Enhancing First Year Undergraduate Student Engagement via the School of Biological Sciences Tutorials Module

Abstract

The transition to undergraduate study is often a challenging step for students as they progress from relatively smaller school/college classes with a high degree of contact time with familiar staff to a university department where one-on-one interaction with staff members is significantly reduced. The first year tutorials module offers one of the few opportunities for students to interact with a member of academic staff in a small group setting. However, many students struggle to cope with this change in circumstances and do not adapt to university life. They may feel isolated, and rather than seek help, fail to attend tutorial sessions; particularly when attendance is not strictly monitored or enforced. Consequently, students may become disengaged and demotivated, resulting in failure of modules and poor student retention. The aim of this project was to enhance the experience of first year students, by promoting student engagement with staff and peers at the start of their undergraduate degree to increase student retention, pass rates and engagement with their degree programme. This was achieved by adding several new elements to the existing tutorial module, including introductory lectures, icebreaker and group activities, skills development sessions, student presentations, research seminars and preparation of a portfolio for skills development and reflection. In addition, attendance monitoring was used as a trigger for the identification of students that required support. These interventions resulted in an increased module pass rate and mean module mark, and fewer students scoring zero. Student feedback also suggested an overall enhancement in student engagement.

Keywords:

• tutorials
• student engagement
• retention
• attendance

Introduction

The student transition to the first year of undergraduate study often involves a significant change in circumstances, where the familiarity of school, college and the family environment is replaced by new surroundings and a necessity for the student to take personal responsibility for both the academic and social aspects of their university life (Lowe & Cook 2003). While the majority of students successfully manage this transition, as many as 20–30% of students experience personal or academic issues that impart negative effects on their undergraduate studies (Lowe & Cook 2003). These are often dealt with by avoiding the problem (Rickinson & Rutherford 1995), resulting in disengagement, academic under-achievement and the potential for student drop-out (Lowe & Cook 2003). Poor academic performance and attendance are therefore useful indicators of the need for support, as students who are not engaged with their studies are less likely to meet expected academic standards and attend classes (Bevitt et al. 2010). Furthermore, these indicators can act as ‘triggers’ for intervention and support (Scott & Graal 2007, Bevitt et al. 2010).

Due to UK government efforts to widen participation and increase the number of students in higher education, Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) will continue to recruit student cohorts from a greater diversity of social and cultural backgrounds (HEFCW 2009). Consequently, it is becoming increasingly important that relevant systems are in place to identify and support those students who experience difficulties (Bevitt et al. 2010). From an academic perspective, it is well established that the approach a student takes towards learning will ultimately dictate their level of engagement with the task and the academic outcomes of the task (Fry et al. 2009). There are two principal approaches to learning; the ‘surface approach’ describes the desire to complete tasks in the simplest manner, by memorising information with little attempt to understand the material and superficial application of cognitive skills (Biggs 1987). However, students should strive towards the ‘deep’ approach to learning, i.e. to understand and seek meaning in learning, by attempting to relate concepts and ideas and identify differences via the application of high-level cognitive skills (Biggs 1987, Ramsden 1988). Ultimately, curricula need to be designed so that a diverse range of learning experiences are available to students, to cater for a diverse range of needs and encourage a ‘deeper approach’ to learning (Gosling 2009).

Although there are several approaches to understanding and promoting undergraduate student engagement, these can be broadly categorised into behavioural, psychological, socio-cultural and holistic perspectives (Kahu 2013). From the behavioural perspective, student engagement relates to both student behaviours and institutional practices that lead to student satisfaction and achievement (Kahu 2013). The psychological perspective in many ways parallels the behavioural aspect, but considers that engagement coincides with attachment; characterised by a sense of belonging (Libbey 2004) and emotional responses, such as enjoyment and interest in the task (Furlong et al. 2003). The participation-identification model of Finn (1993), proposes that active participation both within the classroom and the wider department results in academic success, which in turn promotes a sense of belonging, and drives a perpetuating cycle that enhances motivation and engagement. Furthermore, social and cultural differences influence the student experience, particularly during the transition to undergraduate study (Lowe & Cook 2003, Kahu 2013). Institutional habits may also potentiate social and cultural biases in favour of dominant social groups and a disproportionate focus on performance, ultimately resulting in ‘alienation’, the opposite of engagement (Mann 2001). Finally, the holistic perspective on student engagement considers the importance of ‘becoming’; where university is not just about gaining a qualification (Bryson & Hand 2008). This perspective parallels with the emotional and belonging aspects of the psychological perspective, but considers the importance of respect, enthusiasm, professionalism and support from individual staff (Bryson & Hand 2007) and the wider institution (Hand & Bryson 2008). Jones (2009) proposed the MUSIC model of academic motivation, where the incorporation of one or several components of the model (empowerment, usefulness, success, interest and caring) into the curriculum design can enhance student motivation and engagement.

