Source: www.glos.ac.uk. All Rights Reserved. 2024 University of Gloucestershire
Last updated: 1 March 2021
University of Gloucestershire Outreach Team
This report considers the experiences of Year 10 and 12 students who have participated in an on campus residential at The University of Gloucestershire in the summer of 2019. It covers which types of students attended, what they deemed important, reductions in any perceived barriers, and increases in familiarity with applying to university as well as making informed higher education choices.
Both year groups ranked deciding what to do and making plans for their future as highly important. Accordingly, both year groups increased the perception that they could make more informed choices and that they had enough information to decide what to do after their compulsory education. They became more familiar with the university courses available, where to find information about applying and how to apply through UCAS. Year 10 students increased the likelihood that they would choose both university in general as well as The University of Gloucestershire. Both cohorts felt that being able to afford university was less of a barrier after participating in the residential.
Additionally, student-identified barriers to studying at university were
explored and the emergence of both mental and physical wellbeing was identified as a common barrier to higher education study. Accordingly, subsequent residentials could incorporate collaborative workshops to increase understanding of developing wellbeing strategies. Year 12 students were also interested in developing their confidence to attend university. Other practical recommendations are explored in this report as well as some limitations to the evaluation.
The University of Gloucestershire’s Outreach Team deliver two summer residentials annually where students explore social, academic, career and financial aspects of university life. As one Year 12 student put it, “It was an enlightening experience to have a slice of uni life.”
Participants live in halls of residence on campus for a total of three nights and four days for an immersive university experience with all-inclusive room and board. Student Ambassadors, Outreach practitioners, university professional services staff and academics deliver sessions covering a range of topics including subject tasters, careers information, support services, student life and university application processes. The sessions offered in the residential are designed to increase students’ understanding of the applications process and support informed choices supported by evidence of what is effective in Outreach (see Robinson, & Salvestrini, 2020, and Sosu et al., 2016). The younger students are exposed to a variety of subjects to assist with making informed choices. Alternatively, the older group participates in subject streams to encourage depth of understanding as well as supporting the selection of a university course. They both visit multiple campuses and experience social and recreational activities including a celebration. Each residential cumulates with an awards ceremony and for the Year 10 Residential, families join the learner on campus as well as garner more higher education information.
Although there was some evidence of the effectiveness of summer schools such as an association with increased confidence and aspirations (Moore, Sanders, & Higham, 2013), aspiration to attend higher education was generally already apparent in students who apply to residential at a university. However, studies from the Sutton Trust have shown that students from widening participation backgrounds are more likely to enrol in higher education after participating in a residential (Hoare & Mann, 2011). Accordingly, about half of the previous Year 12 Residential participants applied to study at University of Gloucestershire between 2018 and 2019 – the highest application rate from any Outreach activity that was analysed (Gray, 2020). Nevertheless, the students who attended the residential may also have been more motivated to study with us.
The objective of the residential is for learners to develop greater understanding of university life and gain higher education knowledge in order to inform their future choices. The experience allows students to test out different subjects and develop increased familiarity with the processes
involved with university applications, as well as support available to them thus building up cultural and social capital for university study (Bordieu, 1986). Ultimately, the residential experience is designed to enable learners to see themselves as ‘fitting in’ at university or developing a sense of belonging. An additional goal is for students to identify and reduce any perceived barriers that could potentially prevent them from studying at university.
The Year 10 Residential is open to students from partnership schools, whereas the Year 12 Residential is open to all home students studying in the UK. Students are selected to attend based on a range of criteria and those meeting widening participation criteria are prioritised. These include being from areas where higher education participation is lower than expected (POLAR4 Quintiles 1 or 2), a low-income background (IMD Quintile 1), being the first in their family to access higher education or from an underrepresented ethnicity. During the summer of 2019, there were 53 Year 10 and 57 Year 12 students who participated in the residentials. The Year 10 cohort consisted of 49% males (n = 26) whereas Year 12 had 19 males participating (33%).
Due to the targeting approach, Year 10 students all lived in the South West of England, composed of the following constituencies.
| Y10 Parliamentary constituency | Count |
| Cheltenham | 9 |
| Forest of Dean | 1 |
| Gloucester | 15 |
| Kingswood | 2 |
| North Swindon | 3 |
| Stroud | 9 |
| Tewkesbury | 8 |
| The Cotswolds | 3 |
| No Parliamentary Constituency data | 4 |
| Total | 54 |
Year 12 students’ homes were predominantly split between the West Midlands and the South West, due to regional targeting:
| Y12 Geographical Region (GOR) | Count |
| East Midlands | 2 |
| London | 1 |
| South East | 1 |
| South West | 24 |
| Wales | 1 |
| West Midlands | 28 |
| No Regional Data | 1 |
| Total | 58 |
A quarter of Year 10 students declared a disability (n = 13), compared with only three Year 12 attendees. Three attendees were in care, two from
the Year 12 cohort. Both residentials had 37 students respectively who would be first in their family to access higher education (70% of Year 10
and 65% of Year 12).
