Retention and Wastage in

FE and HE

John C. Hall

2001
Contents
Executive Summary iv

1. Aims 1

2. Background 2
2.1 Official statements 2
2.2 Previous international research 2
2.3 International statistics 4
2.4 Official statistics 5
2.5 Summary 9

3. Adult Education 11
3.2 Adult Basic Education 11
3.2 Access 11
3.3 Summary 15

4. Further Education 16
4.1 Further education in England 16
4.2 Further education in Scotland 25
4.3 Summary 28

5. Higher Education 30
5.1 Higher education in England 30
5.2 Higher education in Scotland 35
5.3 Summary 36

6. Conclusions 37

Tables
2.1 Percentage of entrants not continuing beyond year entry 5
2.2 Projected outcomes – percentage of students expected to gain a degree 6
(sector averages)
2.3 Projected outcomes – percentage of students expected to obtain no 6
award or transfer (sector averages)

Appendices 41

Bibliography 44

Classified Listing of References 49

iii
Executive Summary
This review covers research literature on student retention and wastage (‘drop-
out’) in FE and HE from 1995 onwards. The literature was identified through
searches of databases (ERIC, BEI, AEI, ERSDAT), institutional web sites and
through personal communication.
The following general statements can be made:
• Retention rates differ by: sector of education; age of the students; level of
course, subject of course; socio-economic group; and institution.
• Data on student retention is often of poor quality and may be inaccurate or
misleading.
• Reasons for student drop-out operate at individual student, institutional
and supra-institutional levels.
Aim i) clarify what is known about levels, patterns, and reasons for failing to
complete courses or training in FE and HE in Scotland.
• The UK has lower drop-out rates in higher education compared to most
other developed countries (OECD quotes 19% drop-out in 1996, HEFCE
estimates 15.7% for 1997 entrants).
• Drop-out rates are higher in further education than in higher education, but
no overall figures are available.
• Reasons for student drop-out are usually multiple and complex.
• Mature students are more likely to drop out of higher education than
younger students. The reverse is true for lower levels of qualification.
• Lower levels of qualification have higher drop-out rates.
Aim ii) distinguish between levels of ‘wastage’ and other kinds of movement
within and out of FE and HE.
• Around 6% of higher education students are projected to transfer between
courses.
• Not all students who withdraw from courses do so permanently. Many
intend to return to education. There are no figures for those who do so.
Aim iii) examine evidence for the efficiency and effectiveness of steps taken by
institutions to minimise ‘wastage’ in Scotland and elsewhere.
• Colleges and universities can help through pre-course guidance, induction
programmes, in-course monitoring and counselling for ‘at-risk’ students.
• Institutions are unlikely to eliminate drop-out.
Aim iv) examine evidence for any link between widening access and increased
levels of student dropout.
• Widening access is likely to result in increasing levels of student drop-out.
All the above points are discussed further on pages 37-40.

iv
1: Aims
This literature review was commissioned by the Scottish Executive Enterprise
and Lifelong Learning Department (SEELLD). The specification which SEELLD
gave to the Scottish Council for Research in Education (SCRE) states that:
“In order to inform future policy development, a review of existing
research is required which will:

i) clarify what is known about levels, patterns, and reasons for failing to
complete courses or training in FE and HE in Scotland

ii) distinguish between levels of ‘wastage’ and other kinds of movement

within and out of FE and HE

iii) examine evidence for the efficiency and effectiveness of steps taken
by institutions to minimise ‘wastage’ in Scotland and elsewhere

iv) examine evidence for any link between widening access and increased
levels of student dropout.”

The specification also asked that the literature from the ‘last five years’ should
be covered. In practice this has been interpreted liberally. Literature from 1995
to the present (March 2001) has been thoroughly searched, but there are also
references to earlier work where this has seemed particularly relevant to the
topic, or to the Scottish context. The concentration is on literature from the UK,
but some reference is made to international comparisons and to work from
elsewhere. Details of the sources and search strategies used are given in an
appendix.
Research in the area of student retention has rarely been cross-sectoral.
Therefore this literature review has been organised by sector, with adult
education, further education and higher education dealt with separately.

1
2: Background

2.1 Official statements

In 1992 the Scottish Education Department publication Measuring Up:
performance indicators in further education. (SED, 1992) was one of the earlier
official documents to stress the importance of retention rates. Concern was also
growing in England and was marked by the publication of Unfinished Business:
full-time educational courses for 16-19 year olds. (Audit Commission and
OFSTED, 1993). This highlighted the wide variations in course completion rates
between courses and between colleges.
Official exhortations about student retention have continued. Retention rates
form a part of the performance indicators for HEIs throughout the UK. For
Scottish further education, the Scottish Office publication Opportunity for
Everyone: The Strategic Framework for Further Education (Scottish Office,
1999b) explicitly states that:
‘Colleges need ... to undertake detailed investigation into student drop-out
rates and reasons for drop-out, and then act on the results’
And:
‘Colleges must give priority to the collection, analysis and use of
statistical data on student retention, success, progression and
destinations.’
And:
‘Colleges need to develop appropriate access courses, as well as guidance
and support and retention policies to underpin their portfolio, supported
by an ICT strategy based on the most efficient and effective use of
resources.’
(Scottish Office, 1999b)

In a UK context, Mantz Yorke has calculated that the costs to the public purse
of the non-completion of full-time and sandwich students’ programmes of study
was of the order of £91.5 million for the academic year 1994-95. This figure was
later revised downwards to £50-60 million because of changes in student funding
(Yorke, 2000). The influences on non-completion arise at three levels: those of
the educational system, the institutions, and the students themselves.

2.2 Previous international research

There is now a fairly long history of research into student drop-out. Much of
the earlier work was conducted in the USA. Tinto (1975) provided the
theoretical starting point for many discussions of student drop-out, whether the
writers agreed with him or were reacting against him. His theoretical framework
was based on the work of Durkheim on suicide and held that those students
who were most integrated into the academic and social life of institutions were
less likely to drop-out. This concept of ‘integration’ continually appears in later
literature on the subject. For example Gooderham (1994) proposed a model of
adult education dropout which posited psychosocial, external, and institutional

2
integration factors as causes. He found that data from 443 Norwegian adult
students (of whom 167 dropped out) demonstrated that factors related to
interaction with the institution made a more substantial contribution to
explaining attrition than did external systems theory.
There have been two relevant reviews of existing research published in the ERIC
Digests series. Brawer (1996) reviewed US research on retention and attrition.
She concluded that: the most prevalent characteristic among studies of non-
persisters is part-time attendance; age as a defining characteristic shows
conflicting reports in the research; the intervention strategies that show the
greatest impact include orientation programmes, mentoring and multiple strategy
approaches. Kerka (1995) reviewed research on the retention of adult students.
She cautioned about too rigid a definition of drop-out as: ‘the phenomenon of
stopping out - one or more cycles of attending, withdrawing, and returning - is
typical of adults who must place the student role on the back burner
temporarily. Counting them as dropouts would be misleading’. She notes several
recurring themes in the research:
• non-completion has complex causes
• the first few weeks of study are of crucial importance
• one cause of early withdrawal is a gap between learner expectations and
reality.
Walker (1999) outlined the three main theoretical approaches to the problem of
student drop-out. She identifies these as the ‘philosophical or theoretical’
approach, the ‘descriptive’ approach, and the ‘predictive’ approach.
• ‘Philosophical or theoretical’ approaches are ultimately derived from the
work of Durkheim, are best represented by Tinto (1975), and focus on the
degree of social and academic integration of the student. They have been
extended to include students’ interactions with faculty and staff.
• ‘Descriptive’ approaches concentrate on describing students in terms of
what they bring to university, how they live, and their reasons for leaving.
They focus on the identification of problems and have been criticised for
relying on the students’ own statements about their reasons for leaving,
which may be socially-acceptable rationalisations. (Similarly, it may be
worth noting a study by Harvey (1995) of mature adults on an FE lecturers’
training course who found that there is a tendency ‘for reasons for non-
completion to be rationalisations’).
• ‘Predictive’ studies aim to predict whether students will persist or withdraw
on the basis of correlations between factors (eg entry qualifications and
progress). Walker maintains that entry qualifications are the only consistent
predictors of academic success.

3
2.3 International statistics
International comparative data are available which show that, in fact, the UK as
a whole does relatively well in the numbers of students it retains within its
higher education system to successful completion of their degrees. OECD
(1997) Thematic Review of the First Years of Tertiary Education. Country Note:
United Kingdom states that:
By comparison with most systems, the U.K. is highly efficient. There is a
relatively short first degree, with high rates of completion in the
minimum time. However, while student failure and dropout are not of
significant proportions, they do seem to be edging up a little and, as access
increases, experience from other countries suggests the problem will grow.
In common with all other systems reviewed, it is not possible to make
conclusive statements about completion rates. Data on student
progression are inadequate. Care is needed to maintain the objective of
very high success rates. That institutions are becoming more aware of the
problem was made clear to us .
(OECD, 1997)

As this quotation suggests, the UK as a whole tends to do relatively well in

international comparisons of student retention, at least at higher education level.
OECD Education at a Glance (OECD, 2000) gives figures for international
comparisons between twenty developed countries for the ‘survival rate’ (and
hence the dropout rate) for students in ‘university level tertiary education’. The
survival rate is a measure of the percentage of entrants to higher education who
complete their degree. What is noteworthy is that, at this level of education, the
United Kingdom has the second highest survival rate (81% survival, 19%
dropout) of the twenty countries and is surpassed only by Japan (90% survival
and 11% dropout - rounded figures). The year of reference for the UK figures is
1996. The highest dropout rate is that of Italy (35% survival, 65% dropout).
The United States has 63% survival and 37% dropout.
Benn (1995b) earlier compared entry and attrition rates in the UK and in Italy.
The UK had, certainly at that time, a highly selective admission system
characterised by relatively low participation, small class size, low student-
teacher ratio, low drop-out rates and short degree courses. In Italy the
secondary school leaving certificate guarantees entry to university, there are
large classes, poor student-teacher contact, long courses and high drop-out. She
quoted figures for 1986 when UK attrition was 10% while that in Italy was
67%. She also noted that in Italy drop-out was linked to the type of secondary
school attended (which is linked to social class), part-time study, and was
highest amongst non-traditional students. The ethos in Italy is such that ‘lack of
educational guidance encourages a “try it and see” approach’. The UK’s highly
selective entry to traditional universities contributed to low drop-out. However,
increasing participation in HE and greater inclusion of ‘non-traditional’ students
may lead to increasing attrition. Benn goes on to look at the findings of previous
studies and at a case study of a university Certificate course for adult students.
She concluded that most students leave in the first year and that ‘failure of the
course to live up to expectations and inadequate pre-course information are two

4
 unsurprising issues’. Under-qualification may also be a factor although this was
not so for her case study. With Benn’s comments in mind, it is worth noting
that the only other country in the OECD figures with a better completion rate
than the UK - Japan - also has a highly selective higher education system.

2.4 Official statistics

2.4.1 Degree level higher education

HEFCE (2000) provides data from the four UK funding councils which show
that ‘non-continuation’ rates differ according to the age of the student (with
older students more likely to leave), and the institution (in the case of Scottish
HEIs, the non-continuation rate tends to be higher at the ‘newer’ post-1992
universities). They also show differences between different nations of the UK
(slightly higher in Scotland than elsewhere for the 1997 figures, but not for
1998). ‘Non-continuation’ in this context, refers to the percentage of students
who entered higher education, but are no longer in higher education one year
later. Given that students may drop out at a later stage, this will be an under-
estimate of total drop out figures. These figures also exclude those students who
left very early in their course (ie before December of the year of entry), and this
will also reduce the figures. Very early leavers are excluded because of
difficulties and inconsistencies in recording the data within institutions.
Nevertheless, given these caveats, HEFCE states that:
... a higher proportion of mature entrants than young entrants do not
continue in higher education after their first year. The non-continuation
rate is 15 per cent for mature entrants compared with 8 per cent for
young entrants. The non-continuation rate for young entrants is below 10
per cent for nearly three-quarters of institutions. For mature entrants it is
between 5 and 20 per cent at most institutions, but over 20 per cent at
more than one in 10 institutions.
(HEFCE, 2000)

This is supported by the following table showing the data for 1997 and 1998
entry (‘young’ students are those under 21 at 30 September of the year of entry
while ‘mature’ students are those 21 or over):
Table 2.1: Percentage of entrants not continuing beyond year of entry

Young Mature
1997 1998 1997 1998

UK 7.6 7.5 15.3 15.1

England 7.6 7.5 15.3 15.1
Scotland 8.7 7.5 15.9 13.5
Wales 6.5 7.5 15.5 17.1
N. Ireland 7.2 6.9 11.9 14.0
(Source: HEFCE, 2000)

However, not all ‘non-continuers’ remain outwith higher education. HEFCE

states that 12% of such students returned to their original institution the
following year and a further 9% transferred to another institution. They also

5
 note that ‘Young students are slightly more likely to return to higher education
after a year out than mature students’. They conclude that the ‘overall
percentage of student leaving higher education at the end of their first year with
no qualifications, and not returning after a year out, is about 8 per cent’ (§84).
HEFCE also provide figures for non-continuation rates by subject and entry
qualification and concludes that
The lowest non-continuation rates are in the subject group covering
medicine, dentistry and veterinary science, for both young and mature
students, and the highest rates are in the groups covering mathematical
and computing sciences, and engineering. (§85)

... Non-continuation rates are also generally lower for entrants with high
A-level or Scottish Highers scores than for those with other qualifications.
This is true for both young and mature students. For all subjects, and for
most entry qualifications, the non-continuation rates for young entrants
are lower than those for mature entrants. (§86) (HEFCE, 2000)

All of these figures, however, relate only to those who left at the end of their
first year. HEFCE also tries to provide an estimate of overall drop-out by
projecting figures in such a way that they give the outcomes that would be
expected from current starters if the progression patterns were to remain
unchanged over the next few years. Separate figures are given for those who are
expected to gain a degree and those who are expected neither to gain any award
nor to transfer. These are shown below.
Table 2.2: Projected outcomes – percentage of students
expected to gain a degree (sector averages)

Obtain degree
1996 1997

UK 77.0 77.3
England 76.8 77.3
Scotland 73.3 75.1
Wales 77.7 77.5
N. Ireland 84.4 85.6

(Source: HEFCE, 2000)

Table 2.3: Projected outcomes – percentage of students

expected to obtain no award or transfer (sector averages)

No award or transfer
1996 1997

UK 16.0 15.7
England 15.7 15.8
Scotland 17.3 16.1
Wales 15.7 15.7
N. Ireland 12.9 11.0

(Source: HEFCE, 2000)

6
Overall 77 per cent of students starting at an institution are expected to qualify
from that institution with a degree, 16 per cent are expected to get no
qualification and 6 per cent are expected to transfer to another institution. In
Scotland slightly fewer (73.3% in 1996, 75.1% in 1997) are expected to qualify
with a degree from their original institution, but the figures for no award or
transfer (17.3% in 1996, 16.1% in 1997) differ little from the UK average,
suggesting a slightly greater number of transfers. HEFCE notes that figures for
individual institutions vary widely, with most showing between 70 to 90 per
cent of entrants continuing to graduation, but with a small number where the
figure is less than 60%.
The HEFCE figures are suggestive, but cannot conclusively demonstrate the
reasons for these differences. In 1992 the DES had found four major factors
associated with withdrawal rates in English HEIs: exit rates were higher for men
than for women, they varied considerably between subject areas with
technology and engineering having the most leavers, they were linked to low
qualifications on entry and they were higher for older entrants (DES, 1992)
Woodley et al (1992) quoted figures which showed that non-completion rates
were higher at universities in Scotland (15.5%) than in England (10.8%). They
explained this by the higher proportion of school leavers who entered university
in Scotland. They found that this historical difference had not changed
dramatically by 1990, but that there were also differences between Scottish
universities (ranging from 9.8% to 21.4%), and that there were differences
between subject areas (with Engineering having the highest non-completion rate,
and Arts subjects the lowest).
More recently, in Scotland, Rabb (1998) undertook a major study of
Participation in higher education in Scotland. This looked primarily at
geographical variations. She noted that: ‘Qualitative evidence suggests that
withdrawal from degree courses is more likely for students from disadvantaged
backgrounds. This is an area where more evidence is needed, and where possible
support initiatives within institutions may play a part’.