First year undergraduate tutorial modules often represent one of the few opportunities for students to interact with a member of academic staff in a small group setting, and are therefore a key mechanism for the motivation and engagement of students, in addition to assisting with the transition to university life and establishment of a ‘deep’ approach to learning. Here we describe a series of interventions in the first year tutorial module at the School of Biological Sciences (SBS) Bangor University. The interventions were designed to enhance student motivation and engagement, and assist with the personal and academic changes experienced during the transition to university life.

Rationale for the project

The SBS at Bangor University offers 11 BSc (Hons) and MBiol degrees in disciplines relating to biology, biomedical science and zoology. This project focuses on the first year tutorial module (BSX(C)-1018), studied by all undergraduate students in SBS, and describes interventions that took place in the 2011–2012 and 2012–2013 academic years, which comprised 164 and 181 students, respectively. This module aims to develop skills in oral and written communication, time management and organisation, personal interaction and communication of scientific ideas and arguments. The existing module was based around three tutorial sessions per semester, which are delivered by academic staff tutors. Tutors act as personal academic and pastoral tutor for a small group of tutees (5–7 students) for the duration of their undergraduate studies. In semester one, students develop scientific writing skills by producing scientific essays on a topic relevant to their degree programme. Semester two deals with summarising and communicating scientific information via oral presentations and abstract writing. Each personal tutor determines the specific content and delivery of their own tutorial sessions and consequently, the student learning experience will vary between groups in line with the methods of their tutor.

Several issues were identified with the original format of the module:

1. Poor student attendance and lack of a mechanism for addressing poor attendance.

2. Difficulties in communicating with students; relies almost entirely on E-mail.

3. Too many students fail the module; average failure rate of 9.7% for academic years 2009–2010 to 2011–2012.

4. Inconsistent student experience; content decided by personal tutor.

5. Lack of student/staff contact time; only three hours per semester.

6. Lack of opportunities to get to know students and staff beyond the tutorial group.

All of these factors may be a cause or consequence of student disengagement and we hypothesised that teaching interventions designed to address these issues in the module would lead to increased student engagement.

Aims of the project

The overarching aim of this project was to enhance engagement and motivation of first year students by interventions in the first year tutorial module.

This was achieved by addressing the following objectives:

1. To ease the transition to university life.

2. To increase contact time with staff and students.

3. To monitor and improve attendance.

4. To assist students who are experiencing difficulties.

5. To overcome difficulties in communicating with students.

6. To provide a more consistent student experience.

7. To improve the pass rate of the module.

8. To improve departmental student retention rates.

Design of module interventions

Changes were made to the format of the first year tutorials in the 2012–2013 academic year (highlighted in Table 1). Prior to this, the module consisted solely of six one-hour tutorials with a personal tutor. These tutorials were retained in the new module, but contact time was significantly increased by the inclusion of a diverse range of academic and social activities, which are described later. These included full-class lectures, small group tasks, the introduction of a reflective portfolio and individual student presentations. In addition we introduced a system of attendance monitoring and follow-up.

Table 1 Format of the first year tutorials module before and after the intervention (2012–2013 academic year).

