Formation Continue du Supérieur

The 2012 Conference of Experts in Higher Education, an annual event co-organized by the National Centre of Public Accreditation (NCPA) and the Russian National Guild of Experts in Higher Education will be held in Moscow, Russia, on 9-10 November 2012.
The conference is open to representatives of quality assurance agencies, researchers, academics, policy makers, administrators and educators who are invited to take part in the event by submitting their proposals for a presentation or a poster (in Russian or in English) during the Conference, as well as by participating in the discussions of most urgent quality assurance issues.
The Seventh Annual Conference of Experts in Higher Education "Implementation of the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance Systems" will be held on 9-10 November 2012, Moscow, Russia.
The 2012 Conference of Experts in Higher Education, an annual event co-organized by the National Center of Public Accreditation (NCPA) and the Russian National Guild of Experts in Higher Education will be held in Moscow, Russia, on 9-10 November 2012.
The conference is open to representatives of quality assurance agencies, researchers, academics, policy makers, administrators and educators who are invited to take part in the event by submitting their proposals for a presentation or a poster (in Russian or in English) during the Conference, as well as by participating in the discussions of most urgent quality assurance issues.
Further Information and the programme will be available soon at the NCPA website.

This report is based on the ENQA workshop on the theme “Quality Assurance in Lifelong Learning” that was held from the 16-17th of May 2011 in Bonn, Germany. The workshop provided a platform for discussion and exchange of experiences among the main stakeholders in quality assurance. The workshop aimed to contribute to joint understanding of the quality assurance in lifelong learning (LLL) between stakeholders, to disseminate information on good practice of external quality assirance in LLL, and to discuss standards and procedures for external quality ssurance in LLL. Download the Report.
See also ENQA workshop on Quality Assurance and Lifelong Learning, Quality Assurance and Learning Outcomes, L’AERES, évaluée et reconnue par l’ENQA, 6th European Quality Assurance Forum.
Quality Assurance in Lifelong Learning
Endika Bengoetxea, Outi Kallioinen, Immo Schmidt-Jortzig, Richard Thorn.
Foreword
The implementation of Lifelong Learning (LLL) in European higher education institutions is one of the most important educational and carrier development oriented initiatives of this decade. Albeit an essential path in the continuous improvement of skills, competences and knowledge throughout the life of an individual, this project is also challenging, as it involves expectations not only from the educational, the social and the professional worlds, but employers and employees as well. Moreover, the fact that expectations and demands may vary nationally, regionally and locally demands understanding, transparency and coordination between lifelong learning providers. The quality assurance of implementing Lifelong Learning into European higher education institutions is currently part of ENQA’s main focus areas. ENQA is promoting debates on how to develop quality assurance processes for lifelong learning schemes. In order to contribute to joint understanding of the quality assurance in Lifelong Learning between all stakeholders, to disseminate information on good practice, and to discuss standards and procedures, ENQA organised a workshop on the theme “Quality Assurance in Lifelong Learning” that was held in May 2011 in Bonn, Germany. The workshop provided a platform for discussion and exchange of experiences among the main stakeholders in quality assurance.
This publication presents four articles based on the workshop on Lifelong Learning. The following articles will discuss the national experiences, observations and results from the perspectives of the European Commission, the Laurea University of Applied Sciences in Finland, the Foundation for International Business Administration Accreditation (FIBAA) in Germany, and the Institutes of Technology in Ireland. Achim Hopbach, President, European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA)
CHAPTER 1: Quality Assurance in Higher Education Lifelong Learning: Objectives and challenges on the European Union, Endika Bengoetxea, European Commission, Belgium
1.1 Introduction
The European Union’s Europe 2020 strategy sets out a vision of Europe’s social market economy for the 21st century, with a strong focus on skills and lifelong learning. It shows how the EU can come out stronger from the crisis and how it can be turned into a smart, sustainable and inclusive economy delivering high levels of employment, productivity and social cohesion. It includes a European benchmark for raising the proportion of higher education graduates (in the age range 30–34 years) to 40% by 2020.
