A Friendly Evaluation Strategy to Reduce Drop-out Rates in Higher Education

Author(s):

Dina Soeiro(presenting / submitting)Antonio Dias Figueiredo Joaquim Armando Ferreira

Conference:

ECER 2014

Network:

22. Research in Higher Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

22 SES 02 A, Teaching, Learning and Assessment in Higher Education

Paper Session

Time:

2014-09-02

15:15-16:45

Room:

B020 Anfiteatro

Chair:

Roeland van der Rijst

Contribution

We are particularly concerned with the increasing dropout rates observable in higher education in Portugal and in other European countries. According to the report “Drop-out and Completion in Higher Education in Europe among students from under-represented groups”, compiled for the European Commission by the NESET (2013, p. 9), “students with dependents, women in particular, struggle to balance caring responsibilities with their studies. The same goes for part-time students, who are at greater risk as a result of caring responsibilities or working long hours in a job unrelated to their studies. Also at risk are students with disabilities who often drop-out due to problems of access and discrimination.”

This concern resonates with the motivations of a long-term participatory action-research project we are engaged in, where we have developed a pedagogical strategy called the “evaluation friend” to promote the participation of the students in their own learning and evaluation. Theoretically anchored on the concept of “empowerment evaluation” proposed by Fetterman, on Vygotsky’s social constructivist theory, Illich’s proposals on education, the socio-critical theories of Freire and Mezirow, and Knowles’ andragogical model, the “evaluation friend” strategy is being used in a blended learning environment supported by a learning management system based on Moodle. Organized in pairs or in groups, called the “evaluation friend teams”, the students follow the work of their colleagues and help each other in a shared process to raise the quality of learning and of their academic work.

The strategy is aimed at raising the participation of the students, engaging them in their own learning and evaluation, and giving them control over their own learning paths. Not surprisingly, some of the suggestions proposed in the above NESET report also emerge in our study: tracking students progress; fostering positive approaches to learning; improving formative assessment; improving students’ study skills; offering counseling and personal support; helping the students make friends and networks.

We have gradually improved this strategy throughout the project in successive participatory action-research cycles involving different courses, subjects, and students, in three academic years (2008-2011) at the Polytechnic College of Education where we teach. This study is part of a larger research project, involving 380 students of a population that ranges from young full-time students to mature students working full-time, some of them deaf, Erasmus students, and immigrant, and covers a diversity that illustrates the richness of new adult publics in European higher education institutions. We will focus here on the processes and results obtained in after-work courses because of the higher dropout risks of this population.

The structure will be presented and discussed according to the following five components:

Definition of the evaluation criteria and indicators registered in individual learning contracts and evaluation forms;
Students selection of their evaluation friends (in a first cycle); random organization of pairs or teams (in a second cycle);
Continuous monitoring of each others learning development and work, from the beginning to the end of the curricular unit, including qualitative feedback and suggestions for improvement;
Beyond formative continuous evaluation, specific planned moments for collaborative evaluation, with supervision of the teacher and qualitative data registered in the forms;
Reports, reflection and discussion about the processes and products/results of the evaluation, at three levels: self-evaluation, co-evaluation inside the pair/team, and with the class and the teacher, all integrated in a reflective portfolio.

Method

Following a multi-perspective approach justified for complex systems, as suggested by Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2007, p. 34), we have explored the case study using participatory action-research, based on several content analysis phases of the materials produced, online discussion forums, portfolios and interviews with students, and observations of the classes. To facilitate and support the analysis, we have resorted to NVivo. In agreement with our qualitative intention, we have used “purposeful sampling” (Creswell, 2008, p. 214). To strengthen validity, we have relied on the diversity of the participants and contexts, the duration of the study, and an attitude of critical reflection, as well as on the triangulation of multiple methods, multiple data, multiple sources, and multiple theories. With the same aim, we have carried out a review and verification of the information, and shared interpretations with the participants. In addition, we have resorted to a research critical friend (Messner and Rauch, 1995), who conducted an external audit (Creswell, 2008). In the first action research cycle, the students selected their “evaluation friends” from friends they already had in class. However, they soon realized that working with friends was not always effective, since they already knew the ways in which their friends learned and what they thought, and witnessed frequent inhibitions and attempts to avoid hurting feelings. As a result, they recognized the possible advantage of being partners of students they did not choose and, in the second cycle, they accepted the invitation to work with random colleagues. We will describe and illustrate the potential of this strategy to reduce drop-out rates in higher-education and we will offer evidence and reflections that resulted from the content analysis we have carried out in this context.