2011–2012 Academic Year	% Module Mark	2012–2013 Academic Year	% Module Mark
Semester 1
Tutorial sessions: three one-hour tutorials with personal tutor. Essay writing. Two essays: one formative and one summative assessment.	50%	Tutorial sessions: three one-hour tutorials with personal tutor. Essay writing. Two essays: one formative and one summative assessment.	30%
		Tutorial attendance and participation: 2% of module mark for attending and participating in each tutorial (total of 6%) and 4% for completion of formative assignment.	10%
		Completion of portfolio and activities: for attendance at popular science talks and completion of additional exercises such as minute papers and oral presentation at degree programme conference.	10%
Semester 2
Tutorial sessions: three one-hour tutorials with personal tutor. Abstracts and presentations. Two abstracts/presentations: one formative and one summative assessment.	50%	Tutorial sessions: three one-hour tutorials with personal tutor. Abstracts and presentations. Two abstracts/presentations: one formative and one summative assessment.	30%
		Tutorial attendance and participation: 2% of module mark for attending and participating in each tutorial (total of 6%) and 4% for completion of formative assignment.	10%
		Completion of portfolio and activities: for attendance at popular science talks and completion of additional exercises.	10%

Note: Changes to the module format and weighting of the module assessments are shown in italic typeface.

The interventions described increased the student contact time from six hours in the 2011–2012 academic year to a maximum of 37 hours for the 2012–2013 academic year (depending upon attendance at optional sessions). Overall, we aimed to provide a much greater opportunity for students to interact with other students and staff on a regular basis throughout the semester. Tinto (1988) describes the process of the student transition to university life in three stages: separation, transition and incorporation. This project directly addresses to the latter two phases, where interventions were designed to assist the transition and incorporation of students into the university by providing help and support, fostering student–staff and student–student interaction and offering support where needed. By becoming engaged with the structure and community of the department, it is hoped that students develop a sense of belonging within the institution (Scott et al. 2013), maximising their opportunity for success. Table 2 summarises how the current intervention addressed problems with the previous module format.

Table 2 Summary of interventions in the first year tutorials module to address problems with SBS student engagement.

Issue	Intervention for the 2012–2013 Academic Year
1. Poor attendance	Module marks (total of 20%) awarded for attendance and participation.
	Attendance monitoring. Poor attendees invited to a meeting or sent an E-mail depending upon frequency of absence.
	Improve engagement through module changes.
2. Difficulties in communicating with students	Weekly contact with entire group via Popular Science Talk programme.
	Identify absentees via attendance monitoring and follow up with E-mails and letters.
3. Too many students fail the module	Attendance monitoring provides early warning of disengagement, which triggers support.
	Greater variation in assessment type and weighting.
4. Inconsistent student experience	A large proportion of the module delivered consistently across the entire cohort.
	Additional activities and topics cater for a diverse range of skills, interests and needs.
5. Lack of contact time	Contact hours increased from 6 to 37 hours.
6. Lack of opportunity to get to know other students and staff	Icebreaker and group activities, popular science talks, presentation at degree-programme specific conference and weekly refreshments/social events promote interaction with other students and staff.
7. Students become disengaged	New module format targets individual student interests and highlights new areas of interest.
	Reflective portfolio encourages students to identify and pursue personal interests and identify areas for further skills/knowledge development.
	Poor attendance addressed

Full-class lectures

Introductory lecture

In the previous academic year (2011–2012), it was clear that many factors such as an initial lack of understanding of how the module works, confusion with the timetable, and failure to check E-mails from personal tutors, led to some students missing the first tutorial session and then being too embarrassed or concerned about the repercussions of their absence to attend subsequent tutorials. This resulted in many students missing an entire semester's tutorials and ultimately failing the module. To address this problem, in the first week of Semester 1, all students were given a short introductory lecture (25 minutes), which was used to introduce the module team, explain the format of the module, and describe our expectations of students. We also highlighted the importance of attendance and engaging with the university E-mail system as the key mechanism for communication. Each student was provided with an individual portfolio for completion throughout the year, and then we prepared students for the icebreaker activities, which took place immediately after the lecture (see later).

‘Popular science talks’

Throughout Semesters 1 and 2, we held weekly two-hour sessions involving a short (45-minute) popular science talk from a member of academic staff. The remaining session time (approximately 75 minutes) was utilised on an ad hoc basis to provide additional full-class guidance on skills development (e.g. how to give a presentation) or group activities which were offered on an optional basis, with the aim of catering for a diverse range of student needs and interests. Refreshments (tea, coffee, soft drinks, biscuits and cakes) were provided in the common room after every session to enable students and staff to interact in a social setting.