2.4.2 Sub-degree higher education

The Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) reported that 70% of Higher

National Unit entries were successfully completed, but that this varied greatly
by subject area (the highest success rate was in Transport Services at 82%
closely followed by Education/Training/Teaching at 80%, while the lowest was
in Area Studies/Cultural Studies/Languages/Literature at 62%). Withdrawal rates
also varied by subject, the lowest, at 15%, being in Transport Services, while
the highest, at 33% was in Humanities/Religious Studies/Philosophy (SQA,
2000). Cloonan and Canning (2000) report a non-completion rate of 26% for
HNCs, from their inspection of the SQA database. In this, as in many other
areas where courses are unitised, or modularised, it becomes increasingly
difficult to identify figures for completion or non-completion, as figures can
refer to completion of individual units or modules, or of courses and
qualifications as a whole. The move to increased flexibility of provision and

7
 easier possibilities of transfer between courses, through credit accumulation and
transfer or other schemes, makes tracking of retention increasingly difficult.

2.4.3 Further education and associated vocational education initiatives

Further education in Scotland covers a variety of forms of educational provision,

and there are no overall figures for the sector. However, there have been some
official statistics and pronouncements on specific aspects of FE.
Scottish Office (1995) gives figures for completion of National Certificate
modules. In academic session 1993-94, 69.8% of module enrolments resulted in
full success, 10% in partial success, and 20.2% were withdrawals. The
withdrawal rates differed by the type of centre (highest withdrawal rates in
TVEI/Skill Centres and lowest in Agricultural colleges) and by the mode of
study (sandwich and block release modes having significantly fewer withdrawals
than other modes). Scottish Office (1998) gives figures for academic session
1996-97 which show little change. 68.2% of module enrolments resulted in full
success, 11.5% in partial success, and 20.3% were withdrawals. The withdawal
rates differed by the type of centre (highest withdrawal rates in FE colleges and
lowest in schools). There are no figures for withdrawal rate by mode of study,
but there are figures which indicate that withdrawal rates vary by broad subject
area (the highest withdrawal rates were in Sales, Marketing and Distribution at
24.5% while the lowest were in Transport Services at 12.2%). Cloonan and
Canning (2000) report a 32% non-completion rate for National Certificate
modules in session 1996-97, but this is in fact the percentage of those who did
not achieve complete success.
The Scottish Office consultation paper Opportunities and Choices (Scottish
Office, 1999a) includes the findings of a small-scale HMI investigation into the
levels of course completion and achievement (of qualifications) among the
college-based Skillseekers in the FastTrac project, and likely causes of non-
completion and non-achievement. It noted that:
2.25 Within Fife, HMI found that the FastTrac students had achievement
rates close to the national average for this age group while achievement
among non-FastTrac students was lower (than the national average). On
the basis of statistical evidence and visits to the 4 Fife Colleges, which
offer courses broadly similar to provision elsewhere, HMI concluded that
16-18 year olds in NAFE [non-advanced further education] across
Scotland have significantly lower completion and achievement rates than
older students on the same or similar programmes.

2.26 Although the study was limited in scope and depth, HMI concluded
that the factors likely to contribute to lower levels of completion and
achievement among 16-18 year olds, both in FastTrac and elsewhere,
were
* the quality of pre-entry information and guidance
* early recognition and action on student needs or problems
* student motivation and capability
* programme design

8
 * induction arrangements
* teaching and assessment methods
* ongoing guidance and learner support
* staff development on the needs of students with previous low
attainment, poor motivation etc.
(Scottish Office, 1999a)

It was found that many of the FastTrac students had low achievement from
school, poor attendance and no clear career direction. Some also had social or
behavioural problems.
SEELLD, in a study of New Deal in Scotland (Scottish Executive, 2000), found
that non-completion rates were higher for New Deal clients than the average for
the FE sector, and ranged from 10% to 90%, with typically around half not
gaining a qualification. Leavers tended to leave very early in their programme.
Reasons for non-completion included low motivation compounded by a range of
personal problems. They conclude that ‘leavers frequently had major and
intractable personal difficulties which guidance arrangements and staff had not
overcome’.
Cloonan and Canning (2000) examined completion rates of candidates taking
Scottish Vocational Qualifications (SVQs). Their study was based on case study
research carried out in the winter of 1998/99. They argued that it was difficult
to compile ‘meaningful completion rates for SVQs’ They conclude that it is not
possible to say with any degree of accuracy what the level of non-completion of
SVQs is. This is because of the poor quality of the data available. The different
needs and objectives of SVQ candidates, the level of commitment of employers,
and the extent to which trainees were compelled to undertake courses (eg as a
condition attached to Skillseekers) may all impact on completion rates. They
suggest that those who failed to complete qualifications may have had lower
academic achievement levels on entry.

2.5 Summary
• Previous international research has either had a theoretical focus on notions
of ‘integration’ of the student into the social and academic life of the
institution; or has concentrated on identifying and describing the reasons for
students withdrawing from their studies; or has tried to predict the likelihood
of persistence or withdrawal from the background characteristics of the
students. There is agreement about the complexity of the causes of non-
completion of studies.
• Data from different sources has been gathered in different ways and is
specified on different bases: OECD ‘survival rates’ measure something
different from HEFCE ‘continuation rates’ which in turn differ from HEFCE
‘projected outcomes’. With modularised or unitised forms of provision
figures for ‘module (or unit) outcomes’ are not the same as those for overall
programme outcomes. Add in the possibilities for partial success, and for
credit accumulation and transfer and the situation becomes very complex,

9
 with an increasingly blurred distinction between ‘completion’ and ‘non-
completion’
• United Kingdom and international figures show that UK higher education has
had one of the best ‘survival rates’ for higher education students in the
developed world. Within the UK a slightly greater proportion of students at
Scottish higher education institutions fail to complete their degrees. These
differences have been linked to the extent of selection within the system and
the proportion of the immediate post-school age group which proceeds to
higher education. With increasing participation, there is a worry that non-
completion may also increase.
• Within the UK there are also differences in completion rates between
younger and more mature students (with mature students more likely to
drop out), between institutions, and between subjects.
• The data for higher education below degree level, and for further education,
are fragmented, but there would appear to be lower rates of successful
completion and higher rates of withdrawal for lower levels of qualification.
There are also identifiable differences between subject areas and between
training providers.

10
3: Adult Education

3.1 Adult Basic Education

There has been comparatively little work in the area of Adult Basic Education
(ABE). However, Kambouri and Francis (1994) reported a two-phase study
which examined the incidence and nature of dropout and progression from basic
skills programmes in England and Wales. About 1,920 students’
attendance/dropout patterns and reasons for finishing/leaving their basic skills
programmes were obtained from 82 tutors (of more than 300 contacted) in 8
local education authorities. Survey questionnaires were also completed by 176
of approximately 636 former students. Concurrently, 4 sets of data about 800-
1,200 students were collected from 59 to 35 tutors in each of 7 LEAs. Of the
programme leavers:
• 10% progressed to further education or training schemes,
• 17% moved/advanced to other classes, and
• 10% found/changed employment.
According to the tutors, 5% of leavers attained their desired level of
skills/training and only 1% were dissatisfied with their programs. According to
the leavers, however, 10% had achieved the skills/training levels they desired
and 7% were dissatisfied with their programs. More than one-third of students
left basic skills tuition for reasons unknown to their tutor. The authors note that
most leavers stayed only 2-3 weeks in class - ie most left early in the
programme. Over a third of leavers progressed to other courses. Some (10%) left
before completion because they felt that they had achieved all they wanted.
Blaxter (1999) reflected on the social background factors which complicate
participation in adult education. She was particularly concerned with
community-based work in areas of social exclusion and pointed out that
something as basic as fear of attack because of an ‘insecure social environment’
could lead to non-participation.

3.2 Access
By comparison with ABE, there has been a considerable amount of research on
mature students undertaking access courses to gain entry to higher education. In
England, Armstrong (1996) interviewed a group of ‘survivors’ on an access
course where there had been a 15% drop-out. They were asked why they
thought others had dropped out and why they themselves had not. The reasons
identified for the others’ drop-out were:
• financial and family problems
• lack of commitment to the course
• higher work load than expected
• poor or non-existent guidance
• wrong choice of course.

11
 Yet, although some of these factors also affected the ‘survivors’ they had
persisted because of a number of factors:
• determination to enter Higher Education
• personal motivation and a sense of self-esteem
• enjoyment of subject matter and new ideas
• good supporting networks
• positive working atmosphere
• a sense of achievement and purpose.
Armstrong concluded that ‘motivation and personal vision seemed to be the key
factors influencing students’ continuing commitment to the course’. The work
of Benn (1995a, 1995b) has already been mentioned for what she has to say
about international comparisons. Benn’s conclusions were formed in the context
of a study of adults in a university Certificate course where she examined the
factors affecting student withdrawal from higher education, arguing that some
social, political and economic factors are located in the national context whilst
others relate to the individual student’s own personal circumstances. She puts
particular emphasis on the drop-out of non-traditional students in part-time
education. As already mentioned she concluded that most students leave in the
first year and that ‘failure of the course to live up to expectations and
inadequate pre-course information are two unsurprising issues’.
Hayes (1996) summarised what was known about key strategies for minimising
student attrition from courses for adults. The key factors were listed as:
• admissions - pre-course information, advice and guidance
• student induction
• creating an adult learning community
• teaching and learning
• student support
• dealing with non-attendance
• quality service, responsive to student need.
There has been a considerable amount of work on drop out among access
students in Scotland, much of it in the context of the Scottish Wider Access
Programme (SWAP). One of these, which is often cited, was Cullen (1994)
“Weighing It Up”: A case study of discontinuing Access students which looked
at students on a course provided by The Centre for Continuing Education of
Edinburgh University and Stevenson College. This was intended to prepare non-
traditional adult students for entry into degree courses in the faculties of arts,
divinity, law, and social sciences of Edinburgh University. There was also a
qualitative case study which examined why students discontinue the access
course. Questionnaires were also mailed to 36 students who had enrolled in the

12
course in 1989-90, 1990-91, and the first term of 1991-92 but had withdrawn
before completing it. Most of the 14 respondents reported leaving the course for
a combination of reasons. Course dissatisfaction was cited as the main reason
for withdrawal four times and as an additional reason three times. Financial
problems were cited twice as the main reason for withdrawing and seven times
as an additional reason. Also mentioned were ill health (seven times), personal
changes/problems (six times), loss of confidence in abilities (four times) and age
(four times), and pressure of juggling roles (three times). Women were more
likely to experience excessive outside pressures. Responses regarding available
academic facilities and support were mixed. Personal support services were
generally not being used effectively, and respondents’ attitudes toward staff
development and quality of teaching depended largely on their previous
educational experiences.
Cullen (1994) concluded that ‘people did weigh up what they had hoped to get
out of the course against what they felt they were getting and left when the
discrepancy became too great’. She notes that ‘in some instances, non-
completion is the most successful outcome’ as students had learned to re-think
their goals. On the other hand, some students left despite doing well: coming
from educationally excluded groups, they had been conditioned to think of
themselves as academic failures and found it hard to believe that they could
actually be succeeding -
... the Access course represented access to a societal good from which
they had previously been excluded. For some of these respondents, this
meant that their own expectations of the standard expected of them was
extremely high, such that they could hardly accept that they were doing
well ... A few respondents left, at least partly, because they lost
confidence in their own abilities precisely because they were doing well
and could not credit this, despite the support of their tutors. Part of the
reason they left when they did was to ensure that they left before they
were "found out" as lacking. (Cullen, 1994)

However, Cullen noted that even those who left felt that they had gained from
their experience, and many of them hoped to return to education, in one form or
another, in the future. Cullen ends with the plea that ‘financial support for part-
time mature students is crucial if “access” is to be meaningful’.
Johnstone and Cullen (1995) summarised the findings of three research projects
which looked at the experiences of SWAP students. They found that very few
students who had withdrawn from their courses had given academic difficulties
as the sole cause of their withdrawal. Most gave several reasons. Johnstone and
Cullen comment that discontinuing students ‘seemed to have cumulative
problems, of which one or other might be the last straw’. They also tended to
have decided that their original aims were, for whatever reason, no longer
realistic. Some background factors did, however, distinguish between leavers and
stayers. Leavers tended to have lower qualifications on entry, they also tended
to have a greater number of outside commitments.
Karkalas and MacKenzie (1996) reported the results of a postal survey of 574
students who had completed a university-run in-house Access courses at the

13
 University of Glasgow between 1979 and 1991. Four hundred and eighty one
were contactable and 253 replied (52.6%). They found a ‘marked similarity’ in
the responses of those who chose to continue on into higher education and those
who did not. Both groups reported increases in confidence, and perceived
improvements in their academic and communication skills. However, ‘non-
continuers’ emphasised the inherent enjoyment and stimulation of the subjects
they had studied while ‘continuers’ tended towards stressing their practical
value in orienting them towards a culture of study. Karkalas and MacKenzie
caution that their respondents are a self-selected group who were generally
highly motivated. Nevertheless they reported that Access courses had been
valuable to them whether or not they had continued into higher education.
MacDonald, Karkalas and MacKenzie (1996) follows on from Karkalas and
MacKenzie (1996). This study investigated the reasons for withdrawal from a
University-based Access course by interviewing a sample of 48 leavers from
three academic sessions (1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95. Over half (58%) had
left in the first term. They noted that
Actual reasons for leaving the course were rarely single or simple, and it
was often a small change which tipped the balance between positive and
negative factors and led to a decision to leave.
(MacDonald, Karkalas and MacKenzie, 1996)

Dissatisfaction with some aspect of the course was the most frequently cited
reason for leaving (40%), and around a quarter cited general time pressures,
personal and family commitments, or a general feeling of not being able to cope.
They identified a need for a more pro-active support system for students, and a
wish amongst students for a greater degree of standardisation (eg in
comparability of workload between subjects and in pre-course information
about subject content and workload. A number of leavers complained that the
subject content had been ‘boring’, but for many this may have reflected the fact
that they were studying subjects which were not their first choice, and for
which they may, therefore, have had little motivation. MacDonald et al found
that there were no significant differences in terms of gender, age or previous
educational qualifications between those who completed the course and those
who did not. They noted the importance of the actual subject matter of the
chosen options in determining students’ reactions and that ‘it is difficult to
overestimate many of these students’ needs for support and encouragement
from their tutors’.
Walker (1999) reported a two-year study of 57 non-traditional disadvantaged
students in a pre-university summer school of the University of Glasgow. She
found that success for students in this study could not be predicted by family
and educational background and that the main difference between those who
withdrew and others lay in attitudes and motivation. Those who withdrew from
the course were less motivated, less suited to academic work and had poorer
attitudes.
Powney and Hall (1998) undertook a qualitative study of the experiences of a
group of former Access students from the Scottish Wider Access Programme

14
 (SWAP) as they progressed through higher education. Of the 48 students who
had entered higher education and who remained in contact with the research
team, 39 successfully completed their degree; three remained undergraduates as
they had taken time out from their studies; three had academic problems, failed
some of their examinations and dropped out; one had dropped out because he
was ‘not enjoying’ his course; one had dropped out because of health problems;
and one had successfully completed an HNC, joined a degree course, but then
failed to complete it.

