This article was downloaded by: [Swinburne University of Technology]

On: 26 August 2014, At: 08:22

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Higher Education Policy and

Management
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
[Link]

Improving the Retention of Students

from Lower Socio-economic Groups
a b
Mantz Yorke & Liz Thomas
a
Liverpool John Moores University , UK
b
Staffordshire University , UK
Published online: 03 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Mantz Yorke & Liz Thomas (2003) Improving the Retention of Students from
Lower Socio-economic Groups, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 25:1, 63-74,
DOI: 10.1080/13600800305737

To link to this article: [Link]

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at [Link]
and-conditions
 Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management
Vol. 25, No. 1, May 2003

Improving the Retention of Students from Lower Socio-economic

Groups
Downloaded by [Swinburne University of Technology] at 08:22 26 August 2014

MANTZ YORKE, Liverpool John Moores University, UK

LIZ THOMAS, Staffordshire University, UK

ABSTRACT Success in higher education for students from lower socio-economic groups and from
disadvantaged backgrounds is becoming an increasingly important policy goal in the UK and abroad. An
analysis of the HEFCE performance indicators identified six English higher education institutions
performing above their benchmarks with regard to widening participation and also student retention and
completion, and prompted an investigation of what these institutions had been doing that might account
for their success. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with senior managers responsible for retention
and completion, which focused on institutional strategy. Analysis of the interviews suggested that success
in retaining students from lower socio-economic groups required a strong policy commitment to access and
retention, backed up by practical action. A number of actions were identified as possible contributors to
such success.

Introduction

Higher education in the UK has been influenced considerably by government policies

whose basic rationale is the development of national competitiveness and wealth through
the education of the workforce (see the Dearing Report, NCIHE, 1997). Four policy
concerns have been:
• the development of a culture in which lifelong learning is seen as the norm;
• the widening of participation in higher education;
• the retention of students in higher education, and the completion of their programmes
of study; and
• the employability of graduates and diplomates.
This article focuses on the second and third of these concerns.
There has been a longstanding policy interest in the widening of participation in
ISSN 1360-080X print; 1469–9508 online/03/010063-12  2003 Association for Tertiary Education Management
DOI: 10.1080/1360080032000067004
 64 M. Yorke & L. Thomas

higher education in the UK. Originally emphasising the enrolment of mature students
(i.e. those aged at least 21, who were seen as having a ‘second chance’ to enter the
system), the widening of participation has more recently referred particularly to the
enrolment of younger students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and in particular from
those social classes whose participation rates have remained consistently low (HEFCE,
2001a). The current target for the UK is that by 2010, participation of 18–30-year-olds
in higher education reaches 50%. When contemplating the attainment of this target, it
is significant to note the differential rates of participation by social class. In 1997 over
80% of young people in social class I entered higher education, whereas only 14% of the
same age group entered from social class V (CVCP, 1999). It is a particular challenge
for higher education to make inroads into the under-representation of the lower social
groups. There has been a range of initiatives, mostly at a relatively local level, which
Downloaded by [Swinburne University of Technology] at 08:22 26 August 2014