The aim of the popular science talks was to introduce the students to the broad and exciting variety of research conducted within the school, introduce new ideas and disciplines, and to provide students with an opportunity to get to know the academic staff and their research topics. At the end of each talk, students completed a ‘minute paper’ (a modified version of the ‘One Minute Paper’; Stead 2005), where they answered five short questions regarding what they had learned from the seminar:

1. What was the most interesting point in today's lecture?

2. What was the most difficult concept covered?

3. What did you find interesting?

4. What did you find least interesting?

5. What would you like to learn more about?

The minute papers were collected at the end of each session and used to monitor student attendance at the talks and returned the following week for incorporation into the portfolio. In addition, the Minute Papers also provided rapid and useful feedback to the academic staff, who could quickly assess what topics the students particularly enjoyed and would like to know more about, and those that were less interesting and difficult to follow. For some staff, this feedback subsequently informed the content of other modules and lectures within the department.

Group activities

Icebreaker activities

These two activities enabled the students to develop interpersonal and teamwork skills, in addition to time management and organisation.

Following the introductory lecture, the class was divided into two groups (with 90 students each) for the two parallel icebreaker sessions. At half time, students swapped between activities. Within each activity, students were randomly assigned to groups of approximately six individuals.

Group activity 1: The great egg drop

The great egg drop challenge is well established as a popular group-based activity used in team building and scientific exercises, with several available examples on the internet. Students were provided with a range of materials (e.g. paper, sticky tape, drinks straws, a plastic cup, a balloon) and a raw egg. Their task was to design and build a structure that would package the raw egg and enable it to survive being dropped from the balcony of the SBS museum. The students had 30 minutes to complete the task and each group's entry would be tested in a ‘Great egg drop’ competition in the museum at the end of the session. An exercise sheet was provided which explained the task in terms of the scientific approach, a key concept in the BioSciences. Students were encouraged to consider the four stages of the scientific method in relation to the egg drop challenge: (1) identify the problem: an unprotected egg dropped from the museum balcony will break, (2) formulate a hypothesis: packaging the egg in a protective structure will enable it to survive the drop, (3) design an experiment to test the hypothesis: design a structure to protect the egg, (4) perform the experiment and evaluate the hypothesis: did the egg survive the drop? At the end of the icebreaker session all 181 students convened in the museum for the ‘Great egg drop’ event. Each group design was tested and prizes were awarded to groups whose egg successfully survived the impact.

Group activity 2: An interesting fact

Each student was asked to think of an interesting fact about themselves, which could be serious or humorous. They were then provided with a sticky label and asked to write (1) their name and (2) ONE word to summarise their interesting fact. Students wore the labels during a lunch reception in the SBS natural history museum. The task for each team was to split up, speak to other students over lunch and collate as many ‘interesting facts’ as possible. The team then convened at the end of the session and after discussion, chose the one fact they thought the most interesting to enter into a competition. Staff members drew up a shortlist, and students decided which was the most interesting fact by a show of hands. A prize was awarded to the person with the most interesting fact, and the group that picked it.

Optional group activities

After the weekly popular science talks, a range of optional activities and skills development sessions were organised in response to student demand. Examples included group activities on the reliability of different sources of scientific information (delivered as a ‘top trumps’-style exercise), tours of the SBS museum and aquaria, and demonstrations of camouflage in cephalopods.

Individual activities

Portfolios

Each student was provided with a portfolio. This was an A4 ring binder containing the module information (format, learning outcomes, assessment methods, etc.) and timetable, in addition to the categorical marking criteria, the Bangor University College of Natural Sciences referencing guide, and copies of the feedback sheets used to mark and provide feedback on their tutorial assignments. The portfolio also contained worksheets for the students to complete, encouraging them to reflect upon their interests, why they decided to study this degree and at this university, and what they would like to get out of the experience. In the introductory lecture, students were encouraged to use the portfolio to collate tutorial notes, worksheets, assignments and feedback, in addition to ‘minute papers’ from the popular science talks (see later). The aim of the portfolio was to encourage the students to organise their tutorial work, revisit feedback from tutorial work for future assignments and encourage reflective practice towards a deeper approach to learning. Twenty percent of the module mark was awarded for completion of the portfolio (Table 1).