3.3 Summary
• The personal commitment of the student to the course emerged from a
number of studies as a key factor in successful course completion for adult
students.
• Pre-course information, advice, and guidance can help students to avoid the
de-motivating effects of finding themselves on the wrong course. When they
are on their course appropriate teaching and learning and peer- and tutor-
support are also key elements assisting the progression towards successful
completion.
• Nevertheless, some students will have financial, family or other personal
problems which obviate against them completing their course.
• In the vast majority of cases of students who fail to complete their course,
most research agrees that it is an accumulated combination of problems
which eventually leads them to withdraw.
• Withdrawal from a course is not necessarily a ‘failure’ for all these students.
Some may have learnt all that they wished to learn, others may have
discovered that they wished to proceed in a different direction.
• Nor does withdrawal from a course necessarily mean withdrawal from
education for all time: it may be a temporary expedient to deal with the
particular circumstances which the student is facing at that time.

15
4: Further Education
There has been a considerable amount of research on student retention in further
education in recent years. In this chapter we deal first with research which has
taken place in England before looking at recent Scottish work. Within England,
much of the research has been undertaken by, or published by, the Further
Education Development Agency (FEDA), which has since become the Learning
and Skills Agency. The most influential and widely known of this work is that
by Martinez. We deal first with his research, and then with other FEDA
research, before turning to the work of others in England, and then to recent
Scottish studies.

4.1 Further education in England

4.1.1 Research in FE associated with FEDA

A great deal of the work on student retention in further education in England has
been associated with the Further Education Development Agency (FEDA. In
particular, Paul Martinez has produced significant studies of the topic.
Martinez (1995) Student retention in further and adult education: the evidence.
discusses the methodology and findings of previously existing research on
student retention. He pointed out several flaws in the ways in which
information is often gathered.
• college-based information systems often asked that ‘one main reason’ should
be ascribed to a student’s decision to withdraw, and there are often multiple
reasons
• the onus for data collection was often on the teachers who may not know, or
accurately report, the reasons for students withdrawing from courses
• there was an exclusive focus on early leavers which left out of account the
views of those students who stayed to complete their courses. Since
‘leavers’ and ‘completers’ often face the same problems, research needs to
include data from ‘completers’ if it is to distinguish them accurately from
‘leavers’.
He goes on to review several earlier surveys which have shown that
‘Two or more factors usually affect a student’s decision to withdraw’ and

‘Different factors will affect different groups of students in different

ways.’
(Martinez, 1995)

Other research which he reviews suggests that ‘withdrawn and current students
can be quite firmly distinguished by reference to their experience both before
and during their participation in college life’. Early leavers tended to show less
commitment to their programme of study and had sometimes chosen college for
negative reasons, such as having a poor experience of school. The research
showed that ‘respondents who had withdrawn had a significantly lower opinion

16
of the college than current students.’ In particular this showed up in lower
ratings given by withdrawn students to the quality of teaching and academic
support. The views of staff contrasted sharply with students. College staff
tended to identify financial, domestic and personal difficulties of students as the
most likely causes of withdrawal, while students tended to rate these as
relatively unimportant and place more importance on factors relating to the
course or college. The research on which Martinez draws in this review was, at
the time, unpublished but further details were later made publicly available by
Martinez (1996, 1997) and Davies (1999).
Martinez (1995) found only limited evidence to suggest that there might be any
demographic indicators of likely student withdrawal. There were some
indications that ‘previous educational attainment, social class, course choice and
perhaps gender and ethnicity, may predispose some groups of students to leave
early’ though it was possible that any such effects depended on mutual
reinforcement between two or more demographic factors.
Martinez (1996) reports four case studies from FE colleges which had been
addressing retention and drop-out issues. The report concludes with five main
generalisations:
... a research stimulus ... played a significant role both in mobilising
energy, effort and enthusiasm and informing the creation of strategy.

... there is unlikely to be a panacea. Different colleges have different

cultures, student and staff profiles, curriculum offers, etc.

... Ownership by and support from senior management is important.

Action in conditions of partial and incomplete information is preferable
to an endless search for perfect information ...

... successful strategies all embody elements of college transformation. ...

[all addressed] issues of cultural change, staff and student expectations and
basic taken-for-granted assumptions about college mission and purpose.

... student retention issues, probably associated with student achievement

issues, may well form the cornerstone of a new literature of college
improvement.
(Martinez, 1996)

Martinez and Munday (1998) 9,000 Voices: student persistence and drop-out in
further education claims to be the largest study of persistence and drop-out
which has ever been undertaken in the UK. Over 8500 students completed
questionnaires and another 500+ students, teachers, managers and other college
staff took part in meetings and discussions. Thirty-three colleges took part and
the report is based on information from thirty-one of them. The study
concluded that
... students are more likely to drop out if they:
• do not feel that they have been placed on the most appropriate course
• applied to college late
• find it difficult to make friends
• find it difficult to settle in at the beginning of their course

17
 • are less satisfied (than current students) that their course is interesting
• are less satisfied with the quality of teaching
• are less satisfied with their course timetable
• are less satisfied with help either to get a job or to go to university
• are male
• have difficult financial circumstances (older students) or family
circumstances (younger students)
• have their fees waived or reduced.
(Martinez and Munday, 1998).

These findings would tend to show the importance of pre-course guidance,

continuing advice and support to enable students to integrate, and good quality
teaching.
Martinez and Munday note, however, that these factors do not operate in
isolation and that reasons for drop-out are ‘complex, multiple and inter-related’.
The students tend to weigh the costs of college attendance against the benefits
and withdraw when the costs outweigh the benefits. There were also substantial
differences between colleges.
Martinez and Munday also believe that the results of their research challenge
the views that drop-out is caused by the personal circumstances of students;
that the students’ initial expectations of college are a good predictor of drop-out;
that early withdrawal is linked to the quality of college facilities or equipment;
and that students mainly leave to take up employment.
Finally, they note that ‘In relation to college information and quality systems:
• measures to improve curriculum design, pedagogy and teacher-student
and student-student relationships will have a greater impact on
retention than measures to improve accommodation or equipment
• far more attention needs to be paid to the analysis, interpretation and
research of colleges’ own circumstances
• local research will benefit from internal (within college) and external
(between college) comparisons
• many current student evaluation procedures will not provide useful
information to improve retention
• less precise but more action-oriented mechanisms for making early and
formative evaluations will be a more useful basis for improvement’.
(Martinez and Munday, 1998)

Martinez’s work is one of the most important and influential bodies of research
on student drop out in FE. However, other reports published by FEDA have
also contributed greatly to our knowledge of this area.
Barwuah, Green and Lawson (1997), in a survey of support for 835 students in
8 urban FE colleges found that the groups most likely to drop out were older
students, white students, those who had applied late, and those who were on
foundation or intermediate courses (as opposed to advanced courses). They
found that the most significant factor affecting retention was student

18
commitment and motivation. Inability to cope with course demands, low levels
of ability and poor language and key skills were also contributory factors. Those
who had poor records of attendance or behavioural problems at school were also
more likely to drop-out. Teaching staff considered that inappropriate
aspirations and poor course choice were key reasons for drop-out. Those
students who withdrew from their courses tended to be less satisfied with their
choice of course, the quality of teaching and tutorials, and the helpfulness of
their teachers (and the college in general) in providing support, advice and
feedback. Barwuah et al recommend that colleges should have clear and
integrated recruitment procedures, induction programmes and guidance systems,
with prompt attention being paid to non-attendance and the early identification
of students who are ‘at risk’ of dropping out.
Bloomer and Hodkinson (1999) in College Life: the voice of the learner, report a
qualitative study of the college experiences of 49 FE students who were
repeatedly interviewed over a period of three years. They note the difficulty of
defining ‘drop out’: some students withdraw completely, others complete their
course but not all the course work so gain no qualification, while others dropped
individual subjects. Some complete one level but do not progress to the next.
For some students, the decision to drop out had as much to do with their life
outside college as anything that happened within it. Many students changed
their career intentions and objectives in the course of the study, and they did so
for a wide variety of reasons, including changing interests, their experience at
college, and outside influences. The students had complex and varying sets of
‘needs’ which were not amenable to any simple formulation. Bloomer and
Hodkinson advise that all colleges can do is to try to develop an ‘accepting’
culture, strengthen student-tutor relationships and accept that student and
college desires do not always coincide.
Bloomer and Hodkinson (2000) show the influence of external circumstances
and changing attitudes or dispositions to learning on one person’s educational
career. The impact of ‘events’ and contingency is exemplified in the story of
‘Amanda Ball’ and the authors consider the implications which her story holds
for our understanding of learning within wider social, economic and cultural
contexts.
Following on from these studies, Hodkinson and Bloomer (2000) argue that
much research on retention has been based on a series of false assumptions.
These are:
students’ wants, needs and interests remain constant throughout the
course
in cases of drop out, the prime causes lie within the influence, if not the
control, of teachers and college procedures
learning on the course must have been unsatisfactory, if the student
dropped out
the only appropriate time to change educational or career direction is
after a course has been completed

19
 dropping out from a course is different from and more serious than other
deviations from an intended career pathway.
(Bloomer and Hodkinson, 2000)

They challenge these assumptions. While Martinez chose to emphasise those

factors which are potentially within the control of colleges, Hodkinson and
Bloomer concentrate on those which are not. They note that a large majority of
their sample significantly changed their intentions. For some of their sample
‘dropping out was probably the best thing to be done at the time. From their
perspectives it was a solution, rather than a problem’. Some faced significant
problems in their lives outside education, and even those who dropped out
tended to identify benefits from their experience. Hodkinson and Bloomer
conclude that ‘Because many of the factors that influence retention lie outside
the control and even influence of college or university providers, retention and
qualification achievement are inadequate measures of provision’ and that
‘Widening participation and outcome-based measures of quality, such as
retention rates and qualification achievement, are unhappy policy bedfellows’.
Davies (1999), like Martinez, emphasised the factors that lie within the control
of colleges, and summarised the findings of the research used by Martinez
(1995) in his review of evidence on student retention. He also included findings
from research by FEDA on non-completion of GNVQ courses, based on a
survey of over 3000 current and withdrawn students. This concluded that:
levels of student satisfaction in a number of course-related areas were the
variables that linked most strongly with rates of non- and unsuccessful
completion, viz:
• induction, and the degree to which it was felt that the GNVQ chosen
was the right course
• the level of interest generated by the content of the course
• the perceived quality of teaching, the relationship with teachers and
the help and support they provided
• (at Advanced level) the perceived help in progressing to higher level
qualifications, including those at university.
(Davies, 1999)

In his overall conclusions, Davies points to the interaction between variables,

such that financial problems can act as a trigger to withdrawal when they are
faced alongside other difficulties:
Although financial difficulties are a common trigger of student drop-out,
in general withdrawal appears to result only in cases where students have
doubts that they are on the right course, are concerned about the quality
of the teaching and are unhappy with the support they are receiving for
progression ... colleges within the FE sector can make a substantial
improvement in their retention rates by acting on aspects of the student
experience which are well within their control.
(Davies, 1999)

However, he also cautions that finance cannot be entirely ignored, and reminds
us that carefully targeted financial aid can have a beneficial effect (e.g. on poorer
adult students with childcare responsibilities). This work on GNVQs has also

20
been reported in FEDA (1998) which states that 74% of the GNVQ students
completed their full award or their first year (and were progressing to their
second year), 16% had withdrawn before completion and 10% had only partly
completed. They found that most students were positive about GNVQ and that
the main reason for drop-out was that ‘the course was not right for them’.
Drop-out was linked to prior low GCSE attainment, and to dissatisfaction with
the course (wrong course choice, lack of interest, poor teaching). The amount
and timing of assessments, particularly portfolio assessments) was a major
cause of dissatisfaction. 25% of non-completers had left because they had found
employment.
Davies (2001) reviewed past and current research on student retention by
FEDA. He summarised the key findings from past FEDA research as:
• student background is less significant than their attitudes to their experience
at college
• a distinguishing characteristic of withdrawn students is their relatively lower
satisfaction with the suitability of their course, quality of teaching and
support for progression
• financial, personal and employment-related problems are commonplace, but
their incidence is not significantly greater amongst drop-outs.
He also outlined a recent research project at FEDA on ‘Differential
Achievement’, which had not yet reported. This was looking at the extent to
which the ‘achievement profiles’ of different FE colleges were explicable in
terms of the profiles of their student intakes. It analysed student records in 41
colleges. The initial results indicated that the ‘worst achieving colleges’ had
student intakes with below average achievement, but that inter-institutional
differences (of student profiles) appear to account for less than half of the
variations in achievement rates between the best and worst achieving colleges,
i.e. the major part of the inter-institutional differences were not explicable in
terms of the student profiles. This could be because either: 1) there were geo-
demographic or other factors not captured by student records or postcode
analysis, or 2) there were differences in institutional ethos, systems, procedures
and practices. Previous FEDA work led him to believe that the second of these
explanations could account for at least half of the differences between colleges.
He then outlined a case study of one course in one college where new
procedures had increased the ‘survival rate’ from 75% to 100%. This had been
done by introducing a departmental policy, interviewing all candidates for places
on the courses, setting out the college’s expectations of the students, introducing
an enrolment and induction programme, improving staff-staff and staff-student
communications, monitoring attendance, and providing tutorial support and
guidance. Student satisfaction ratings for this course were now high.

