Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice Volume 3|Issue 2 Article 3 2006 Does Attendance Matter? An Examination of Student Attitudes, Participation, Performance and Attendance P. Massingham University of Wollongong, [email protected] T. Herrington University of Wollongong, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at:http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp Recommended Citation Massingham, P. and Herrington, T., Does Attendance Matter? An Examination of Student Attitudes, Participation, Performance and Attendance,Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 3(2), 2006. Available at:http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol3/iss2/3 Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected] Does Attendance Matter? An Examination of Student Attitudes, Participation, Performance and Attendance Abstract Non attendance of lectures and tutorials appears to be a growing trend. The literature suggests many possible reasons including students’ changing lifestyle, attitudes, teaching and technology. This paper looks at the reasons for non attendance of students in the Faculty of Commerce at the University of Wollongong and identifies relationships between attendance, participation and performance. The results indicate that there are valid reasons for non attendance that are both in the control of learners and teachers. There are also clear benefits for students to be gained in attendance; however, changes in the way we learn, teach, assess and use technology are recommended if we wish to reverse the trend. This journal article is available in Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice:http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol3/iss2/3 Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice Does Attendance Matter? An Examination of Student Attitudes, Participation, Performance and Attendance Peter Massingham University of Wollongong [email protected] Tony Herrington University of Wollongong [email protected] Abstract Non attendance of lectures and tutorials appears to be a growing trend. The literature suggests many possible reasons including students’ changing lifestyle, attitudes, teaching and technology. This paper looks at the reasons for non attendance of students in the Faculty of Commerce at the University of Wollongong and identifies relationships between attendance, participation and performance. The results indicate that there are valid reasons for non attendance that are both in the control of learners and teachers. There are also clear benefits for students to be gained in attendance; however, changes in the way we learn, teach, assess and use technology are recommended if we wish to reverse the trend. Acknowledgement: The authors wish to thank Kieren Diment for his assistance in the article’s statistical analysis. Does Attendance Matter? An Examination of Student Attitudes, Participation, Performance and Attendance? Peter Massingham and Tony Herrington Pre-amble Dr Peter Massingham I taught a large undergraduate class in International Business last year and was standing at the front of the Sports Hall during the final exam, waiting for questions from students during their 15 minute reading time. A student looked at me from the middle of the group and cautiously raised his hand. Eager to help, I bounded over to him and he asked ‘Are you my lecturer?’ I had hoped that after thirteen weeks of lectures, students would know who I was, unless, of course, they never went to lectures. Earlier last year, I was handing out marked final assignments at the Sydney Business School and a student I had not seen once during the session stood before me to collect his. I looked closely at him and said ‘I don’t think I’ve seen you before, don’t you come to lectures?’ He said no. I asked ‘How do you expect to pass the exam?’ He laughed and walked out of the lecture room. I have always wondered why some students cannot be bothered to attend classes. Maybe they are too busy. A colleague told me that ‘it is expensive being a young adult nowadays and many students work’. Perhaps this partly explains why some students sleep during lectures. I once stopped a lecture at the Sydney Business School and went outside to find a cushion for a student who was slumped all over the table snoring loudly. Unfortunately, I woke him as I was trying to place the cushion under his head. He apologised profusely and explained that he had been up all night working at a Service Station. That seems to be part of the answer – students work at night and come to university to sleep. I guess we all have war stories like this and there will always be students who do not come to lectures or do not actively participate in the learning process, for example, by sleeping. Two recent events led me to question whether we should simply accept this as fact or try to do something about it. First, one of my subjects was offered on the South-Coast Campuses of the University of Wollongong for the first time in 20051. This meant that students at the main Wollongong campus could access the audio of the lectures through the Web, that is, through eduStream. Second, I was bothered by an apparent lack of interest and participation in the subject by this year’s cohort of students. I wondered whether the two issues were related or whether there were other factors involved. I sought the counsel of colleagues and discussed their views on student attendance. One colleague, a former Vice-Chancellor’s Outstanding Contribution to Teaching and Learning (OCTAL) award winner, told me that ‘he doesn’t care about attendance’. Despite this, students flock to his lectures. The reasons may be summed up as personal charisma. He