There was a greater percentage of students with BAME ethnicity in the Year 12 cohort (40%, n = 23) than the Year 10 (21%, n = 11), broken down
in the below pie charts
The largest differences between the year groups were a greater number of Black students in Year 10 and a greater number of Asian students in Year 12. Four Year 10 students were not aware of their ethnicity.
Year 12 learners generally had a higher percentage of students from low income backgrounds (IMD Quintiles 1 and 2) and Year 10 had a higher percentage from the lowest HE participation areas (POLAR4 Quintile 1).
| Postcode Based | Year 10 | Year 12 | ||
| Indicator | Count | % Total | Count | % Total |
| POLAR4 YPR Q1 only | 14 | 28.0% | 13 | 22.8% |
| POLA4R YPR 1 or 2 | 27 | 54.0% | 33 | 57.9% |
| IMD quintile 1 or 2 | 19 | 38.0% | 29 | 50.9% |
More Year 10 students were undecided about what they would do after formal education (23%, n = 12), compared with only five Year 12 students (9%). Accordingly, 72% of Year 12 students declared that they would study at university (n = 41) as compared with 49% of Year 10s (n = 26)
Participants were administered with surveys both at the beginning and end of their residential experience. A pre-post test design was utilised to review any differences before and after participating in the residential. Paired t tests were conducted to ascertain any differences in the surveyed items. Chi-Squares were used to reveal any differences between what year groups found important to them. A thematic analysis was conducted on qualitative responses by Outreach practitioners using NVivo 12 software. All of the open-ended responses to pre and post survey questions were analysed revealing common feedback for improving the delivery of the residential as well as identifying barriers to studying at university.
Students were surveyed before the residential to ascertain what was important to them. Both year groups ranked making a decision about their future and making plans for their future as highly important. Year 12 students generally rated most items as more important on average than Year 10 students (83% versus 73% marked the items important or very important rating respectively).
There were significant differences between the year groups in four areas that Year 10 students deemed less important on average.
Year 10 students demonstrated a more even distribution between their ratings of what was important to them, as presented in the chart below.
They often commented that career options were driving them to consider university study (Year 10 n = 21).
The rankings based on higher ratings of importance are displayed in the table below:
| Important or Very Important to Students | Year 10 % | Year 10 | Y10 Rank | Year 12 % | Year 12 Amount | Y12 Rank |
| Becoming more independent | 78.8% | 41 | 3 | 79.6% | 43 | 5 |
| Careers Information | 78.8% | 41 | 3 | 83.3% | 45 | 4 |
| Finding out more about University | 69.2% | 36 | 6 | 88.9% | 48 | 3 |
| Gaining more self-confidence | 59.6% | 31 | 8 | 88.9% | 48 | 3 |
| Gaining motivation to achieve good grades | 69.2% | 36 | 6 | 88.9% | 48 | 3 |
| Learning about what support is available to students | 61.5% | 32 | 7 | 75.9% | 41 | 6 |
| Learning more about university finance (money at university) | 76.9% | 40 | 4 | 83.3% | 45 | 4 |
| Making a decision about my future | 92.3% | 48 | 1 | 90.7% | 49 | 2 |
| Making new friends | 51.9% | 27 | 9 | 70.4% | 38 | 7 |
| Making plans for my future | 88.5% | 46 | 2 | 94.4% | 51 | 1 |
| Trying new subjects to see what I enjoy | 71.2% | 37 | 5 | 68.5% | 37 | 8 |
Understanding what is important to students by year group is useful not only in planning a residential, but also for general outreach delivery and
planning.
Students were surveyed about what may prevent them from studying at university both before and after participating in the residential. Students from both Year 10 and Year 12 did not amend whether the following areas would limit their likelihood to attend HE: I won’t be able to keep up with the work; I wouldn’t know what to study. Both residentials resulted in a reduction of not being able to afford university as a barrier [Year 10, t(51) = -5.77, p < .001 and Year 12 t(49) = -2.99, p < .05].
Students in Year 10 significantly reduced the barrier of my family don’t want me to go (t(51) = -2.14, p < .05). This suggests that Year 10 students may have lessened the influence from their family. The following survey items did not reveal a statistically significant change in Year 10 students: Moving away from home; Getting the grades to get in; None of my friends are going; and I don’t know what to do in the future.