21
 4.1.2 Research in FE not associated with FEDA

There have also been interesting research studies on student retention done
outwith the auspices of FEDA, some of which reinforce their findings, while
some challenge them. McGivney (1996a) summarised the findings of a survey of
mature students in further and higher education conducted for the National
Institute of Adult and Continuing Education (NIACE). She found some
difficulty in obtaining reliable statistics on non-completion because ‘the national
database is inadequate and there are wide variations in the ways in which
institutions define and measure non-completion and record student data’. She
distinguished different categories of non-completion, including ‘non-starting’,
‘transfer’, ‘academic failure’ and ‘interrupted learning’ and noted that
the reasons for withdrawal vary according to student group, the nature of
the institution and the subject studied. Mature students are more likely
than those of standard age to give non-academic reasons for leaving a
course of study; students studying science or technology subjects are more
likely to give academic or course-related [reasons] for withdrawing than
those studying arts or humanities.
(McGivney,1996a)

McGivney (1996a) distinguished reasons for early withdrawal from a course

from those which lead to later withdrawal. Reasons for early withdrawal
include:
• frustrated expectation (of course/institution)
• inappropriate of rushed course choice
• lack of preparedness for level of work
• insufficient background knowledge/grounding in a subject
• workload and time commitment greater than anticipated
• lack of academic skills such as essay writing, note taking
• difficulties in settling in and integrating into the social and academic life of an
institution
• lack of support from ‘significant others’.
Factors associated with later withdrawal include:
• changes in personal circumstances
• work-related factors
• achievement of desired goals
• financial problems and lack of financial support
• domestic commitments or problems
• long duration of programme of study (leading to demotivation)
• apprehension at returning to study after losing continuity
• fear of or unpreparedness for examinations.

22
McGivney (1996a) summarised her findings by saying:
High non-completion rates indicate that some students do not acquire
what they want or expect; that some are ill-advised (or not advised) and
consequently make the wrong choice of course or institution; that some
are intimidated or alienated by the institution or by course content and
teaching styles, and that some experience problems that are potentially
soluble given the right kind of intervention, guidance and support.
(McGivney,1996a)

Drop-out is frequently connected in this way with a failure of guidance or

provision (a major conclusion of FEDA’s work).
Foreman-Peck and Thompson (1998) studied a group of 19 students on a
GNVQ Advanced Business course, almost all of whom failed to complete it
successfully. They found that these students did not appear to have had access
to sufficient independent advice, guidance and information and that a variety of
extraneous factors - such as teachers’ assumptions about their ability, and the
college’s desire to fill places in the course - had led to them joining the course.
There was evidence of informal social and academic stratification in the choices
available to these students. The students themselves were well aware of the
different status of different courses.
Similarly, a study of early leavers from youth training schemes found that the
most common reasons for leaving early reported by trainees were that they
‘obtained a job, they were not earning enough money, and they were not happy
with the way the programme was run or they were not getting the training they
wanted.’ Also, ‘a good experience while on employer placements was critical to
the perceived success of the programme and a key determinant of completion’
(Opinion Research Corporation International, 1999).
It is findings such as this which led to the promotion of in-college strategies
such as that outlined by Rose (1996) who recommended using customer
satisfaction information to inform management decisions with a view to ensuring
student retention.
However, while some problems may be ‘potentially soluble’ by educational
institutions, other researchers have reminded us that this does not apply to all
problems. So, for example, Wilkinson (1996) reported a study of 250 young
people aged 16-24 living in peripheral housing estates in Sunderland in the north
east of England. He was concerned with ‘dropping out’ in the wider sense of
non-participation in education, training or employment and social alienation. He
charted the connections between economic disadvantage, histories of family
unemployment, residential insecurity and rejection of schooling on the one hand
and continuing non-participation in education and training on the part of the
young people studied. Thirty-six per cent of those studied had been on some
form of training programme, but 78% of these had failed to complete them. He
concludes that non-participation by these young people was a manifestation of
‘a much wider social malaise’, a major component of which was the lack of
employment opportunities in their area. Similarly, Frank and Houghton (1997),
in a study of 400 adult drop-outs from FE, found that students often left

23
 courses for a combination of reasons, and that 60% of these reasons were
unrelated to the course or college. The most common were job changes and
illness.
Two factors may be noted here: ‘drops-outs’ are not a homogeneous group to
which a single set of generalisations can be applied; and much of the research has
relied on students’ own reports of their reasons for dropping out, and
disregarded the views of others. Students’ views may be rationalisations which
tend to underplay the influence of their own personal and social characteristics
and overplay the role of the college. Spours (1997) sought to balance what he
perceived as FEDA’s concentration on the views of students by investigating
the views of FE staff in five London colleges. He acknowledges that there is a
discrepancy between what students and staff have to say about the causes of
student withdrawal, but argues that the views of the staff are also important as
they will bear the responsibility for implementing any improvement
programmes, and that they also have a legitimate perspective on the problem.
The staff he interviewed felt that retention problems were closely linked to the
marketing success of their colleges in bringing in a wider range of students, and
the pressure that colleges were under to recruit students. The staff felt (but
could not prove) that different courses had different retention rates and that
those with the better rates tended to be at higher levels and have a clearer
vocational focus while those with lower retention rates were at lower levels and
were more ‘generic’. Spours identified this as an issue which deserved further
research. He believed that the main impetus for attention being given to
retention issues had come from bureaucratic pressures derived from
accountability (and ultimately college finance) rather than educational questions
of student achievement and progression.
There is some evidence that different types of course have different outcomes,
even for students within one age group. So, for example, Payne (2000) reported
data from cohort 8 of the England and Wales Youth Cohort study, derived from
young people who reached school leaving age in summer 1995. It compared their
success rates in a range of post-16 qualifications and showed a wide variation in
success rates associated with different qualifications. City and Guilds courses,
NVQ levels 3 and 4 and GNVQ level 1 courses all carried a relatively high risk
of being unsuccessful, while A levels, BTEC courses and higher level GNVQ
courses carried a lower risk of the students being unsuccessful. This is not
strictly data on retention, but it is suggestive of there being differences
associated with different types of course or qualification. Similarly, in a study
of 500 non-completers of Modern Apprenticeships in five sectors (Care,
Hospitality, Retail, Motor and Electrotechnical) IFF Research Ltd (2000) found
that ‘reasons [for leaving] vary widely by age, gender and sector’ . However,
they did not give details of how they vary. Most reasons for leaving did not
relate to the training itself. The most common reason was getting a new job,
followed by the difficulty of combining the training with the workload of the
job, problems at work, or personal issues.

24
 It is also constructive to contrast the drop-out figures of 78% from work-related
training courses quoted above from Wilkinson with the rate of just under 20%
found by Fielding, Belfield and Thomas (1998) amongst A Level FE students.
They conducted an analysis of 2648 A Level students in nine English further
education, sixth form and tertiary education colleges. They found an overall
attrition rate (based on the number of enrolments) of 19.6%. While some
students would simply drop one or more of a number of A levels for which they
were enrolled, they concluded that ‘most of the drop-outs are full drop-outs
rather than partial: the propensity to drop-out seems to pertain to the
individual’s decision about education much more so than about particular
courses’. They also found that ‘students’ prior attainment at GCSE is a major
explanation of the rate of drop-out and more important than the effects which
may be attributable to the individual colleges’ (a finding which is also a challenge
to FEDA’s emphasis on the ability of colleges to make a difference).

4.2 Further education in Scotland

Scottish research on FE student retention has only recently begun to appear and
is, as yet, relatively small-scale. Some of it has the added interest of emanating
from college practitioners, which is perhaps indicative of a growing awareness of
the issue within the FE community.
Gallacher, Crossnan, Leahy, Merrill and Field (2000) and Crossnan and
Gallacher (2000) report a study of participants and non-participants in four FE
colleges in Scotland. They conducted a total of 10 focus group interviews with
60 respondents plus 89 life history interviews. Their study was not designed to
provide a systematic investigation of issues associated with drop-out or
withdrawal, but they were able to identify some factors which emerged from
their interviews. Alongside the intrinsic motivation (or otherwise) of the
students, these included external constraints such as finance, personal and
family problems (including, for some, unstable or violent family situations),
pregnancy and childcare problems, lack of suitable facilities for disabled
students, and lack of appropriate provision (i.e. appropriate courses in a
convenient location). They note the complexity of the factors which influence
participation, non-participation and withdrawal and that ‘institutional factors
emerge as very strong factors in understanding why students continue with their
studies’. In particular they cite relations with college staff and peer group
support. They conclude that there is a need for ‘further study of factors
associated with withdrawal and drop-out, which would provide useful
information about what strategies might be useful to support people as
learners’. Their work confirms the complexity of the issues surrounding drop-
out, and the view that any single instance of drop-out need not be seen as once-
and-for-all failure:
Some [students], however, could not sustain participation for financial,
childcare, travel or other personal issues. Learning was only one part of
their lives, and other structural or situational barriers made continued
participation at that time difficult if not impossible. This was not to say,
however, that they would not come back to learning at another time in

25
 their lives, as often returning to FE had been a positive learning
experience.
(Crossnan and Gallacher, 2000)

Norah Fitzcharles (2000, 2001a, 2001b) has reported the results of a literature
review and a survey of students at Cumbernauld college and has presented a
range of strategies being implemented in Cumbernauld College to enhance
retention rates. These include pre-entry guidance, clarifying entry criteria, on-
course monitoring for early signs of ‘at-risk’ students, continued on-course
guidance, support and reviews of student progress, assessment of core skills,
and pre-exit guidance. She noted the variety of ways in which a student can be
said to have ‘failed to complete’ a course and the complexity of the reasons
which can be identified for leaving. College management information systems
(FEMIS) are weak in dealing with other than traditional students in full-time
courses and cannot easily deal with transfer between courses, interrupted study
or delayed completion. FEMIS demands that one main reason be given for a
student’s withdrawal, and leaves it to a member of staff to assign that reason.
Those students who withdrew from their course were often disadvantaged even
before they started, had less commitment to their course, and had less contact
with college staff prior to enrolment than those who remained. Focus groups
within her college suggested that those who withdrew rated ‘help with getting a
job’ and the ‘inside appearance of the college’ as more important than the
‘stayers’. They also tended to judge the quality of teaching, the help they had
received with course work, the helpfulness of the teachers, and the help they
had received in obtaining qualifications, as poorer. There was no distinction
between ‘stayers’ and ‘leavers’ in their experience of financial hardship. She
concludes that there are steps which FE colleges can take to reduce withdrawal
rates. The literature suggests that colleges should:
• acknowledge student non-completion as an issue
• investigate local causes of non-completion
• develop and apply retention strategies across the whole or part of the college
• evaluate progress
• engage in continuous development.
McDougall (2001), of Cardonald College, Glasgow, supported the view that
social background, age of the students and level of the course impact on
retention rates, although improved guidance and other measures to promote
integration can alleviate the problem. He reported a statistical analysis of
archived data on the college’s management information system. The period
covered was from 1991 to 1999. This data was supplemented by student
interviews in session 1999-2000. The biggest losses were amongst younger
students on full-time non-advanced courses. He noted that in this college ‘40%
of non-advanced enrolments from students living in Glasgow were from
students domiciled in the 5% most deprived postcode sectors’. The largest loss
of enrolments was from non-advanced courses, and most of these occurred early
in the course (before 25% of the course had elapsed). He found that ‘the age

26
groups ‘under 18’, ‘18-21’ and ‘22-24’ on non-advanced FT courses recorded
very high rates of loss at 30.5%, 30.5% and 38.2% respectively’. There was no
statistically significant difference between male and female students. More
losses occurred in the enrolments from postcode sectors as the level of
deprivation associated with that postcode sector increased.
He also found that students had not always understood the nature of their
course choice; a greater proportion of those who left early had applied late;
more than half of those who left early had not received bursary payments; and
in-course guidance was not perceived as being effective by the students.
McDougall went on to report on several initiatives intended to increase
retention. These include an outdoor activities day for staff and students on all
non-advanced FT courses; a commercially provided confidence building /
positive thinking course for students; and the provision of ‘late starter’ packs
for students who enrol late. Early indications are that these initiatives are
proving beneficial.
Bernadette McGuire of Anniesland College reported the findings of a small-scale
research project undertaken as part of her MSc degree at Strathclyde University
(McGuire, 2000, 2001). This involved 131 GSVQ level three Social Care
students over a three year period from 1994 to 1997. It included evidence from
both leavers and those who completed the course. Evidence was gathered by
interrogating the college FEMIS and by postal questionnaires and telephone
interviews with the students.
The FEMIS information revealed the high cost to the college of the student
withdrawals and showed that the highest drop-out was amongst students in the
16-18 category. However, there were weaknesses with the FEMIS information.
There were doubts about its accuracy in some cases, and it only allowed for one
main reason for withdrawal to be ascribed to each case. The majority of
withdrawals were ascribed to ‘personal reasons’, and yet those who remained
on the course also reported a similar level of ‘personal’ problems, leading to the
conclusion that some other factor or factors must be at work to cause the
students to drop out early. There was some evidence that those who dropped
out had experienced problems relating to their course, and had not built
relationships with their peers and tutors. It also seemed that both completers
and leavers could have been better prepared for their course. These factors could
all be alleviated with better guidance before and during the course.
McGuire concludes that students who were more likely to drop out were also
more likely to:
• be in the age category 16-18
• have come directly from school and have core skill qualifications below
standard grade 3
• have problems with the course
• be less certain of their reasons for joining the course

27
 • have difficulty building relationships and fitting in to the FE teaching and
learning context
• have multi-factored problems which relate to the course, finance and
personal reasons which when added to other factors cause them to make the
decision to leave.
Conversely, those who completed the course were more likely to:
• be male over the age of 19
• be focused on goals for career and future prospects
• have formed positive relationships with students and tutors
• have few or no core skill qualifications (this finding appears anomalous and
is not explained)
• be able to cope with multi-factored problems related to the course, finance,
and personal reasons.
She concludes by recommending that retention could be improved by providing
clearer course guidance; seeking early indication of student satisfaction;
exchanging best practice in teaching and learning; developing the guidance
support team; and increasing collaboration with schools.
Cloonan and Canning’s (2000) work on the completion rate of SVQs has been
mentioned earlier, but it is worth reiterating the difficulty they encountered in
trying to compile ‘meaningful completion rates for SVQs’ because of, amongst
other reasons, the poor quality of the data available. They did, however,
associate failure to complete SVQs with low academic achievement levels on
entry, and it may also have been exacerbated by the element of compulsion
associated with some of the training courses. They found that successful
completion was more likely where employers were committed to SVQs.

