Teaching in Higher Education

ISSN: 1356-2517 (Print) 1470-1294 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cthe20

Pre-university prepared students: a programme

for facilitating the transition from secondary to
tertiary education

Ruth McPhail

To cite this article: Ruth McPhail (2015) Pre-university prepared students: a programme for
facilitating the transition from secondary to tertiary education, Teaching in Higher Education,
20:6, 652-665, DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2015.1062360

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2015.1062360

Published online: 14 Aug 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1586

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cthe20
Teaching in Higher Education, 2015
Vol. 20, No. 6, 652–665, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2015.1062360

Pre-university prepared students: a programme for facilitating the

transition from secondary to tertiary education
Ruth McPhail*

Department of Employment Relations and Human Resources, Griffith University, Parklands

Drive, Gold Coast Campus, QLD 4222, Australia
(Received 22 October 2014; final version received 29 May 2015)

The expectations of first-year students are becoming more widely researched and
understood. How to realign perceptions and prepare students for the transition
from secondary school to tertiary education is less well considered. This paper
presents an account of a pre-university preparation programme embedded in the
senior years of secondary education (10–12), launched initially in 16 Queensland
schools, and expanding to over 50 schools with 447 students. The programme
provides students with a scaffolded experience, introducing them to the realities
of university life while building a connection to the university as an institution
and developing relationships with transitioning peers. Qualitative data collected
from 198 pre-university prepared students (PUPS) suggest that they have more
realistic expectations of what university life is like, and feel better prepared to
make the transition from secondary school to the tertiary environment. Further
research ideas are considered to address attrition during/after the first year of
university studies.
Keywords: first-year student experience; secondary; student expectations; student
pathways; student transition

Introduction
In the past decade in Australia, there has been a growing and concerted effort to
improve the first-year experience (FYE) for university students (Krause et al. 2005;
McInnis 2001; McInnis, James, and McNaught 1995; Nelson et al. 2011 and
others). Despite this, the issue of retention continues to be largely unresolved, even
though the federal government has set a target of having 40% of the 25–34-year-old
population holding the equivalent to an undergraduate degree or above by the year
2025, with 20% of tertiary enrolments at undergraduate level to come from low-
socio-economic status backgrounds (Bradley et al. 2008).
The importance of antecedent or pre-university interventions to provide the
skills and pathways for students prior to commencing their transition, has been
largely absent from the literature and debate in Australia (for exceptions see
Skene 2010), specifically in Business faculties. This research addresses that gap by
exploring one pre-university preparation programme embedded within high
schools in Australia. First, I explore the literature in greater depth to examine the
current knowledge, and what needs to be understood further. I conclude with a

*Email: r.mcphail@griffith.edu.au
© 2015 Taylor & Francis
 Teaching in Higher Education 653

comment about the contribution of the research, as well as provide suggestions for
further research.

Literature review
There is increasing agreement in the literature that, rather than viewing commencing
students as a homogenous group, today’s student body should be recognised as becom-
ing increasingly diverse (Nelson et al. 2011). Moreover, advances in information tech-
nology, economic pressures, larger classes and demands for accountability are also
affecting how educators teach (Kift, Nelson, and Clarke 2010). To date, FYE
studies undertaken by universities and tertiary providers have focused on curriculum
problems (Atherton 2006; Marland 2003), teaching methods (Smith 2004) and requi-
site skills (Fitzgerald 2004); Jansen and Suhre (2010). Others have assessed the effec-
tiveness of orientation programmes (Bennett, Mousley, and Ali-Choudhury 2008;
Braxton, Hirschy, and McClendon 2011), the role of student expectations and tran-
sition processes (Leese 2010; McPhail, Fisher, and McConachie 2009; Scutter et al.
2011; Stern 1966) and the process of students ‘engaging’ with their tertiary institution
(Fredricks, Bluemnfeld, and Paris 2004; Krause et al. 2005; Kuh 2001; Mann 2001).
However, it could be argued that these factors alone do not account for the continuing
numbers of students dropping out during, or after, their first year at university. Fur-
thermore, there has been less emphasis on the importance of establishing closer
links between schools and universities and establishing clear and tenable pathways
between them. The issue of transition and expectations in the FYE is initially explored
in this paper, followed by an examination of the development of outreach programmes
reported in the literature.