Individual student presentations at a degree programme-specific mini conference

The semester one activities culminated in a degree programme-specific mini-conference (week 10 of Semester 1). Each student gave a five-minute oral presentation to the other members of their degree programme. Using no more than four PowerPoint slides, the presentation summarised a published primary research article (background, hypothesis, methods and results) on a topic that was of personal interest to the student. Presentations were not summatively assessed, but a set proportion of the module mark (4%) was awarded to each student who gave a presentation. Staff were encouraged to provide individual feedback to each student using the Bangor University College of Natural Sciences standardised feedback proforma for oral presentations. The rationale for the mini conference was two-fold. Firstly, our National Student Survey and internal student feedback suggested that students felt there was a lack of cohesion amongst their degree cohort, particularly in the first year when most modules are taken by the entire year. Many students stated that they did not really know who the other members of their degree programme were because they became diluted amongst the entire year. Secondly, it was clear that many students were anxious about giving oral presentations to groups comprising staff and their peers. The aim of the mini conference was therefore to enable students to get to know the others members of their degree programme in a non-threatening, small-group, environment where they would present a primary research paper on a topic of their choice.

Attendance monitoring and follow-up

Several previous studies have suggested that student engagement and motivation are intrinsically linked to attendance, which is in turn positively correlated with success (Tinto 1975, Colby 2004, Newman-Ford et al. 2008, Bevitt et al. 2010). Furthermore, attendance monitoring has proved an effective method of early intervention when students become disengaged (Bevitt et al. 2010) and can ultimately improve student retention (Bowen et al. 2007). The student perception of attendance monitoring was generally positive (Bevitt et al. 2010) and Bowen et al. (2007) report that many students believed universities should monitor attendance, as they felt it demonstrated that the university cared about their success. Interestingly, one explanation for the positive perception of attendance monitoring was that students often did not know where to seek help and support when needed, and hoped that non-attendance would trigger support (Bowen et al. 2007). The aim of the earlier interventions was therefore to enhance student engagement and motivation, identify disengaged students via an attendance monitoring system which acted as a trigger for intervention, with the ultimate aim of improving student success (module marks and pass rate) and retention (Figure 1).

Figure 1 A comparison of the pass rate, mean module mark and number of students scoring zero in the first year tutorials module, in addition to departmental first year student withdrawals, from the 2009–2010 academic year to the 2012–2013 academic year.

Student attendance at the popular science talks was recorded each week (via completion of the minute paper) In week six of Semester 1, an e-mail was sent to students who had missed two out of five sessions to explain that their attendance was compulsory and offer any support that might be needed. Students who had missed three or more of the five sessions were asked to attend a meeting with the module organisers in week seven of Semester 1, to discuss the reasons for their poor attendance. The personal tutors of each student were also informed of the absences and asked to confirm whether the student was attending tutorial sessions and completing tutorial assignments.

Evaluation methods

Feedback on icebreaker activities

Rapid student feedback on the icebreaker activities was collected the following week when each student was provided with a post-it-note during a lecture, asked to comment anonymously on the previous week's activities and then stick their post-it-notes to the lecture theatre wall at the end of the session. We asked students to comment on what they did or did not find useful or enjoyable and to provide suggestions for how the exercise could be improved (129 responses were collected in total).

Module evaluation questionnaire

A brief module evaluation survey was posted on the module's Blackboard site in May 2013. A total of 20 responses were received (11% response rate) and it should therefore be noted that responses may predominantly represent the views of the most motivated or least satisfied students. The module evaluation questions relating specifically to the interventions described here are listed in Figure 2. Open comments were also encouraged from the students by asking the following questions:

• What are the good points of the module?

• What are the bad points of the module?

• Please comment on how you think the module could be improved.

Figure 2 Module evaluation survey results for the ‘Tutorials Year One’ module 2012–2013. Bars indicate percentage of total responses (n = 20).