have attempted in one way or another to deal with this difficult and complex socio-
cultural issue (see UUK, 2002, for examples).
Where a government has invested heavily in its higher education system, it has a
particular interest in seeing that that investment is put to optimal use. Withdrawal and
non-completion are likely to be construed as inefficiencies in the system, whose magni-
tude should be minimised (even if they cannot be reduced to zero). Hence performance
indicators of retention and completion have been developed, which have placed pressure
on institutions—especially those with low completion rates—to improve their perform-
ance in this respect. Whilst the government has focused on employability and the
national economy, there are many personal and social benefits of higher education
(Thomas, 2001). For example, education is seen as an important factor in promoting
citizenship and social cohesion (OECD, 1996, 1999). Recent research has demonstrated
that not only are graduates’ employment prospects enhanced, they are more likely to
perceive themselves in ‘excellent’ physical health and less likely to show depression, and
their children have fewer educational problems. The research even suggests that
graduates are more inclined to be actively involved in community and voluntary groups,
tend to have more egalitarian and anti-racist attitudes, and to have greater faith in the
political process (Institute of Education, 2001).
In the context of lifelong learning, non-completion is not as clear-cut an issue as it
might appear (Jones & Thomas, 2001). In the US, the completion of a degree
programme can take many years as students simultaneously work alongside their studies
(Astin et al., 1996). In the UK, the tendency is still for a mind-set of full-time participation
despite the increasing need for students to work part-time in order to fund their
programme of study, and hence to become, de facto, more like part-time students. Some
interviewees in the study described below drew attention to this limitation.
Definitional difficulties notwithstanding, non-completion has become a matter of
international significance with the OECD publishing comparisons of different countries’
completion rates (no doubt to the satisfaction of UK policy-makers, since the UK rate
overall is bettered only by Japan in the countries represented). In recent years, work by
Yorke et al. (1997) and Yorke (1999) in England, McInnis et al. (2000) in Australia, and
Morgan et al. (2001) in Ireland has been conducted as a consequence of policy-makers’
need for information about non-completion. The UK House of Commons Education
and Employment Select Committee has investigated both access to higher education and
retention (Education and Employment Committee, 2001a,b), and the National Audit
Office has followed up with reports on student achievement and widening participation
(NAO, 2002a,b). The political interest in the two issues could hardly be more marked in
the UK.
 Improving Student Retention 65
Institutional Performance
Data published annually by the Higher Education Funding Council for England
(HEFCE) show that institutions vary considerably as regards the retention of students
and the students’ completion of their programmes of study. The variation can be
attributed to a number of factors, such as entry profile (which includes age, social class,
domicile, ethnicity and qualifications), subject mix, and—more difficult to pin down—the
institution’s position in the reputational spectrum. Part of this variation is accommodated
in the benchmark figures calculated separately for each institution by the Council’s
statisticians, but some demographic data remain outside the current capacity of the
benchmarking methodology (as, of course, does institutional reputation).
An analysis conducted by Yorke (2001b) of data for 1998–1999 (HEFCE, 2000)
Downloaded by [Swinburne University of Technology] at 08:22 26 August 2014

showed that some English institutions were performing better than their benchmarks for
completion, despite having enrolled substantial numbers of students whose demographic
backgrounds tend to correlate with weaker performance. The analysis, which focused on
institutions that had statistically significant deviations above and below their benchmarks
for completion, set their performances alongside demographic variables that were not
incorporated in the benchmarks. The demographic variables published by HEFCE were
the proportions of:
• young entrants from state schools;
• young entrants from working-class backgrounds (formally, social classes IIIm, IV, and
V);
• young entrants from neighbourhoods with low participation rates; and
• mature entrants with no familial experience of higher education and from low
participation neighbourhoods.
Other demographic variables (such as students’ ethnicity and the geographical location
of the institution) have not to date been included in the published data, although it is
recognised that they may have a bearing on institutional performance—indeed, in the
most recent publication (HEFCE, 2001b), the Funding Council indicated that it was
close to producing an indicator which addressed the institution’s geographical location,
and benchmarks adjusted for geographical location are now available on the HEFCE
website.1
Twenty-eight higher education institutions (HEIs) performed better than their bench-
marks in respect of completion, and 14 worse. Thirteen of the ‘better than benchmark’
group also performed better than their benchmarks for the four demographic variables
listed in the preceding paragraph. Seven of these institutions, however, only exceeded
their demographic benchmark in respect of entrants from state schools. This variable is
probably the weakest indicator of widened participation because of the wide variation in
the nature of the state schools—from those in underprivileged parts of inner cities to
those in affluent suburbs. Omitting those institutions that had exceeded the benchmark
only in respect of state school entry left six that had exceeded the benchmark on at least
one of the other three indicators. These institutions were:
• the University of Aston;
• the University of Lincolnshire and Humberside (now the University of Lincoln);
• Newman College of Higher Education;
• Sheffield Hallam University;
• Staffordshire University; and
• the University of Westminster.
 66 M. Yorke & L. Thomas

Yorke’s analysis prompted the question of what these institutions were doing that might
account for performances that were better than benchmark levels. The subsequent study,
which is reported in this paper, therefore sought to answer the research question: ‘Why
are some HEIs more effective at supporting under-represented students to succeed in
higher education?’