The strategic framework for co-operation in Education and Training for 2020 –ET20202– focuses on four key areas:
1. Making lifelong learning and mobility a reality (including a European benchmark that by 2020 at least 15% of adults (age group 25–64) should participate in lifelong learning);
2. Improving the quality and efficiency of education and training;
3. Promoting equity, social cohesion and active citizenship;
4. Enhancing creativity and innovation, including entrepreneurship.
Given the need for Europe to raise skill levels and provide high quality education and training, it is no coincidence that lifelong learning and quality assurance figure as two of these priorities. The European Commission is cooperating actively with member states and stakeholders on reforms and follow-up.
Since the Bologna process started in 1999, there has been considerable improvement in building a higher education quality assurance culture in Europe, although efforts are still required to improve cooperation at European level. At the same time, quality assurance and transparency tools may need to evolve in order to remain up to date, as for instance, the European Standards and Guidelines which are at present under review.
While much of the focus of quality assurance is on initial training courses and degrees, developing quality assurance mechanisms for continuous training is also essential. More than ever, education systems are required to offer training courses and modules that ensure the right mix of skills, and lifelong learning activities must ensure that people improve knowledge, skills and competences within a personal, civic, social and/or employment-related perspective. As part of this strategy, higher education quality assurance systems must also play their role in guaranteeing that quality assurance mechanisms are established for continuous training courses.
The need to develop flexible study paths is also a priority: the percentage of ‘nontraditional’ groups (such as part-time students) seeking training is increasing, but there are not yet sufficient initiatives to satisfy this demand. Furthermore, these mature learners express a particular concern about the quality of the educational offer, which calls for a more direct involvement of quality assurance systems in lifelong learning. Download the Report.

This report is based on the annual ENQA Internal Quality Assurance seminar on the theme of Learning from each other – using benchmarking to develop IQA that was held on 16-17 June 2011 in Helsinki, Finland.
It presents a general overview of the benchmarking theme and discusses common features and differences of the benchmarked agencies’ IQA activities in terms of the selected three themes: performance indicators, follow-up on feedback and staff competence/development. The report also puts forward the benchmarking partners’ views on strengths, weaknesses and recommendations for development of each other’s activities, as well as the good practice they have identified on the selected theme. Download the Report.
Internal Quality Assurance and Benchmarking
DOUGLAS BLACKSTOCK, NADINE BURQUEL, NÚRIA COMET, MATTI KAJASTE, SÉRGIO MACHADO DOS SANTOS, SANDRA MARCOS, MARION MOSER, HENRI PONDS, HARALD SCHEUTHLE, LUIS CARLOS VELÓN SIXTO
Introduction
The Internal Quality Assurance group of ENQA (IQA Group) has been organising a yearly seminar for its members since 2007. Staff members involved in IQA of all ENQA members can join the activities of the Group. The main objective is to share experiences concerning the internal quality assurance of work processes in the participating agencies.
The Group is coordinated by a Steering group (SG), consisting of five members. The composition of the Steering group changes gradually by election of one or two members every year.
The overarching theme of the 2011 seminar was how to use benchmarking as a tool for developing an agency’s internal quality assurance system. The seminar gathered around 45 participants in the premises of the Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC) in Helsinki on 16-17 June 2011.
“Benchmarking involves comparing different aspects of the work of a group of organisations. It can be a very flexible approach. You can compare services, products or processes; you can look at a wide range of issues or focus on areas of concern; and you can benchmark with similar organisations or take a cross-sector approach on common issues such as customer care. Benchmarking may take place as a one-off exercise or be an ongoing relationship. The benchmarking exercise should be a mutually beneficial relationship, with every organisation in the benchmarking group being able to learn and develop from the experience of others.”