Transition and expectations

Students’ expectations have appeared consistently in the FYE literature. As early as
1966, Stern identified first-year expectations as naïve and mostly unfulfilled which
he termed the first-year myth. Stern (1966) argued that many students transitioning
from the supporting frameworks of school find it difficult to manage the level of auton-
omy and flexibility required in the tertiary environment.
It has been argued that transition is a multifaceted process involving separation,
transition, adjustment and finally an integration into the higher education system
and culture (Hillman 2005). It is during these first two stages – separation and tran-
sition – that first-year students may be at the greatest risk of failure (McKenzie and
Schweitzer 2001). Turner (1982), expanding on Van Gennep’s (1909) work which
examined separation, suggested that it involves three stages: a detachment from the
student’s previous social status; a move to social limbo and, finally, achieving accep-
tance in the new social group.
More recent research has moved from the transition-process perspective, to con-
centration on the role and disjuncture of first-year students’ expectations. This was
explored by Smith and Wertlieb (2005) who found that commencing students with
unrealistically high expectations of tertiary social or academic life had lower grade
point averages over the first year than those with lower than average expectations.
This demonstrates the extent and lag effect of the first-year myth.
654 R. McPhail

Pre-commencing first-year students have identified the differences between high

school and university as a different learning experience having: more flexibility,
greater independence, greater responsibility for their own learning, and less supervi-
sion (McPhail, Fisher, and McConachie 2009). This study showed that after partici-
pating in tailored tertiary studies and orientation workshops, awareness of the
importance of all of these expectations, except flexibility, significantly increased, offer-
ing a more accurate understanding of the roles of academics and the expectations of
students. This suggests that students’ expectations can be realistic and accurate, but in
most cases underestimated, but that they can be managed and more aligned with
additional preparatory information.
Leese (2010, 240) proposed a ‘new student’ was emerging in the tertiary education
landscape with over 70% of them working and 70% spending less than 15 hours per
week on campus. She studied students in their first few weeks of commencement,
exploring the differences in their expectations of university, to the realities they
found. Finding time to study and understanding the institutional language/terminol-
ogy used in all areas was the major challenge faced by students. Notably, concerns
around language were often process-related, for example, enrolling, systems, timeta-
bles and support services, rather than content or discipline focused. It was also
noted that students did expect to have to become more independent learners and
that the environment would be different. Not all of their fears were realised, and
they noted the often welcoming and supportive environment that they entered.
Finally, students sought out face-to-face lecture times and opportunities for structured
on-campus activities to assist in their assimilation.
Initial results from another expectations-focused study – The Staff and Student
Expectations and Experiences Project – were published by Scutter et al. (2011) who
explored responses from 3091 commencing students at three South Australian univer-
sities. Seventy percent of the surveyed cohorts were entering directly from high school.
The research found that students decided early which degree to select (e.g. in year 10)
basing their selection on interest and perceived job prospects. They were found to have
unrealistic expectations in relation to: the amount of time university study would
require; finding/scheduling time to study; feedback levels and the amount of access
they would have to lecturers; their ability to perform better than they did at school
(90%); their ability to successfully work and study; and the different assessment stan-
dards. That half of the students did not believe school prepared them for university was
or major concern. Most (91%) felt having friends at university would be important for
support while only 25% had a friend on campus. This view supports the findings of a
longitudinal study by Peel (2000) which found that many first-year students had a
feeling of isolation, believing they were reduced to being just a number with most
staff disinterested in them, they ‘struggled for motivation … and quietly slipped
away’ (Peel 2000, 32). Social dislocation occurs when students enter the new environ-
ment without friends or social connections. This disconnect is exacerbated by a lack of
transfer, from high school to university, of critical background information about the
students’ potential academic or social difficulties or weaknesses (Marland 2003).
While students expect that they will be required to take responsibility for their
learning (Haggis 2006), whether they have the ability to do this upon commencement
is less clear (Pokorny and Pokorny 2005). It has been recognised that a student’s ability
to choose the programme, which meets their expectations in terms of interest and
career prospects, is one factor that contributes significantly to completion (James
 Teaching in Higher Education 655

et al. 2004). Supporting the findings of Scutter et al. (2011), James, Krause, and Jen-
nings (2010) found 88% of students’ (N = 2422) choice of programme was based upon
their interests and career aspirations and their confidence in meeting the demands
required to complete the degree. A comprehensive national study of first-year students
in Australian universities found that

despite what we believe to be widespread and concerted efforts to improve the link
between school and university, a third of the students who have come direct from
school still do not feel they were ready to choose a course, and two thirds still believe
they were not well-prepared for university study. (McInnes, James, and Hartley 2000, 61)

A later study found that only half of first years felt their final year at school had
prepared them well for university study (James, Krause, and Jennings 2010, 29),
and that there is an urgent need for closer partnerships between schools and
universities.