Methodology
Having identified these six institutions as having performed above benchmark expecta-
tions in respect of both widening participation and completion, the research aimed to
investigate institutional strategies for the promotion of retention and completion by
Downloaded by [Swinburne University of Technology] at 08:22 26 August 2014

low-income students. A case study approach was adopted, since this was particularly
appropriate for gaining insight and understanding, especially in relation to the impact of
policy, the process of change and management issues (see Hakim, 1987). A literature
review (Williams, 2001) identified seven topic areas influencing student retention in
higher education: academic preparedness; the academic experience (teaching, learning
and assessment); institutional expectations and commitment; academic and social match;
finance and employment; family support and commitments; and institutional support
services. This provided a broad framework for the empirical research, and was used to
generate a topic guide for the semi-structured interviews that were held within each
identified institution.
The interviews were conducted either on a one-to-one basis, or in small groups, with
members of the senior management team whose roles bore upon the issue of student
retention. In some instances the interview was supplemented by relevant institutional
documentation, and on one occasion the researcher observed a discussion between
members of staff from across the institution.
Each institutional case study led to the production of a brief institutional vignette
focusing on the widening of participation and on retention. These vignettes are therefore
limited to a particular set of issues and do not purport to produce a rounded picture of
each of the institutions involved. The vignettes were sent to the respective institutions for
comment and/or amendment prior to being finalised. The interviews and vignettes
provided the basis for interpretation of the factors that appeared to be influential in the
six HEIs’ success in retaining students when faced with challenging demographics.

Research Findings
The research sought to explore with senior managers why the identified HEIs were more
effective than peer institutions at supporting students from lower socio-economic groups
to succeed in higher education. The research found that some institutional managers had
difficulty in pinning down the reasons for their institutions’ success. This may in part
have been a consequence of limitations in the availability of institutional data. Neverthe-
less, a number of themes emerged which could plausibly be linked with the successful
outcomes for students from lower socio-economic groups.
In passing, it must be noted that some factors that could influence student success are
beyond the powers of institutions. For example, Thomas et al. (2001) noted that the
provision of public transport may be inadequate to permit students without their own
transport to attend an institution, and in ‘sink estates’ some people are reluctant to leave
their homes unattended for fear of vandalism and burglary.
 Improving Student Retention 67
A Student-Centred Approach
The strongest common denominator identified in the six HEIs was a sustained commit-
ment to a broad conception of ‘the student experience’. Previous research has suggested
that the institutional habitus (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977) is fundamental to the decisions
many students make about withdrawing or remaining in higher education (Thomas,
forthcoming). Institutional habitus is more than the culture of the educational institution,
referring to relational issues and priorities that are deeply embedded and subconsciously
inform practice (see McDonough, 1996; Reay, 1998; Reay et al., 2001). For example, the
relative priority accorded to teaching and research, and the subsequent tensions,
structure the relationships between academic staff and students (James, 1998). Tinto
(1993) argues that retention is a function of the match between the student’s academic
Downloaded by [Swinburne University of Technology] at 08:22 26 August 2014

capabilities and motivation, and the institution’s academic and social characteristics.
HEIs are likely, through their approach to academic, social and cultural inclusiveness, to
influence the extent to which students feel they fit in or belong at the institution.
One institution noted that a high proportion of its staff was teacher trained, and hence
there was a general appreciation of pedagogy and learning and, whilst there was strong
encouragement to undertake research, the focus of the institutional mission was unam-
biguously upon high quality teaching and the effective support of student learning.
Similarly, a second institution explained that teaching was, and always had been, at its
heart. Staff had not been ‘distracted’ by other activities, such as research:
… teaching has been at the core of the institution as well … [The institution]
perhaps hasn’t had some of the distractions that other HE institutions have
had. It hasn’t had a strong research culture which has diverted staff attention
for one thing, much of what it has been about has been teaching and
supporting students. Plus it’s had the history of care and concern and
involvement in the local community. That’s its roots, that’s where it’s grown
from … It has now found that it needs to get engaged in more research and
so on which has just begun to eat away at some of those historical dominations
around teaching. So it will be interesting how that might change the institution
and to what extent we can keep that good record in teaching and learning. (Pro
Vice-Chancellor)
A third institution had sought to involve all staff (academic and support) actively in
supporting students. The interconnection of staff in this respect was supported by
training activities: housekeeping staff in a hall of residence, for example, knew where to
refer students whom they perceived to be in difficulties. This institution also noted that
its commitment to the development of their students, and the necessary focus on
teaching, had to some extent shaped its research effort.
A point made in all of the interviews was that students came quickly to be known in
the institution as individuals. The intimacy led to a sense of ‘belonging’ in the institution
(or, in the larger institutions, in the relevant part of the institution). The perception of
the institution as ‘friendly’ was often advanced as an influence on student engagement.
However, where the institution consisted of multiple sites relatively distant from each
other, there could be problems with student engagement on ‘non-home’ sites.

