Programmes of student support (post-entry)

What is it? Programmes of student support refers to sustained programmes of engagement (for example, via course modules or events) designed to improve retention and success among students from disadvantaged and underrepresented groups.

Evidence? Currently we do not have enough evidence on the effectiveness of these programmes. Most of the existing evidence compares outcomes for students who have participated in such programmes with comparator groups of students who have not. Although these studies all suggest a positive correlation between participation and retention/competition, they cannot tell us for sure that the programmes are having the desired impact or the size of this effect.

Should HEPs run programmes of post-entry support to improve student success? Since these programmes tend to be large-scale, high-cost interventions, providers should seek to embed evaluation to understand the extent to which they impact student outcomes– see the TASO evaluation guidance for more information on how to do this. Providers should also seek to build an understanding of which elements are most effective.

What is this intervention?

Some HE providers offer programmes of support for students who face additional barriers to succeeding on-course.  The format of this work differs from provider to provider. The advice on this page is based on programmes with one or more of the following aims:

• Developing study skills
• Building social interaction (with peers or staff)
• Fostering belonging in HE
• Supporting student wellbeing

These programmes all involve a sustained period of engagement with students, typically via course modules or events. Some of these programmes are also associated with some form of financial support.

What is the target group?

Most of the programmes of support discussed on this page are focused on students from disadvantaged or underrepresented groups, including:

• Students from lower-socioeconomic status groups
• Commuter students
• Black and minority ethnic (BAME) students

The wellbeing programmes discussed on this page are not targeted at particular groups of students.

How effective is it?

Currently we do not have enough evidence to make a call on the effectiveness of these programmes.

Most of the existing evidence compares outcomes for students who have participated in such programmes with comparator groups of students who have not (Dagley et al, 2016; Grier-Reed, 2016; Cho et al., 2012; Butt & Woods, 2016). Although these studies all suggest a positive correlation between participation and retention/competition, they are not ‘causal’ (in other words, they can’t tell us definitively that the intervention is effective). This is because the students who take part in these activities are likely to be systematically different from those who don’t. So, when we compare their outcomes with those of other students, it’s hard for us to estimate how effective they are, particularly when we are considering programmes that require students to actively opt-in, which demonstrates that they are probably more engaged than the average students.

In the case of programmes designed to improve wellbeing, there are only three small studies and none from the UK. All of these demonstrate an association between participation and short-term survey-based measures of wellbeing, but we are lacking causal evidence or any evidence on longer-term outcomes.

Only two studies produce causal evidence on the efficacy of student support programmes. Both are from the USA. One finds that a student support programme including a needs-based grant, increases the likelihood that students accumulate course credits but has no effect on graduation (Clotfelter et al., 2018). The other study randomly assigned community college students to a programme including a fee-waiver and finds a very large effect on graduation in three years (Scrivener et al. ,2015).

What features seem to be important?

Currently, we don’t have enough evidence on the efficacy of these programmes to make statements about which features are important.

What don’t we know

Currently we do not have enough evidence to make claims about the efficacy of student support programmes. We require more causal evidence to help us understand the impact of these programmes, particularly in a UK context.

We also don’t have enough evidence to support the use of particular approaches for different groups. In the 2020/21 academic year, we will be running a project with UK HE providers to help understand the most effective approaches to addressing attainment/retention gaps for BAME students.

Given that student support programmes can be resource-intensive, we should expect them to have a bigger impact than less intensive outreach approaches. More evidence on the relative scale of the impact of these programmes versus other approaches would help HE providers understand how best to structure their overall student support offering.

Where does the evidence come from?

TASO’s advice on the efficacy of programmes of post-entry support in HE is based on evidence from two causal studies, both of which are from the USA, and eight other studies, only two of which are from the UK (one of which was an evaluation report shared confidentially with TASO). Three of the non-causal studies are focused on wellbeing and none of these are from the UK.

We base our advice on the correlation between extra-curricular activities (particularly sport) and positive student outcomes on nine studies, including one evaluation report shared confidentially with TASO.

We have focused on evidence produced in the last 10 years and, in the case of UK-based evidence, since the student finance reforms were introduced in 2012. Older evidence has been included if is exceptionally relevant.

The key references are given below.

