In recent years many universities have expanded tremendously due to massification and widening participation (Hovdhaugen, 2009). This has led to an increasingly diverse student cohort across disciplines. Although more students than ever enrol in HE, a large number of students terminate their studies prematurely. In particular the dropout rate in HE within the first year of study is about 30% across many countries and disciplines (Berka & Marek, 2021). This tendency is especially a problem within STEM subjects (Ulriksen et al., 2010). 

Why do students leave early? What issues discourage students from continuing to study beyond the personal? This poster presents an original and ongoing investigation of the possible connection between dropout and curriculum construction in Higher Education (HE). The study presents an organisational perspective on dropout. We are interested in how the structure and construction of education and curricula influence the student's integration and sense of belonging and ultimately influences the decision to stay or leave. This perspective contributes to new insights and knowledge of how the institutional framework influences student experience.  

The research question that guides this study is: 

• How can curriculum construction during the first and second semesters support the goal of reducing dropout rates in the first year of study? 

To investigate these questions, this study uses a broad range of retention- and first year theory as the theoretical framework. A large part of the research in this theoretical field shows that dropout results from individual opportunities, characteristics, and educational structure. In this field, there is a tendency to focus on the perspective of the individual and their experience rather than the institutional range of possibilities (Qvortrup & Lykkegaard, 2022; Tinto, 2012). 

Two overarching themes in the literature – structure and phases – have been chosen as frameworks for the analysis and the two will be further described in the following. 

The structure of dropout: 

Much of the literature on dropout and retention studies the interaction between the individual and the institution. In other words, the interplay, counterplay and encounter between students' individual characteristics, including their social and academic opportunities and limitations, and the institutional framework are examined (Briggs et al., 2012). Tinto’s 'Institutional Departure Model' (Tinto, 1993) is often used as a framework for the structure of possible influences on dropout. The model contains a series of possible factors that influence the student's social and academic integration. The influence of the institution, the norms of the academic system and the structural conditions of education are seen as significant factors in several studies (Braxton et al., 2000; Schaeper, 2020; Ulriksen et al., 2010), also, within the STEM subjects (Deeken et al., 2020; Ulriksen & Gregersen, 2022).   

The phases of dropout: 

It has been demonstrated that the decision to drop out is a process influenced by several factors over time (Braxton et al., 2000; Tinto, 1988; Ulriksen et al., 2010). Heublein (2014) describes the decision-making process as divided into three phases. The first phase is the background variables; the second phase is the student’s study experience, which leads to the third phase, where the actual decision to leave or not to leave is made (Heublein, 2014). Similar findings can be found in a study by Berka and Marek (2021), who argue that background variables have the most significant importance for dropout within the first year, after which other things, such as grades, become more relevant, and thereby they point to the fact that the dropout factors change over time (Berka & Marek, 2021).

In order to investigate how the construction of the first-year curriculum and dropouts potentially affect each other, two qualitative cases at a Danish University were selected. The two cases consisted of two undergraduate degree programmes; in Physics and in Mathematics, during the academic year 2021-2022. In the study, we draw on Creswell's description of the case study as an interest in an in-depth insight into a pre-defined field (Creswell, 2013). The two cases were chosen based on a number of parameters, including that both studies have a relatively high first-year dropout (Math: 25,3%; Physics: 31,2%), with a preponderance of dropouts in the second semester (Math: 21,8%; Physics: 18,3%). In addition, the two cases are similar being placed at the Faculty of Natural Sciences, admissions, and because both subjects (Math and Physics) are familiar from students’ previous schooling. These similarities are seen as an advantage for recognising patterns and seeing the minor differences that will emerge more clearly in a comparative context. The qualitative data is drawn from a close reading of study programmes, course descriptions and similar written curricular material. To provide further data, two individual semi-structured interviews were carried out with educational leaders from the two case studies. The interviews focus on how the programs supported the social and professional transition to university and which support schemes were available to the students. In addition, the interviews illuminate each study's academic structure, including the subjects' abstraction, the intention behind the placement of the subjects, thoughts about dropping out, etc. The two interviews are recorded and subsequently transcribed for coding. An analysis of the data was carried out through a separate thematic coding, followed by a comparison and discussion of the results by both authors independently. This initial coding suggested that parts of the data should be re-coded, using a more theory-driven strategy, where two theoretical frameworks were used: a theoretical framework for transferable skills (Mello & Wattret, 2021) and the theoretical framework of the SOLO-taxonomy (‘Structure of the observed learning outcome’), as formulated by Biggs & Tang (2011). The same method was used in analysing the interviews.