Pre-entry and Early Engagement with Students

All of the institutions visited were involved in outreach work with potential entrants,
which served the dual function of beginning the process of engagement with the
 68 M. Yorke & L. Thomas

institution early, and assisting students to possess higher levels of academic preparedness.
Interaction between students and a specific institution prior to entry may contribute to
the shaping of institutional expectations and the development of institutional commit-
ment (see Berger & Braxton, 1998). Drawing on this research and on anecdotal evidence
from the UK, students may be more likely to persist in HE and at a specific institution
if they have developed a relationship with that HEI and are strongly of the opinion that
it will assist them to realise their goals (whether these are personal, social or instrumen-
tal).
The increase in participation levels has led to claims that students are either poorly
prepared for higher education, or even that they lack academic ability (see press
reportage collated in Yorke, 2001c). Evans and Abbott (1998, p. 15) state that entrants
with General National Vocational Qualifications (GNVQs) ‘… have different expecta-
Downloaded by [Swinburne University of Technology] at 08:22 26 August 2014

tions about the type of teaching and support they will receive’. Access courses in the UK,
Enabling programmes in Australia and Bridging Education in New Zealand have sought
to develop the appropriate academic attitudes and skills to equip mature students to enter
higher education. More recently in the UK summer schools and other outreach
programmes have sought to fulfil a similar role for younger students (UUK, 2002).
Outreach activities undertaken by the HEIs included work with primary and second-
ary schools, colleges and to a lesser extent community groups. The primary idea was to
familiarise pupils with the notion of higher education, as one respondent explained:
Demystification is important. For me it’s all about confidence, raising
confidence levels and demystifying university and higher education.
Providing the student with information between application and enrolment can assist the
development of the student/institution relationship. One institution has made a strong
feature of this approach, sending students newsletters, e-mails and text messages. The use
at enrolment time of teams of students (typically dressed in highly visible t-shirts) to
welcome students is a further contribution to the development of a sense of engagement
with the institution. In addition, one institution uses its outreach programme not just to
introduce potential students to the idea of higher education, but also to develop key skills
in students before they arrive. Similarly, a second institution has introduced ‘year zero
courses’ in some subjects at a local further education (‘feeder’) college.

Curriculum-Related Matters
Provision in [Link] the six HEIs there were examples of institutions developing
their provision to meet the needs of a more diverse student body, responding in different
ways to the challenge of widening participation. Curriculum development and related
changes had taken place throughout the student lifecycle (see HEFCE, 2001a, p. 15ff).
The developments embraced curricula; teaching and learning issues; accessibility of, and
relationships with, staff; flexibility (e.g. timetable and deadlines); modes of assessment;
and opportunities for re-taking courses.
Drawing from the work of Bourdieu (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977), it can be argued
that both curricula and pedagogy need to be amended to meet the needs of new student
cohorts. According to Robbins, Bourdieu concluded that working-class students were
less successful not because they were of inferior intelligence but because the curriculum
was ‘biased in favour of those things with which middle-class students were already
ex-curricularly familiar’ (Robbins, 1993, p. 153).
 Improving Student Retention 69
Induction. Induction into the expectations of higher education is an important matter,
but is of particular value to students whose backgrounds may not have given them an
appreciation of what is expected of them (i.e. they lack ‘cultural capital’). Induction
appeared to be an important process within the case study institutions, and usually
extended beyond the traditional period of up to a week. One institution made a specific
point of inducting students into the academic discourse of higher education. This not
only helped to prepare students for the academic experience, but it helped to develop the
‘academic match’, and to build expectations about what studying for a qualification in
higher education would be like.

The First Year Experience. One institution clearly acknowledged the importance of the
Downloaded by [Swinburne University of Technology] at 08:22 26 August 2014

whole of the first year to student persistence, by prioritising the first year in its resource
allocations and offsetting the extra cost of the first year experience by savings in
subsequent years. The underlying principle is that early investment in developing student
autonomy offers a better ‘pay-off’ in the longer term.
Another institution had developed a virtual learning environment (VLE) designed to
help students from a wide range of backgrounds to come to terms with the demands of
higher education. Engagement with the VLE was compulsory, but access was on an
independent basis, and a personalised study programme was developed. This approach
had been adopted in order to ensure that all first year students developed the academic
skills (and the competence in handling computers) necessary to succeed in higher
education, without those from particular social backgrounds being placed at risk of
stigmatisation. A further institution had integrated key skills into ‘mainstream’ subject
modules instead of devoting separate modules to them, in an attempt to contextualise the
skills.