Outreach
Research exploring secondary and tertiary links includes work from the UK,
Europe, the USA and more recently Australia. In a case study of the transition
from secondary to tertiary study in the UK, Gallagher-Brett and Canning (2011,
185) argue that attention should be given to students’ broader experiences and
overall skills, such as self-motivation and independent thinking. In Europe,
Jansen and Suhre (2010) found that while study skills preparation in terms of
time management and academic skills had a positive effect on students’ behaviour
and outcomes, the greatest impact came from satisfaction about their choice of
degree and their attendance rates.
In the USA, some academic outreach programmes have been developed to target
disadvantaged students (Fenske et al. 1997), while others have developed concurrent
enrolment programmes that allow secondary students to gain credit for university
study undertaken while they are in their final years of secondary school (Luna and
Fowler 2011). Smith and Zhang (2009) assessed the perceived helpfulness of
parents, friends, high school teachers, advisers and orientation programmes in the
transition. They found that the quality of the high schools’ curriculum and the devel-
opment of what they term an ‘academic ethic’ (38) or as Fitzgerald (2004) referred to
the ‘habits of the mind’ (38), are essential factors for academic success and a smooth
transition to university study.
In examining first-year students and faculty expectations, Martin (2010) stressed
that education systems do not foster collaboration between secondary schools and ter-
tiary studies but she identified high school teachers as having the most influence over
the development of student tertiary expectations. Martin (2010) also noted that prep-
aration should not be limited to academic skill sets, but also address social prepared-
ness which students identified as a shift towards independence from parents/carers and
the establishment of new and lifelong friendships.
As secondary school teachers and librarians have access to the target audience,
their input and influence would be invaluable in nurturing potential tertiary students
prior to transition. Owen (2010) suggested librarians could better equip students for
tertiary studies by extending their ability to search for information understand
research questions, research processes and evaluation skills.
656 R. McPhail

In Australia, the issue of transition emerged with the commissioned report: First
Year on Campus: Diversity in the Initial Experience of Australian Undergraduates
(McInnis, James, and McNaught 1995) which identified gaps not only between high
school and university, but also between first years and academics. The move to
address these gaps began with outreach programmes, but they emerged in a silo
fashion from one another, thus impeding success.
Clerehan (2003) reported on a number of discipline-related initiatives including: a
‘study buddy’ initiative in the University of Melbourne targeting year 10 students. The
University Preparation Program and Study Skills course established by the University
of New South Wales was geared towards mature-age students; the Broadway Program
for the long-term disadvantaged and the Cadigal Program to support Aboriginal can-
didates were established the University of Sydney. Monash University launched the
Transition to Tertiary Writing Project, and a Diploma was established in the Arts to
enable rural and isolated student’s access to higher education. Skene (2010) described
one Western Australian University’s outreach programme focusing on medicine,
dental and health sciences operating from years 9 to 12 where activities are designed
to fit the secondary school curriculum, opportunities for teacher’s feedback and pro-
fessional development (PD) provided, in addition to resources and information avail-
able for families. While this list is not exhaustive, to date, a dedicated Business
outreach programme in Australia has yet to be examined in the literature yet, as
noted by Clerehan (2003), this is often the largest faculty on campus.
In Australia, publicly funded universities have been required to operate and report
on outreach programmes that aim to attract students from disadvantaged groups
since 2005 (Ferrier, Heagney, and Long 2008). However, it is only recently that the
emphasis has been widened to include those designed to attract high achieving stu-
dents. Widening participation, while beneficial to individuals and society, does not
come without its difficulties for the disadvantaged (Leese 2010). The report
‘Researching Outreach’ (Ferrier, Heagney, and Long 2008) therefore recommended
that programmes provide preparatory access by building pathways, providing aca-
demic enrichment and increasing knowledge and interest in particular fields of
study. It was also suggested that evaluation methods (such as student exit surveys)
and statistical indicators (such as the number of participants who subsequently
enrolled in a university course or meet other objectives) are embedded and measured.
Ensuring such programmes are sustained over time will increase effectiveness by pro-
viding the additional skills to succeed in the tertiary environment, ensuring they are
multifaceted and well integrated. The findings provide an opportunity to explore how
‘pre-university prepared students’ (PUPS) expectations might be realigned to better
meet the realities of tertiary studies and thereby assist with successful transition
and potential retention in one Business outreach programme, a description of
which follows. Also, larger studies (e.g. Ferrier, Heagney, and Long 2008; James,
Krause, and Jennings 2010) provide a background and indication of the ideas that
PUPS will examine.
A framework for describing transition needs was developed by Lizzio (2006)
(Figure 1) as a model to guide the first-year student experience at an Australian Uni-
versity. The Five Senses Model of Successful Transition conceptualises student needs
in terms of five domains of success: Academic culture, Purpose, Capability, Connect-
edness and Resourcefulness. The domains provide an operational description of the
academic, personal and social aspects of the transition process.
 Teaching in Higher Education 657

Figure 1. The five senses model of successful transition (Lizzio 2006).

