Report 01/04

Higher education summer schools
Evaluation of the scheme in 2000

Keith Mason and David Pye

National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER)

Read on-line

Download

Report

[ MS Word 306K | Zipped MS Word 101K | PDF 307K | Zipped PDF 264K ]

Contents

Executive Summary

Introduction

1. The Higher Education (HE) Summer Schools scheme in 2000, which is part of the Excellence in Cities (EiC) initiative, focused on Year 11 and 12 students. The aims of the scheme are to enable the most able students to achieve their full potential and to widen participation in higher education by under-represented social groups. The specific objectives are to encourage students who are judged to have high ability and expected to achieve good A-level results, but whose family and educational background is such that they might not consider higher education, to apply to a higher education institution or to consider a wider range of institutions and/or subjects.

2. The first Summer Schools were held in 54 higher education institutions (HEIs) in 2000 with funding of £4 million from the DfEE. The scheme encompassed a total of 25 local education authorities (LEAs). HEIs in EiC areas and HEIs with demanding entry qualifications participated. The scheme is administered by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE).

3. HEFCE commissioned the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) to evaluate the administration of the Summer Schools and their operation, including the impact made on participating students. This report describes findings concerning the operation of the scheme in a selected sample of 16 HEIs, and a questionnaire survey of students in a further 19 HEIs. The research described in this report was carried out through in-depth interviews of key personnel and participating students, and through analyses of pre- and post-course questionnaires used with a sample of students.

Summer School Programmes

4. Summer Schools made wide use of both HEI premises and off-campus sites in their provision. It was apparent that Summer School staff had addressed risk issues for students of this age (i.e. 15- to 17-year-olds) working at these sites.

5. Most Summer Schools were held in July. There were problems with student attendance at those held in June because of clashes with the GCSE examinations timetable. The majority of courses had a five-day academic programme, though many brought students together the day before for 'ice-breaking' activities. Summer Schools operated very intensive timetables. Typically, courses had around seven hours of academic sessions each day, and for residential Summer Schools there was a full programme of social events each evening. Generally, students found academic sessions useful and enjoyable, but found the days long and tiring. Some resented the lack of free time.

6. Courses included a combination of the components set out in the guidance issued by HEFCE to HEIs in September 1999. These components were: degree-type teaching/learning approaches; group work; reinforcement of generic skills; study technique work; graduate employment and employability-related sessions; HE and career aspirations sessions; and involvement of the HEI's own students.

7. A wide range of courses was provided by the Summer Schools within the broad areas of arts/humanities, science and social sciences. A few HEIs provided 'integrated courses', which cut across different curriculum areas. There were a few specialist Summer Schools providing courses in music or dance, for example. The subject focus of courses was well received by most students. However, a small minority were disappointed to be on courses that did not match their interests or expectations.

8. Graduate employment and employability-related sessions usually occupied between half and one and a half days of the programme. Sessions included those delivered by the HEI's careers service, visits to employers, talks from employment representatives and recent graduates, and business simulations. A variety of industry, commerce and public service employers were involved. There were mixed feelings expressed by Summer School leaders and students about the success of these sessions, with a sizeable minority of Summer Schools repeating what the students already knew. Successes were particularly evident where recent graduates spoke to groups of students about their backgrounds, higher education courses and work experiences.

9. Most Summer Schools held a one-to-one session for each student with a member of the HEI teaching staff to discuss the student's higher education and career aspirations. Students that benefited most from these sessions were ones who were unclear about the potential courses available for careers they were considering and those concerned that their choice of A-level subjects had restricted their career possibilities.

10. Teaching and learning styles on courses generally favoured active modes of student involvement, with many sessions entailing group work. Typically, the number of lectures provided was quite low. On the whole, lectures were not well received by students. For many Summer Schools, group work leading to a final presentation - or performance in the case of a music or dance focus - gave the course a specific goal that proved motivating for students and concluded the Summer School on a high note.

11. Social/recreational activities across Summer Schools were held both at the institution and at off-campus locations. At the institutions, there were organised sports, barbecues, discos, quizzes and competitions. Many activities were organised and run by student mentors. Off-campus events included outings to theatres, cinemas and bowling alleys, and sessions at adventure sports centres. Such activities added greatly to students' enjoyment of courses and helped them form new friendships.