Other Curricular Developments. Other curricular developments included the provision of

modules about employment and careers education, and also the accreditation of skills
gained through part-time employment. An interesting addition was the provision of
careers education early in the first semester. This can be seen as contributing to the
development of institutional commitment, as students are being educated about the
possible career paths emerging from their study choices—and thus to reinforcing the
value of the ‘chosen’ course. Such an approach may be particularly beneficial when the
institution and/or course are not the students’ first choice.
Curriculum development has also involved the creation and delivery of programmes
of diverse interest and significance, such as Black Music Studies, Islamic Studies and
Health, Sport and Exercise. One institution explained that the introduction of such
programmes not only attracted students directly onto these courses, but also acted as a
powerful signifier that it was not elitist, and that it valued the knowledge of different
groups in society. The institution concerned believed that this, perhaps indirectly,
attracted students from under-represented groups to enrol on a much wider range of
courses.
According to Tinto (1993), social engagement, as well as academic engagement, is
important in relation to student retention. One institution in particular realises this, and
is exploring ways through which teaching/learning can be made more interactive and
social; this has included the introduction of more group work into the learning, and the
creation of group study areas (in which discussion is allowed) within the traditionally
silent library and learning resource centre.
 70 M. Yorke & L. Thomas

Assessment. Assessment is a significant matter—especially summative assessment in the

early stages of a programme. There appeared to have been a shift away from early
summative assessments in favour of formative assessment (which has the virtues of
helping students come to terms with expectations and of not leaving struggling students
with the extra burden of ‘failing and trailing’). This has particular salience for those
students whose background characteristics and experience make the ‘leap’ into higher
education particularly great (see the argument in Yorke, 2001a). Some early assessments
were made summative in the limited sense that the student had to make a showing in
respect of them and did not have the possibility of ducking out: in the words of an
institution not represented in the interviews, the early assessment is primarily formative
and ‘not route critical’ in summative terms.
Institutions were also reviewing the way in which they dealt with failing students. One
Downloaded by [Swinburne University of Technology] at 08:22 26 August 2014

institution recognised the problem facing students who carry level one fails into the next
year, further compounding their difficulties. It has therefore developed revision summer
schools in particular subject areas in order to facilitate progression without the need for
students to ‘trail fails’ during the succeeding semester. Other institutions not represented
in this research are also adopting this approach.
Personal Tutoring. The role of the personal tutor was being recognised as needing
revision from the assumptions of the past (when it was in any case often a token activity).
If students’ patterns of engagement are now different, then the personal tutor could be
one of the stable points of contact between student and institution. Most institutions had
recently re-introduced or revised their personal tutor systems. One approach was to
develop much tighter guidelines for students and staff about the purpose and contents of
tutorials. This was being extended further by another institution that had introduced a
more proactive variant, in which the tutorial was based around an agenda that had to
be prepared in advance by the student.

Student Finance and Related Issues

Student financial issues have frequently been identified as a barrier to completion,
especially by students from lower socio-economic groups (Ozga & Sukhnandan, 1997;
Yorke et al., 1997; Yorke, 1999; Dodgson & Bolam, 2002). Part-time employment has
been found to be a contributory factor in early withdrawal (Callender & Kemp, 2000).
In most of the institutional discussions, finance and related issues were raised as a
significant barrier to retention.
Institutions were dealing with the issue of financial difficulty in three ways: providing
information and guidance about financial matters, providing direct financial support, and
facilitating part-time employment. Financial advice was generally available in the
institutions. This took the form of educating students about debt in order to create a
balanced and informed approach, or consisted of assisting students to learn about the
sources of finance that were available, and how to apply for funding. Finance was a
particularly sensitive matter for some students, and some are averse to the concept of
‘debt counselling’, as well as to debt itself.
Students from low-income backgrounds may be awarded ‘Opportunity Bursaries’2
(these were available in all the institutions), and the sum of money available per student
was generally viewed as insufficient. Institutions tended to have their own small pockets
of funding which they could use in appropriate circumstances, typically the provision of
emergency support. The larger Hardship Funds provided to the institutions by HEFCE
 Improving Student Retention 71
were used to the full, and the view was that many more students ought to benefit from
them. Reservations were expressed that ‘bureaucratic’ national guidelines did not permit
some deserving students to benefit. In addition, some students appeared not to be
applying because they did not want to be stigmatised, and others were disbarred from
this source of support because they had not taken out a student loan first. Callender and
Kemp (2000) found that religious considerations might preclude some students from
taking up loans, which offers a challenge to policies promoting equality of opportunity.
Part-time work was seen as essential for some students to complete their programmes
of study. It was noted, however, that some students chose to take part-time employment
in order to fulfil lifestyle ambitions that might not attract middle-class approval (McInnis,
2001, makes a similar point in relation to the Australian context). All of the institutions
involved in the research were pragmatic—it was widely accepted that part-time employ-
Downloaded by [Swinburne University of Technology] at 08:22 26 August 2014