The Steering group based the preparation of the benchmarking activity on this definition. Agencies which are similar to each other, i.e. in size or scope, were grouped in pairs or triplets. Each group included an agency member of the Steering group. They compared their own practice with others on a certain focus area before the seminar, between January and May 2011. In addition to good practices, the participating agencies were encouraged to openly share which processes they find challenging or ineffective in their agencies. The findings were presented in the IQA Seminar in June 2011.
The benchmarking exercise focused on the following areas:
• Benchmarking of performance indicators (with FINHEEC)
• Benchmarking of on the follow-up of feedback (with ACSUCYL)
• Benchmarking of staff competence/development (with NVAO)
The present report gathers good practise and expertise related to these three themes: follow up on feedback (chapter 2), staff development (chapter 3) and performance indicators (chapter 4). The first chapter of the report provides a general overview of the benchmarking theme and is based on the keynote speech given by Dr Nadine Burquel... Download the Report.
Conclusions
Following the comparison exercise of the two Agencies, these conclusions may be drawn: Is it possible to compare Agencies?
• The agencies work in very different contexts, using different processes although some have comparable procedures;
• The indicators used for this benchmarking exercise may seem, at first sight, to be of little value and have little meaning if considered alone. They are context sensitive;
• More data from different agencies would be needed to choose the best and most representative indicators.
Could indicators be a tool to compare the performance of the agencies?
• It is difficult and lengthy to compare agencies with this type of indicators;
• They are a good internal tools to monitor and improve the effectiveness of the quality management system;
• It is useful to know which indicators other agencies use (qualitative comparison).
FINAL THOUGHTS
Some areas to work on in the future were identified:
• The group considered that it could be more important to proceed with the exchange of practices on the use of different procedures;
• Nevertheless, when exchanging and comparing practices, agencies should also look at the way(s) in which they measure the impact of such practices (internal: resources; and external: results)
• It would be important to develop meaningful indicators to assess the impact of the agency’s work on HEIs and on the HE system as a whole. Download the Report.

About FLLLEX
The FLLLEX project addresses the challenges and implications of LifeLong Learning incorporation into European higher education institutions. How flexible are those institutions when it comes to LifeLong Learning? Hence: FLLLEX. LifeLong Learning opens up a multitude of new possibilities for higher education institutions but the impact on the organisation as such remains understudied. What is the role of higher education in the wider landscape of LifeLong Learning? What are the institutional changes for the future? What strategy can the project propose to other higher education institutions and what policy advise to European and national players?
Main outcomes of the FLLLEX project:
The FLLLEX-Radar: an instrument for assessing the degree of Lifelong Learning implementation in the institution. The FLLLEX-Radar has been developed and tested by the different partner institutions. The results of the evaluation as well as the experiences in using the instrument were discussed with external review panels.
FLLLEX project results and recommendations are summarized in a brochure.
FLLLEX results and institutional experiences were presented at the 22nd EURASHE annual conference on May 10-11 2012 in Riga.
The FLLLEX project (The Impact of LifeLong Learning Strategies on Professional Higher Education) is an EU funded project in the framework of the Transversal Programme, Key Activity 1. It has started on the 1st of January 2010 and will run until 31st of August 2012. The consortium includes 24 partners from 10 European countries.
What is the FLLLEX-Radar about?
Published by the FLLLEX consortium with special thanks to Josep Grifoll (ENQA – AQU). This publication can be downloaded on www.FLLLEX.eu.
Self-assessment instrument
The FLLLEX-Radar is a self-assessment instrument that will help you to assess and reflect on the situation of Lifelong Learning (LLL) at your institution. The FLLLEX-Radar is designed to address the challenges and implications stemming from the incorporation of Lifelong Learning into European higher education institutions (HEIs).
The main priority of the use made of the Radar is to promote discussion and food for thought through analysis of different strategic areas linked to the development of Lifelong Learning in the coming years.
The purpose of a self-evaluation like this is not to rank the individual institutions, but to strengthen the position of institutions within their national and international contexts. The focus is clearly on ‘enhancement’ rather than ‘accountability’. In this respect, one of the more important tasks to be carried out by institutions in the self-assessment process is oriented towards the organisation and facilitating of debates and discussion on Lifelong Learning provision among the institutional members and with relevant stakeholders.