12. Most Summer Schools used end-of-course student questionnaires to monitor and evaluate their provision. Other methods used in this respect included student daily logbooks, target setting by students, and end-of-course discussion groups with students and staff. Summer School staff regarded student presentations on the final day as one means by which success could be judged. A few Summer Schools followed CREST Awards projects. These projects had stated criteria within an overall student profile, so indicating the level of success achieved. Evaluation reports were written by most Summer Schools, occasionally with input from a range of staff, for use by the institution and as feedback to participating LEAs and schools.

13. Each Summer School was awarded a total grant of £800 for each residential place and £550 for each non-residential place. Staffing costs usually accounted for the largest proportion of the grant, though there were considerable variations regarding whether staff were paid and how much. A substantial amount of the staffing budget for most courses was spent on payments to student mentors and external providers. Residential Summer Schools naturally spent large amounts on accommodation, meals and night-time supervision, while both residential and non-residential Summer Schools had substantial expenditure on student travel costs. There was only a minor amount of unexpected expenditure.

Staffing

14. Each Summer School had a leader (sometimes more than one) supported by a team that included members of HEI staff, student mentors and other support staff. Typically, the Summer School leader had overall responsibility for administration, but shared responsibility with other staff for ensuring that courses ran as planned. In addition, there were external providers, usually for graduate employment and employability-related sessions.

15. Summer School leaders were approached for the position by HEIs because they had experience in running similar schemes or it was seen as part of their general job remit. Leaders approached specific departments for their support, and generally received a positive response. In turn, departments asked teaching staff to volunteer activity. Thus, many staff had the opportunity to be involved, but one negative effect was that some resulting courses lacked coherence. The recruitment of student mentors, usually final year undergraduates or those who had just completed PGCE courses, was rigorous, often involving an interview as part of a selection procedure.

16. Summer School leaders were not members of the teaching staff but were drawn from academic-related services, such as the Admissions Office. Their knowledge of institutional systems and structures was invaluable in developing courses. Summer School leaders' duties included: welcoming students onto courses; observing course activity for monitoring purposes; organising and contributing to end-of-course events; ensuring the effective operation of the student mentor system; dealing with domestic arrangements and writing evaluation reports. The financial remuneration received by leaders varied widely, depending on whether they were full-time employees and the extent to which this responsibility was viewed as part of their job description.

17. HEI teaching staff were the key providers of courses, delivering a combination of lectures, tutorials, workshops and associated activity. Some teaching staff had a coordinating role for their department's involvement and liaison with other departments. Some teaching staff provided only a small input into courses, adapting material they had used with undergraduates. The payment of teaching staff varied, with some receiving no payment but their department receiving part of the grant.

18. Some courses employed academic-related staff, such as postgraduate students. This was usually in cases where specific skills or knowledge were required, such as in science courses or for specialist courses in music.

19. Student mentors' involvement was more 'pastoral' than academic. They supported students during sessions and activities, proving to be good role models. Student mentors were also able to feed back information to providers regarding how work was developing and students' reactions to sessions. They received either a one-off fee or a rate of pay of around £6 per hour. A few residential Summer Schools also employed teachers as night-time supervisors, which had a positive effect on student behaviour.

20. A range of other providers also contributed. One key in-house provider was the careers service, with staff giving advice to students and utilising existing links with local employers to provide input. Other support came from the Student Union, the library and IT services. Paid external providers at some Summer Schools included a careers advice company and professional musicians.

21. Training and induction occurred at all Summer Schools, especially so for student mentors. A few leaders received training/induction, as did night-time supervisors employed on some residential courses. Training/induction was less comprehensive for HEI teaching staff. This would have been helpful for some teaching staff with regard to pitching course material at a more appropriate level.

Outcomes

22. The take-up of places at Summer Schools ranged from 50 to 100 per cent. Courses were held well into the holiday period, and those that had recruited students from areas a considerable distance away experienced lower levels of take-up. High levels of take-up resulted mainly from HEIs making personal contact with students at key points leading up to the start of the Summer School.

23. Summer School staff perceived the students generally to be of high ability, and thought they would do well if they embarked on an appropriate higher education course. Positive comments were also made by providers about students' confidence, communication skills, enthusiasm, creativity and general attitude. Some students, however, were not motivated by courses because the content did not match their interests or A-level subjects.