Key references

Causal studies

Clotfelter, C. T., Hemelt, S. W., & Ladd, H. F. (2018). Multifaceted Aid for Low‐Income Students and College Outcomes: Evidence from North Carolina. Economic Inquiry, 56(1), 278-303. doi: 10.1111/ecin.12486

Scrivener, S., Weiss, M. J., Ratledge, A., Rudd, T., Sommo, C., & Fresques, H. (2015). Doubling Graduation Rates: Three‐Year Effects of CUNY’s Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP) for Developmental Education Students. SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2571456.

Other studies on programmes of support

Cho, S. W., & Karp, M. M. (2012). Student success courses and educational outcomes at Virginia community colleges. CCRC Assessment of Evidence Series, 1-19.

Dagley, M., Georgiopoulos, M., Reece, A., & Young, C. (2015). Increasing Retention and Graduation Rates through a STEM Learning Community. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 18(2), 167-182. doi: 10.1177/1521025115584746

Grier-Reed, T., Arcinue, F., & Inman, E. (2016). The African American Student Network: An Intervention for Retention. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 18(2), 183-193. doi: 10.1177/1521025115584747

Lambert, L., Passmore, H.-A., & Joshanloo, M. (2018). A Positive Psychology Intervention Program in a Culturally-Diverse University: Boosting Happiness and Reducing Fear. Journal of Happiness Studies, 20(4), 1141–1162. doi: 10.1007/s10902-018-9993-z

Pakrosnis, R., & Cepukiene, V. (2015). Solution-Focused Self-Help for Improving University Students’ Well-Being. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(4), 437-447. doi: 10.1080/14703297.2014.930352

Whiteside, M., Bould, E., Tsey, K., Venville, A., Cadet-James, Y., & Morris, M. E. (2017). Promoting Twenty-First-Century Student Competencies: A Wellbeing Approach. Australian Social Work, 70(3), 324-336. doi: 10.1080/0312407x.2016.1263351

Studies on sport and extracurricular activities

Chu, T. L., & Zhang, T. (2018). Sport Club Participation and Health-Related Outcomes in College Students: Comparisons by Sex and Academic Classification. Recreational Sports Journal, 42(1), 33-47. doi: 10.1123/rsj.2016-0030

Danbert, S. J., Pivarnik, J. M., McNeil, R. N., & Washington, I. J. (2014). Academic Success and Retention: The Role of Recreational Rports Fitness Facilities. Recreational Sports Journal, 38(1), 14-22. doi: 10.1123/rsj.2013-0010

Forrester, S. (2015). Benefits of Collegiate Recreational Sports Participation: Results from the 2013 NASPA Assessment and Knowledge Consortium Study. Recreational Sports Journal, 39(1), 2-15. doi: 10.1123/rsj.2015-0005

Forrester, S. A., McAllister-Kenny, K., & Locker, M. (2018). Association between Collegiate Recreational Sports Involvement and Undergraduate Student Retention. Recreational Sports Journal, 42(1), 64-74. doi: 10.1123/rsj.2017-0004

Guilmette, M., Mulvihill, K., Villemaire-Krajden, R., & Barker, E. T. (2019). Past and Present Participation in Extracurricular Activities is Associated with Adaptive Self-Regulation of Goals, Academic Success, and Emotional Wellbeing among University Students. Learning and Individual Differences, 73, 8-15. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2019.04.006

Kampf, S., & Teske, E. J. (2013). Collegiate Recreation Participation and Retention. Recreational Sports Journal, 37(2), 85-96. doi: 10.1123/rsj.37.2.85

Kampf, S., Haines, S. G., & Gambino, S. (2018). The Impact of New or Renovated Collegiate Recreation Centers on Recruitment and Retention. Recreational Sports Journal, 42(1), 18-32. doi: 10.1123/rsj.2017-0005

McElveen, M., & Ibele, K. (2019). Retention and Academic Success of First-Year Student-Athletes and Intramural Sports Participants. Recreational Sports Journal, 43(1), 5-11. doi: 10.1177/1558866119840466

Xie, H., Guan, S. S. A., & Boyns, D. (2018). Use of a Student Recreation Center, Self-Determination Needs Satisfaction, and Subjective Vitality: A Structural Model. Recreational Sports Journal, 42(2), 116-129. doi: 10.1123/rsj.2018-0016