4.3 Summary
• The work of Martinez identified problems with the data which is recorded
by college information systems on students: the demand for ‘one main
reason’ for withdrawal ignored the complexity of reasons for withdrawal; the
views of teaching staff (who frequently supply the data) often conflict with
those of the students; and similar problems may afflict both leavers and
completers. The poor quality of the data available is a recurrent theme in
much of this research.
• Early leavers tend to have low commitment to their studies, and to have a
poorer view of their college than those who remain.
• Martinez believes that colleges can do something to make a difference,
although what is required will vary from college to college and there is no one
panacea.

28
• Nevertheless, improved information systems, better pre-course guidance,
continuing advice and support, and good quality teaching can all contribute
to increasing student retention.
• Despite this, others have pointed out that students are individuals with
individual characteristics, needs, and desires and their individual ‘learning
careers’ may easily change direction. Wider socio-economic factors also have
a part to play. Therefore there will always be some factors which influence
student retention which are outside the control of colleges.
• The research in further education confirms the complexity of the reasons for
students withdrawing from courses. It also highlights the variety both of the
students, and of the various types of provision within the sector. Neither is
homogeneous, and neither is amenable to simple generalisation.
• It is clear that there are differences between institutions in their retention
rates. There is also sufficient evidence to be fairly confident that there are
differences between retention rates for different levels of course, different
subjects areas, and for students of different ages and from different socio-
economic and/or cultural backgrounds.
• In general there is a contrast between some of the work published by FEDA
(by Martinez and by Davies) which tends to stress the views of the students
and the difference that colleges can make, and the work of some others
(Bloomer and Hodkinson, Spours, and possibly McDougall in Scotland) who
would give greater weight to the views of staff or to other factors which may
militate against the ability of colleges to make a difference. Both staff and
students may rationalise the reasons they give for students withdrawing
from courses (and each may tend to place the blame on the other). Neither
set of perceptions may be entirely reliable. Individual student factors,
institutional factors and wider socio-economic and/or cultural factors interact
in complex ways to influence student retention. However it is not at all clear
what weight can be given to each of these sets of factors. The balance
between them is likely to vary from case to case.

29
5: Higher Education

5.1 Higher education in England

Issues of student retention in higher education have also been receiving
increasing attention in recent years, to the extent of featuring in the mainstream
press (Mooney, 2001). Benn’s work, which consisted largely of drawing an
instructive comparison between the UK and Italy, has already been mentioned
(Benn, 1995b), but it is worth repeating her conclusion that ‘failure of the
course to live up to expectations and inadequate pre-course information are two
unsurprising issues’. McGivney’s work (McGivney, 1996a, 1996b) has been
discussed in the earlier section on further education, but also encompassed
students in higher education.
One of the most active researchers to publish results on student retention in
higher education has been Mantz Yorke of Liverpool’s John Moore’s
University (Yorke, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c, 1999, 2000).
Yorke’s work derives initially from a HEFCE-funded project, Undergraduate
non-completion in England. Postal questionnaires to students who had dropped
out got 1083 responses, and a telephone survey of non-responders obtained
information from a further 533 former students, giving a total response rate of
31.9%.
He identified 36 possible ‘influences’ on the decision to withdraw which
resolved to eight possible factors under factor analysis (although these were
later reduced to six - see below - Yorke, 2000). These were:
• Unsatisfactory experience of the programme
• Unhappiness with the locality of the institution
• Inability to cope with the demands of the programme
• Wrong choice of field of study
• Dissatisfaction with institutional provision of facilities
• Problems associated with finance
• Health-related problems
• Problems associated with relationships.
(Yorke, 1998a)

These factors operate at supra-institutional, institutional and individual student

levels and a main ‘locus of control’ for each of the factors is identified at one or
other of these levels (see Yorke, 1998a, Table 4, p198).
The study also indicated that there were differences between subject areas in the
relative weight of the various influences leading to withdrawal, although the
exact nature of these differences could not be precisely identified.
Yorke (1999) adds a discussion of the complexities of defining ‘non-
completion’, especially in the context of lifelong learning, where ‘drop-outs’
may very well drop-in’ again in the future. He links the prominence of ‘non-

30
completion’ as an issue to the rise in ‘accountability’ and ‘quality assurance
systems’ and governments’ desires to achieve value for money and warns
against too simple a use of student withdrawal as a performance indicator.
Yorke (2000) adds to the 1994-95 survey reported in Yorke (1998a and 1999)
the results of a further postal survey in 1995-96, giving a total of 2151 full-time
and sandwich student non-completers. Again the results were subject to factor
analysis giving the following six factors which were found to be influential in the
students’ decisions to leave:
• Poor quality of the student experience
• Inability to cope with the demands of the programme
• Unhappiness with the social environment
• Wrong choice of programme
• Matters related to financial need
• Dissatisfaction with aspects of institutional provision.
(Yorke, 2000)

Some of these factors could be interpreted as being within the influence of the
institutions (eg, by providing better guidance and ‘institutional provision’),
some may reflect personal characteristics of the students (‘inability to cope’),
and others belong to a wider socio-economic field (‘financial need’),
corresponding to Yorke’s ‘institutional’, ‘individual’ and ‘supra-institutional’
levels in his 1998a paper.
Yorke (2000) found that approximately two-thirds of leavers left during or at
the end of their first year, and that ‘School-leavers aged 18-19 are more likely
than their older peers to cite the wrong choice of field of study as an influence
on their non-completion.’ This points to poor advice, possible peer or parental
pressure to enter HE, and possibly poor information from the HEIs. Younger
students were also more likely to cite ‘programme difficulty’ and ‘lack of
progress’, unsuitability of teaching (change in study style), and their inability to
strike a suitable balance between academic and social demands.
The paper (Yorke, 2000) also gives details of differences between academic
subject areas. Students of art, design and performing arts tend to be
disproportionately dissatisfied with the nature of their learning experience (it is
hypothesised that this may be because of the relative freedom for students to
‘do their own thing’ in these areas which leads some students to feel that it is
rather ‘directionless’). Engineering and technology students tend to show a
greater level of ‘inability to cope’ with the demands of these programmes
(which could be either due to the calibre of the students - these subjects have
difficulties in recruiting - or the methods of teaching used, or the demands of the
course or subject.) Yorke notes that ‘The quality of the student experience
appears relatively less likely to feature in the reasons students in social science,
humanities and education give for non-completion.’ He also notes that ‘hybrid’
academic programmes (such as those created from units which cross academic
boundaries) ‘all exhibit an above average student unhappiness with programme

31
 organisation, which might lead the organisers of combined ... curricula to wonder
whether the way in which students’ programmes are put together could be
improved.’
While Yorke’s work is the major recent contribution to research in student
retention in higher education, others have also been active in this area.
Thomas, Adams and Birchenough (1996 reported a study of students who
withdrew from courses at Cardiff Institute of Higher Education in 1992-93. No
numbers were given but approximately two-thirds of the students were on HE
courses and one-third on FE courses. Seventy-seven per cent of those who
withdrew were first year students, and the majority of them left in the first
term. Institutional records gave their reasons for leaving as ‘personal’ (37%);
‘unknown’ (30%); ‘academic’ (15%); ‘employment related’ (9%); ‘financial’
(6%); and ‘medical’ (5%). A survey of the student leavers altered this picture
with 60% of respondents citing ‘personal’ reasons; 52% citing ‘course related’
reasons; and 38% citing ‘financial’ reasons. At least part of the discrepancy is
due to the fact that in the survey students could cite multiple reasons, and
usually did. Thomas et al conclude that ‘the causes of student withdrawal are
many and varied, and that it is often a combination of factors which lead
students to withdraw from an institution’. They note that ‘personal problems’
may sometimes be overcome with the help of guidance and a student counselling
service, and that effective pre-entry advice, information and admission
procedures could reduce the incidence of dissatisfaction with students’ chosen
courses or careers. They found that financial problems could be particularly
acute for mature students.
They also note that data collected through post-hoc student surveys must be
treated with caution as it may reflect socially acceptable rationalisations of what
actually happened. Questions about the relationship between student
expectations and student withdrawal remained unanswered.
Mackie (1998) explored withdrawal behaviour amongst a class of 450 students
in an undergraduate modular programme in the Business School of a new
university in academic year 1996-97. She conducted in-depth interviews with
sixteen students, nine of whom left the course and seven of whom were
identified as having doubts about continuing. She concluded that it was not
possible to identify one precise reason why students left, but that a principal
deciding factor was the level of individual commitment to the course. She drew a
interesting contrast between the likely reasons for leaving early in the academic
year and reasons for leaving later:
Departure results from a failure in one of four arenas: social integration,
organizational integration, insuperable external problems or a failure in
individual commitment. Either levels of commitment are sufficiently
strong enough to overcome problems, or feedback is negative and
commitment decreases. Failure in the process will occur at any point in
time during the year. Departure early in the year is most likely to result
from a failure in social integration, student accommodation as the
primary source of friends and supportive relationships will play an
important role in this process. Departure later in the year is most likely

32
 to result from a failure in organizational integration and be concerned
with course content and style. University staff and systems of pastoral
care play an important role in easing the student through the process.
(Mackie, 1998).

While this suggests that different factors may come into play at different points
of a student’s learning career, others have identified different factors which
affect different groups of students, particularly ‘young’ versus ‘mature’
students. Ozga and Sukhnandan (1998) reported the results of a qualitative
study of undergraduate non-completion which led them to propose an
explanatory model of student withdrawal. This was a comparatively small-scale
study: completed questionnaires were received from 41 non-completers (out of
169 approached - 28% response rate), twenty of whom were also interviewed.
There were also interviews with a small number (8) of completers and a sample
(14) of staff. Despite this comparatively small scale, Ozga and Sukhnandan
were able to draw some interesting distinctions.
They suggested that the process of withdrawal for ‘conventional’ students
differs markedly from that for mature students. They conclude that ‘For
conventional students the factors which appear to be of central importance are
student preparedness, compatibility of choice, and time of exit. In contrast,
mature students are often forced into non-completion because of external
circumstances.’
They explain ‘lack of preparedness’, ‘compatibility of choice’ and ‘time of exit’
as follows:
Lack of preparedness was indicated by a dependence on inadequate sources
of information about HE generally and institutions in particular, no clear
orientation towards HE, and a reactive entry route rather than pro-active
choice of undergraduate life and study. (p321)

Compatibility of Choice refers to the degree of match between students

and their choice of institution and course, in terms of the extent to which
students’ choices fulfil their expectations and also the extent to which
students fulfil the institution’s expectations. (p322)

... the importance of time during the decision-making process was crucial,
as the longer a student took to recognise, accept, and act on, the fact that
they had made a poor choice the more likely they were to abandon HE
study and enter employment (p327)
(Ozga and Sukhnandan, 1998)

On the last point (‘time of exit’) they further explain that early withdrawers did
not forfeit their grant entitlement (this was 1996-97) while those who persisted
in their ‘poor choice’ often met with academic failure at the end of the year, or
later. While these factors affected ‘conventional’ (‘young’) students, the
situation for mature students differed:
These [ie mature] students became non-completers despite being well
prepared and despite exhibiting high levels of compatibility with their
institution and course. ... Mature students were forced into non-
completion because of external circumstances that required their presence
at home or in paid employment. (p327)
(Ozga and Sukhnandan, 1998)

33
 Elsewhere Liljander (1998), in a study of drop-out and course-switching in
Finnish higher education, found that risk of dropping out was inversely related
to social class, and that men were at slightly greater risk of dropping out than
women. However, class and gender do not seem to figure largely in UK studies
of retention and drop-out in higher education (although they do appear more
prominently in studies of participation in higher education, and in studies of
further education).
Barbara Rickinson has looked at the impact that counselling can have on
students who are at risk of dropping out (Rickinson and Rutherford, 1995,
1996; Rickinson, 1998). In the first of these studies (Rickinson and Rutherford,
1995) questionnaires were sent to 3534 first year undergraduate students in the
1993-94 intake at Birmingham University: 1180 replied (33%). Twenty seven
of these students withdrew within the first term. ‘Course problems’ were cited
by all students as the most common type of problem they encountered, with
this being cited by 18 (66.7%) of the withdrawers. They were also asked to
state in their own words their reasons for withdrawing. These reasons fell into
three main categories:
• Feelings of being unprepared academically
• Feelings of being unprepared emotionally
• Welfare problems, eg financial, family responsibilities.
Two-thirds (66.7%) of leavers stated that they had ‘chosen the wrong course’
and just over half (55.6%) were ‘disappointed in the course content’. Rickinson
and Rutherford concluded that a major influence affecting withdrawal/retention
was ‘the degree to which students felt prepared, both academically and
emotionally, for the transition to university’. They go on to discuss the
beneficial impact of counselling on a group of students who were ‘at risk’ of
withdrawing but who went on to complete their first year.
In Rickinson and Rutherford (1996) 206 students who withdrew in their second
or third term of university were sent questionnaires, of which 89 were returned
(43%). Course difficulties and living away from home were endorsed by the
highest percentage of students who withdrew as the main problems they had
encountered (79% and 30% respectively). However, the majority
(approximately three-quarters) of these students hoped to transfer to another
degree course elsewhere. In follow-up telephone interviews with 29 of the
students who had withdrawn, 12 (41%) felt that their prior educational
experience had not prepared them to cope with the level of their chosen degree
course.
Rickinson (1998) followed up the studies reported in Rickinson and Rutherford
(1995) and Rickinson and Rutherford (1996) by looking at the outcomes of the
higher education experience of students in those studies and the influence which
counselling of ‘at risk’ students may have had on those outcomes. While
Rickinson states that ‘no direct correlation can be made between counselling
intervention and successful degree completion’, it was nevertheless the case that

34
 all 43 students who had received counselling went on to complete their degrees
successfully.
Finally, it is worth remembering just how varied the problems of students can
be. Two studies have looked at very particular groups of students facing very
different kinds of problems. Thornton (1999) described the use of a club for 35
male primary teaching students to support them in their course and prevent
attrition. She believed that male students training as primary teachers faced
particular problems because of gender stereotyping and societal expectations.
She concluded that while the sample was small and generalisations could not be
made, such an approach could be helpful. Success among these students tended
to be associated with higher entry grades, being older and having a clear
commitment to teaching. Scott, Burns and Cooney (1996) reported a study of
118 mature female students with children in three eastern Australian
universities. They found a strong socio-economic class influence (those with
low socio-economic indicators tended to leave); a subject difference (those in
economics, business and law were more likely to leave); and reasons for leaving
tended to differ with age (younger students tended to leave because of family,
financial or child-care reasons, older students were more likely to leave because
of practical difficulties or course dissatisfaction).