Lizzio’s framework has been used in research by Burnett and Larmar (2011, 23),
which showed the connections and utility of the five senses in understanding transition
at the three levels of student, staff and institution. It forms the theoretical framework
through which the programme presented in this research is constructed.
In summary, the literature has highlighted that research into the FYE has focused
on issues such as student experience and transition, engagement, and the current weak
ties between schools and universities. Building on the framework of Lizzio (2006) an
outreach programme for students was developed and is explored next. This research
addresses a gap in the literature by answering the following research question: How
does can an outreach programme into years 10–12 assist school students in their tran-
sition and success at University?

PUPS programme structure

The PUPS programme was developed by an academic with a secondary teaching
background and a Senior Head of Business teacher at a large State High School
with input from a range of stakeholders such as teachers, academics and students.
The programme is based entirely on site at a large multi-campus Queensland Univer-
sity with over 6000 Business students. It hoped to facilitate a closer working relation-
ship between schools and universities to enhance the opportunities and pathways of
students and to support educators. The aim is to improve the students’ transition by
providing them with experiences that develop realistic and informed expectations,
knowledge with which to make informed decisions, if tertiary studies are what they
want to pursue, about which degree to enrol in what skills will be required to ensure
their successful transition to tertiary education.
The PUPS programme provides education and training to secondary students,
through a range of learning opportunities that blend school syllabi in the new National
Curriculum with university course content such as: Economics, Management, Human
Resource Management, Marketing, Accounting, Finance, Event Management and
Sport Management. The programme has distinct activities: Years 10–11 Ambassadors
658 R. McPhail

Program, the Year 12 Simulation Series, and for teachers, through PD. Input and gui-
dance of the participating secondary teachers is sought regularly during PD which
comprises of a series of seminars presented by academics each year based on specific
areas of the National Curriculum. Each distinct activity supports the five Senses of
successful student transition.
The Ambassadors Program (Years 10–11) introduces students to the tertiary
environment and the theoretical perspectives of the topics studied from within the
school’s curriculum. Attendance is spread over terms 2, 3 and 4. A topical lecture is
followed by a tutorial activity which the students complete in groups with peers
from schools other than their own and they then prepare and present their findings
to the larger group. A panel of academics then assess and critique their presentation
and answer questions prepared by the students. At the end of each session students
are also provided with information about degrees that align with the area of the day
as well as potential career options. Students who complete the Ambassadors
Program then graduate into the Year 12 Simulation Program having made peer-to-
peer and academic connections and having acquired foundation skills.
This strategy is further developed in the Year 12 Simulation Program which adds
the elements of lectures, tutorials and assessment. Students meet once per term at the
university to participate in a series of seminars that are designed to develop student
knowledge around a selected topic, for example: Forensic Accounting, International
Marketing or Environmental Economics. The Year 12 Simulation is designed to
address many of the transition issues faced by first-year students. Attendance is
spread over terms 1, 2 and 3 of Year 12. The first lecture of each day is generic and
attended by the entire cohort. The generic lecture discusses topics such as: how univer-
sity differs from the school environment, expectations, realities, academic skills, assess-
ment, terminology, dealing with work and study, support services, first in family,
dealing with failure as well as degree options and careers. They also hear from
current university students about their transition and experiences into the tertiary
environment. Next, students move into their streams of selected study to attend
content-specific lectures delivered by academics who take first-year cohorts. These
are followed by tutorials specifically designed for them, and then students complete
targeted assessment items. The types and difficulty of the tasks are scaffolded. Students
in the programme work in groups with students from different schools in their area of
interest to produce assessment pieces, in addition to completing individual assessment
items and undergoing exams. Upon completion of the programme, students are asked
to voluntarily and anonymously write a reflective narrative about the programme and
what, if any, impact it had had upon their transition expectations as they entered ter-
tiary education. Next, participation and transition data and the analysis of the narra-
tives are presented.

Methodology and results

A qualitative approach was adopted for this research because it allows for an in depth
exploration of the themes emerging from reflective narratives produced from PUPS. As
recommended by Ferrier, Heagney, and Long (2008) a combination of data including
numbers of student transitions is collected in conjunction with text from them upon
completion of the programme. First, the PUPS growth data in regards to participation
and transition are presented followed by a lexical analysis of the reflective narratives.
 Teaching in Higher Education 659

Programme growth
Details of students undertaking the PUPS programme are shown in Table 1. As the
table shows student numbers have increased annually since the commencement of
PUPS in 2011. The retention rate of the students in has been 91%. Of graduates
26% indicated they had not considered a university degree at all and a further 33%
of those who had intended to attend higher education indicated they had not con-
sidered taking a business degree. It should be noted the PUPS cohort matched the
general intake of students with a comparative tertiary ranking or overall position
(OP) average score and first in family and low-socio-economic markers and gender.
They did not however match in terms of age ranges due to the exclusion of mature
age or alternative entry individuals. To explore the impact of the programme, a quali-
tative analysis was undertaken on a separate data set presented next.