Year 12 students were less likely to report that the following items would prevent them from studying at HE after the residential: Moving away from home (t(49) = -3.14, p < .05); Getting the grades to get in (t(49) = -2.33, p < .05); None of my friends are going (t(49) = -3.70, p < .05); I don’t know what to do in the future (t(49) = -2.37, p < .05). Students from Year 12 did not change whether my family don’t want me to go would decrease their likelihood of attending HE. Notably, the idea of barriers can be personal and one person’s barrier could be another’s opportunity. For instance, it may be appropriate for a student to choose to study close to home, whereas another student may need to move away.
Additional barriers that students identified included their own motivation or attainment, mental health or medical challenges, financial constraints, or location. They also mentioned alternative pathways and learning methods. For Year 10 students, they began the residential attributing their indecision to a lack of understanding or knowledge about university and limits to their confidence and sense of belonging; however, these were not mentioned after participating in the residential. Year 12 students also commented that additional responsibilities, such as organising childcare could be a barrier.
After the residential, the most mentioned additional barriers continued to be medical and mental health issues. Students may benefit from gaining more understanding of the services available to students at UOG, or a dedicated session addressing strategies to overcome perceived barriers.
Year 10 students were more likely to consider university as an option [t(51)= 3.05, p > .05] and choose The University of Gloucestershire as one of their choices [t(51)= 3.24, p > .05] after residential participation. No differences were apparent amongst the Year 12 students in both choosing University of Gloucestershire or university in general because the distribution of the results did not shift. In other words, most Year 12 students tended to already declare that they wanted to study at university before the residential (79% n = 41 of 52).
Both year groups became more familiar with the following areas:
Both Year 10 and 12 students did not change their familiarity with the qualifications and grades needed to get into the course you want.
“Sessions about personal statements and careers was really beneficial” (Year 10 Participant) “I learnt lots of things that I need to do to make things such as my personal statement.” (Year 12 Participant) Another Year 12 student commented, “This experience was amazing. I now feel a lot more confident on what uni life is like and how to apply for uni.” Increasing familiarity with applying can develop a form of cultural capital towards equalising access to higher education
Both year groups felt more informed about university study or lifestyle after their residential [Year 10 t(51) = 6.92, p < .001 & Year 12 t(48) = 2.92, p < .01]. After the residential, both Year 10 and Year 12 students increased their agreement of having enough information to decide what to do after school/college [Year 10 t(51) = 3.63, p < .001 & Year 12 t(48) = 3.35, p < .05].
“I think that the sessions on the different subjects went well as it helped me decide what I may want to do in the future.” (Year 10 Participant)
“Fun overall. The lectures were engaging and interactive which made them more interesting. I’m really glad I came on this residential and it’s helped me answer a few questions I wasn’t sure about.” (Year 12 Participant)
After participating in the residential, both Year 10 and Year 12 students did not vary in feeling inspired to learn more about the subjects that they are interested in nor being more likely to work harder to achieve their grades or goals after their residential.
Year 10 students exhibited changes in their confidence in their ability to go to university [t(51) = 3.57, p < .01], whereas Year 12 students did not. This is especially interesting because a greater proportion of Year 12 students declared that gaining more self-confidence was important to them (89% as compared with only 60% of Year 10 students).
Both Year 10 and Year 12 increased their agreement that they would fit in at university after experiencing their residential [Year 10 t(51) = 2.77, p < .01 & Year 12 t(48) = 2.32, p < .05]. Year 12 students commented about the social side and building friendships, for example, “The experience was very interactive and informative. The staff and ambassadors were very friendly and helpful, and they also encouraged us to talk to each other and get to know each other”
Overall feedback about both residentials were positive, although there were some suggested improvements apparent in the qualitative responses. Both year groups found the activities, subject sessions, staying in halls of residence, meeting new people and the social side all beneficial. There were a few references to the Year 10 end party being particularly enjoyable.
“My experience was very fun and helpful. the lectures were very interactive which was good because it made it more exciting and we got to experience the reality of the job. it wasn’t what I expected as it was better because the lectures weren’t just us sat there listening and making notes we were always engaged and involved.” (Year 12 participant)
Year 10 students also requested a clear connection between the available subjects and career options. There were suggestions to ensure that the subject sessions were practical and demonstrative of the undergraduate student experience, with clear links to available pathways to pursue that
subject.