The instrument is an outcome of the FLLLEX project (‘The Impact of Lifelong Learning Strategies
on Professional Higher Education’), an EU funded project within the framework of the Transversal Programme, Key Activity 1. Eight HEIs from eight different countries have developed
and tested the tool. The objective of the project is to identify challenges and implications of Lifelong Learning (LLL) incorporation into European higher education institutions (HEI’s), with special attention given to the recognition of prior learning and to different aspects of the management and services within higher education institutions.
Results and Recommendations of the FLLLEX project are summarized in Towards an institutional strategy of Lifelong Learning in Higher Professional Education. This publication, as well as more detailed reports of the different work packages, can be found on www.FLLLEX.eu.
Why assess the implementation of LLL?
HEI’s remain a preferential partner in most countries for the governing bodies responsible to implement the national goals of LLL. HEI’s have a particular role to fulfil in the landscape of LLL, together with or among all other stakeholders, including lifelong learners, social partners/employers and training providers (profit and non-profit). The project would like to assess this role, as determined by the national policies and as perceived by the institutions themselves. The FLLLEX-Radar assesses in the first place if your institution matches up with the expectations of the different stakeholders.
The aims of the self-assessment are:
• To develop an analysis of the current situation for Lifelong Learning provision
in higher education institutions.
• To provide food for thought, at different levels within higher education institutions,
on the future development of Lifelong Learning.
• To open dialogues with stakeholders and other groups of interest on Lifelong
Learning provision.
• To enhance quality assurance frameworks for Lifelong Learning provision.
Therefore, the FLLLEX self-assessment tool is organised according to four core dimensions:
1. Analysis of the broader context
2. Lifelong Learning provision at the HEI (current situation)
3. Institutional policy (preferred situation)
4. Quality assurance in the institution
Each dimension can be assessed separately. However, it is suggested to tackle those in the order as proposed in this guide and build upon the results of the previous one.
The FLLLEX-Radar is meant to serve as a starting point for strategy development. Hence it is designed to be used only one time within the institution, not for repetitions in a cyclical mode. Although we are aware that carrying out a self-assessment requires substantial staffing resources, we are convinced that if discussions of the focus groups are well organised, the result should be very relevant for establishing new institutional strategies for Lifelong Learning. Download The FLLLEX-Radar.

The Austrian Agency for Quality Assurance (AQA) is an independent institution for quality assurance, evaluation and certification for the entire higher education sector.
AQA develops and conducts quality assurance procedures in accordance with national and European standards.
AQA contributes with international expertise and know–how to the quality development of higher education institutions.
A new Federal Act for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (Hochschul-Qualitätssicherungsgesetz), coming into force by 1st March 2012, sets a common frame for quality assurance in all sectors of higher education in Austria (public universities, universities of applied sciences, private universities). Part of the new law is the establishment of the trans-sectoral "Agency for Quality Assurance and Accreditation Austria" by the 1st of March 2012. The new agency will unify the functions of AQA, FH Council and Accreditation Council for the private universities.
AQA will operate until 2013 and progressively integrate its activities into the new agency. AQA staff will take care of the current procedures in the proven manner and AQA meet all of its obligations.
Please contact us for any questions regarding the reorganisation.
ATTENTION: We moved to new office!
Our new contact details from 16.7.2012:
AQ Austria
Renngasse 5, 1010 Vienna
Tel: +43-1-532 02 20-0, Fax: -99
All mail adresses stay active.

Jordan has become the first Arab country to launch a national campaign to promote its vocational education and training system. The campaign, on behalf of Jordan’s Ministry of Labour, is to run for four years starting this year. Communications agency Prisma, specialists in social marketing, is in charge of both the design and operational side of things.