Lexical analysis
Lexical analysis refers to the study of both quantitative and qualitative textual data
(Bolden and Moscarola 2000). Quantitative textual analysis places emphasises more
on the structural aspects of language, utilising manifest coding to assign each word
as it appears regardless of its meaning (Bolden and Moscarola 2000; Roberts 1997).
Qualitative textual analysis focuses more on the semantic aspects of language, utilising
latent coding to assign words based on meaning (Bolden and Moscarola 2000; Roberts
1997). In this study, a qualitative approach using latent coding is employed.
The students graduating from the Year 12 simulation in 2012 were asked to write
reflective narratives about the programme and what, if any, impact it had had upon
their transition expectations as they entered tertiary education upon their completion
of the programme. Students are accepted into the programme upon recommendation
of their teacher and having achieved a satisfactory in English a high level of achieve-
ment in their business subject. Students who were not given entry into the programme
were not researched nor those who chose not to participate which is a limitation of the
study. Of the 198 PUPS in attendance, 127 completed narratives representing a
response rate of 63%. Students were informed the activity was voluntary and anon-
ymous and that they were free to withdraw from the exercise at any time, should
they wish. The scripts were transcribed into Excel spreadsheets followed by lexical
analysis using ‘Leximancer’.
Leximancer is a text analysis software programme that conducts analysis of tran-
script data employs proximity values (Cretchley, Rooney, and Gallois 2010; Smith
and Humphreys 2006). Unlike manual coding, Leximancer automatically identifies
text to create concepts and themes from the uploaded data file (Cretchley et al.
2010). In phase two, a concept map (Figure 2) was generated and 6 themes resulted

Table 1. Participation and transition rates of Year 12 Simulation PUPS.

Year Graduated Transitions in university Transitions into business degree

2011 111 84 47
2012 156 102 91
2013 358 229 174
2014 447
660 R. McPhail

Figure 2. Conceptual map of PUPS reflective narratives.

with 29 concepts. Hot/warm coloured themes are the most relevant with cool colours
the less relevant themes. Finally in phase three, the researcher examined each narra-
tive to confirm the themes identified by lexical analysis. At the completion of analysis
the researcher noted that from the six themes identified the two major themes
appeared to relate to more tangible issues (i.e. university, lectures), while the remain-
ing four related more to less tangible issues (i.e. feel, experience, institution and differ-
ent). The major themes relating to university and lectures will now be discussed
further.
The strongest theme to emerge was ‘University’ with the following related con-
cepts: university, campus, people, life, opportunities and layout. Representative text
excerpts of ‘University’ included: ‘Overall the program was excellent in helping me
transition to university life’ and ‘We have been able to see what Uni. is like and it
takes a little bit of the stress off us when it comes to arriving on our first day … ’
and ‘Realising what processes are included in university transitioning’. Some students
commented on getting ‘ … a taste of real uni. life … ’ while others spoke of the benefits
of clearly understanding the differences between school and university life in terms of
‘differences in the ways people interact’ and ‘differences in the way you are treated and
information is presented’. The opportunity to pursue a chosen course of study at the
university of choice, and to be prepared for this, was also evident in this theme. Finally,
several students spoke of how the programme had helped ‘ … with transition into uni-
versity through an understanding of how university works’.
 Teaching in Higher Education 661

The next strongest theme was ‘Lectures’ with related concepts of lectures, tutorials,
expectations, ideas, environment and classes. Students spoke of being assisted for the
future based on the ‘ … firsthand experience of attending lectures’ and the benefits of
clearly understanding the difference between high school classes and university lec-
tures. The feeling of readiness for university study was present in many comments,
such as ‘At first I didn’t feel ready for uni. but after this program I have had a taste
for uni. and can’t wait to start’. ‘ … learning about lectures, tutorials, assessment
and lecturers’ ‘Learnt a bit about how to do the referencing in tutorials – make it
easier for next year’. The sub-text of the positive experience from the programme
was also evident in this second theme, supported by comments such as ‘ … first-
hand experience of attending lectures’ and ‘ … experience what a lecture and tutorial
is like and to meet with some of the teachers’.
The remaining themes were: Feel, Experience, Institution and Different and corre-
sponding sub themes. These themes are beyond the scope of this research however will
be explored in future research.