Both year groups thought the timetable was well balanced, however they would appreciate having a longer on-campus experience and a less intensive final day. Year 10 students wanted more free time and general freedom or flexibility. They also requested more dining choices, including a variety of vegan and vegetarian options.
One of the main limitations of this study is the inability to attribute causality to the residential without a comparative population. It also relied on self-reported perceptions and behaviours rather than definite HE progression and could be influenced by confirmation bias. Arguably, the fact that learners must apply to attend the residential may result in participants who are self-selecting and already have an interest in attending higher education. In order to mitigate this self-selection bias, the practitioners aimed to accept a variety of learners who were less sure about university to give them a chance to experience it first-hand. Generally, the older students are more likely to have already decided about attending university therefore the Year 10 cohort will exhibit more variation in their likelihood to attend HE.
The purpose of the residential was for learners to develop greater understanding of university life and gain higher education knowledge in order to inform their future choices. Deciding what to do and making plans for their future was ranked as highly important by both year groups who attended the residential. Accordingly, after participating in the residential, students were better able to make more informed choices about higher education. They improved their perception that they had enough information to decide what to do after their studies. Year 12 students reported that not knowing what to do in the future would be less likely to prevent them from university after they experienced the residential. Both year groups increased their cultural capital pertaining to familiarity with applying to higher education and which courses they could choose.
The older students placed more emphasis on the importance of practical considerations such as learning about what support is available to students and making new friends. They also expressed the importance of gaining motivation to achieve good grades or developing more self confidence, however these areas did not develop as a result of the residential. The organisers may therefore consider building confidence boosting activities into subsequent Year 12 residentials. Rather than using motivational and personal attributes such as working harder as an objective, the evaluator could incorporate a learner motivation scale into the next residential evaluation. This would enable the evaluator to consider any differential outcomes based on existing motivation.
Some feedback was related to the logistical operation of the residential. Although the programme was designed to provide social spaces for the students, feedback suggested that outreach could review scheduling to incorporate more free time for Year 10s as well as provide access to additional informal social spaces, where possible. There were also comments pertaining to the food choices and quality. The Outreach organisers will aim to work with the caterers to ensure they provide varied menu options, including vegan food. As for the WP cohort, there was scope to improve the ratio of male to female participants in the Year 12 Residential, therefore the team will work to attract a greater number of male applicants. It also may be helpful to define and explain ethnicity to applicants, particularly to the younger group.
Other barriers for students accessing higher education were reduced. For instance, Year 10 students lessened their perception that their parents not wanting them to go to university would prevent them from attending. Both cohorts felt that being able to afford university was less of a barrier after participating in the residential. Year 12 students lessened their perception that moving away from home, their friends not going or getting the grades to get in may prevent them from attending. In order to support learners in making more informed choices, alternative pathways could also be explored.
Students did however mention how mental and physical wellbeing could limit their participation in university study. Therefore, in planning residentials, the Outreach Team will aim to embed wellbeing support and strategies to address medical and mental health challenges in university, including available support. This could involve collaboration with the Mental Health and Wellbeing Team and including stories of students overcoming challenges.
Ultimately both year groups increased their perception that they would fit in at university, contributing to a sense of belonging, and Year 10 students felt more confident in their ability to attend university. Year 10 students also increased the likelihood that they would choose both university in general as well as The University of Gloucestershire. Overall, students who participated in the residentials at University of Gloucestershire developed higher education knowledge, understood university life, and felt more informed about deciding about their future.
Bourdieu, P. (1986) The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (ed), Handbook of Theory and Research for The Sociology of Education. New York:
Greenwood. 241-258.
Gray, L. (2020). Outreach to Applications and Enrolments – Evaluative Review. University of Gloucestershire.
Hoare, T., & Mann, R. (2011). The impact of the Sutton Trust’s Summer Schools on subsequent higher education participation: A report to the
Sutton Trust. University of Bristol, Widening Participation Research Cluster.
Moore, J., Sanders, J., & Higham, L. (2013). Literature Review of Research into Widening Participation into Higher Education: Ark Network.
Oxford.
Robinson, D. & Salvestrini, V. (2020). The Impact of Interventions for Widening Access to Higher Education: A Review of the Evidence. Education
Policy Institute.
Sosu, E. M., Smith, L. N., McKendry, S., Santoro, N., & Ellis, S. (2016). Widening Access to Higher Education for Students from Economically
Disadvantaged Backgrounds: What Works and Why? Glasgow: University of Strathclyde. Downloaded from https://pure.strath.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/55895221/Sosu_etal_2016_widening_access_to_higher_education_for_students_from_economi
cally_disadvantaged_backgrounds.pdf
; ?> "Visit the homepage"){kind=logo}