5.2 Higher education in Scotland

There has, as yet, been very little work in Scotland which has concentrated on
student retention and drop-out from higher education. Raab’s (1998) work on
participation has been mentioned earlier, but has only a passing reference to the
need for more investigation of drop-out.
One study which has examined Scottish students is that by Johnston (1997)
which presented the results of a 1994-95 survey of institutional records and
academic staff in Napier University regarding students in their first year who
did not progress. Napier University established the Student Retention Project in
1995 after an analysis of their MIS data indicated that around a quarter of first
year students in 1993-94 either withdrew or failed. Johnston’s survey
concentrated on 775 students who were identified by institutional records as
having failed to progress from their first year in 1994-95. Some problems were
identified in institutional records - it was found that 11% of the records for
students who had been identified as failing to progress from session 1994-95
were incorrect and that these students were, in fact, still within the institution
on the second year of an allied course as a result of completing a common first
year. There was little information on students who had withdrawn within the
first six weeks of their first term, and no information was available for 15% of
those who had withdrawn. The records cited only one reason for withdrawal for
74% of the students, although some records cited up to four reasons. The most
common reasons were academic problems (37%), personal difficulties (29%),
financial difficulties (12%) and ill health (11%). Johnston concluded that:
• there was no established minimum set of data on the reasons why students
fail to progress

35
 • course leaders identified non-academic problems as a greater barrier to
progression than academic problems
• the range of non-academic problem was both broad and complex
• course leaders thought that students who had withdrawn were unmotivated
in their studies; had poor attendance; were not sufficiently pro-active in
seeking help; had low entrance qualifications; and had unrealistic
expectations of university life.
Peter Sutherland, of Stirling University, has written briefly about some of the
student induction and study skills courses available in American universities and
community colleges (Sutherland,1999). Most are based on the ideas of John
Gardiner, who argues that students in their first term need help in three areas:
academic skills; skills for living; and knowledge about the institution and higher
education. However, no research results are reported.

5.3 Summary
• Reasons for leaving higher education are usually complex and multiple.
• Institutional records may not be adequate or accurate records of student
withdrawal or the reasons for it.
• Peak times for students to withdraw from courses are early in the first term
and at the end of the first year of study.
• There is evidence that retention rates, and reasons for leaving, differ
according to the subject studied. This may be because of the demands of
different programmes but could also be influenced by the style of teaching
required in, or the demands made by, certain subject areas.
• A range of factors can influence student retention in higher education. Some
of these operate at the level of the individual student (motivation and ability,
and other personal characteristics and circumstances), others at the
institutional level (quality of advice, guidance and general quality of
provision), and yet others operate at supra-institutional level (finance and
other socio-economic factors).
• There is some evidence that these factors operate differently for students of
different ages, and that different factors influence ‘early’ leavers and ‘later’
leavers. Younger students are more likely to have made a poor choice of
course and to cite programme difficulty, quality of teaching, and their own
lack of progress as reasons for leaving, while mature students are more likely
to have to leave because of external circumstances. Early departure may be
more strongly influenced by social integration while later departure may be
more concerned with course style and content and the ability of the student
to cope with it.
• While the evidence is not conclusive, there is a strong suggestion that
counselling, or other specific forms of intervention, can help students who
are ‘at risk’ of withdrawing from their course to stay and complete it
successfully.

36
6: Conclusions
In the previous chapters different sectors of post-compulsory education have
been dealt with separately. In this final chapter some general themes will be
drawn together and we will return to the initial aims of the review to see what
answers can be found to the questions they contained.
Firstly, however, it is worth reiterating the differences between the sectors and
the populations of students which they serve. Adult education, further
education and higher education still do, despite the changes of recent years,
serve largely different groups who, to some extent, have different goals and
needs. The young person undertaking a Modern Apprenticeship, or similar
vocational education with an element of college-based training, is not the same as
the adult access student attempting to gain entry to higher education or the well-
qualified school leaver embarking on study for a degree. Age, motivation and
circumstances will all vary greatly and all have a bearing on the factors which are
likely to influence their chances of remaining in education long enough to
complete their studies.
Courses at different educational levels, in different sectors, and catering for
different groups of students are all likely to exhibit different patterns of
retention or drop-out. For example, the literature reported in this review seems
to support the contention that mature students are more likely to withdraw
from university-level higher education than younger students, while in lower-
level courses (including work-based training and non-advanced further
education) younger students are more likely to withdraw than older students.
There is some suggestion that this is particularly exacerbated among lower
socio-economic groups. There are differences in retention rates between subjects
and there are some suggestions that the reasons for students withdrawing from
course may also differ between subjects. There are also measurable differences
in retention rates between institutions, although there is disagreement about the
extent to which this is due to institutional factors.
It is also worth noting in passing that there is very little in the research to enable
any conclusions to be drawn on questions about differential retention rates
between genders and ethnic groups. A few studies make passing references to
these factors, and sometimes gender is foregrounded by a particular context (eg
social care courses or males on primary teacher training courses), but these are
factors which remain under-researched in the general context of student retention
in any of the sectors.
Nevertheless, there are some general themes which have been recurring
throughout this review. One of the most fundamental to any study of student
retention is the poor quality of the data available to those who wish to study it.
This seems to occur in all sectors. The data which is kept is often inaccurate or
misleading: inaccurate because those who have allegedly withdrawn may be
found not to have done so, but to have transferred within the institution, or to
another institution; and misleading because the system of recording ‘one main
reason’ for student withdrawal leads to over-simplification. Teaching staff who

37
 are asked to record reasons for student withdrawal may not have sufficient
information to judge those reasons. Both staff and students may rationalise (in
differing ways) the reasons for students withdrawing from courses.
It is clear that in all sectors almost all researchers who have looked at student
withdrawal have found that no one reason can account for the withdrawal of any
one student. It is far more likely that multiple causes are at work, and it is the
cumulative effect of these causes which eventually makes a student decide that
the costs of continuing outweigh the benefits of withdrawing. Since any one
reason may equally affect those who stay and those who leave it is a feature of
much of this research that it studies the ‘stayers’ as well as the ‘leavers’ in an
attempt to discover just what it is that makes the difference.
Colleges and universities can do something to help. Pre-course advice and
guidance can reduce the numbers of students who find themselves on the wrong
course. Induction programmes can help to integrate students into the social and
academic lives of their institutions, and in-course monitoring and counselling for
students who show signs of being ‘at-risk’ of dropping out can help some to
stay and ultimately be successful. Add ‘appropriate’ teaching (which will vary
according to the types of students and their needs) and good staff-student and
student-student relationships and chances of maintaining good student retention
figures are enhanced.
However, colleges and universities are unlikely ever to be able to eliminate
student drop-out. Students may choose to leave for very good reasons: their
goals may have changed; or they may have decided that they have learnt all that
they need. This may or may not be a permanent decision, but there will be cases
where it is the right one for the student at the time. There will also always be
circumstances which are outside the control of any institution. Amongst these
are financial concerns of the students. Problems caused by ill health or changes
to personal circumstances might be alleviated to some extent by educational
institutions, but are unlikely to be totally eliminated as reasons for students
withdrawing from courses.
This review was asked to address four main aims. These have not been dealt
with separately in the course of the review, but have guided all that has been
written.
Aim i) clarify what is known about levels, patterns, and reasons for failing to
complete courses or training in FE and HE in Scotland.
By international standards, the UK has had relatively good student retention
rates in higher education. OECD quoted a 19% drop-out figure for 1996.
HEFCE estimated that 15.7% of UK students who entered higher education in
1997 would not complete their degree. The HEFCE figure for Scotland was
16.1%. Drop-out rates in other sectors are more difficult to obtain but appear to
be higher. In general there seem to be higher drop-out rates for lower levels of
qualification.

38
Mature students are more likely to drop out of higher education, while younger
students seem more likely to drop out of lower level qualifications.
Motivation, or lack of it, is a commonly given factor influencing drop-out in the
research, and is often linked to appropriate advice, guidance and teaching.
Individual student, institutional and supra-institutional factors have all been
identified as influencing retention. Reasons for dropping out are usually complex
and multiple.
Aim ii) distinguish between levels of ‘wastage’ and other kinds of movement
within and out of FE and HE.
Most researchers agree that not all withdrawal from courses is necessarily
permanent. HEFCE estimates that around 6% of UK students will transfer
between institutions (compared to c16% who will withdraw completely). There
are no figures for the number of transfers in other sectors. The growth of
unitised or modularised courses and credit accumulation and transfer schemes
makes it more difficult to track individual students. Institutional data can be
inaccurate. In qualitative studies of students who have withdrawn from courses
many have expressed the hope to return to education in the future.
Aim iii) examine evidence for the efficiency and effectiveness of steps taken by
institutions to minimise ‘wastage’ in Scotland and elsewhere.
There are few figures to indicate the effectiveness of steps taken by colleges and
universities to minimise ‘wastage’ but individual case studies indicate that pre-
course guidance, induction programmes, monitoring of student progress and in-
course counselling all have some effect on increasing retention rates, as do
appropriate teaching styles and good staff-student and student-student
communications. Steps taken by institutions are unlikely to prevent drop-out
completely as individual student factors and supra-institutional factors remain
outside their control. Nor should it be assumed that student withdrawal always
represents a ‘failure’ of the system. It can be a reasonable response to
circumstances or even a positive choice by students.
Aim iv) examine evidence for any link between widening access and increased
levels of student dropout.
There are some grounds for seeing a link between wider access and increased
drop-out. International comparisons suggest that ‘open’ systems (such as Italy)
have much higher drop-out rates than relatively selective systems (such as the
UK has been). Within the UK the historically higher rate of drop-out in
Scotland has been linked to the historically higher proportion of the school
leaver population who entered higher education straight from school. Therefore
moves to ‘open’ post-compulsory education and encourage greater participation
may bring greater numbers in to the system, but at the risk that a greater
proportion than at present will drop out.
Mature students in higher education are more likely to drop out than younger
students. Widening access by encouraging greater numbers of mature adults to
enter higher education is therefore likely to increase overall drop-out rates.

39
 Lower levels of qualification also appear to have higher drop-out rates and these
lower qualifications may well be catering disproportionately for groups of
students who would not traditionally have undertaken any type of formal
education or training. Similarly there is some evidence for a link between lower
socio-economic groups and higher drop-out. These groups are traditionally
under-represented in further and higher education and encouraging greater
participation by them is also likely to impact upon retention rates.

40
Appendix 1

Sources and search strategies

The following sources were used to identify the literature reviewed in this
document. Searches were deliberately kept wider than required (e.g. searching
for documents from 1993 onwards rather than 1995 as required by the
specification). The starting point of the search was to find likely search terms in
the British Education Index thesaurus. However, the search terms used differed
between databases, as they tended to use different terminology. Since a number
of separate searches were conducted of each database (rather than a single search
combining all the search terms), there was a considerable amount of duplication
of the retrieved references between searches. In the ERIC searches some of the
exclusion terms varied as experience dictated the most efficient set to use. The
retrieved references were inspected for relevance and obtained if appropriate.
The references were read and bibliographical details, abstracts, comments and
keywords (as listed in the ‘Classified listing of references’) were entered into
Papyrus® bibliographical software. These entries formed the basis of this
review.

The British Education Index (BEI) (CD-ROM, edition of September 2000)

Search terms were identified using the BEI thesaurus.
Search 1: searched for ‘dropouts’ or ‘dropout research’ or ‘dropout
characteristics’ or ‘dropout rate’ or ‘dropout prevention’ or ‘dropout attitudes’,
restricting the search to 1993 onwards. 81 references were retrieved.
Search 2: searched for ‘student wastage’ or ‘academic persistence’ or ‘course
completion rate’, restricting the search to 1993 onwards. 75 references were
retrieved.
Search 3: searched for ‘participation rate’, restricting the search to 1993
onwards. 93 references were retrieved.
Search 4: searched for ‘access programmes’, restricting the search to 1993
onwards. 135 references were retrieved.

Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) (CD-ROM edition of Sept.

2000)

Search terms were identified through the in-built listing of keywords used in the
database.
Search 1: searched for ‘dropouts//adult’. restricting the search to 1993 onwards.
12 references were retrieved.
Search 2: searched for ‘dropout research’ , restricting the search to 1993
onwards, excluding ‘high schools’, ‘secondary education’, ‘doctoral degrees’,
‘junior high school’, ‘junior high school students’, ‘elementary secondary
education’, ‘elementary education’. 136 references were retrieved.

41
 Search 3: searched for ‘dropout rate’ restricting the search to 1993 onwards,
excluding ‘elementary education’, ‘elementary secondary education’, ‘children’,
‘high schools’, ‘high school students’, ‘secondary education’. 66 references were
retrieved.

The Australian Education Index (AEI) (CD-ROM, edition of September 2000,

bundled with BEI, above)

Search 1: searched for ‘dropouts’ or ‘dropout research’ or ‘dropout

characteristics’ or ‘dropout rate’ or ‘dropout prevention’ or ‘dropout attitudes’,
restricting the search to 1993 onwards. Excluding ‘school leavers’. 22 references
were retrieved.
Search 2: searched for ‘completion rate (courses)’ or ‘academic persistence’ or
‘student attrition’, excluding ‘school leavers’, restricting the search to 1993
onwards. 14 references were retrieved.

Other sources

Several other sources were searched. These included the Educational Research in
Scotland database (ERSDAT); Education-line; and the web sites of the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the
Scottish Further Education Unit (SFEU), the Centre for Research on Lifelong
Learning (CRLL), the Scottish Executive, the Department for Education and
Employment (DfEE) (now the Department for Education and Skills - DfES), the
National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER), the Learning and Skills
Agency (formerly the Further Education Development Agency - FEDA), the
Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), the Scottish Higher Education
Funding Council (SHEFC) and the Higher Education Funding Council for
England (HEFCE). In most cases searching involved a simple inspection of the
relevant parts of the web site (e.g., publications, research, statistics).
Further contributions came from participants at the SFEU Research Conference
held in January 2001, from individuals in Scottish further education colleges, and
from colleagues in SCRE, who suggested possible sources of information.