The first analysis of the curriculum data from the two undergraduate degree programmes indicated that the students are expected to follow a specific learning curve. By coding the curriculum in the framework of the SOLO taxonomy (Biggs & Tang, 2011), the data suggested a movement from surface learning to deep learning throughout the first and second semesters and across the different courses. A preliminary finding was that a movement from novice to expert, or from surface to depth, was more abrupt in Mathematics than in Physics. While the Physics students were often articulated as novices, the Math students were less often articulated as novices. Using such terms may or may not affect how students experience a sense of progress during their first year of study and their academic and social integration, and we suggest that this might be further researched. In the preliminary analysis (from late 2022), three themes emerged concerning the two research questions. The three themes are: - Connection between courses - Increased requirement for the level of abstraction - The courses' (lack of) orientation to the outside world The three themes function as a framework for the analysis of the interviews. This ongoing research project has the potential to illuminate points of attention in both further research and has practical implications for curriculum development. In supplementary research, the findings can be used to inform a broader picture of the institutional opportunity space.

Berka, P., & Marek, L. (2021). Bachelor’s degree student dropouts: Who tend to stay and who tend to leave? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 70, 100999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.100999 Biggs, J. B., & Tang, C. S. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does (4th edition). McGraw-Hill, Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press. Braxton, J., Bray, N., & Berger, J. (2000). Faculty Teaching Skills and Their Influence on the College Student Departure Process. Journal of College Student Development, 41(2), 215–227. Briggs, A., Clark, J., & Hall, I. (2012). Building bridges: Understanding student transition to university. Quality in Higher Education, 18, 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2011.614468 Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed). SAGE Publications. Deeken, C., Neumann, I., & Heinze, A. (2020). Mathematical Prerequisites for STEM Programs: What do University Instructors Expect from New STEM Undergraduates? International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 6(1), 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-019-00098-1 Heublein, U. (2014). Student Drop-out from German Higher Education Institutions. European Journal of Education, 49(4), 497–513. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12097 Hovdhaugen, E. (2009). Transfer and dropout: Different forms of student departure in Norway. Studies in Higher Education, 34(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802457009 Mello, L. V., & Wattret, G. (2021). Developing transferable skills through embedding reflection in the science curriculum. Biophysical reviews, 13(6), 897–903. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12551-021-00852-3 Qvortrup, A., & Lykkegaard, E. (2022). Study environment factors associated with retention in higher education. Higher Education Pedagogies, 7(1), 37–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/23752696.2022.2072361 Schaeper, H. (2020). The first year in higher education: The role of individual factors and the learning environment for academic integration. Higher Education, 79(1), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00398-0 Tinto, V. (1988). Stages of Student Departure: Reflections on the Longitudinal Character of Student Leaving. The Journal of Higher Education, 59(4), 438–455. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226922461.001.0001 Tinto, V. (2012). Enhancing student success: Taking the classroom success seriously. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 3(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.5204/intjfyhe.v3i1.119 Ulriksen, L., & Gregersen, A. (2022). Expectations and Challenges of First-Year Biotechnology Students: The Importance of Social Relations. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 18(2), 199–213. https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.8679 Ulriksen, L., Madsen, L. M., & Holmegaard, H. T. (2010). What do we know about explanations for drop out/opt out among young people from STM higher education programmes? Studies in Science Education, 46(2), 209–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2010.504549