has a strong personality, is opinionated, and is an entertaining and intelligent presenter. You can imagine him as being the dominant person at a dinner party or a cocktail function, where everyone stands around, glass in hand, listening to him talk on any subject. Another colleague, also an OCTAL award winner, has outstanding interpersonal and presentation skills. He combines a gentle nature with special abilities to interact with students. The reasons for his success may be summarised as likeability. Students just love coming to his lectures, they adore him, and therefore, hang onto his every word. This feedback was not helpful. Lacking in either charisma or likeability, I had to find other ways to engage my students in the learning process2. I decided to survey my students about their attendance at lectures and to work with Associate Professor Tony Herrington from the Faculty of Education, to analyse the results. 1 Autumn session 2005. South Coast campuses are satellite campuses, some distance from the main campus where lectures are held. 2 Massingham won an OCTAL Award in 2004. His comments here are a little tongue-in-cheek but aim to introduce the potential importance of the relationship between lecturers and students, which is an important theme in the article. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice – Vol 3/2, 2006 83 Does Attendance Matter? An Examination of Student Attitudes, Participation, Performance and Attendance? Peter Massingham and Tony Herrington The Nature of the Problem Declining student attendance at university is not a new phenomenon. Rodgers (2001) cites an historical account of dwindling attendance at sermons at Oxford University in the 14th century. More recently, studies in the 1970s (Snyder, 1971) and 1980s (Beard & Senior, 1980) show us that attendance has been a problem for decades. A number of reasons have been suggested. Learning Student attitudes to learning are very different from thirty years ago. In the 1970s, researchers studying reasons for lecture attendance identified the excitement of intellectual discovery: the presentation of challenging and provocative ideas, arguments and counter- arguments (Bligh, 1972); and the desire for knowledge, stimulation of interest, clarity of explanation, enthusiasm and organization (Feldman, 1976). More recent research has also found support for the desire of knowledge (see Isaacs, 1992; Ramsden, 1992; Laurillard, 1993; Biggs, 1999; Browne and Race, 2002). It is clear that a small group of learners still go to University because they genuinely enjoy learning and feel lectures make knowledge meaningful (Dolnicar, 2004). Conversely, there is a group of students who have alternative motivations to learn. Some researchers argue that ‘education is seen as a means towards some end, rather than being valuable in its own right’ (Coxon, Jenkins, Marshall & Massey, 1994). Coxon, et al, (1994) identified a category called the ‘instrumental student’ based on the concept of instrumentalism, or technocratic rationality, which is a form of rationality which ‘separates means from ends, facts from values, methods from purposes, the how from the why’ (p. 13). Similar to Marton & Säljö’s (1976) concept of ‘surface learners’, and Dolnicar’s (2004) category of ‘pragmatics’, these students do not attend university for the enjoyment of the learning process, rather they focus on the end goal, which is to find a good job. A recent study (Ditcher & Hunter, 2004) concluded that the phenomena of ‘instrumental students’ is not new but it is an increasing trend. In 1971, Snyder found that the primary objective of many engineering students at Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the 1960s was to learn enough to ‘further their specific career or life plans’ (p. 16). While a 1980 study found that a major complaint from lecturers was that ‘students are not motivated... [and] lack an urge to work independently, applying themselves only if external pressures are exerted... students these days are not interested in the courses they have selected but simply want a qualification and a good job' (Beard & Senior, 1980, p.1). But are these complaints about unmotivated students a reflection of an outdated pedagogy? Are they defensiveness from lecturers unwilling to change the way they teach? Teaching The reality is that the majority of students will attend lectures only if they perceive ‘value’ in them. Value perceptions are based largely on the teaching process and the lecturer’s competence. This thinking is not new. Researchers in the 1970s identified the importance of the lecturer in conveying principles rather than details (Sheffield, 1974) and in generating understanding in order for lectures to be effective (Bliss & Ogborn, 1977). Researchers have also identified the ability of lecturers to analyse and synthesise complex material, make it simpler for students, and explain it clearly, as a reason for lecture attendance (Bligh, 1972; Land, 1985; Isaacs, 1992). The ability to communicate with clarity (Solomon, Rosenberg & Bezdek, 1964; Feldman, 1989) and provide well organised and structured lectures (Brown & Atkins, 1988; Ramsden, 1992; McKeachie, 1994; Race, 2002; Exley & Dennick, 2004) have Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice – Vol 3/2, 2006 84 Does Attendance Matter? An Examination of Student Attitudes, Participation, Performance and Attendance? Peter Massingham and Tony Herrington emerged as important teaching competencies and explanations for high student attendance rates. However, these competencies tend to pre-date the wide-spread use of web-based teaching resources. They also illustrate an out-dated pedagogy. A contemporary, constructivist approach