Text práce (4.348Mb)

(1)

UNIVERZITA KARLOVA V PRAZE

FAKULTA SOCIÁLNÍCH VĚD

Institut sociologických studií

Šimon Stiburek

Success, dropout and problem delimitation in the Czech higher education policy

Diplomová práce

Praha 2015

(2)

Autor práce: Šimon Stiburek

Vedoucí práce: Mgr. Magdalena Mouralová

Rok obhajoby: 2015

(3)

Bibliografický záznam

STIBUREK, Šimon. Success, dropout and problem delimitation in the Czech higher education policy. Praha, 2015. 102 s. Diplomová práce (Mgr.) Univerzita Karlova, Fakulta sociálních věd, Institut sociologických studií, Katedra veřejné a sociální politiky. Vedoucí diplomové práce Mgr. Magdalena Mouralová.

Abstrakt

Tato diplomová práce se zabývá problematikou studijní (ne)úspěšnosti na vysokých školách a její reflexí ve veřejné politice. Strategické dokumenty Ministerstva školství, mládeže a tělovýchovy označovaly studijní neúspěšnost za problém už v letech 2000 a 2005, vždy ale byla navržena jen dílčí a vágní opatření, ani ta často nebyla implementována a podíl studentů, kteří odcházejí z vysokoškolského studia bez diplomu, každoročně narůstá. Práce zkoumá tuto skutečnost perspektivou „vymezování problému“ ve veřejně- politickém procesu a zjišťuje že řada významných aktérů, kteří ovlivňují formulaci politiky, není přesvědčená, že vůbec jde o problém a že by tento měl být řešen veřejně- politickými nástroji. Zdá se, že žádnému aktérovi se zatím nepodařilo prezentovat problém jako dobře strukturovaný a tedy prakticky řešitelný. Kromě nedostatečné shody na relevantních hodnotách a cílích hraje roli i (vnímaná) absence vhodných prostředků k účinnému řešení, které by současně nebylo v rozporu s jinými hodnotami – zejména snahou o zvyšování kvality vysokého školství. Při konfrontaci sdílených představ hlavních aktérů o mechanismech a příčinách studijní neúspěšnosti s dostupnými teoretickými pracemi, realizovanými výzkumy i výpověďmi samotných studentů se přitom zdá, že vhled tvůrců politiky do problematiky je v řadě ohledů neúplný a nepřesný a řada aspektů je opomíjena či zjednodušována. Perspektiva vymezování problému se tak ukazuje užitečnou pro vysvětlení stavu a vývoje politiky studijní neúspěšnosti a práce v závěru konstatuje, že za současných podmínek není možné očekávat výraznou změnu.

(4)

Abstract

This thesis analyses student success and dropout (attrition, wastage, non-completion …) and their reflection in the Czech higher education policy. Strategic documents of the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports declared student dropout to be a problem already in 2000 and 2005. However, only limited and vague measures were proposed, and even those have not been fully implemented while the dropout rates have continued to increase every year. The thesis applies the perspective of „problem delimitation“ in the public policy process, discovering that many actors determining the policy formulation do not share the belief that dropout is a problem and that it should be dealt with by public policy means. It seems that no actor has been so far able to present the issue as a well-structured, and therefore solvable, problem. Besides, a lack of consensus on relevant underlying values and goals, a deficiency of suitable means aligned with other essential values – in particular the effort to increase the quality in higher education – is observed. When confronting the stakeholders’ expectations of mechanisms and causes behind dropout with the academic theories, recent research as well as students’ stories, it appears that the insight of policy makers into the topic is often incomplete and unfitting and that many aspects are neglected or oversimplified. In this respect, the perspective of problem delimitation proves useful for the interpretation of the developments as well as of the current state of a success / dropout policy in the Czech Republic. In conclusion, it is claimed that under the current conditions no substantial change can be expected.

Klíčová slova

ukončení studia, studijní neúspěšnost, retence, vysoké školství, vysokoškolská politika, vymezování problému, Česká republika

Keywords

dropout, success, retention, university, higher education policy, problem delimitation, Czech Republic

Rozsah práce: 142 397

(5)

Prohlášení

1. Prohlašuji, že jsem předkládanou práci zpracoval/a samostatně a použil/a jen uvedené prameny a literaturu.

2. Prohlašuji, že práce nebyla využita k získání jiného titulu.

3. Souhlasím s tím, aby práce byla zpřístupněna pro studijní a výzkumné účely.

V Praze dne 14. května 2015 Šimon Stiburek

(6)

Acknowledgements

This thesis could not be written without the support of many. First of all, I am extremely grateful to my mentor Magdalena Mouralová who provided me with valuable and constructive feedback and encouraged my work.

