who either agreed or strongly agreed with the item statement is provided as a percentage. Student responses were compared by reason for enrolment, expectations and student characteristics. Comparisons of student responses at enrolment and one year later were made where paired data were available. Student Tertiary Entrance Rank at first enrolment and Grade Point Average at the end of the first year were both compared for students who re-enrolled and students who did not re-enrol. Likert scale and continuous data were compared using the Mann Whitney-U test, Wilcoxen Ranked Signed test and the Kruskal-Wallis test, as appropriate. Categorical variables were compared using the Chi-square test with Fisher’s exact method for low numbers. Correlations were calculated using the Pearson correlation coefficient. As multiple comparisons were undertaken, a p value of 0.01 was used to identify statistical significance. Results Of the 138 students enrolled in the first year in 2007, 81 (59%) completed the questionnaire and consented to participate in the study. Of these students, 55 were female and 26 were male, with no significant difference by gender among participating and non-participating students, 72 students were aged less than 21 years and 76 were enrolled in full-time study. Of this original cohort of 81 students, 49 re-enrolled in the program and 37 (76%) returned a completed re-enrolling student questionnaire. Of these 37 students, 26 were female, 35 were aged less than 21 years and 35 were enrolled in full-time study. As the numbers of older and/or part-time students were very low, these variables were not included in any further analysis. Gender differences are only reported if significant. Reasons for enrolling in the program All students nominated a reason for enrolling in the program (Table 1). The relative frequency with which students selected different reasons was similar to that of the previous study from which the question was drawn (Krause et al., 2005). All of the options available to students in answering this question were included in this previous study other than, ‘to gain access to another program’, which was included in this study only. ‘To gain access to another program’ was the most frequently reported reason given for enrolling in the program. This reason was selected by 80% of the students. In student responses there was considerable overlap between ‘to gain access to another program’ and ‘to study in a field that really interests me’ with students often selecting both options. Only five students nominated ‘to study in a field that really interests me’ without ‘to gain access to another program’ as their reason for enrolling in the Downloaded By: [Laven, Gillian][University of Adelaide Library] At: 01:16 17 March 2011 170 M. O’Keefe et al. program. A year later among re-enrolling students, female students were more likely to have chosen to re-enrol so they could improve their job prospects than were male students (Table 2). Career choice and further study At enrolment, 65 students (80%) nominated a career choice, with 18 students nominating multiple careers and 16 students unsure regarding their future career. Twenty different careers were listed as first choice, with Medicine, Psychology and Physiotherapy nominated most frequently (Table 3). Table 3.Career choices nominated at enrolment in ﬁrst year. Career choicea Number of students (n = 81) Medicine 28 Psychology 9 Physiotherapy 7 Dentistry 6 Dietetics and nutrition 6 Chiropractic 5 Law 5 Pharmacy 4 Health administration 4 Public Health 3 Nursing 2 Research 2 Paramedical 2 Politics 2 Sports science 2 Health promotion 2 Counsellor 1 Professional ethics 1 Occupational therapy 1 Acting 1 No career nominated 16 Note: a More than one response could be selected. Table 2.Comparison of female and male student responses to the reason for re-enrolment ‘to improve my job prospects’. Response selected Female Male ‘Re-enrol to improve job prospects’ selected 18 2 ‘Re-enrol to improve job prospects’ not selected 8 9 Total 26 9 Note: p < 0.01. Downloaded By: [Laven, Gillian][University of Adelaide Library] At: 01:16 17 March 2011 Higher Education Research & Development 171 A year later, 34 of the responding students (92%) nominated a career choice with 12 different careers listed as first choice. The most frequently nominated careers at this time were: Medicine (9 students), Psychology (5 students) and Public Health (5 students). Of these students, 22 had maintained the same career choice as at enrolment, 6 had changed their career choice and a further 6 students had nominated a career choice for the first time at re-enrolment. Of the 16 students who had been unsure of their career choice at enrolment, 8 students re-enrolled in the program and 8 students did not re-enrol. At first enrolment, 49 students (60%) indicated that they expected to continue to study after obtaining their degree. A year later, a similar proportion of students recorded the same response, however that absolute number had decreased to 24 students. Students who enrolled in the program hoping to gain access to another program expected to continue studying after they obtained their degree more often than did students who were undertaking the program for other reasons. On a 5-point Likert scale, where 1= strongly disagree and 5= strongly agree, the median response for the 23 students who expected to continue studying was 5 – strongly agree. The median response for the 14 students who did not expect to continue studying was 3 – not sure (p < 0.01). Student expectations and experiences Student expectations for learning at enrolment in first year and their experiences after