42
Appendix 2

Late-arriving information
The following articles arrived too late to be included in the main body of the
review, but are of sufficient interest to be noted here.
WHITEHEAD, J. and POSTLETHWAITE, K. (2000) ‘Recruitment, access and
retention. Some issues for Secondary Initial Teacher Education in the current
social context’, Research in Education, 64, 44-55.
Reports on a questionnaire and interview survey of sixty-five students in one
English institution in academic session 1996-97. The students were assisted in
their initial teacher education by the Priority Subject Recruitment Scheme
(PSRS) which provided additional funding for students in shortage subjects. The
authors note that ‘PSRS was insufficient to compensate for the financial
demands on the students in this enquiry’ and that ‘the link between finance,
access and retention during teacher training is a complex one’. There is no
specific information on drop-out.
SMITH, J.P. and NAYLOR, R.A. (2001) ‘Dropping out of University: a
statistical analysis of the probability of withdrawal for UK university
students’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 164, Part 2, 389-405.
Reports on a statistical analysis of data relating to an entire cohort of students
who entered UK universities in Autumn 1989 (i.e. in the ‘older’, ‘pre-1992’
universities), and develops a model to estimate the probability that an individual
will drop-out of study before completing a degree. Likelihood of completion
was found to be linked to prior academic preparedness and social integration to
the university. A link was also found between drop-out and the extent of
unemployment in the county of prior residence of the students. This was
especially so for poorer male students.

43
Bibliography
ARMSTRONG, A. (1996) ‘Access and stakeholder culture: the issue of student retention
and completion’, Journal of Access Studies, 11, 189–200.
AUDIT COMMISSION and OFSTED (1993) Unfinished Business: full-time educational
courses for 16-19 year olds. London: HMSO.
BARWUAH, A., GREEN, M. and LAWSON, L. (1997) Additional Support, Retention
and Guidance in Urban Colleges. (FEDA Report, Vol 2 No 4.) London: Further
Education Development Agency.
BENN, R. (1995a) ‘Strangers in a Strange Land: Participation and Withdrawals on
University Certificates’, Studies in the Education of Adults, 27 (2), 187–199.
BENN, R. (1995b) ‘Higher Education, Non-Standard Students and Withdrawals’, Journal
of Further and Higher Education, 19 (3), 3–12.
BLAXTER, L. (1999) ‘Joining, Staying or Leaving’, Adults Learning, 10 (6), 12–14.
BLOOMER, M. and HODKINSON, P. (1999) College Life: the voice of the learner.
(FEDA Report, Vol 2 No 10.) London: Further Education Development Agency.
BLOOMER, M. and HODKINSON, P. (2000) ‘Learning Careers: continuity and change
in young people’s dispositions to learning’, British Educational Research Journal, 6
(5), 583–597.
BRAWER, F.B. (1996) Retention-Attrition in the Nineties. (ERIC Digest.) Los Angeles:
ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges.
<http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed393510.html>
CLOONAN, M. and CANNING, R. (2000) ‘Completion Rates of Scottish Vocational
Qualification (SVQ) Courses: A Research Study’, Scottish Educational Review, 32 (1),
55–67.
CROSSNAN, B. and GALLACHER, J. (2000) ‘Education for All? Further education,
social inclusion and social justice’, Broadcast, 51 (Nov), 14–15.
CULLEN, M.-A. (1994) "Weighing It Up": A case study of discontinuing Access students.
(Occasional Papers, 2.) Edinburgh: The University of Edinburgh Centre for
Continuing Education.
DAVIES, P. (1999) Student retention in further education: a problem of quality or of
student finance? Paper presented at BERA Annual Conference (British Educational
Research Association), University of Sussex at Brighton, 2-5 September 1999.
<http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001257.htm>
DAVIES, P. (2001) Retention and Achievement - acting on the evidence. Paper
presented at Research - Making a Difference (SFEU Research Conference), Victoria
Quay, Edinburgh, 18 January 2001.
DES (1992) Statistical Bulletin: Leaving Rates amongst First Year Degree Students in
English Polytechnics and Colleges. London: HMSO.
FEDA (1998) Non-Completion of GNVQs: Improving Achievement. London: FEDA.
ISBN 1 85538 470 4.
FIELDING, A., BELFIELD, C.R. and THOMAS, H.R. (1998) ‘The Consequences of
Drop-outs on the Cost-effectiveness of 16-19 Colleges’, Oxford Review of Education,
24 (4), 487–511.
FITZCHARLES, N. (2000) Strategies for Improving Student Retention and Performance.
Internal document from Cumbernauld College. Personal communication.

44
FITZCHARLES, N. (2001a) A Report on Factors Influencing the Retention of Students
in Further Education. Paper presented at Research - Making a Difference (SFEU
Research Conference), Victoria Quay, Edinburgh, 18 January 2001.
FITZCHARLES, N. (2001b) ‘A Report on Factors Influencing the Retention of Students
in Further Education - Based on a Literature Review’, Policy and Practice: Studies of
the FE Sector, 3, 17–30. (SFEU publication)
FOREMAN-PECK, L. and THOMPSON, L. (1998) ‘Destined to Fail? A study of possible
factors leading to the non-completion of a General National Vocational Qualification
course; competition, guidance and student perceptions’, Westminster Studies in
Education, 21, 21–34.
FRANK, F. and HOUGHTON, G. (1997) ‘When Life Gets in the Way’, Adults Learning,
8 (9), 244–245.
GALLACHER, J., CROSSNAN, B., LEAHY, J., MERRILL, B. and FIELD, J. (2000)
Education For All? Further Education, Social Inclusion and Widening Access.
Glasgow: Centre for Research in Lifelong Learning. ISBN 1 901248 96 8.
<http://led.gcal.ac.uk/crll/docs/edforall.pdf>
GOODERHAM, P. (1994) ‘Evolving a framework for the study of dropout’,
International Journal of Lifelong Education, 13 (6), 441–455.
HARVEY, C. (1995) ‘Increasing Course Completion Rates’, Adults Learning, 6 (6),
178–179.
HAYES, A. (1996) ‘Assisting Adult Learners on Award-bearing Courses - Some Key Issues
and Strategies’, Adults Learning, 7 (8), 192–194.
HEFCE (2000) Performance Indicators in Higher Education. London: HEFCE; HEFCW;
DENI; SHEFC. <http://www.hefce.ac.uk/learning/perfind/2000/>
HODKINSON, P. and BLOOMER, M. (2000) Accountability, audit and exclusion in
Further and Higher Education. Paper presented at 30th Annual Conference
(SCUTREA), University of Nottingham, 3-5 July 2000.
<http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001450.htm>
IFF RESEARCH Ltd (2000) Modern Apprenticeships: Exploring the Reasons for Non-
completion in Five Sectors. (Research Brief, No 217.) Sheffield: Department for
Education and Employment. <http://www.dfee.gov.uk/research/re_brief/RB217.doc>
JOHNSTON, V. (1997) Why do first year students fail to progress to their second year?
An academic staff perspective. Paper presented at BERA Annual Conference (British
Educational Research Association), University of York, 11-14 September 1997.
<http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/000000453.htm>
JOHNSTONE, M. and CULLEN, M.-A. (1995) ‘Moving On or Moving Out? The
Retention of Access Students’, Scottish Journal of Adult and Continuing Education,
2 (1), 23–39.
KAMBOURI, M. and FRANCIS, H. (1994) Time to Leave: Progression and drop out in
Basic Skills programmes. London: The Adult Literacy and Basic Skills Unit.
KARKALAS, A. and MACKENZIE, A. (1996) ‘Where Different Paths Meet: The
Educational and Personal Legacy of Access’, Scottish Journal of Adult and
Continuing Education, 3 (1), 5–23.
KERKA, S. (1995) Adult Learner Retention Revisited. (ERIC Digest, 166.) Columbus OH:
ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult Career and Vocational Education.
<http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed389880.html>
LILJANDER, J.-P. (1998) ‘Gains and Losses on Academic Transfer Markets: dropping
out and course-switching in higher education’, British Journal of Sociology of
Education, 19 (4), 479–495.

45
MACDONALD, C., KARKALAS, A. and MACKENZIE, A. (1996) ‘Potholes in the
Access Road: drop-out from a university-based Access course’, Journal of Access
Studies, 12, 66–84.
MACKIE, S. (1998) Jumping The Hurdles. Paper presented at Higher Education Close
Up (Department of Educational Research, Lancaster University; Department of
Education Studies, University of Central Lancashire), 6-8 July 1998.
<http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/000000689.doc>
MARTINEZ, P. (1995) Student retention in further and adult education: the evidence.
(Mendip Paper.) Bristol: Further Education Development Agency.
MARTINEZ, P. (1996) Student retention: case studies of strategies that work. (FEDA
Paper, Vol 1 No 6.) London: Further Education Development Agency.
MARTINEZ, P. (1997) Student Persistence and Drop-out. Poster Session presented at
BERA Annual Conference (British Educational Research Association), University of
York, 11-14 September.
<http://www.feda.ac.uk/programmes/participation/000000498.html>
MARTINEZ, P. and MUNDAY, F. (1998) 9, 000 Voices: student persistence and drop-
out in further education. (FEDA Report, Vol 2 No 7.) London: Further Education
Development Agency.
MCDOUGALL, D. (2001) ‘Challenging commonly held beliefs about non-persistence’,
Policy and Practice: Studies of the FE Sector, 3, 47–58. (SFEU publication)
MCGIVNEY, V. (1996a) ‘Staying or Leaving the Course: Non-Completion and
Retention’, Adults Learning, 7 (6), 133–135.
MCGIVNEY, V. (1996b) Staying or Leaving the Course. Leicester: NIACE.
MCGUIRE, B. (2000) ‘Investigating student retention’, Broadcast, 49, 26–27.
MCGUIRE, B. (2001) Student Retention. Paper presented at Research - Making a
Difference (SFEU Research Conference), Victoria Quay, Edinburgh, 18 January 2001.
MOONEY, T. (2001) The Feet That Vote. Guardian Education, Tuesday February 6,
pp. 12–13.
OECD (1997) Thematic Review of the First Years of Tertiary Education. Country Note:
United Kingdom. <http://www.oecd.org/els/pdfs/EDSEPDOCA015.pdf
OECD (2000) Education at a Glance.
<http://www.oecd.org/els/education/EAG2000/index.htm>
OPINION RESEARCH CORPORATION INTERNATIONAL (1999) Youth Trainees:
Early Leavers Study. (Research Brief, No 81.) Sheffield: Department for Education
and Employment. <http://www.dfee.gov.uk/research/re_brief/RB81.doc>
OZGA, J. and SUKHNANDAN, L. (1998) ‘Undergraduate Non-Completion: Developing
an Explanatory Model’, Higher Education Quarterly, 52 (3), 316–333.
PAYNE, J. (2000) Student Success rates in Post-16 Qualifications: data from the
England and Wales youth cohort study. (Research Brief, RBX 11/00.) London:
Department for Education and Employment.
<http://www.dfee.gov.uk/research/re_brief/RBX11.doc>
PETERSON, S.L., KOVEL-JARBOE, P. and SCHWARTZ, S.A. (1997) ‘Quality
Improvement in Higher Education: implications for student retention’, Quality in
Higher Education, 3 (2), 131–141.
POWNEY, J. and HALL, S. (1998) Scottish Access Students in Higher Education. (SCRE
Research Report, 84.) Edinburgh: SCRE. ISBN 1 86003 038 6.
RAAB, G. (1998) Participation in higher education in Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish
Higher Education Funding Council.

46
RICKINSON, B. (1998) ‘The Relationship between Undergraduate Student Counselling
and Successful Degree Completion’, Studies in Higher Education, 23 (1), 95–102.
RICKINSON, B. and RUTHERFORD, D. (1995) ‘Increasing undergraduate student
retention rates’, British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 23 (2), 161–172.
RICKINSON, B. and RUTHERFORD, D. (1996) ‘Systematic monitoring of the
adjustment to university of undergraduates: a strategy for reducing withdrawal rates’,
British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 24 (2), 213–225.
ROSE, D. (1996) ‘Retaining Students: A matter of customer service?’, Education
Marketing, 8, 28–29.
SCOTT, C., BURNS, A. and COONEY, G. (1996) ‘Reasons for discontinuing study: the
case of mature age female students with children’, Higher Education, 31, 233–253.
SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2000a) Participation in Education by 16 to 21 Year Olds in
Scotland: 1988-89 to 1998-99. <http://www.scotland.gov.uk/stats/bulletins/00016-
00.asp>
SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2000b) New Deal in Scotland: a study of the full-time
education and training option in Scottish colleges and private training providers.
Glasgow: The Scottish Executive Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Department.
SCOTTISH OFFICE (1995) The National Certificate 1993-94. (Statistical Bulletin
education Series, Edn/F5/1995/18.) Edinburgh: Government Statistical Service.
SCOTTISH OFFICE (1998) The National Certificate 1996-97. (Statistical Bulletin
Education Series, Edn/F5/1998/3.) Edinburgh: The Government Statistical Service.
SCOTTISH OFFICE (1999a) Opportunities and Choices: A Consultation Paper on Post-
School Provision for 16-18 tear olds. Edinburgh: The Scottish Office.
SCOTTISH OFFICE (1999b) Opportunity for Everyone: The Strategic Framework for
Further Education. Edinburgh: The Scottish Office.
SED (1992) Measuring Up: performance indicators in further education. Edinburgh:
Scottish Education Department.
SPOURS, K. (1997) ‘Issues of Student Retention: an initial study of staff perceptions’,
Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 2 (2), 109–119.
SQA (2000) Annual Statistical Report. Dalkeith; Glasgow: The Scottish Qualifications
Authority.
SUTHERLAND, P. (1999) ‘A Shining Example’, Adults Learning, 10 (7), 25–27.
THOMAS, M., ADAMS, S. and BIRCHENOUGH, A. (1996) ‘Student Withdrawal from
Higher Education’, Educational Management and Administration, 24 (2), 207–221.
THORNTON, M. (1999) ‘Reducing Wastage among Men Student Teachers in Primary
Courses: a male club approach’, Journal of Education for Teaching, 25 (1), 41–53.
TINTO, V. (1975) ‘Dropout from Higher Education: A Theoretical Synthesis of Recent
Research’, Review of Educational Research, 45 (1), 89–125.
WALKER, L. (1999) ‘Longitudinal study of drop-out and continuing students who
attended the Pre-University Summer School at the University of Glasgow’,
International Journal of Lifelong Education, 18 (3), 217–233.
WILKINSON, C. (1996) ‘The Socio-Economic Determinants of Dropping-Out’,
Education Section Review, 20 (2), 23–28.
WOODLEY, A., THOMPSON, M. and COWAN, J. (1992) ‘Factors Affecting Non-
Completion Rates in Scottish Universities’ . In: Staying the Course. (Anon., ed.)
(Interchange, 13.) Edinburgh: Scottish Office Education Department, 1–5.