Part of a broader reform of Jordanian vocational education and training, the campaign has two aims: raising its profile and encouraging more young Jordanians to consider working in vocational jobs. What lies behind this is the determination of the Jordanian government to increase the overall labour market participation rate. At around 40% - some 66% for men and just 14% for women, it is one of the lowest in the region.
Skills mismatch is also an issue. “We have a lot of university graduates but the labour market need is for intermediate and skilled people and we have high youth unemployment. Many job opportunities in the Jordanian economy tend to go to foreign labour because Jordanians are not willing to take these jobs,” says Nadera Al-Bakheet, director of the E-TVET Council Secretariat.
Prisma is using social marketing techniques to bring about the desired change in attitudes; young people are the main target group, with young women a significant sub-group, followed by parents, teachers, career counsellors and employers. The approach involves identifying the current behaviour of target groups and looking at the barriers that are stopping them from changing this. “For instance what is preventing youth from taking up the opportunities of TVET? How may parents be discouraging students from doing this?” says Hala Darwazeh, co-ordinator of the campaign at Prisma.
The initiative is using a mix of traditional and social media to reach its audience. The campaign team are aware that engineering social change will not happen overnight but can be done slowly but surely. “Something that 20 years ago was socially acceptable such as smoking no longer is today. When anti-smoking campaigns started they faced some resistance but now it is the social norm that smoking is not cool,” says Saad Darwazeh, managing director of Prisma, “the question of job stereotyping for women is exactly the same.”
The article by Rebecca Warden appears in the new issue of ETF magazine Live&Learn.

Two IAU Member Universities have accepted to host the IAU Collaborative Workshop : A three-step activity to discuss links between higher education (HE) and Education for All (EFA) locally.
The University of Nairobi (Kenya) and Tribhuvan University (Nepal) and two Members of the HEEFA Reference Group are currently collaborating with the IAU to conduct a high-level Workshop which aims to enhance the contribution and involvement of higher education institutions in reaching the United Nations' EFA goals at the local level. The first Workshop will be held on 18-19 October 2012 in Nairobi, Kenya and the second Workshop on 6-7 December 2012 in Kathmandu, Nepal.
The Workshop is one of the activities undertaken within the IAU HE for EFA Project. Contact: Nadja Kymlicka.
Deux universités membres de l’AIU ont accepté d’organiser l’atelier collaboratif de l'AIU : Une activité en trois étapes pour discuter des liens entre l’enseignement supérieur et l’Education pour Tous (EPT) au niveau local.
L'Université de Nairobi (Kenya) et l'Université Tribhuvan (Népal) et deux membres du Groupe de référence travaillent en collaboration avec l’AIU pour organiser cet atelier de haut niveau qui vise à renforcer la contribution et l'implication des établissements d'enseignement supérieur dans la réalisation des objectifs de l'initiative EPT des Nations Unies au niveau local. Le premier atelier se tiendra les 18-19 octobre 2012 à Nairobi, Kenya ; le deuxième les 6-7 décembre 2012 à Katmandou, Népal.
L'atelier fait partie des activités menées dans le cadre du projet Enseignement supérieur et EPT de l'AIU.
Contact: Nadja Kymlicka.

‘Retention’ in the UK refers to students remaining within one HE institution and completing their programme of study within a specific timeframe. ‘Success’ recognises that students benefit from HE study in a wider range of ways, including personal development and progression into the labour market or further learning.
We work with institutions and other bodies to develop evidence-informed approaches to improving the retention and success of all students. We have a programme of work to disseminate research and support institutional development.
New: The final report of the What works? Student Retention and Success programme has been published by the Paul Hamlyn Foundation  (July 2012). Building student engagement and belonging in higher Education at a time of change: Final report from the What Works? Student Retention & Success programme.
An Executive summary is also available: Summary of findings and recommendations from the What Works? Student Retention & Success programme.
Building student engagement and belonging in higher education at a time of change: a summary of findings and recommendations from the What works? Student Retention & Success programme
What works? Summary report.
