Part-time Students And part-time Study In Higher ... - Universities UK

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table A1: Response rates for HEIsInstitutionTotal Total number Number of Total number Responsenumber of of emails emails of completed rateemails sent successfully which interviewsto students delivered failedThe Open University 4895 4878 17 429 8.8%Birkbeck College 2706 2636 70 422 16.0%City University 2791 2785 6 2 0.1%The University of Hull 1553 1553 0 31 2.0%The University of Westminster 1978 1978 0 148 7.5%The Queen's University of3064 3064 0 140 4.6%BelfastLondon South Bank University 2891 2751 140 59 2.1%The University of Huddersfield 4364 4337 27 94 2.2%Bournemouth University 1922 1667 255 24 1.4%University of Manchester 930 930 0 18 1.9%The University of Lincoln 1958 19013457 11 0.6%The Manchester Metropolitan 2880 2880 0 92 3.2%UniversityUniversity of Ulster 7673 7673 0 77 1.0%The University of Bristol 142 142 0 15 10.6%The University of Leeds 1728 1708 20 42 2.5%The University of Paisley 761 701 60 154 22.0%University of the West of2465 2465 0 91 3.7%England, BristolThe University of Southampton 747 737 10 49 6.6%Glasgow Caledonian University 2249 218334 66 341 15.2%Liverpool John Moores2713 2689 24 128 4.8%UniversityThe University of Portsmouth 2515 2510 5 5 0.2%University of Derby 2302 2061 241 191 9.3%University of Glamorgan 2344 1553 791 22 1.4%University of Wales,226 200 26 47 23.5%AberystwythThe University of Wales,Lampeter198 198 0 22 11.1%TOTAL 57995 56180 1815 2654 4.7%34 The number of successful emails was not known for University of Lincoln or Glasgow CaledonianUniversity, so the average email failure rate (2.92%) was applied in order to estimate the response rate.Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 83
Data AnalysisFollowing the completion of interviewing, data processing was undertaken to produce an SPSSdataset for LSBU and PSI. Due to resource limitations, a GfK NOP Approved Supplier, Cobalt Sky,was employed to undertake this data analysis.The vast majority of the data consisted of closed questions. However occupation of chief incomeearner was recorded through an open-ended question. Verbatim responses were thenautomatically coded to four-digit SOC (Standard Occupational Classification) using the CASCOTsoftware developed by University of Warwick for coding verbatim responses to a SOCclassification. In this case CASCOT was used in fully automated mode, with no coder intervention.NS-SEC classification was also included through the inclusion of a set of closed questions whichenables ‘self-classification’ at the data analysis stage.9.6 Weighting the dataSince we had no control over who responded to the survey, it was anticipated that the data mightrequire corrective weighting, particularly in terms of the proportion of interviews achieved at eachHEI. Survey data was compared against HESA data 35 on part-time students for this purpose.We therefore compared the following variables for HESA and survey data:• Open University versus non-Open University students.• Gender.• Age.• Qualification aim (first degree vs all other qualification aims).• Subject studied.Table A2 illustrates the notable differences between unweighted survey data, and HESA data.35HESA data for all UK domiciled part-time undergraduate student enrolments, 2004/05Part-time students and part-time study: Strand 3 Universities UK 84
Page 2:
Part-time students and part-timestu
Page 5 and 6:
TablesTable 1.1: Student support ..
Page 7 and 8:
(35% compared with 12%); and two an
Page 9 and 10:
1 IntroductionThis report is about
Page 11 and 12:
• all three bands of the fee gran
Page 13 and 14:
1.4 MethodsAn online web-based surv
Page 15 and 16:
Table 1.2: Socio-economic character
Page 17 and 18:
Table 1.3: Institutional characteri
Page 19 and 20:
2 Reasons for studying2.1 Why stude
Page 21 and 22:
Figure 2.2: Percentage of students
Page 23 and 24:
• By far the most frequently cite
Page 25 and 26:
• Those students incurring the lo
Page 27 and 28:
Table 3.2: Amount of course/tuition
Page 29 and 30:
− on short courses lasting one ye
Page 31 and 32:
Table 3.4: Full-time equivalent lev
Page 33 and 34: • By contrast, in Woodley’s (20
Page 35 and 36: towards a qualification (62%) and o
Page 37 and 38: 3.2.2 Who pays the other course cos
Page 39 and 40: • Of the total costs, 59 per cent
Page 41 and 42: Table 3.9: Average total costs by s
Page 43 and 44: 3.1.1), the majority (71%) of stude
Page 45 and 46: 3.4 Students’ incomeThese expendi
Page 47 and 48: 4 Attitudes to the costs of study a
Page 49 and 50: Figure 4.2 indicates that such a lo
Page 51 and 52: Figure 4.4: Cumulative percentages
Page 53 and 54: However, there were significant dif
Page 55 and 56: A further 16 per cent of the survey
Page 57 and 58: Table 4.2: Percentage of students s
Page 59 and 60: Just over one in five students thou
Page 61 and 62: higher proportion of students than
Page 63 and 64: in five (22%) students disagreed wi
Page 65 and 66: Figure 5.3: Percentage of students
Page 67 and 68: Table 5.1: Where students study: Me
Page 69 and 70: 5.5.1 Travel to and from university
Page 71 and 72: 6 The long view6.1 Course’s value
Page 73 and 74: were intending to go for promotion,
Page 75 and 76: Taylor, C (2006) Graham Review of P
Page 77 and 78: Table A2.2: Percentage of students
Page 79 and 80: Table A4.1: Attitudes to student su
Page 81 and 82: 9 Appendix 2 - Technical report9.1
Page 83: surveys the data is not able to inf
Page 87 and 88: Table A3: Qualification aim - compa
show all

Part-time Students And part-time Study In Higher ... - Universities UK

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?