47
YORKE, M. (1998a) ‘Non-completion of undergraduate study: some implications for
policy in higher education’, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management,
20 (2), 189–201.
YORKE, M. (1998b) ‘Non-completion of full-time and sandwich students in English
higher education: costs to the public purse, and some implications’, Higher
Education, 36, 181–194.
YORKE, M. (1998c) Transforming Learning and Teaching in Subject Disciplines: what
can be learned from student non-completion? Paper presented at Annual
International Conference (The Higher Education and Development Society of
Australasia), Auckland, New Zealand, July 1998.
<http://www.auckland.ac.nz/cpd/HERDSA/HTML/LearnSup/YORKE1.HTM>
YORKE, M. (1999) Leaving Early: Undergraduate non-completion in higher education.
London: Falmer Press. ISBN 0 7507 0896 4.
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.

48
Classified Listing of References
ABE
Blaxter, Lorraine, 1999
Kambouri, Maria & Francis, Hazel, 1994
Access
Armstrong, Anthony, 1996
Benn, Roseanne, 1995
Cullen, Mairi-Ann, 1994
Johnstone, Margaret & Cullen, Mairi-Ann, 1995
Karkalas, Ann & MacKenzie, Alison, 1996
MacDonald, Carolyn, Karkalas, Ann & MacKenzie, Alison, 1996
Powney, Janet & Hall, Stuart, 1998
Walker, Lynn, 1999
Aim i) (‘clarify what is known about levels, patterns and reasons for failing to
complete courses or training in FE and HE in Scotland’)
Armstrong, Anthony, 1996
Barwuah, Adjei, Green, Muriel & Lawson, Liz, 1997
Benn, Roseanne, 1995
Blaxter, Lorraine, 1999
Bloomer, Martin & Hodkinson, Phil, 1999
Bloomer, Martin & Hodkinson, Phil, 2000
Cloonan, Martin & Canning, Roy, 2000
Crossnan, Beth & Gallacher, Jim, 2000
Cullen, Mairi-Ann, 1994
Davies, Peter, 1999
Davies, Peter, 2001
DES, 1992
FEDA, 1998
Fielding, A, Belfield, CR & Thomas, HR, 1998
Fitzcharles, Norah, 2001
Foreman-Peck, Lorraine & Thompson, Leigh, 1998
Frank, Fiona & Houghton, Gaye, 1997
Gallacher, Jim, Crossnan, Beth, Leahy, Jim, Merrill, Barbara & Field, John,
2000
Gooderham, Paul, 1994
Harvey, Caroline, 1995
HEFCE, 2000
Hodkinson, Phil & Bloomer, Martin, 2000
IFF Research Ltd, 2000
Johnston, Veronique, 1997
Johnstone, Margaret & Cullen, Mairi-Ann, 1995
Kerka, Sandra, 1995
Liljander, Juha-Pekka, 1998
MacDonald, Carolyn, Karkalas, Ann & MacKenzie, Alison, 1996
Mackie, Sarah, 1998

49
 Martinez, Paul & Munday, Felicity, 1998
Martinez, Paul, 1995
Martinez, Paul, 1997
McDougall, Duncan, 2001
McGivney, Veronica, 1996
McGuire, Bernadette, 2000
McGuire, Bernadette, 2001
Opinion Research Corporation International, 1999
Ozga, Jenny & Sukhnandan, Laura, 1998
Payne, Joan, 2000
Powney, Janet & Hall, Stuart, 1998
Raab, Gillian, 1998
Rickinson, Barbara & Rutherford, Desmond, 1995
Rickinson, Barbara & Rutherford, Desmond, 1996
Scott, Catherine, Burns, Ailsa & Cooney, George, 1996
Scottish Executive, 2000
Scottish Office, 1995
Scottish Office, 1998
Spours, Ken, 1997
Thomas, Marilyn, Adams, Stephanie & Birchenough, Allan, 1996
Walker, Lynn, 1999
Wilkinson, Clive, 1996
Yorke, Mantz, 1998
Yorke, Mantz, 2000
Aim ii) (‘distinguish between levels of ‘wastage’ and other kinds of movement
within and out of FE and HE’)
Crossnan, Beth & Gallacher, Jim, 2000
Cullen, Mairi-Ann, 1994
Fielding, A, Belfield, CR & Thomas, HR, 1998
Fitzcharles, Norah, 2001
Frank, Fiona & Houghton, Gaye, 1997
HEFCE, 2000
Hodkinson, Phil & Bloomer, Martin, 2000
IFF Research Ltd, 2000
Johnston, Veronique, 1997
Kambouri, Maria & Francis, Hazel, 1994
Karkalas, Ann & MacKenzie, Alison, 1996
Kerka, Sandra, 1995
Opinion Research Corporation International, 1999
Rickinson, Barbara & Rutherford, Desmond, 1996
Aim iii) (‘examine evidence for the efficiency and effectiveness of steps taken
by institutions to minimise ‘wastage’ in Scotland and elsewhere’)
Barwuah, Adjei, Green, Muriel & Lawson, Liz, 1997
Cullen, Mairi-Ann, 1994
Davies, Peter, 1999
Davies, Peter, 2001

50
 FEDA, 1998
Fitzcharles, Norah, 2000
Fitzcharles, Norah, 2001
Hayes, Amanda, 1996
Martinez, Paul & Munday, Felicity, 1998
Martinez, Paul, 1996
McDougall, Duncan, 2001
McGivney, Veronica, 1996
McGuire, Bernadette, 2000
McGuire, Bernadette, 2001
Rickinson, Barbara & Rutherford, Desmond, 1995
Rickinson, Barbara & Rutherford, Desmond, 1996
Rickinson, Barbara, 1998
Rose, Deborah, 1996
Sutherland, Peter, 1999
Thornton, Mary, 1999
Aim iv) (‘examine evidence for any link between widening access and
increased levels of student dropout’)
Benn, Roseanne, 1995
Cullen, Mairi-Ann, 1994
Foreman-Peck, Lorraine & Thompson, Leigh, 1998
Johnstone, Margaret & Cullen, Mairi-Ann, 1995
Kambouri, Maria & Francis, Hazel, 1994
Karkalas, Ann & MacKenzie, Alison, 1996
OECD, 2000
Ozga, Jenny & Sukhnandan, Laura, 1998
Spours, Ken, 1997
Walker, Lynn, 1999
Woodley, Alan, Thompson, Maimie & Cowan, John, 1992
Australia
Scott, Catherine, Burns, Ailsa & Cooney, George, 1996
Background
Audit Commission and OFSTED, 1993
Benn, Roseanne, 1995
Cloonan, Martin & Canning, Roy, 2000
DES, 1992
HEFCE, 2000
Kerka, Sandra, 1995
OECD, 1997
OECD, 2000
Raab, Gillian, 1998
Scottish Executive, 2000
Scottish Office, 1995
Scottish Office, 1998
Scottish Office, 1999

51
 SED, 1992
SQA, 2000
Tinto, Vincent, 1975
Woodley, Alan, Thompson, Maimie & Cowan, John, 1992
Yorke, Mantz, 1998
Course type/level
Payne, Joan, 2000
Spours, Ken, 1997
England
Armstrong, Anthony, 1996
Audit Commission and OFSTED, 1993
Barwuah, Adjei, Green, Muriel & Lawson, Liz, 1997
Benn, Roseanne, 1995
Bloomer, Martin & Hodkinson, Phil, 1999
Bloomer, Martin & Hodkinson, Phil, 2000
Davies, Peter, 1999
Davies, Peter, 2001
FEDA, 1998
Fielding, A, Belfield, CR & Thomas, HR, 1998
Foreman-Peck, Lorraine & Thompson, Leigh, 1998
Frank, Fiona & Houghton, Gaye, 1997
Harvey, Caroline, 1995
HEFCE, 2000
Hodkinson, Phil & Bloomer, Martin, 2000
IFF Research Ltd, 2000
Kambouri, Maria & Francis, Hazel, 1994
Mackie, Sarah, 1998
Martinez, Paul & Munday, Felicity, 1998
Martinez, Paul, 1995
Martinez, Paul, 1996
Martinez, Paul, 1997
McGivney, Veronica, 1996
Opinion Research Corporation International, 1999
Ozga, Jenny & Sukhnandan, Laura, 1998
Payne, Joan, 2000
Rickinson, Barbara & Rutherford, Desmond, 1995
Rickinson, Barbara & Rutherford, Desmond, 1996
Rickinson, Barbara, 1998
Rose, Deborah, 1996
Spours, Ken, 1997
Thomas, Marilyn, Adams, Stephanie & Birchenough, Allan, 1996
Thornton, Mary, 1999
Wilkinson, Clive, 1996
Yorke, Mantz, 1998
Yorke, Mantz, 1999
Yorke, Mantz, 2000

52
External factors
Blaxter, Lorraine, 1999
Bloomer, Martin & Hodkinson, Phil, 2000
FE
Armstrong, Anthony, 1996
Audit Commission and OFSTED, 1993
Barwuah, Adjei, Green, Muriel & Lawson, Liz, 1997
Bloomer, Martin & Hodkinson, Phil, 1999
Bloomer, Martin & Hodkinson, Phil, 2000
Cloonan, Martin & Canning, Roy, 2000
Crossnan, Beth & Gallacher, Jim, 2000
Davies, Peter, 1999
Davies, Peter, 2001
FEDA, 1998
Fielding, A, Belfield, CR & Thomas, HR, 1998
Fitzcharles, Norah, 2000
Fitzcharles, Norah, 2001
Foreman-Peck, Lorraine & Thompson, Leigh, 1998
Frank, Fiona & Houghton, Gaye, 1997
Gallacher, Jim, Crossnan, Beth, Leahy, Jim, Merrill, Barbara & Field, John,
2000
Harvey, Caroline, 1995
Hodkinson, Phil & Bloomer, Martin, 2000
IFF Research Ltd, 2000
Martinez, Paul & Munday, Felicity, 1998
Martinez, Paul, 1995
Martinez, Paul, 1996
Martinez, Paul, 1997
McDougall, Duncan, 2001
McGivney, Veronica, 1996
McGuire, Bernadette, 2000
McGuire, Bernadette, 2001
Opinion Research Corporation International, 1999
Payne, Joan, 2000
Rose, Deborah, 1996
Scottish Executive, 2000
Scottish Office, 1995
Scottish Office, 1998
Scottish Office, 1999
SED, 1992
Spours, Ken, 1997
FEDA
Barwuah, Adjei, Green, Muriel & Lawson, Liz, 1997
Bloomer, Martin & Hodkinson, Phil, 1999
Bloomer, Martin & Hodkinson, Phil, 2000
Davies, Peter, 1999

53
 Davies, Peter, 2001
FEDA, 1998
Hodkinson, Phil & Bloomer, Martin, 2000
Martinez, Paul & Munday, Felicity, 1998
Martinez, Paul, 1995
Martinez, Paul, 1996
Martinez, Paul, 1997
Finland
Liljander, Juha-Pekka, 1998
Govt
Audit Commission and OFSTED, 1993
DES, 1992
HEFCE, 2000
Scottish Executive, 2000
Scottish Office, 1995
Scottish Office, 1998
Scottish Office, 1999
SED, 1992
SQA, 2000
HE
Benn, Roseanne, 1995
Cullen, Mairi-Ann, 1994
Johnston, Veronique, 1997
Liljander, Juha-Pekka, 1998
Mackie, Sarah, 1998
McGivney, Veronica, 1996
Mooney, Tom, 2001
OECD, 1997
OECD, 2000
Ozga, Jenny & Sukhnandan, Laura, 1998
Powney, Janet & Hall, Stuart, 1998
Raab, Gillian, 1998
Rickinson, Barbara & Rutherford, Desmond, 1995
Rickinson, Barbara & Rutherford, Desmond, 1996
Rickinson, Barbara, 1998
Scott, Catherine, Burns, Ailsa & Cooney, George, 1996
SQA, 2000
Sutherland, Peter, 1999
Thomas, Marilyn, Adams, Stephanie & Birchenough, Allan, 1996
Thornton, Mary, 1999
Walker, Lynn, 1999
Woodley, Alan, Thompson, Maimie & Cowan, John, 1992
Yorke, Mantz, 1998
Yorke, Mantz, 1999
Yorke, Mantz, 2000

54
International
Benn, Roseanne, 1995
OECD, 1997
OECD, 2000
Mature students
Frank, Fiona & Houghton, Gaye, 1997
McGivney, Veronica, 1996
Ozga, Jenny & Sukhnandan, Laura, 1998
Powney, Janet & Hall, Stuart, 1998
Scott, Catherine, Burns, Ailsa & Cooney, George, 1996
Walker, Lynn, 1999
Northern Ireland
HEFCE, 2000
Norway
Gooderham, Paul, 1994
Opinion
Hayes, Amanda, 1996
Rose, Deborah, 1996
Sutherland, Peter, 1999
Review
Brawer, Florence B, 1996
Fitzcharles, Norah, 2001
Kerka, Sandra, 1995
Martinez, Paul, 1995
Tinto, Vincent, 1975
Scotland
Cloonan, Martin & Canning, Roy, 2000
Crossnan, Beth & Gallacher, Jim, 2000
Cullen, Mairi-Ann, 1994
Fitzcharles, Norah, 2000
Fitzcharles, Norah, 2001
Gallacher, Jim, Crossnan, Beth, Leahy, Jim, Merrill, Barbara & Field, John,
2000
HEFCE, 2000
Johnston, Veronique, 1997
Johnstone, Margaret & Cullen, Mairi-Ann, 1995
Karkalas, Ann & MacKenzie, Alison, 1996
MacDonald, Carolyn, Karkalas, Ann & MacKenzie, Alison, 1996
McDougall, Duncan, 2001
McGuire, Bernadette, 2000
McGuire, Bernadette, 2001
Powney, Janet & Hall, Stuart, 1998
Raab, Gillian, 1998
Scottish Executive, 2000
Scottish Office, 1995

55
 Scottish Office, 1998
Scottish Office, 1999
SED, 1992
SQA, 2000
Walker, Lynn, 1999
Woodley, Alan, Thompson, Maimie & Cowan, John, 1992
Subject differences
DES, 1992
HEFCE, 2000
McGivney, Veronica, 1996
Scott, Catherine, Burns, Ailsa & Cooney, George, 1996
Scottish Office, 1998
SQA, 2000
Yorke, Mantz, 1998
Yorke, Mantz, 2000
USA
Brawer, Florence B, 1996
Kerka, Sandra, 1995
Sutherland, Peter, 1999
Tinto, Vincent, 1975
Wales
HEFCE, 2000

56