The 'What Works?' programme sought to analyse and evaluate best practice skills to ensure high student retention in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), with a particular focus on students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Twenty two HEIs collaborating through seven distinct projects participated in the programme from 2008-11. The methodology consisted of combining student survey data, qualitative research with students and staff, literature reviews and analysis of institutional data.
A fuller synthesis and discussion of the programme’s findings and both practical and strategic implications are given in the full programme report. Detailed findings are set out in the seven individual project reports. In addition, a compendium of effective practices in higher education has been published to provide more practical exemplars of successful interventions drawn from the institutions that have participated in What Works? and from the wider sector. Publisher: Paul Hamlyn Foundation.
“The work undertaken within the What Works? Student Retention & Success programme has given the opportunity to those institutions involved to develop and enhance the evaluation of their strategies and approaches further. It is now vital that the lessons learned and progress made through the programme is shared with and benefits all HE providers and their students. HEFCE will continue to encourage institutions to develop and enhance initiatives which contribute to success throughout the whole student lifecycle, including progression to post-graduate study and into employment.”
Sir Alan Langlands, Chief Executive of HEFCE
“The benefits that a university education typically adds to an individual’s career prospects and to their quality of life generally is widely recognised, but is something that needs greater articulation. The outcomes of the seven projects, summarised in this report, will help to convey this message and provide an excellent foundation to continue both the sharing and development of good practice across the sector.”
Professor Eric Thomas, President of Universities UK
Foreword
What is the secret of success in higher education? What can universities do to help prevent students from dropping out of their studies? These are clearly vitally important questions. Both morally and educationally, institutions have a duty to do everything they can to help students make a success of their higher education. At a time of profound change in the sector, these questions take on an added urgency. Students are investing heavily in their higher education and institutions stand to lose a considerable sum of money for each student that drops out.
This report is therefore greatly to be welcomed. It provides a timely and important set of insights into What Works? based on the experience of a wide range of interventions across the sector. The result is a radical new message. In place of the received wisdom of the importance to students of choice and flexibility, is the finding that it is a sense of belonging that is critical to both retention and success. It is the human side of higher education that comes first – finding friends, feeling confident and above all, feeling a part of your course of study and the institution – that is the necessary starting point for academic success.
This report challenges institutions to look afresh at their priorities and to consider: how the curriculum might be reorganised to provide for sustained engagement between teachers and students; how teaching can be organised to create student learning communities; and how to convey the message to students that they belong. The projects reported briefly here and at more length in the full report of the What Works? programme, offer a number of important new insights. If our higher education institutions are to maximise both their students’ happiness and their future success, these insights deserve close study across the sector.
Professor Patricia Broadfoot CBE, University of Bristol, Chair of What Works? Advisory Group
Introduction
This report presents a summary of the findings and recommendations of the What Works? Student Retention & Success programme, initiated and funded by the Paul Hamlyn Foundation and HEFCE.
With much widening participation research concentrating on the effectiveness of outreach and pre-entry work, the Paul Hamlyn Foundation was keen to support the higher education sector in identifying and sharing best practice, across the student lifecycle, to enable students from disadvantaged backgrounds, in particular, to succeed in higher education. HEFCE wished to support the improved evaluation and dissemination of good practice with regards to student retention and success, and to further build the evidence base for successful retention practice. This followed a National Audit Office report of 2007, which confirmed the strong performance of higher education institutions in retaining their students, but also found that the sector was carrying out little evaluation of the impact and transferability of good practice.
This is a time of immense change in the higher education system. The government is aiming to use student choice as a major driver in shaping HE provision, and some commentators anticipate that increased student fees will lead to higher expectations and, some argue, a stronger ‘consumer’ mindset amongst students. In this context, the need for institutions to understand how they can most effectively translate their strategic intentions to improve student retention and success into activities that will most effectively impact on student, department and institutional-level outcomes, is clearly paramount.