requires students to analyse, synthesise, and explain. This approach argues that the teacher’s role is to facilitate and guide this process, rather than do it for the students. It may well be that the style of teaching that motivated students thirty years ago is found wanting in today’s educational context. The teaching and the learning environment in schools has changed. More emphasis is now placed on approaches that involve problem solving, collaboration, discussion, authentic contexts, and action. There is now less emphasis on teacher-centred instruction, information, passive and individual learning. It may be that today’s students have benefited from learning in a constructivist manner and are simply bored by the instructivist approach they face in many university lectures. Assessment A more recent phenomenon is attendance purely for access to information for assessment purposes. Students are particularly interested in information that will help them with assessment tasks or exam questions (McKeachie, 1994; Murphy, 1998; Browne & Race, 2002; Exley & Dennick, 2004), and only attend classes for these reasons. In a cross-Faculty study, Dolnicar (2004) identified this group as ‘pragmatics’. She found that these students have a higher representation in Commerce Faculties, have the lowest attendance rates, and may now represent the reality of tertiary education in Australia. However, the type of assessments used may influence this trend. Assessments that only measure fact recall, rather than higher order thinking, encourage instrumentalist behaviour because students know they can easily gather this type of information from alternatives to lectures, such as the world wide web. Technology Technology has had a significant impact on the way we teach and the way students learn. Changes in technology are paralleling the changes in teaching and assessment. Flexible learning has received considerable attention in the educational literature. Twenty years ago, flexible learning meant using multiple whiteboard marker colours or occasionally providing students with a photocopied hand out. Lectures were about lecturers talking and students listening. Students took notes! If you did not attend a lecture you knew you might miss out on something important. None of this is relevant today. The introduction of computers in most teaching environments has led to the widespread use of ‘power-point’ slides to deliver lectures. Students expect to have this material available online through learning management systems such as WebCT. The introduction of on-line databases and ‘e- readings’ has made visits to the physical library irrelevant. Further advances include the introduction of ‘eduStream’ that provides students with online access to audio recordings of lectures. Purdue University (Podcastingnews, 2005) now offers podcasts of lectures where dynamic feeds are directly downloaded to students’ MP3 players. Researchers identify the ‘availability of web technology supported by powerful server and client-side programming techniques’ that provide ‘attractive alternatives for creation and distribution of dynamic and interactive educational materials’ (Doulai, 1999). Research into ‘e-learning’ found that the main reason for absenteeism at university was ‘whether enough other study material was available’ (Naber & Köhle, 2004, p.1). If students can access the lecture slides and the audio on-line, why should they come to lectures? If they can access necessary readings online, why even bother coming to the University campus at all particularly when they have other lifestyle commitments. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice – Vol 3/2, 2006 85 Does Attendance Matter? An Examination of Student Attitudes, Participation, Performance and Attendance? Peter Massingham and Tony Herrington Lifestyle Many students are required to work. A recent report (Anderson, McInnis & Hartley, 2002) indicated that 72.5% of Australian university students have paid employment during semester, working an average of 15 hours per week. In addition, a relatively large proportion of Australian university students are mature-aged, with only 27.2% aged under 20 (Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee 2001: 39). As a consequence, students are demanding more flexibility in the way they study. They want to access their learning activities in ways that fit in with their work and family commitments (McInnis & Hartley, 2002). Attendance in the Faculty of Commerce In 2005, there was growing anecdotal evidence that student attendance at lectures appeared to be declining across the University of Wollongong (UoW). All discipline areas appear to be suffering. Anecdotal evidence also suggests this trend has been occurring for several years but attendance is now worse than it has ever been. Tutorial or seminar attendance seems better than lectures, usually because tutorials have an assessment component or attendance is monitored. For example, UoW’s Faculty of Commerce has a policy where students must attend 75% of tutorials or risk being failed for the subject. It may be that the pedagogy of university teaching has not changed with its customers’ needs. Today’s students have been raised on a diet of Sesame Street and Sony Play Stations. They are unlikely to be motivated by lectures following an instructivist or transmissive approach. But even tutorials that are more interactive are suffering. Many students attend only the minimum number of tutorials required to avoid failure or sit stoically through the ordeal with passive indifference. The outcome is that less students are involved in these timetabled events. Those who opt out of the face-to-face teaching appear to rely upon the