Discussion
The PUPS programme attempts to address the concerns raised decades ago by Stern
but which have been largely unresolved despite numerous efforts since that time (Leese
2010; McInnes, James, and Hartley 2000; Stern 1966 and others). Because of the longi-
tudinal nature of this programme and its assessment structure, students are able to pro-
gress through the stages of transition separation as identified by Turner (1982) before
they attend university. The programme enables student to move to the final stage of
separation, which is attachment to a new group, while not having to completely
suffer detachment from their current peers or social limbo. Rather, many of their
peers from the programme move with them into their degrees and this assists with
the transition building their sense of connectedness and resourcefulness. In addition,
the development of relationships with academic staff and ongoing interactions with
them supports the view of Krause and Coates (2008) who see this as an important
factor leading to successful transition.
The main themes which emerged focused on the understanding of the oppor-
tunities tertiary study provides along with having developed realistic expectations
of themselves and others. In addition, the skills needed to transition to university
such as a command of the terminology used and meaning associated to it were
identified as building their sense of capability and academic culture. A sense of
confidence was evident around understanding the environment both in the phys-
ical sense and in the shift to independent learning plus the numerous competing
challenges first-year students’ face (e.g. work/study balance). Importantly, stu-
dents formed their own realistic expectations of what pursuing a tertiary edu-
cation would be like rather than adopting them from others (James, Krause,
and Jennings 2010).
An increased understanding of the logistics, systems and processes of navigating
the university was also evident. A clear understanding emerged of the roles and expec-
tations of academics, students and professional staff, addressing concerns recently
raised by Scutter et al. (2010). Also, the expectations of skills needed both inside
and outside the classroom to succeed in the tertiary environment were reported build-
ing a sense of academic culture and capability.
662 R. McPhail

Supporting the findings of Scutter et al. (2011) and James, Krause, and Jennings
(2010) and building on the recommendation of Ferrier, Heagney, and Long (2008),
focusing on a particular field and the options within it, was successfully implemented.
Understanding the degree options available to them and where those degrees might
lead in relation to career outcomes, was important to the PUPS building a sense of
purpose. Several participants noted that the programme had motivated them to
increase their commitment to their school studies to achieve the grades needed to
enter university. This phenomenon was also reported by the teachers.
PUPS appeared in many cases, to realise that they can achieve at university, were
assisted by knowing how to do this and knowing who can help them building a sense
of capability and connectedness. The programme discussed failure specifically and
how to manage this as a process and part of tertiary study. The large number of
first-in-family students enrolled at the university – currently approximately 60% –
was also discussed, and his figure was reflected in the PUPS cohort. Normalising
this and reinforcing that they graduate at the same rate as those who are not first-
in-family, assists students who reported they ‘know they can do it’. As one teacher
reported, ‘The program helped some students to realise that they are capable of under-
taking university studies. These students previously did not have the confidence in their
ability to undertake uni studies’.
The programme is evaluated annually by students and graduates and also three
times per annum by teachers and academics as recommended by Skene (2010).
Through these reviews the difference to student’s outcomes has been found to be three-
fold. First, to students in their senior phase of learning finding relevance and direction
in their studies, second, to those students who are now university students reporting
fewer transition issues and finally, to business educators by providing support
current research and industry best practice for use in classrooms.

Conclusion
The PUPS programme seeks to engage young people and place them in a position to
make informed decisions regarding their future. The programme as an antecedent
strategy assists students in deciding if attending university is the correct pathway for
them to take ensuring less of a ‘come, try and leave’ approach. In addition, students
are introduced to the independent framework of university and the challenges this
environment presents, which if not managed successfully, can add to both personal
failure, and the general student attrition rate. Valuable skills are developed, including
working in teams, problem-solving, effective communication (oral, written and inter-
personal) and critical evaluation. The PUPS programme allows students to experience
campus life, including lectures, tutorials and assessment. It also fosters the develop-
ment of relationships between students and academic staff, while improving engage-
ment with tertiary study options, and increasing student confidence. The
programme has proved to be an effective means of facilitating the transition from
school to university for many commencing students.
Limitations of the study are that it is located only within one discipline and at one
university. Expanding the programme to encompass other universities and other dis-
ciplines would enable a closer examination of its generalizability. Future research
could include a measurement of students’ self-efficacy through the programme, and
a longitudinal study of PUPS as second and third years and eventually as graduates.
 Teaching in Higher Education 663

Future research should also explore unsuccessful students of the programme and those
who do not seek admission to determine why. The remaining themes were: Feel,
Experience, Institution and Different and corresponding sub themes which emerged
in this study should also be more fully explored in future research. It is proposed
that programmes such as PUPS could reduce transition issues and increase the acqui-
sition, and ultimately retention, of university undergraduates.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