one year in the program are shown in Tables 4 and 5. After a year in the program, students found interactive sessions with other students to be less important for their learning than they had expected (Table 4). By contrast, activities other than university affected study more often than students had expected at enrolment. There were no other differences between student expectations compared with their actual experiences after one year in the program. In addition, there was no Table 4.Comparison of student expectations at enrolment in ﬁrst year and student experiences one year later at re-enrolment. Questionsa First yearb (n = 37) Re-enrolmentb (n = 37) I (expect to) can combine study with paid work 29 29 Having ready access to my lecturers and tutors outside of face-to-face teaching (will be) is important to my success at university 34 31 (I anticipate that) My learning (will involve) involves independent/private study 37 37 Interactive sessions with other students (will be) are important to my learning* 35 24 It is probably not all that important for me to attend most lectures 12 I have activities other than university that might affect my ability to study* 13 27 I expect to continue studying after I obtain my degree 23 24 Notes: a Words in parenthesis indicate the terminology used in the ﬁrst year enrolling student questionnaire; b the number of students who agreed or strongly agreed with each statement is shown, *p < 0.01. Downloaded By: [Laven, Gillian][University of Adelaide Library] At: 01:16 17 March 2011 172 M. O’Keefe et al. correlation between student university Tertiary Entry Rank scores, student expectations at enrolment or student experiences after the first year. Students reported that they devoted less time to their studies in first year than they had expected (Table 5). Prior to commencing the program, student expectations for independent study ranged from 6 hours to over 20 hours per week. Among the students who re-enrolled, 84% had expected to study 11 or more hours per week prior to enrolment and 31% of these students had expected to spend 16 or more hours a week in individual study. The expectations of students at enrolment for individual study were very consistent with first year student expectations documented previously (Crisp et al., 2009; Krause et al., 2005). In these other studies, 69% of first year students had expected to study 11 or more hours a week and 37% had expected to study 16 or more hours per week prior to enrolment. After one year in the program, 39% of students in this study reported spending 11 or more hours in study with only 20% spending 16 hours or more in individual study. The majority of students expected to combine study with paid work and one third agreed that they had activities other than university that would probably affect their ability to study (Table 4). Student satisfaction There were high levels of overall satisfaction with the program, with 92% of reenrolling students agreeing that they were satisfied. There were no differences in student satisfaction with the program after one year by student reason for enrolment, student gender, time spent in study, student expectations at enrolment or student experiences after the first year. Students who did not re-enrol Of the 138 students who enrolled in first year in the program, 62 (45%) did not reenrol the next year. Of these, 48 were female and 14 were male, with no significant differences in re-enrolment rates by gender. There were no differences in Tertiary Entry Rank scores for students who did not re-enrol compared with students who re-enrolled in the program, with both groups having a median score of 88 with a range of 55–99. Table 5.Comparison of student expectations at enrolment in ﬁrst year and student experiences one year later at re-enrolment regarding independent/private study. Questionsa First yearb (n = 37) Re-enrolmentb (n = 37) I (expect to spend) spent the following time per week in independent/private study* 0–5 hours 0 4 6–10 hours 6 17 11–15 hours 19 7 16–20 hours 6 4 Over 20 hours 5 4 Notes: a Words in parenthesis indicate the terminology used in the ﬁrst year enrolling student questionnaire; b the number of students who agreed or strongly agreed with each option is shown, *p < 0.01. Downloaded By: [Laven, Gillian][University of Adelaide Library] At: 01:16 17 March 2011 Higher Education Research & Development 173 A trend was noted where students who did not re-enrol had a lower median grade point average score of 4.5 as compared with students who did re-enrol with a median score of 5 with an overall range of 1.5–7. This, however, did not quite meet the requirement for statistical significance. Exit questionnaires were completed and returned by 33 (53%) students, 26 female and 7 male. Reasons for not re-enrolling in the program are shown in Table 6. Of students who did not re-enrol, 29 reported that they were continuing with university studies, with 18 of these remaining at the same university, 22 students provided information on their new degree programs with 11 students continuing in a health-related field and 11 enrolling in a different field of education. Of students who completed the exit questionnaire, 23 (70%) responded that they had originally enrolled in the program to gain access to another program. Of these 23 students, 17 were successful in realising this goal and transferred to their program of first choice. Only 1 of these students indicated that they did not re-enrol because their expectations of the program had not been met. In their free text comments students described their approaches and attempts to match program choice with career aspirations. Many of the students who did not re-enrol indicated that they had been quite happy in the health sciences program. For these students the change of program arose because of a better fit with their overall career plans. Other students stated that they did not re-enrol because their career plans had changed. Sample student comments included: ‘I would have continued in the BHthSc had I not gained entry into medicine’, ‘Found a better field of study to meet my needs’ and ‘I changed what I wanted to do!’ Of the 62 students who did not re-enrol in the program, 30 had agreed to be part of the cohort study. There were no significant differences between study cohort students who re-enrolled in the program for a second year and those who did not reenrol by either their original reason for enrolment or their expectations of the program. Discussion This study provides unique information on the relationship between first year student career intentions, reasons for enrolment, expectations at enrolment and experiences after the first year of study together with information on which students left and why. As a cohort design has been used, it has been possible to track the progress of individual students. Although there are a number of studies exploring factors around student non-completion, the impact of career intentions, both at enrolment and subsequently during a degree program, is reported less frequently than other factors. Table 6.Student reasons for not re-enrolling after the ﬁrst year. Reasonsa Number of students (n = 31) Accepted into another program 20 Expectations not metb 10 Personal 9 Financial 1 Other 2 Notes: a More than one response could be selected; bonly two students cited expectations not met as the only reason for not re-enrolling. Downloaded By: [Laven, Gillian][University of Adelaide Library] At: 01:16 17 March 2011 174 M. O’Keefe et al. In this study the most common reason for enrolling among first year students was as a pathway to another degree. In this context, enrolment in this health sciences degree represented a ‘second choice’ strategy that students used to achieve their career aspirations (Whiteley, 2002). Interest in the field was also an important secondary consideration. Very few students reported enrolling in the health sciences program to meet family expectations or to get training for a specific job, even though many had clear career intentions at enrolment. The inclusion of the option ‘to gain access to another program’ as a reason for enrolling in this study differentiates it from previous similar Australian surveys (Brinkworth, McCann, Matthews, & Nordstrom, 2009; Crisp et al., 2009; Krause et al., 2005). At enrolment only one in five students were undecided about their careers. Although many students were hoping to gain access to another undergraduate degree, a surprisingly high number of students (60%) indicated that they expected to continue studying after obtaining their first degree. A common expectation of students for further study following an undergraduate degree persisted into the second year of the program. It is possible that these expectations reflected another facet of the students’ vocationally-focused enrolment strategy. Such an expectation is also in line with contemporary higher education developments such as the Bologna Accord (European Commission on Education and Training, 2009). It should be remembered though that these were student expectations during the first year of their studies and that such aspirations are not always realised (Rognstad & Aasland, 2007). After one year of study, a higher proportion of responding students nominated a career choice than at initial enrolment. Where a career was also nominated at first enrolment, as often as not this career was different to the one selected after a year in the program suggesting that a ‘career intention’ was more common than was having a specific career choice among first year students. Half the students in the ‘undecided career’ category at enrolment did not re-enrol after the first year. This finding provides some support for the concept discussed previously that this group may be more at risk of non-completion (Harrison, 2006). Unfortunately little further information is available on the subsequent study plans of these students. Consistent with other studies, students over estimated the time that they would be required to spend in private study (Krause et al., 2005; Lowe & Cook, 2003). The significance of this finding remains unclear as the actual time spent in study is likely to be influenced by a range of student characteristics including motivation and organisation together with the quality of student study habits (Lowe & Cook, 2003; Wilkinson, Wells, & Bushnell, 2007). There were no differences in expectations regarding study workload in students who re-enrolled and those students who did not continue into the second year. There was no relationship observed either between student satisfaction after the first year and student expectations at enrolment or student experiences after the first year regarding any of the aspects included in this study. It should be noted, however, that this information was only available for students who re-enrolled in the program and who participated in the cohort study. It is likely that for some students who did not re-enrol, dissatisfaction with the program was a contributing factor (Australian Council for Educational Research, 2009). There were few differences noted between male and female students either, other than a high proportion of female students overall. Few students cited financial reasons for their decision not to re-enrol after the first year in the