text book and lecture notes made available on the web to gather enough information to pass the subject. Declining attendance occurs to different degrees. At the Faculty of Commerce, there are subjects that are still well attended and subjects that have appalling attendance. For example, one of the OCTAL Award winners mentioned in the pre-amble, regularly achieves about 70% (120 students) at his lectures. These are held in the early afternoon on a Thursday. A colleague teaches another class involving many of the same students, on the same day, but at 6.30 pm. His attendance has sometimes fallen to as low as 7% (12 students). What is the reason for these figures? Is it the students? Is it is the lecturer? Is it the topic? Is it the time of the lecture? There may be something in this last point. Thursday night is traditionally a time for shopping or socialising in Australia. Another colleague explained the decline in enrolment in his subject from 180 students in 2004 to 110 in 2005 by the fact the lecture time had changed from Wednesday mornings to Fridays afternoons – a particularly unpopular time for students. But the lecture for MGMT389 International Business Management, the case study for this article, was held at 2.30 pm on Tuesday afternoons, a popular time. So the timing of the lecture should not be blamed, notwithstanding the difficulties of finding a car parking spot on campus! How significant was the problem for MGMT389? Table 1 summarises attendance details for MGMT389 in Autumn session 2005. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice – Vol 3/2, 2006 86 Does Attendance Matter? An Examination of Student Attitudes, Participation, Performance and Attendance? Peter Massingham and Tony Herrington Attendance Issue Student % (N=172) numbers Attendance at Week 13 Review Lecture3 115 66.9 Students who attended all lectures 28 16.2 Students who attended all tutorials 41 23.8 Average student attendance at tutorials 9.6 tutorials out of 12 (N=172) Table 1: Attendance Statistics for MGMT389 (2005) Table 1 shows that on average students attended 9.6 out of 12 or 80% of tutorials. However this needs to be considered in the context that students are required to attend 75% of tutorials or risk failing the subject4. For lectures, where attendance is entirely voluntary, attendance was only measured for those who completed the survey. These students claimed their average attendance at lectures was 10.5 out of 13 classes or 81% of all classes. Once again we need to consider this result in context. The survey results are based on the 67% of students who attended the final Week 13 lecture. This lecture reviews the subject and provides information on the exam and, therefore, is traditionally the second most attended lecture, after the Week 1 lecture. These results compare with other research on attendance: Dolnicar (2004) found 80% average attendance at lectures across all Faculties but much less in the Faculty of Commerce; Rodgers and Rodgers (2003) found 62% at lectures and 73% at tutorials; Rodgers (2001); found 68% at lectures and 80% at tutorials; while Romer (1993) described absenteeism at elite United States colleges as ‘rampant’ with a 67% attendance rate. In considering the significance of the attendance problem for MGMT389 in 2005, the only obvious difference between the MGMT389 class in 2005 and past years was the decreased attendance at lectures. Random class rolls conducted during the 2004 class lectures indicated an average attendance of 75%, better than in 2005. But it was not the decline in attendance that really bothered Massingham and led to this research study. Rather, it was his perception of an apathy and passiveness amongst the students in 2005. This group just did not seem as interested in learning as past years. In 2005, the result was a passive learning environment in both the lectures and the tutorials. In the lectures, attempts to engage the students in discussion using various interactive techniques, often fell flat. Only a small number of students were willing to engage in discussion and this group were often reluctant to speak from fear of being seen as ‘opinionated’ or ‘know-it-alls’ by their peers. Massingham wondered why many students were unwilling to attend class and engage in the learning process. He suspected that the non-attendees did not see any value in attending class and wondered why. In looking for answers, the only obvious factors were the introduction of on-line access to the audio of lectures (eduStream) and the students themselves. 3 This was the group of students surveyed for this study. 4 School of Management and Marketing policy. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice – Vol 3/2, 2006 87 Does Attendance Matter? An Examination of Student Attitudes, Participation, Performance and Attendance? Peter Massingham and Tony Herrington It was tempting to blame eduStream for the declining attendance in 2005 because it provides students with an easy option to miss lectures. However, we will see later in this article (see Table 2) that eduStream was not a significant factor. Indeed, its rating is similar to that for ‘I didn’t like the lecturer’, so Peter can only blame the technology as much as himself! When we consider this point, the only other difference was the students themselves. Were they different compared with previous years? Or was their motivation more readily influenced by some other factor, such as the process or the lecturer? Before exploring these questions, Massingham considered whether student attendance really mattered at all and, if so, how this could be measured. The most objective way of answering whether student attendance matters is the relationship between student