ment was now a reality for the majority of their students, especially those from lower
socio-economic groups.
Institutions had found ways to support and facilitate part-time employment. These
included employing some students within the institution (which transmits a clear message
to students that the institution is not antagonistic to part-time employment), and
facilitating part-time working via ‘jobshops’ and employment agencies. In some instances
the institution was able to exercise some control over part-time employment contracted
under its auspices (though not in respect of employment arranged by other means).
Although the impact of part-time work on students’ performance was not raised by the
institutions visited as part of this study, evidence reported by Barke et al. (2000) suggests
that there is a modest effect. However, in the US Pascarella and Terenzini (1991)
distinguished between the effects of on-campus work (which tended to enhance academic
performance) and the deleterious effects of off-campus work. It can be speculated that the
difference may be related to the degree of control that is exercised over the employment:
off-campus work may involve longer working hours, perhaps at minimal rates of pay
despite the existence in the UK of a national minimum wage.

Staff Development and Research

There is growing recognition of the need for staff development to support the widening
participation agenda in the UK (see Srivastava, 2002). The present study found evidence
of the use of staff development activities to facilitate changes in teaching and learning
practices in support of the needs of a more diverse student cohort. For example, one
institution had an institution-wide network devoted to the sharing of relevant good
practice, which was claimed to be both popular and effective. Another institution had
recently created a ‘best practice’ unit. It may be significant that two of the six institutions
have dedicated research units specialising in higher education and focusing on issues that
relate to staff development and/or widening of participation. These units are used to
support the improvement of institutional policies and practices.

Further Analysis, Implications and Conclusions

The empirical data do not provide a clear and uncontested explanation of why some
institutions should be more successful in retaining their students. Thus, further analysis
(based on VanGrundy, 1988) has been undertaken in exploring assumptions and
boundaries of the initial research question.
Although an underlying assumption of this research study was that some HEIs are
 72 M. Yorke & L. Thomas

more successful than others in supporting and retaining under-represented groups, some
interviewees cast doubt on the validity of the postcode data that were used to index
demographic parameters.3 One institution had informally tested postcode data relevant
to its environment and had found a number of discrepancies: this led it to wonder
whether such discrepancies would cancel out over the institution as a whole, or whether
there was a systematic bias. If postcode data are suspect, then these institutions may not
be performing better than contemporaries (as the performance indicators imply), since
the difference may simply reflect a bias in the original data. Furthermore, creating the
boundaries at the level of the institution may not give recognition to any intra-
institutional differences.
The research problem assumes that institutional success is, at least in part, attributable
to deliberate action by HEIs in respect of students from lower socio-economic groups.
Downloaded by [Swinburne University of Technology] at 08:22 26 August 2014

The research revealed that institutions have in place a range of practices that might be
contributing to higher rates of retention, although it was difficult for senior managers to
provide hard evidence of causality. One explanation for this is that institutions chose, as
a matter of policy, not to ‘tag’ students from lower socio-economic and other groups,
thus making tracking more difficult. However, the data typically exist in management
information systems, but their utilisation would require some sophistication in statistical
analysis and the resources to undertake the research. Research of this kind is common-
place in US institutions, but such research capacity seems to be rare in the UK.
In any event, most institutional activities that might contribute to improving student
retention were not specifically targeted at specific groups of students, but were either
available to all students who sought to access them (e.g. optional modules, financial
advice, etc.), or necessarily benefited all students (e.g. curriculum changes and staff
development).
In the light of this study, the research question should perhaps be re-phrased as: ‘In
what ways might HEIs become more effective at supporting under-represented students
to succeed?’ The research reported here reveals that there is no simple blueprint for
success, but that there is a range of factors that could, probabilistically, contribute to
improved rates of retention by students from under-represented groups.
Factors likely to have a positive impact on retention and students’ subsequent success
include the following:
• an institutional climate supportive in various ways of students’ development, that is,
perceived as ‘friendly’;
• an emphasis on support leading up to, and during, the critically important first year
of study;
• an emphasis on formative assessment in the early phase of programmes;
• a recognition of the importance of the social dimension in learning activities; and
• recognition that the pattern of students’ engagement in higher education was chang-
ing, and a preparedness to respond positively to this in various ways.
Above all is a deep commitment running through the institution, which seeks to
maximise the success of its students.