degree. As had been found previously, nearly all the students who did not complete this program and who returned an exit questionnaire, continued with study elsewhere Downloaded By: [Laven, Gillian][University of Adelaide Library] At: 01:16 17 March 2011 Higher Education Research & Development 175 (Christie et al., 2004; Harrison, 2006). Many of the students left because they had been accepted into another program. Gaining access to another program had been the reason for enrolling in the program in the first place for many of these students. Therefore, rather than the initial selection of a wrong course (Yorke, 2000), this finding may be a reflection of a successful career strategy for these students. The earlier work of Ozga and Sukhnandan (1998) demonstrating that students are more likely to stay in a program if it is their program of choice is also supported. Student retention is a complex issue and, as Longden (2006) argues, it is important for higher education institutions to understand the ‘causal links’. Such an understanding is needed so that interventions can effectively address underlying factors influencing particular outcomes. It is also argued that changing financial models in higher education have created more of a consumerist approach to higher education (Lowis & Castley, 2008). In such a context, students are seen to give greater consideration to career and employment prospects in selecting both university and individual degree programs (Maringe, 2006; Soutar & Turner, 2002). It is likely that consideration of these factors will continue to be important in understanding student retention within programs. In the case of this cohort, student re-enrolment depended, at least in part, on initial student career aspirations and subsequent opportunities to transfer to another degree program. It is important therefore to consider career intentions at enrolment in addition to other student factors to fully understand patterns of student non-completion. In future, the extent to which individual student aspirations and ambitions are realised may assume greater importance than simple retention rates (Yorke, 2004). The utility of an explanatory model over a predictive model for understanding student retention patterns (Harrison, 2006) is also supported by the findings of this study. Most student expectations at enrolment in first year were realistic, except for their expectations regarding individual study. More importantly, it was not possible to predict from these responses by the measures used in this study which students would subsequently not re-enrol one year later. Limitations The response rates of 59, 76 and 53%, respectively, for each of the three questionnaires conducted in this study compare very favourably with similar studies of first year students. Previous student response rates have ranged from 28 to 39% (Krause et al., 2005; Longden, 2006; Lowe & Cook, 2003; Ozga & Sukhnandan, 1998; Yorke, 2000). It should still be noted, however, that in this study, responses were still not obtained from a number of students and student numbers were low in some comparison groups. The extent to which non-responding students may have given different answers to those of the students who did respond cannot be known. For example, a relatively low proportion of students who did not re-enrol reported that the program did not meet their expectations. It is possible that the more dissatisfied students did not complete the exit questionnaire. It is also possible that a higher proportion of dissatisfied students may not have continued to study either. This was also a study of a single program in contrast to the studies cited above in which students were surveyed across many programs. Although conceived as a general degree in health sciences, this program was clearly perceived by many students as one that would provide an alternate pathway into a range of health profession degrees. Very few students did not have a clear career Downloaded By: [Laven, Gillian][University of Adelaide Library] At: 01:16 17 March 2011 176 M. O’Keefe et al. intention at initial enrolment. It would be important therefore to investigate whether similar patterns could be observed in other programs. In particular, it would be of considerable interest to conduct a similar study in other generalist degree programs such as are offered in the Arts and Sciences. It should also be noted that only half the students who transferred to another program moved to a health-related degree. Although the Grade Point Average is a widely used measure of academic progress, it is a relatively blunt indicator and more subtle differences in student academic performance in relation to their expectations and/or experiences many have been masked. It was, however, the only indicator of academic outcomes available for this study. The specific impact, if any, of the prevailing employment opportunities or availability of alternative programs on the outcomes of this study is not known. It is highly likely that the rate with which students were able to transfer to another program was heavily dependent upon the availability of tertiary transfer opportunities in the programs that were selected. The impact of availability of employment opportunities is likely though to have had a much less direct impact as so many students who did not re-enrol continued their studies in other degree programs. Conclusion and implications Students who did not re-enrol were no different to students who continued on in the program in terms of their expectations for learning. Many of the students in this generalist health sciences degree who did not re-enrol after the first year of