Relevant and representative answers to these questions are provided in the evaluation section.

Module statistics

A key target for this intervention was to improve the pass rate and mean module mark, both of which are indicators of student engagement and attainment (Tinto 1975, Colby 2004). Statistical reports regarding the mean module mark, pass rate and number of students scoring zero on the first year tutorials module for the academic years 2009–2010, 2010–2011, 2011–2012 and 2012–2013 were generated using ARQUE (Acadvent Ltd, Swansea) and compiled to provide the data in Figure 1. Data on student retention were compiled centrally by the University.

Qualitative feedback

Throughout the year, students had the opportunity to get to know each other and the academic staff after the weekly ‘Popular Science Talk’ sessions when both staff and students were invited for refreshments, enabling an opportunity for both student–student and student–staff interaction. During these and other sessions, qualitative feedback was obtained on all aspects of the module. Qualitative feedback was collected via post-it-notes for the icebreaker/group activities, and via module evaluation responses and verbal feedback from the students for all other aspects of the module.

Evaluation

Icebreaker activities

Following the introductory lecture, icebreaker activities and lunch in the museum. Post-it-note feedback was obtained from 129 students. Of these, 85% were positive, 7% were neutral and 8% were negative, suggesting that on the whole, the icebreaker session was a good exercise to promote student engagement. Examples of student feedback comments from the post-it-notes are provided:

• Nice way to meet & interact with other students

• Great for teambuilding and communicating

• Egg drop was a great way to get people working together

• Interesting fact exercise good as you get to meet more people

However, it should be noted that not all students found the icebreaker session to be a positive experience, highlighting the fact that some students were uncomfortable about taking part in such activities. Some of the negative feedback responses are described:

• Didn't like being forced to talk to new people – I tend not to get on with people who do this or meet doing this

• Egg drop was infantile & didn't allow time to get to know people

However, anecdotal evidence from conversations between the authors and students over the subsequent weeks suggested that the icebreaker sessions had facilitated the formation of some friendship groups in week one that were still interacting later on in the semester, and for many students, superficial familiarity with a number of peers meant they felt less isolated in lectures where it was easier to find a familiar face. Student feedback from the module evaluation questionnaire stated that:

• The icebreaker sessions in particular helped me a lot, and I think were one of the most helpful parts in regard to adapting to life in university.

• I found the guest lectures really interesting and the teamwork session was wonderful!!! It really helped in making my friend groups.

Popular science talks and associated optional activities

We found that the scheduled sessions for refreshments and optional activities after the popular science talks provided an excellent opportunity to get to know the students better, hear their views on student life, what their interests are, and what they thought about the day's talk. Many students used this as an opportunity to talk to the speaker, ask questions that they were not comfortable asking in a lecture theatre setting, or offer their services as a volunteer in their research group. The sessions also offered a weekly opportunity for students to gain advice and guidance from a member of staff on any issues relating to university life.

• I liked that we could all chat about the lectures after over some tea and biscuits. It really made it a nice social event as well as a lecture. I must admit that there were times that I didn't feel like going but the fact that there could be doughnuts … won me over.

• Listening to the talks from the members of staff every week was good as it allowed us to learn and discover new things and aspects that we didn't know before hand, or improve our knowledge of some of the talks that were given, as well as allowing us to ask and inquire about the research that staff members talked to us about, allowing us to learn even more. It was a good and interesting concept to the module and it allowed me to discover some things that I didn't know before and I don't think that I would've found out about otherwise.

Individual presentations

In total, 154 students (85%) gave an individual presentation at the degree programme mini conferences. Verbal feedback from staff suggested that student presentations were generally of a high standard and several staff commented that being involved in the conference was an enjoyable exercise. Despite some reservations from the students about giving individual presentations, feedback was generally positive and reflected an appreciation that presentation skills were a necessary part of their development. Some student comments from the module evaluation questionnaire are provided:

• The presentations were a bit too ‘scary’, though it could have just been my personal issue.

• The presentations on different scientific journals was very useful as it involved searching scientific literature, something that was new to a lot of us, and enhanced public speaking skills. It was also great to find out about which topics people are interested in!