Acknowledgements
The support of HEFCE for this research is gratefully acknowledged. The authors are,
however, writing in a personal capacity and the article should not be taken as being
representative of the views of HEFCE.
 Improving Student Retention 73
The late Maggie Woodrow contributed significantly to the early stages of the research
reported here: her contribution is gladly, but sadly, acknowledged too.

Correspondence:
Mantz Yorke, Centre for Higher Education Development, Liverpool John
Moores University, I M Marsh Campus, Barkhill Road, Liverpool L17 6BD, UK; e-mail:
[Link]@[Link]

NOTES
1. [Link]/Learning/PerfInd/2001/download/Table1a revised [Link] (accessed 20 August
2002).
Downloaded by [Swinburne University of Technology] at 08:22 26 August 2014

2. These are Department for Education and Skills bursaries of £2000 which are available to young people
from low-income backgrounds, and where there is little or no family experience of higher education, to
help meet the initial costs of starting a higher education course and to give them the necessary financial
confidence to complete their studies. They are part of the three-year Excellence Challenge programme that
started in April 2001.
3. HEFCE commented that it has always acknowledged that the use of postcodes has not been without
problems in allocating additional funds (the ‘postcode premium’) to institutions undertaking widening
participation work. However, postcodes have provided it with a sufficiently robust basis for allocation at
the institutional level while alternative approaches are being considered.

REFERENCES
ASTIN, A. W., TSUI, L. & AVALOS, J. (1996) Degree Attainment Rates at American Colleges and Universities: effects of race,
gender and institutional type. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, University of California.
BARKE, M., BRAIDFORD, P., HOUSTON, M., HUNT, A., LINCOLN, I., MORPHET, C., STONE, I. & WALKER, A.
(2000) Students in the Labour Market: nature, extent and implications of term-time employment among University of
Northumbria undergraduates, Research Report 215. London: Department for Education and Skills.
BERGER, J. B. & BRAXTON, J. M. (1998) Revising Tinto’s interactionalist theory of student departure through
theory elaboration: examining the role of organisational attributes in the persistence process, Research in Higher
Education, 39(2), pp. 103–119.
BOURDIEU, P. & PASSERON, J. C. (1977) Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. London and Beverly Hills:
Sage.
CALLENDER, C. & KEMP, M. (2000) Changing Student Finances: income, expenditure and the take-up of student loans among
full-time and part-time higher education students in 1998–99, DfEE Research Report 213. London: Department for
Education and Employment.
CVCP (1999) Briefing Note: widening participation. London: Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals.
DODGSON, R & BOLAM, H. (2002) Student Retention, Support and Widening Participation in the North East of England.
Sunderland: Universities for the North East.
EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE (2001a) Access, Fourth Report of the House of Commons Education
and Employment Committee, HC 205. London: The Stationery Office.
EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE (2001b) Student Retention, Sixth Report of the House of Commons
Education and Employment Committee, HC 124. London: The Stationery Office.
EVANS, L. & ABBOTT, I. (1998) Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. London and New York: Cassell.
HAKIM, C. (1987) Research Design: strategies and choices in the design of social research. London: Allen & Unwin.
HEFCE (2000) Performance Indicators in Higher Education in the UK, 1997–98, 1998–99. Bristol: Higher Education
Funding Council for England.
HEFCE (2001a) Strategies for Widening Participation in Higher Education: a guide to good practice. Bristol: Higher
Education Funding Council for England.
HEFCE (2001b) Performance Indicators in Higher Education in the UK, 1998–99, 1999–2000. Bristol: Higher
Education Funding Council for England.
INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF LONDON (2001) The Wider Benefits of Higher Education, report sponsored
by the HEFCE and the Smith Institute. Bristol: HEFCE
JAMES, D. (1998) Higher education field-work: the interdependence of teaching, research and student
experience, in: M. GRENFELL & D. JAMES (Eds) Bourdieu and Education: acts of practical theory. London: Falmer.
 74 M. Yorke & L. Thomas