References
Atherton, C. 2006. “A-level English Literature and the Problem of Transition.” Arts and
Humanities in Higher Education 5 (1): 65–76.
Bennett, R., E. Mousley, and R. Ali-Choudhury. 2008. “Usefulness of Introductory Higher
Education Orientation Units in the Context of Increasing Student Diversity.” International
Journal of Educational Management 22 (1): 7–31.
Bolden, R., and J. Moscarola. 2000. “Bridging the Quantitative-Qualitative Divide: The Lexical
Approach to Textual Data Analysis.” Social Science Computer Review 18: 450–460.
Bradley, D., P. Noonan, H. Nugent, and B. Scales. 2008. Review of Australian Higher Education:
Final Report. Canberra: Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations.
Braxton, J. M., A. S. Hirschy, and S. A. McClendon. 2011. Understanding and Reducing College
Student Departure: ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Volume 30, Number 3 (Vol. 16).
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Burnett, L., and S. Larmar. 2011. “Improving the First Year Through an Institution-wide
Approach: The Role of First Year Advisors.” The International Journal of First Year in
Higher Education 2 (1): 21–35.
Clerehan, R. 2003. “Transition to Tertiary Education in the Arts and Humanities: Some
Academic Initiatives from Australia.” Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 2 (1): 72–89.
Cretchley, J., C. Gallois, H. Chenery, and A. Smith. 2010. “Conversations Between Carers and
People with Schizophrenia: A Qualitative Analysis Using Leximancer.” Qualitative Health
Research 20 (12): 1611–1628.
Cretchley, J., D. Rooney, and C. Gallois. 2010. “Mapping a Forty-Year History with
Leximancer: Themes and Concepts in JCCP.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 41 (3):
318–328.
Fenske, R. H., C. A. Geranios, J. E. Keller, and D. Moore. 1997. “Early Intervention Programs:
Opening the Door to Higher Education.” ASHE-Eric Higher Education Report 25 (6). The
George Washington University Graduate School of Education and Human Development,
Washington DC.
Ferrier, F., M. Heagney, and M. Long. 2008. “Outreach: A Local Response to new Imperatives
for Australian Universities. Higher Education in Diverse Communities, Global Perspectives,
Local Initiatives.” European Access Network (London) and the Higher Education Authority of
Ireland.
Fitzgerald, M. A. 2004. “Making the Leap from High School to College.” Knowledge Quest 32
(4): 19–24.
Fredricks, J. A., P. C. Bluemnfeld, and A. Paris. 2004. “School Engagement: Potential of the
Concept, State of the Evidence.” Review of Educational Research 74 (1): 59–109.
Gallagher-Brett, A., and J. Canning. 2011. “Disciplinary Disjunctures in the Transition from
Secondary to Higher Education Study of Modern Foreign Languages. A Case Study from
the UK.” Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 10: 171–188.
Haggis, T. 2006. “Pedagogies for Diversity: Retaining Critical Challenge Amidst Fears of
“Dumbing Down’.” Studies in Higher Education 31 (5): 521–535.
Hillman, K. 2005. “The First Year Experience: The Transition from Secondary School to First
Year University and TAFE in Australia.” Longitudinal surveys of Australian youth research
664 R. McPhail

