The transition from one educational stage to another can often be a fraught and uncertain process. In mathematics there has been ongoing publicity over many years about the issues around the transition to higher education. Notable among these are the Smith Report, Making Mathematics Count (Department for Education and Skills, 2004), and the earlier reports from the London Mathematical Society (1992) and the Engineering Council
(2000). Major factors include changes in school/pre-university curricula, widening access and participation, the wide range of degrees on offer in mathematical subjects, IT in schools, and sociological issues. The earlier establishment of the Advisory Committee on Mathematics Education (ACME) and current government initiatives indicate that there is still work to be done here. Various reports, including those listed above, point to the changes in schools as a key source of problems in the transition, and make recommendations as to how things could be put right there. Indeed, in response to wider concerns about literacy and numeracy, government initiatives have, perhaps, partially restored some of the skills that providers of numerate degrees need; over time these may feed into higher education. But it is doubtful that there will ever be a return to the situation where school qualifications are designed solely as a preparation for higher education.
However, if some of the difficulties in transition lie outside the control of those in higher education, others can be tackled, impacting as they do on the student experience. These include curriculum design and pastoral support, both of which may need attention if those who choose our courses are to have the best chance of success. We might also usefully consider what our students know about our courses when they choose them, and how they might prepare themselves a little before they come – in attitude as well as in knowledge. For example, Loughborough University sends new engineering students a pre-sessional revision booklet as part of its support for incoming students (Croft, 2001).
Such approaches can be expected to influence student satisfaction with their course of study, an issue of increasing importance, given student fees. Since 50 per cent of providers were earlier criticised for poor progression rates in QAA Subject Reviews and as the government continues to prioritise widening participation and retention, there is much scope for other institutions adopting similar methods. A number of the reports and publications listed above offer more detailed suggestions, but common themes which emerge repeatedly include:
• use of ‘pre-sessional’ material before arrival;
• initial assessment (or ‘diagnosis’) of mathematical skills. This is a key recom- mendation of the report Measuring the Mathematics Problem (Engineering Council, 2000);
• ongoing attention to the design of early modules;
• strategic monitoring of early items of coursework;
• some overarching form of academic support: a recent report (Lawson et al., 2001) shows that about 50 per cent of providers surveyed offer some form of ‘mathematics support centre’.
Of course, the local circumstance of each institution will influence the nature of initial and continuing support. However, the following have been identified as effective and worthy of consideration.
250 ❘ Teaching in the disciplines
Mathematics and statistics ❘ 251
Additional modules or courses
Some providers mount specific modules/courses designed to bridge the gap, ranging from single modules focusing on key areas of A level mathematics to one-year foundation courses designed to bring underqualified students up to a level where they can commence the first year proper. Specific modules devoted to consolidate and ease the transition to university should be integrated as far as possible with the rest of the programme so that lecturers on parallel modules are not assuming too much of some students. Foundation years should provide a measured treatment of key material; a full A level course is inappropriate in one year.
There are a number of computer-based learning and assessment packages that can help (e.g. Mathwise, Transmath and Mathletics are all described on the Maths, Stats and OR Network Website – www.mathstore.ac.uk). Again, these are best when integrated fully within the rest of the curriculum, linked strategically with the other forms of teaching and with the profiles and learning styles of the individual students. It is widely accepted that simply referring students with specific weaknesses to ‘go and use’ a computer-aided learning (CAL) package is rarely effective. On the other hand, many middle-ability students may be happy to work through routine material on the computer, thus freeing up teachers to concentrate on the more pressing difficulties.
Streaming
Streaming is another way in which the curriculum can be adapted to the needs of incoming students as a means of easing the transition. ‘Fast’ and ‘slow’ streams, practical versus more theoretical streams and so on are being used by a number of providers who claim that all students benefit (e.g. Savage, 2001).
Use of coursework
Regular formative coursework is often a strong feature of good support provision; it may help in this to find some way effectively to make this work a requirement of the course, as Gibbs (1999) suggests. Fast turnaround in marking and feedback is seen to be effective in promoting learning, with possibilities for students to mark each other’s work through peer assessment (see Chapter 10). This area is of particular importance given that student satisfaction surveys regularly highlight feedback to students as an issue of concern.
Another criticism in the earlier Subject Reviews was the similarity of coursework to examination questions. This and generous weightings for coursework may generate good pass rates, but often simply sweep the problem under the carpet. There is a nice judgement to make: avoid being too ‘helpful’ for a quick short-term fix, but encourage students to overcome their own weaknesses.
Support centres
Variously called learning centres, drop-in clinics, surgeries and so on, they all share the aim of acting as an extra-curricular means of supporting students in an individual and confidential way. Lawson et al. (2001) outline some excellent examples of good practice here, and the concept is commendable and usually a cost-effective use of resources. One can spread the cost by extending the facility to cover all students requiring mathematical help across the institution. An exciting recent development is the emergence of the UK Mathematics Learning Support Centre which will, through the agency of the Maths, Stats and OR Network, freely make available to all staff and students in higher education a large number of resources via a variety of media.
Peer support
Mechanisms for students to support each other tend to be generic, but are included here, as mathematicians have been slow to adopt some of these simple and successful devices.
There is a growing trend to the use of second- and third-year students in a mentoring role for new students, supporting, but not replacing, experienced staff. Such student mentors go under a number of names – peer tutors, ‘aunties’, ‘gurus’ – but the main idea is for them to pass on their experience and help others with their problems. In at least one institution such students receive credit towards their own qualifications in terms of the development of transferable skills that the work evidences. It is clear that both parties usually benefit – the mentors from the transferable skills they develop, and the mentored from the unstuffy help they receive. It is of course essential that the mentors are trained for their role, and that this provision is monitored carefully. Suggestions are enlarged and expanded upon in Appleby and Cox (2002).