JONES, R. & THOMAS, E. (2001) Not ‘just passing through’: making retention work for present and future
learners, Journal of Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning, 3(2), pp. 2–3.
MCDONOUGH, P. (1996) Choosing Colleges: how social class and schools structure opportunity. New York: State
University of New York Press.
MCINNIS, C. (2001) Signs of Disengagement? The changing undergraduate experience in Australian universities. Melbourne:
Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne; available online at: ⬍ [Link]
[Link]/downloads/InaugLec23 8 [Link] ⬎ (25 July 2002).
MCINNIS, C., HARTLEY, R., POLESEL, J. & TEESE, R. (2000) Non-completion in Vocational Education and Training and
Higher Education, REB Report 4/00. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
MORGAN, M., FLANAGAN, R. & KELLAGHAN, T. (2001) A Study of Non-completion in Undergraduate University Courses.
Dublin: Higher Education Authority.
NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE (NAO) (2002a) Improving Student Achievement in English Higher Education. London: The
Stationery Office.
NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE (NAO) (2002b) Widening Participation in Higher Education in England. London: The
Downloaded by [Swinburne University of Technology] at 08:22 26 August 2014

Stationery Office.
NCIHE (1997) Higher Education in the Learning Society, Report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher
Education: ‘The Dearing Report’. Norwich: HMSO.
OECD (1996) Lifelong Learning for All. Paris: OECD.
OECD (1999) Overcoming Exclusion through Adult Learning. Paris: OECD.
OZGA, J. & SUKHNANDAN, L. (1997) Undergraduate non-completion, Report No. 2, in: Undergraduate Non-com-
pletion in Higher Education in England. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England.
PASCARELLA, E. T. & Terenzini, P. T. (1991) How College Affects Students: findings and insights from twenty years. San
Francisco: Jossey–Bass.
REAY, D. (1998) ‘Always knowing’ and ‘never being sure’: institutional and familial habituses and higher
education choice, Journal of Education Policy, 13(4), pp. 519–529.
REAY, D., DAVID, M. & BALL, S. (2001) Making a difference? Institutional habituses and higher education
choice, Sociological Research Online, 5(4), ⬍ [Link] ⬎ (15 May 2001).
ROBBINS, D. (1993) The practical importance of Bourdieu’s analyses of higher education, Studies in Higher
Education, 18(2), pp. 151–163.
SRIVASTAVA, A. (2002) Good practice in staff development for the retention of students from groups
under-represented in higher education, Journal of Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning, 4(1), pp. 14–21.
THOMAS, E. (2001) Widening Participation in Post-compulsory Education. London: Continuum.
THOMAS, E. (forthcoming) Student retention in higher education: the role of institutional habitus, Journal of
Education Policy, 17(4).
THOMAS, E., YORKE, M. & WOODROW, M. (2001) HEFCE pilot study: access and retention. Unpublished final
report, HEFCE, Bristol.
TINTO, V. (1993) Leaving College: rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition, 2nd edn. University of Chicago
Press: Chicago.
UUK (2002) Social Class and Participation: good practice in widening access to higher education. London: Universities UK.
VANGRUNDY, JR., A. B. (1988) Techniques of Structured Problem Solving. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
WILLIAMS, S. (2001) Retention in higher education: a review of the literature. Unpublished, Institute for Access
Studies, Staffordshire University, Stoke on Trent.
YORKE, M. (1999) Leaving Early: undergraduate non-completion in higher education. London: Falmer.
YORKE, M. (2001a) Formative assessment and its relevance to retention, Higher Education Research and Development,
20(2), pp. 115–126.
YORKE, M. (2001b) Outside benchmark expectations? Variation in non-completion rates in English higher
education, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 23(2), pp. 148–158.
YORKE, M. (2001c) Telling it as it is? Massification, performance indicators and the press, Tertiary Education and
Management, 7(1), pp. 57–68.
YORKE, M. WITH BELL, R., DOVE, A., HASLAM, L., HUGHES JONES, H., LONGDEN, B., O’CONNELL, C.,
TYPUSZAK, R. & WARD, J. (1997) Undergraduate non-completion in England, Report No. 1, in: Undergraduate
Non-completion in Higher Education in England. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England.