report No. 40. Australian Council for Educational Research, Camberwell, Australia. http://
research.acer.edu.au/lsay_research/44.
James, R., G. Baldwin, H. Coates, K. Krause, and C. McInnis. 2004. Analysis of Equity Groups
in Higher Education. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
James, R., K.L. Krause, and C. Jennings. 2010. The first year experience in Australian univer-
sities. Canberra: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
[DEEWR].
Jansen, E. P. and C. J. Suhre. 2010. “The Effect of Secondary School Study Skills Preparation on
First-year University Achievement.” Educational studies 36 (5): 569–580.
Kift, S., K. Nelson, and J. Clarke. 2010. “Transition Pedagogy: A Third Generation Approach
to FYE-A Case Study of Policy and Practice for the Higher Education Sector.” The
International Journal of the First year in Higher Education 1 (1): 1–20.
Krause, K-L., and H. Coates. 2008. “Students’ Engagement in First Year University.”
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 33 (5): 493–505.
Krause, K., R. Hartley, R. James, and C. McInnis. 2005. The First Year Experience in Australian
Universities: Findings from a Decade of National Studies. Canberra: Australian Department
of Education, Science and Training.
Kuh, G. D. 2001. The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual Framework and
Overview of Psychometric Properties, 1–26. Bloomington: Indiana University Center for
Postsecondary Research.
Leese, M. 2010. “Bridging the Gap: Supporting Student Transitions into Higher Education.”
Journal of further and Higher Education 34 (2): 239–251.
Lizzio, A. 2006. Designing an Orientation and Transition Strategy for Commencing Students.
Griffith University: First Year Experience Project. https://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/
assets/pdf_file/0008/51875/Alfs-5-Senors-Paper-FYE-Project,-2006.pdf.
Luna, G., and M. Fowler 2011. “Evaluation of Achieving a College Education Plus: A Credit-
based Transition Program.” Community College Journal of Research and Practice 35:
673–688.
Mann, S. J. 2001. “Alternative Perspectives on the Student Experience: Alienation and
Engagement.” Studies in Higher Education 26 (1): 7–19.
Marland, M. 2003. “The Transition from School to University: Who Prepares Whom, When
and how?” Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 2 (2): 201–211.
Martin, J. M. 2010. “Stigma and Student Mental Health in Higher Education.” Higher
Education Research & Development 29 (3): 259–274.
McInnes, C., R. James, and R. Hartley. 2000. Trends in the First Year Experience In Australian
Universities (No. 00/06). Canberra: Evaluations and Investigations Programme. Higher
Education Division, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
McInnis, C. 2001. “Researching the First Year Experience: Where to from Here?” Higher
Education Research and Development 20 (2): 105–114.
McInnis, C., R. H. James, and C. McNaught. 1995. First Year on Campus: Diversity in the Initial
Experiences of Australian Undergraduates. Melbourne: AGPS [for] Centre for the Study of
Higher Education, University of Melbourne.
McKenzie, K. and R. Schweitzer. 2001. “Who Succeeds at University? Factors Predicting
Academic Performance in First Year Australian University Students.” Higher Education
Research and Development 20 (1): 21–33.
McPhail, R., R. Fisher, and J. McConachie. 2009. “Becoming a Successful First year
Undergraduate: When Expectations and Reality Collide.” Paper presented at the12th
Pacific Rim First Year in Higher Education, Townsville, Australia.
Nelson, K., J. Clarke, S. Kift, and T. Creagh. 2011. “Trends in Policies, Programs and Practices
in the Australasian First Year Experience Literature 2000–2010.” The First Year in Higher
Education Research Series on Evidence-based Practice, No. 1. Brisbane, Australia:
Queensland University of Technology.
Owen, A. L. 2010. “Grades, Gender, and Encouragement: A Regression Discontinuity
Analysis.” The Journal of Economic Education 41 (3): 217–234.
Peel, M. 2000. “‘Nobody Cares’: The Challenge of Isolation in School to University
Transition.” Journal of Institutional Research 9 (1): 22–34.
 Teaching in Higher Education 665

Pokorny, M., and H. Pokorny. 2005. “Widening Participation in Higher Education: Student
Quantitative Skills and Independent Learning as Impediments to Progression.”
International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 36 (5): 445–467.
Roberts, C. 1997. Text Analysis for the Social Sciences: Methods for Drawing Statistical
Inferences from Text and Transcripts. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Scutter, S., E. Palmer, A. Luzeckyj, K. Burke da Silva, and R. Brinkworth. 2011. “What do
Commencing Undergraduate Students Expect from First Year University?” The
International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education 2 (1): 8–20.
Scutter, S., I. Stupans, T. Sawyer, and S. King. 2010. “How do Students use Podcasts to Support
Learning?” Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 26 (2): 180–191.
Skene, J. 2010. “Developing Productive Relationships with Partner Schools to Widen
Participation. A Practice Report.” International Journal of the First Year in Higher
Education 1 (1): 77–83.
Smith, K. 2004. “School to University: An Investigation into the Experience of First-Year
Students of English at British Universities.” Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 3
(1): 81–93.
Smith, A. E., and M. S. Humphreys. 2006. “Evaluation of Unsupervised Semantic Mapping of
Natural Language with Leximancer Concept Mapping.” Behavior Research Methods 38 (2):
262–279.
Smith, J., and E. C. Wertlieb. 2005. “Do First-Year College Students’ Expectations Align with
their First-year Experiences?” NASPA Journal 42 (2): 153–174.
Smith, W. L., and P. Zhang. 2009. “Perceived Factors Facilitating Students’ Transition from
High School to College.” Michigan Sociological Review 22: 19–40.
Stern, G. G. 1966. “Myth and Reality in the American College.” AAUP Bulletin 52 (4): 408–414.
Turner, V. 1982. From Ritual to Theatre: The Human Seriousness of Play. New York: PAJ
Publications.
Van Gennep, A. 1909. Les Rites de Passage. Paris: Emile Nourry.