24. There were some concerns expressed by providers that many students were from families with a background in higher education, and that many had already decided to apply to higher education, which was at odds with the intended target group.

25. There were a number of obvious successes across the Summer Schools. These included: interactive sessions that elicited high levels of student participation; the development of skills and expertise related to course activity; the inclusion of 'ice-breaking' activities creating a cooperative environment; the interest created through programmes constructed around a central theme; the support provided by student mentors; and improved links between the HEI and the local community.

26. Operational difficulties evident included: programmes being too long and too intensive; uneasy balances between providers treating students as adults and being responsible for their welfare, and some lectures lacking interest to or relevance for students. Some staff reported difficulties in providing appropriate courses for both Year 11 and 12 students or that courses had been negatively affected by having large numbers of students from single schools.

27. Many students at the start of Summer Schools had limited views or misconceptions about studying at higher education level and related matters. Certain aspects of courses were very successful at widening views and dispelling misconceptions. Discussion groups and team-work activities dispelled the myth that higher education is delivered almost entirely through lectures and is a solitary experience. Graduate employment and employability-related sessions were successful, especially for Year 11 students, in explaining career opportunities associated with different courses, as well as outlining the range of courses available in higher education. Student mentors too had a positive influence, by talking about their higher education experiences and aspirations.

28. Student behaviour regarding their engagement with course activity, apart from some lectures, was described by providers as being good. There were numerous examples of students working in groups showing high levels of involvement.

29. Many Summer Schools explained the rules and regulations to students at the outset, which most accepted and followed. A small minority ignored specific rules, such as leaving the campus without permission, which caused problems for Summer School staff. A few serious incidents of misbehaviour occurred, which led to offending students being removed from courses and escorted home.

Results of the NFER Questionnaires

30. The NFER pre- and post-course questionnaires revealed significant changes in students' attitudes in several areas. The Summer Schools had a significant positive impact on students' appreciation of the personal benefits from education, their motivation to learn, their appreciation of the value of school work, their view on the usefulness of learning and their sociability.

31. Sections of the questionnaires collected information on student characteristics to determine the extent to which students were from the intended target group. Students as a whole were of high ability, included substantial numbers from minority ethnic groups and were more typical of the social class composition of England than were students accepted to degree courses in 1999. However, the data show that around half the students had one or both parents with a higher education background. Also, an overwhelming majority of students at the start of the Summer School were either definitely or probably intending to go on to higher education, with this aspiration becoming even more positive at the end.

32. The Summer Schools had a greater impact on Year 11 students than on Year 12 students with regard to influencing their intentions to attend a university or other higher education institution after completing A-levels or Advanced GNVQs.

33. At the start of the Summer Schools, students were looking forward to meeting new people, finding out about higher education life in general and learning new skills. Generally, at the end of the Summer Schools, the activities they had enjoyed the most were those they had been looking forward to the most. When asked to describe how the Summer School could be improved, there were some references to having more free time, the quality of food/drink, the lack of interest created by lectures, and changes to the length of the working day or week. In summary, the questionnaire results showed that courses overall were very successful from the students' point of view.

Recommendations for Good Practice

34. The NFER research team makes the following 15 recommendations for HEIs participating in the scheme for 2001 and subsequent years, and for HEFCE, LEAs and schools in supporting HEIs in this area.

1. Hold the Summer School at an appropriate time.
2. Plan courses so that each day is neither too long nor too intensive.
3. Use HEI sites that are closely grouped.
4. Prepare courses with the Summer School leader having a clear overview.
5. Induct teaching staff into key aspects of the Summer School.
6. Recruit and train the institution's students to work as mentors.
7. Base each course around a general theme.
8. Include group work leading to final presentations.
9. Set up strategies to ensure good levels of student attendance and retention.
10. Provide choice for students for visits to employers.
11. Involve recent graduates to contribute to sessions about employment.
12. Monitor progress, evaluate outcomes and provide feedback.
13. Set up a Summer School website.
14. For Gifted & Talented Coordinators in schools - ensure a balanced group of students overall.
15. For consideration by HEFCE - commission external monitoring and evaluation for 2001 with a particular emphasis on developments since 2000.