Student engagement

Students were asked to complete a module evaluation survey containing specific questions regarding how the module assisted with their transition to university life (Figure 2). In terms of getting to know other students and staff, 55% and 60% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the module helped them get to know other students and staff, respectively, and 45% agreed or strongly agreed that the module helped in their transition to university life (Figure 2). For the latter question, a further 40% of students neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement, perhaps highlighting the fact that integration into university life is a complex transitional process (Tinto 1988, Holdsworth 2006) that encompasses other factors that transcend the module. However, it was encouraging that only 15% of the respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement.

Overall, the module feedback was very positive and several common themes emerged from the comments:

• The range of popular science talks provided was good.

• OR, the popular science topics were too broad and not related to student's particular interests.

• Group work was very enjoyable and more should be included.

• Students appreciated the provision of food and refreshments after the talks.

• The staff were helpful, and the module provided a good opportunity to get to know staff and students.

A representative selection of module evaluation comments in response to the question ‘Please comment on how you think the module could be improved?’ are provided:

• I would like to say more of the sandwiches and doughnuts but I know it can't be done all the time. I would say more of the team building stuff, do something that really gets the brain ticking and bring the group together.

• Perhaps more focus if possible on dividing people into smaller groups on occasion, maybe for assignments etc. I found the icebreakers better than I expected but after those we weren't really ever in smaller groups again. It's a personal thing but for me I would really like more opportunities to get to know people within lecture time.

• One of the bad points of the module, regarding the science talks, would be that some of the topics did not have any relevance to my degree.

• I honestly think this is a great module, it introduced me to new scientific topics through the range of talks, helped me to make friends through the icebreaker session. The food afterwards was always a welcome treat. This module is pretty much perfect!

Optional activities after the popular science talks were well-attended and resulted in several students volunteering to help with school activities, such as animal husbandry in the aquaria, or in maintaining the SBS museum, for example, which suggests a greater sense of belonging and participation in departmental activities.

Attendance monitoring

During week six, an e-mail was sent to 5% of the cohort (9/181 students) whose attendance was ≤ 60%, to acknowledge that their attendance was poor, to offer support, and to encourage them to get in contact if they were experiencing difficulties. In addition, a total of 13 students (7% of the cohort) whose attendance was ≤ 40% were asked to attend an interview with the module organisers in week seven of semester one. Table 3 highlights the outcome of the interviews. Only five of the 13 students attended the interviews (39%). The reasons for poor attendance provided by the students varied and included students who were experiencing genuine difficulties in the transition to university life, to some who were not experiencing problems, but were unaware that the talks were compulsory, or had missed the talks due to poor organisation. Specific help and advice could subsequently be offered to the students in order to assist them to improve their attendance and engagement with the module.

Table 3 Summary of information regarding student attendance in the first five weeks of semester one and the outcomes an attendance and module attainment following invitation to a meeting with the module organisers.

Student Number	Attendance Prior to Meeting Invite	Meeting Outcome	Attendance after Meeting	Improved Attendance?	Passed or Failed Module?
1	20% (1/5)	Attended	100% (10/10)	Yes	Passed
2	40% (2/5)	Attended	70% (7/10)	Yes	Passed
3	20% (1/5)	Attended	50% (2/4)	Yes	Withdrew
4	40% (2/5)	Attended	50% (5/10)	Yes	Passed
5	0% (0/5)	Attended	10% (1/10)	Yes	Passed
6	0% (0/5)	Did not attend	60% (6/10)	Yes	Passed
		E-mail contact made
7	20% (1/5)	Did not attend	50% (5/10)	Yes	Passed
		E-mail contact made
8	40% (2/5)	Did not attend	80% (8/10)	Yes	Passed
		No E-mail contact
9	40% (2/5)	Did not attend	100% (10/10)	Yes	Passed
		No E-mail contact
10	40% (2/5)	Did not attend	10% (1/10)	No	Failed
		No E-mail contact
11	20% (1/5)	Did not attend	10% (1/10)	No	Failed
		No E-mail contact
12	0% (0/5)	Did not attend	0% (0/10)	No	Failed
		No E-mail contact
13	40% (2/5)	Did not attend	30% (3/10)	No	Failed
		No E-mail contact