study, did so because they had achieved their purpose for enrolling, that this, they transferred to another program of study that was more aligned with their career intentions. The Health Sciences degree offered many students a ‘second choice’ strategy to achieve their career intentions. In this context, therefore, rather than students not continuing on in the degree program because their initial selection had been wrong, for those students who left to study in a more preferred program, the initial enrolment represented part of a successful career outcome. Institution-wide studies have provided valuable data regarding factors associated with student non-retention after the first year of study. Such trend data may require supplementation with finer grained, program-specific information when planning interventions at particular individual program levels. This study enriches our understanding of some of the program specific factors associated with the decision of individual students to re-enrol after the first year of study. Acknowledgements The project was supported by a Learning and Teaching Grant from the University of Adelaide Deputy Vice Chancellor and Vice President Academic. References Australian Council for Educational Research. (2009). Australasian Survey of Student Engagement (AUSSE): Engaging students for success. Retrieved March 18, 2010, from www.acer. edu.au/ausse Baxter, A., & Hatt, S. (2000). ‘Everything must go!’ Clearing and first year performance. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 24(1), 5–14. Bennett, R. (2003). Determinants of undergraduate student drop out rates in a university business studies department. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 27(2), 123–141. Downloaded By: [Laven, Gillian][University of Adelaide Library] At: 01:16 17 March 2011 Higher Education Research & Development 177 Brinkworth, R., McCann, B., Matthews, C., & Nordstrom, K. (2009). First year expectations and experiences: Student and teacher perspectives. Higher Education, 58(2), 157–173. Christie, H., Munro, M., & Fisher, T. (2004). Leaving university early: Exploring the differences between continuing and non-continuing students. Studies in Higher Education, 29(5), 617–636. Crisp, G., Palmer, E., Turnbull, D., Nettelbeck, T., Ward, L., leCouteur, A., et al. (2009). First year expectations: Results from a university wide survey. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 6(1). Retrieved October 29, 2009, from http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/ vol6/iss1/3 European Commission on Education and Training. (2009). Retrieved October 29, 2009, from http//ec.europa.eu/education/higher-education/doc1290_en.htm Harrison, N. (2006). The impact of negative experiences, dissatisfaction and attachment on first year undergraduate withdrawal. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 30(4), 377–391. Houghton, S., Braunack-Mayer, A., & Hiller, J.E. (2002). Undergraduate public health education: A workforce perspective. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 26(2), 174–179. Krause, K-L., Hartley, R., James, R., & McInnis, C. (2005). The first year experience in Australian Universities: Findings from a decade of national studies. Final Report. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Longden, B. (2006). An institutional response to changing student expectations and their impact on retention rates. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 28(2), 173–187. Lowe, H., & Cook, A. (2003). Mind the gap: Are students prepared for higher education? Journal of Further and Higher Education, 27(1), 53–76. Lowis, M., & Castley, A. (2008). Factors affecting student progression and achievement: Prediction and intervention. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(4), 333–343. Maringe, F. (2006). University and course choice: Implications for positioning, recruitment and marketing. International Journal of Educational Management, 20(6), 466–479. Ozga, J., & Sukhnandan, L. (1998). Undergraduate non-completion: Developing an explanatory model. Higher Education Quarterly, 52(3), 316–333. Rhodes, C., & Nevill, A. (2004). Academic and social integration in higher education: A survey of satisfaction and dissatisfaction within a first-year education studies cohort at a new university. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 28(2), 179–193. Rognstad, M., & Aasland, O. (2007). Changes in career aspirations and job values from study time to working life. Journal of Nursing Management, 15(4), 424–432. Soutar, G., & Turner, J.P. (2002). Students’ preferences for university: A conjoint analysis. International Journal of Educational Management, 16(1), 40–45. Thomas, L. (2002). Student retention in higher education: The role of institutional habitus. Journal of Education Policy, 17(4), 423–432. Whiteley, S. (2002). Students who enrol to withdraw: Planned attrition from programs of students at university. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 4(3), 281–195. Wilkinson, T.J., Wells, J.E., & Bushnell, J.A. (2007). Medical student characteristics associated with time in study: Is spending more time always a good thing? Medical Teacher, 29(2–3), 106–110. Yorke, M. (2000). The quality of the student experience: What can institutions learn from data relating to non-completion? Quality in Higher Education, 6(1), 61–75. Yorke, M. (2004). Retention, persistence and success in on-campus higher education and their enhancement in open and distance learning. Open Learning, 19(1), 19–32. Downloaded By: [Laven, Gillian][University of Adelaide Library] At: 01:16 17 March 2011 View publication stats View publication stats