The experiences of live-at-home students: An emerging student as - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

The experiences of live-at-home students: An emerging student as producers project with Medicine and Nursing students. Dr Shaun Speed - SONMSW Dr Pip Fisher – MMS Mrs Dianne Burns – SONMSW Dr Sarah Calvert – FLS

Who are live-at-home students? • HEFCE (2009) defined students who live-at- home as “living at their parental or guardian’s home in their first year of study” (p2) • In 2006/7 that approximately three out five students lived in university accommodation during their first year • A further fifth living in their own owned or rented accommodation and • The final fifth living in their parental home

Who are live-at-home students • A sharp increase in those living at home from 8% in 1984/5 to approximately 20% in 2006/7 • Current estimates are between 10 and 20% of undergraduate students across the university stay at home for their first year of study

A note of caution about the statistics • Statistics are thought to be grossly underestimated • There are difficulties in recording this data • Students don’t report or grasp the concept • Anecdotal, think the category refers to students who live-at- home when not in University

Who are live-at-home students? • HEFCE (2009) found that female students • Students from certain ethnic groups (Bangladeshi and Pakistani for example) • Disabled students • Students with low A level or equivalent tariffs • Students studying in Greater London • Students from the North East • Those students who lived in close proximity to the HEI

Why does it matter? • HEFCE (2009) report they have the highest non continuation rates of all students for whom term time accommodation status is known • 10% for live-at-home students compared to 4% for those students in university accommodation.

Why are live-at-home students living at home? • Scant literature in the area and lots of unqualified assumptions • Some literature suggests that decision to live-at- home as being a consequence of the students being “debt averse” (Ball et al 2002a: Calender and Wilkinson 2003) • It is suggested that this has worsened since the introduction of fees (HEFCE 2014)

Why do live-at-home students live-at- home? • Students choose to live- at-home to offset the debt of fees • To reduce the amount of student loan they are likely to need (Furlong and Forsyth 2000) • And because they may be closer to clinical placement areas (HEFCE 2014)

Some other reasons maybe? • Some have suggested that live-at-home students choose to do so because they want or need the emotional security afforded by close family and friends (Archer et al 2003; Pugsley 2004; Reay 2001; Christie 2007)

Some other reasons maybe? • Make a positive choice to decline the student life in favour of staying close to their emotional ties and support mechanisms (Reay 2001)

Live-at-home students cont • Pationis and Holdsworth (2005) one way in which students control the inherent risk of going to university • University perceived by some, as a pathway that is associated with both emotional and financial worries (Christie 2007).

Insights from Social Geography • Holdsworth (2006; 2009a; 2009b), • A social geographer challenges the new elitist notion that moving away or living in at university is the ultimate goal and accepted norm.

Live-at-home students cont. • Holdsworth challenges the belief that the experiences leading to becoming independent and more responsible might well be valuable but are not denied to student who stay at home. • Assumes mobility is necessary for transitions into adulthood which leads to separation and self- reliance • Favours these attributes over interdependence, mutual support and responsibility for others • Which may result from living at home

The general tone of the literature… • However, the general assumption in the literature that the live at home experience is a negative experience (Holton 2014; Reay 2001). • Christie (2009) the general tone of the literature in suggesting that the experience for live at home students can mean that they can often be seen as “doing a degree” rather than “being a student”

Subjects with a professional training • HEFCE (2002; 2006) found that as well as the general problems that all students face, students who are studying academic and vocational subjects (medicine, nursing, speech and language therapies for example) are also more likely to make the decision to live at home • There is little substantive literature which addresses the experiences of either medical or nursing students’ experiences of studying whilst living at home.

The Aims of the Project • To engage undergraduate “live at home students” in a process that will produce a product of social importance to benefit the wider live at home student community in the University of Manchester

Aim of this particular study • The aim of this study was to investigate what the experiences of live at home students. • The objectives of the study are to research the support needs of “live at home” students who study within the School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work and Manchester Medical School are and to discover what interventions could be offered in order to provide support during their studies.

Students as producers Students as partners is a well know concept • Great strides have been achieved in involving students in their • education through consultation and engagement strategies and the benefits of these are well publicised (Cook-Sather et al 2014). The concept of Student as Producer has been developed as a way of • not only engaging students in their learning but also facilitating the student in the production of tangible outputs for their efforts. Neary and Winn (2009) describe the student as co-producer or • producer as, “undergraduate students working in collaboration with academics to create work of social importance that is full of academic content and value” p193. It is the aim of this study to engage undergraduate live at home • students in a process that will produce a product of social importance to benefit the wider live at home student community.

Data collection – focus groups • An interview schedule was generated from the literature prior to the commencement of the study • The questions were designed to be flexible and wide ranging enough to allow for open discussion • The schedule allowed for the sensitive exploration of the experience of live at home students, developing insights into the student perspective and the generation of consensus points (Kitzinger, 1994; Polit and Hungler, 1999; Kreuger, 2008). • Three of the facilitators engaged in this study were experienced qualitative researchers and one was a novice.

Analysis • Data analysis and classification followed the framework analysis approach (Ritchie and Spence 1994). • The themes were arrived at by three members of the research team reading each of the transcribed focus group discussions independently and then discussing the sense and the main themes collectively. • Open codes were then applied to the data to ensure that the themes and frames were developed from the data in and inductive manner (Ritichie and Spence 1994). • Data analysis and collection were undertaken simultaneously. • The themes and framework were compared and contrasted within and across groups to generate connections between the data.

Sample • Thirty-one students were recruited to 4 focus group discussions (see appendix 1). • The first focus group was for nursing students (n=8, 7 females and 1 male). • Focus group 2 (n=7) was a mixture of nursing (n=5 female students) and medical students (n=2). • The third group (n=5, 2 females and 3 male) was a medical students group • The final group was also a medical student group (n=11 9 females and 2 male). • For the nursing students 6 were in year 1 and 7 in year 2. • Two medical students were in year 1, 2 in year 2, 1 in year 3, 11 in year 4 and 2 in year 5.

Sample • The primary reason for living at home was given as finances with 8 (61.5%) nursing students and 10 (55.6%) medical students. • Caring responsibility was cited by 1 nursing student (7%) and 4 medical students (22.2%). • Three of the medical students (16.7%) indicated that family pressure was the main reason for living at home. • Two nurses (15.3%) and 1 medical student (5.5%) said having children was their main reason for living at home • One medical student (5.5%) reported that cultural pressure was the main reason for staying at home. • Five of the nursing students (38.5%) had children whilst only 1 (5.5%) compared with only one of the medical students.

Themes and Framework • Social Isolation • Managing time in an inflexible system • Managing Finances • Competing Home Demands • Getting Support • Solutions

Social Isolation • Aware of the problems they face from the very beginning of the course • Engagement with social activities difficult • Allocation of groups for course work makes making friends difficult • Leads to social isolation • Results in developing religious and age based affiliations and friendships

Social Isolation • Levels of peer support low • Societies and groups difficult to access (timing and organisation) • Go for “safe” societies such as the Islamic society • “Choose people like myself”