Two students who failed to attend the interview sent an e-mail to explain that their attendance would improve. All of the students who either attended the interview or got in contact via e-mail subsequently improved their attendance in Semesters 1 and 2, and passed the module (Table 3). Six students (46%) did not attend the interview or get in contact via e-mail, and only two of these improved their attendance in Semesters 1 and 2 to > 80% and passed the module. Overall, 69% of the students with attendance below 40% subsequently improved their attendance and passed the module, whereas the remainder (4/13) failed the module. This intervention demonstrates a diverse range of needs in terms of student support. For some students, it was clear that they did not require an interview, but for whatever reason behind their poor attendance, the e-mail warning was enough to encourage them to improve their attendance and pass the module. This probably reflects a realisation in the student that poor attendance does not go unnoticed within the department. Here, it was clear that some students genuinely required support, and they were subsequently able to obtain help via the interview process, which agrees with the findings of Bowen et al. (2007). Conversely, some students, despite several attempts to contact them via e-mail, did not attend the sessions or accept an offer of help and subsequently failed the module; these students also had poor attendance in other modules and failed to pass the first year.

Our findings are therefore in agreement with Bevitt et al. (2010), who described attendance monitoring as an effective indicator for early intervention and student support in the first year. However, Bevitt et al. (2010) took this approach one step further by adopting a centralised system, where interviews with a ‘Phase 1’ advisor were organised and if missed, resulted in a strongly worded letter from the head of school being sent home via mail, and reported that no students ignored this letter. We subsequently adopted the strategy of posting correspondence to home and term addresses via recorded delivery in Semester 2 of the 2012–2013 academic year and also found that this improved the response rate from students; possibly due to the more official nature of the letter, and the fact that hard copy mail is less easy to ignore. Consequently, we propose to adopt a similar system within the department for the next academic year, to circumvent issues with students not checking their e-mails (an additional sign of disengagement), and increase contact with those students who fail to respond to e-mails and drop ‘below the radar’.

Module statistics

A key target was to improve the pass rate and mean module mark, both of which are indicators of student engagement and attainment (Tinto 1975, Colby 2004). After the intervention, the module pass rate increased to 96.7% and the mean module mark increased to 72.8% (6.4% and 9% increases from the previous three year averages, respectively) (Figure 1). Furthermore, only one student obtained a mark of zero for the module in 2012–2013. In the previous year, direct communication with absentees at the end of Semester 1 led to increased engagement in Semester 2 (which decreased the number of students scoring zero marks) but with only two equally-weighted assessments, the module failure rate remained high. The success of the current intervention is attributed to earlier intervention in response to absence, and to the inclusion of more numerous and varied assessments.

Ultimately we aimed to improve student retention by providing a sense of engagement, integration and belonging to the department, in addition to providing pastoral support. Figure 1 demonstrates that student withdrawals did actually decrease in the 2012–2013 academic year (six withdrawals in 2012–2013, compared with a mean withdrawal rate of 24 students for the previous three academic years), though this represents the continuation of a trend over the past few years. Since factors outside of this module affect student retention, it is difficult to quantify the specific impact of our intervention. However, student comments from the module evaluation suggest a positive impact on student retention and engagement.

Concluding remarks

Student engagement, integration and attendance are intrinsically linked to social and academic success within the institution. We set out to enhance student engagement through a number of interventions that took place as part of the first year tutorial module. We conclude that several new components (introductory lectures, portfolio, seminars and refreshments, activities, presentations) resulted in enhanced student engagement as determined by improved pass rates and academic performance on the module. Furthermore, attendance monitoring acted as a trigger for early intervention with students who were disengaged, resulting in an increased module pass rate and greater student retention.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the inputs of those academic, technical and support staff from the College of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, involved in the delivery of the ‘Tutorials Year One’ module. Dr Nathalie Fenner and Dr Kat Jones are also acknowledged for helpful discussions and suggestions regarding modifications to the module format. The authors are also grateful to Sue Thomas, Carys Bower, Gemma Jones and Eleri Davies (SBS teaching office) for administrative support and data gathering.