Expected Outcomes

When the students shared similar levels of engagement, mutual development happened. Unbalance was often visible, but open dialog helped, raising the less engaged students to their “zone of proximal development” (Vygotsky, 1978), even if with unequal gains. Student maturity emerged as important in this respect. In any case, the students recognized the advantages of the strategy when everyone collaborates. The flexible utilization of Moodle fostered engagement and facilitated constant interaction and shared learning. The academic work improved. The working students with family valued much this result because with an evaluation friend they would driven to better achievements. This made all the difference in making them feel the worthiness of their efforts, and thus overcome their concerns about economic difficulties, the anxiety of possible failure, and the sense of guilt for being in college at the expense of the family. The students’ perception about their own value improved and raised their confidence to express themselves before their colleagues and teacher, thanks to clearer criteria and evidences. They improved their evaluation competence and their critical reflection. They learned to produce, accept and benefit from constructive critiques to improve their academic work and strengthen collaboration and mutual support. We could also recognize a sense of belonging and social support. The students shared expectations, resources and strategies to overcome difficulties. As a student working mother put it: “I’m feel compelled to drop-out once a month, but we suffer it at different times, so we help each other getting on track.” The perception that the strategy helps prevent drop-out comes out clearly from the reflections and discussions of the students. So, we fully support NESET’s claims that “Many students do triumph against the odds” and that “More research on resilience and success is needed” (2013, p.10). This paper is our committed contribution towards that end.

References

Cannon, R., & Newble, D. (2000). A handbook for teachers in universities and colleges: a guide to improve teaching methods. Oxon: RoutledgeFalmer. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education. New York: Routledge. Creswell, J. (2008). Educational research. Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. New Jersey: Pearson International Edition. Davis, B. & Sumara, D. (2010). ‘If things were simple…’: complexity in education. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. http://brentdaviscalgary.appspot.com/articles.htm. Dewey, J. (1927). The Public and its Problems, New York: Henry Holt. Dewey, J. (1997). Experience and Education. New York: Touchstone. Dewey, J. (2007). Democracia e Educação. Lisboa: Didáctica Editora. Dominguez, P. (1995). Espacios Educativos. Sobre la Participación y Transformación Social. Barcelona: EUB. Fetterman, D. (2005). Empowerment Evaluation Principles in Practice: assessing levels of commitment. In D. Fetterman & A. Wandersman (Eds.), Empowerment Evaluation: Principles in Practice.(pp. 42-72). New York: Guilford. Freire, P. (1994). Cartas a Cristina. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra. Freire, P. (2006). Pedagogia do Oprimido. São Paulo: Paz e Terra. Illich, I. (1971). Deschooling society. New York: Harper & Row. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory Action Research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln, (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 567-605). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Knowles, M. (1986). Using Learning Contracts. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Light, G. & Cox, R. (2001). Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: the reflective professional. London: Sage. Messner, E., Rauch, F. (1995). Dilemmas of facilitating action research. Educational Action. NESET, (2013) Drop-out and Completion in Higher Education in Europe among students from under-represented groups. European Union. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2013-en OECD (2013). Education at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing. Richards, L. (2005). Handling qualitative data: a practical guide. London: Sage. Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books. Stake, R. (2000). Case Studies. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln, (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 435-454). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Strauss, A.; & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: Development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Author Information

Dina Soeiro (presenting / submitting)

Polytechnic Institute of Coimbra, University of Coimbra

College of Education, CISUC

Condeixa a Nova

Antonio Dias Figueiredo

CISUC, University of Coimbra

Joaquim Armando Ferreira

FPCE, University of Coimbra

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.