The What Works? programme has therefore sought to generate robust, evidence-based analysis and evaluation about the most effective practices to ensure high continuation and completion rates. Twenty two higher education institutions, collaborating through seven distinct projects (see p.12), which were selected through a competitive process, participated in the programme from 2008–11. They undertook extensive research to inform their enquiries and test specific hypotheses. Most studies combined student survey data, qualitative research with students and staff, literature reviews and analysis of institutional data.
A fuller synthesis and discussion of the programme’s findings and both practical and strategic implications is given in the full programme report. Detailed project-level findings are set out in the seven individual project reports. In addition a Compendium of Effective Practice in Higher Education Retention & Success has been published to provide more practical exemplars of successful interventions, drawn from the institutions that have participated in What Works? and from the wider sector. A second edition will be published in July 2012.
The Higher Education Academy will be leading ongoing work to support institutional teams across the sector to implement changes informed by the What Works? programme. Further details will be available in the summer from retention&success@heacademy.ac.uk. Download Building student engagement and belonging in higher Education at a time of change: Final report from the What Works? Student Retention & Success programme.
Conclusions
This significant programme of evaluation and research reinforces and extends our knowledge about improving student retention and success. This is particularly important at a time like this when we stand on the precipice of radical change that has not been attempted in any other country. In the light of the higher student tuition fees, what will encourage students to participate in higher education, and reinforce their decision to stay and enable them to make the most of the opportunity they have selected? This study finds that belonging will go a long way to achieving these outcomes. Institutional approaches that promote belonging will have the following characteristics:
• supportive peer relations;
• meaningful interaction between staff and students;
• developing knowledge, confidence and identity as successful HE learners;
• an HE experience that is relevant to interests and future goals.
The study finds that student engagement and belonging are central to improving student retention and success. This challenges institutions to rethink their priorities, policies, processes and practices to enable a culture of belonging to be realised. The programme makes a significant contribution by recognising the importance of a mainstream approach to addressing student retention through a culture of belonging that maximises the success of all students, as opposed to interventions targeted at particular groups of students. This approach, which places the academic sphere at the heart of improving student retention and success, recognises the need for institutional transformation, as opposed to a student deficit approach that blames students and/or requires them to change in order to benefit from higher education. Such an approach tends towards reproduction, and continues to disadvantage non-traditional students and others who have not traditionally prospered in higher education. The What Works? approach puts academic programmes and high quality, student-centred learning and teaching at the heart of effective student retention and success.
Some of the key messages echo findings from the US and smaller studies in the UK. This, however, is a sizeable project that involved 22 higher education institutions and hundreds of students over a three-year period. The seven projects had different foci, and used a range of methods, but they all point to the overarching findings of this programme. The diversity of sites, methods and researchers extends the reliability and applicability of these findings, as the messages have high levels of consistency.
Challenges remain about relating research findings and evaluation of specific practices from particular contexts to improving practice within one’s own institution. To further assist with the process of translating global findings to effective practices we have compiled a sister publication, Compendium of effective practice: Proven ways of improving student retention and success (Andrews et al., 2012). The Paul Hamlyn Foundation is continuing to work with the Higher Education Academy and Action on Access to support institutional teams from 2012-2015 to review institutions’ strengths and areas for development, implement changes at the strategic and academic programme levels and to evaluate the impact of changes on student retention.
What to do now
i. Use this report, the summary report, the project reports, the Compendium of effective practice (Andrews et al., 2012), and research and practice from your own institution to engage colleagues in debate about student success. You might find the institutional reflective checklist a useful starting point for discussion.
ii. Use your institutional data and data in the HE system to assess your strengths and weakness with regard to student retention. Supplement this with further institutional data and research, such as National Student Satisfaction survey results and local research with students and staff to extend your understanding.
iii. Identify your priority areas for development, thinking about changes at the strategic and programme levels in particular.
iv. Establish teams to further review priority areas and develop and implement an action plan.
v. Consider joining the Higher Education Academy’s Retention and Success Change Programme to facilitate the process. Download Building student engagement and belonging in higher Education at a time of change: Final report from the What Works? Student Retention & Success programme.