attendance and performance. Recently, researchers have begun to empirically test whether absenteeism from university classrooms has a consequent effect on student learning (see Devadoss and Foltz, 1996; Marburger, 2001; Rodgers, 2001; Rodgers and Rodgers, 2003). Much of this research reports a strong association between attendance and performance but not a statistically sound causal relationship. Durden and Ellis (1995) found that excessive absenteeism impacted on the performance of economics students. Rodgers (2001) found a ‘small but statistically significant’ effect on performance, Rodgers and Rodgers (2003) claim to have found ‘strong support for the proposition that class attendance has a significant effect on academic performance’. Our paper extends this research by examining the reasons why students do not attend classes and linking this to performance. The aim of the research was then to examine student absenteeism from university classes. The specific research questions were: 1. What are the perceived reasons for non-attendance at university classes? 2. What relationship exists between perceived attendance and performance? 3. What relationships exist between the depth (class participation) and breadth (attendance) of student involvement in the learning process and student performance? Research Method The Case Study The study was conducted at the completion of the autumn session 2005 at the University of Wollongong. The data was collected from a survey of a class of 172 students from the Faculty of Commerce, who completed a third year undergraduate subject. The class met for a two hour lecture and a one hour tutorial per week over a 13 week session. Lectures were delivered to the whole class and tutorials were given to seven groups ranging from 20 to 30 students each. The same lecturer (Massingham) delivered the lectures and the tutorials were shared between the lecturer and a tutor. The survey took place at the start of the Week 13 lecture. This is traditionally a lecture where most students attend because it includes a discussion of the forthcoming exam. The surveys were distributed and the process was explained to students. Students were not required to identify themselves on the survey in order to ensure responses that were honest and not biased for fear of recriminations. Appendix 1 provides a list of the survey questions. Assessment for the subject consisted of five components: a case study (15 per cent), research paper (20 per cent), mid term exam (10 per cent), class participation (5 per cent), and final examination (50 per cent). All assessments were double marked if students failed. The lecturer marked all of the exams to ensure consistency across the subject. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice – Vol 3/2, 2006 88 Does Attendance Matter? An Examination of Student Attitudes, Participation, Performance and Attendance? Peter Massingham and Tony Herrington All assessments were directly related to content covered during the lectures and students were informed of this throughout the session. We controlled for bias towards students with high attendance rates over those with low attendance rates, in the following way: 1. All students had equal access to the subject’s learning resources (e.g. subject outline, text book, additional readings in the library, and power-point slides from the lectures that were placed on WebCT intranet). 2. All students had equal access to the lecturer and tutor during classes and after class during consultation times. 3. All students had the opportunity to download the audio of the lectures from the intranet (eduStream). 4. The final examination was graded without any reference to the identity of the student (i.e. the front page, which includes the name and student number, was not referred to until the final grade for the student had been concluded). The only learning component not directly available to students who missed classes was the opportunity to ask questions and otherwise involve them in the class discussion. Given that non-attendance was their choice, we believe that students had equal access to the examinable content in the subject. Of the 172 students who completed the subject, 115 (67 per cent) attended the final Week 13 lecture and completed the survey. However, we had data on all 172 students in terms of their attendance at tutorials because enrolment records were maintained. We also had performance data on all 172 students. Therefore, we could examine the performance of all students in terms of their attendance. However, we could examine the attitudes towards attendance, that is, the survey, for the 115 students only. Breadth and Depth of Learning Measures of breadth and depth of learning were developed as a proxy for student involvement in the learning process. Breadth was measured in terms of student attendance, while depth was measured in terms of class participation. Students were classified into three groups based on the breadth of their attendance. This was derived from each student’s average overall attendance: Poor (attended 9.5 classes or less), Satisfactory (attended 10 to 11 classes), and Good (attended 11.5 to 12.5 of classes). The average was calculated by adding the number of lectures and tutorials attended and dividing by two. The maximum is 12.5 because there were 13 lectures and 12 tutorials. Descriptive statistics for each band are presented in Table 2 Standard Mean N Deviation All 10.5 1.6 115 Good ( > 11 classes) 12 0.4 41 Satisfactory (10-11 10.6 0.4 41 classes) Poor (< 10 classes) 8.2 1.2 31 Table 2: Descriptive Statistics for Class Attendance (i.e. breadth of attendance). Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice – Vol 3/2, 2006 89