I would also like to express many thanks to all the colleagues at the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, and in particular the director Karolína Gondková whose generosity and openness allowed me to gain priceless experience.

I also take this opportunity to express my gratitude to all members of the Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS) at the University of Twente, and Hans Vossensteyn, Harry de Boer and Andrea Kottman in particular who welcomed me warmly during my research stay in winter 2013/14 and shared valuable insights and expertise with me.

My sincere thanks are extended to Aleš Vlk and Václav Švec who I had the pleasure to cooperate with on the HEDOCE national report as well as to all other colleagues who encouraged me in my work.

Finally, I am indebted for the helpfulness and goodwill of everyone I interviewed.

(7)

TEZE DIPLOMOVÉ PRÁCE

Univerzita Karlova v Praze

Fakulta sociálních věd Institut sociologických studií Katedra veřejné a sociální politiky

P

ŘEDPOKLÁDANÝ NÁZEV DIPLOMOVÉ PRÁCE

:

P

ŘÍČINY

(

NE

)

ÚSPĚŠNÉHO UKONČENÍ

S

TUDIA NA ČESKÝCH VYSOKÝCH ŠKOLÁCH

D

IPLOMANT

: Bc. Šimon Stiburek

K

ONZULTANT

: Mgr. Magdalena Mouralová

Institut sociologických studií

Teze diplomové práce

(8)

1. Vymezení předmětu zkoumání a strukturace výzkumného tématu

Zvyšování podílu populace s dokončeným vysokoškolským vzděláním je jedním z obecně přijímaných cílů hlavních strategií evropské konkurenceschopnosti a klíčovým prvkem konceptu znalostní ekonomiky. Samotné rozšiřování přístupu ale k uspokojení této potřeby nestačí, jeho pozitivní efekt je snižován celou řadou faktorů. Jedním z nich jsou klesající míry studijní úspěšnosti.

Výzkum studijní úspěšnosti (a zejména studijní neúspěšnosti) je v zahraničí poměrně etablovaným polem (srov. např. RANLHE 2011), u nás však doposud zůstává spíše okrajovým tématem. V ČR vzniklo několik prací orientovaných na výzkum konkrétních aspektů a případů, doposud ale chybí zastřešující práce postavená na analýze kvantitativních dat za systém jako celek a aplikaci existujících teorií.

Výzkum studijní neúspěšnosti se může zaměřovat na několik dílčích témat. Důležité je například normativní studium dopadů a důsledků neúspěšného ukončení na různé skupiny studentů i na společnost. Bezpochyby zajímavé je i zkoumání neúspěšnosti v širším kontextu proměny vysokého školství. Zřejmě nejrozvinutější a teoreticky nejpropracovanější oblastí je ale analýza příčin ukončení, na kterou se zaměří i tato práce.

Graf 1: Vývoj studijní neúspěšnosti v prvních ročnících bakalářských a dlouhých magisterských studijních oborů podle roku zápisu. Zdroj: databáze Sdružené informace z matrik studentů, vlastní výpočet

15%

17%

19%

21%

23%

25%

27%

29%

31%

33%

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

rok zápisu

Studijní neúspěšnost v prvních ročnících

(9)

2. Teoretická východiska

Jedním z největších klasiků výzkumu příčin studijní neúspěšnosti je Vincent Tinto (1987), který vysvětluje „dropout decisions“ (rozhodnutí o opuštění školy) jako důsledek nedostatečné akademické a sociální integrace jedince do vysokoškolského prostředí. Tento přístup však není jediný, celou řadu kritických teorií shrnuje například RANLHE (2011).

Quinn (2012) potom strukturuje faktory používané k vysvětlení studijní neúspěšnosti do šesti kategorií podle jejich povahy a úrovně působení:

Socio-kulturní faktory: nejobecnější a nejabstraktnější skupina faktorů odráží myšlení a obecný vztah společnosti ke vzdělávání. Tyto faktory ovlivňují chování studentů při průchodu vzdělávacím systémem a mohou mimo jiné vysvětlovat i část rozdílů ve studijní úspěšnosti mezi různými etnickými a sociálními skupinami a v různých zemích a regionech.

Strukturální faktory: kromě obecných hodnotových vzorců je na obecné úrovni studijní úspěšnost ovlivňována i ekonomickým a společenským pozadím, tj.

například poptávkou na trhu práce po různých kvalifikacích, schopností studentů hradit náklady na vzdělávání atd. Rasové, třídní, ekonomické, genderové a další nerovnosti ve společnosti se mohou přesouvat i do vysokých škol a komplikovat tak některým studentům setrvání ve studiu.

Politické faktory: nejokamžitější charakter mají a nejsnáze změnitelná jsou na makroúrovni politická opatření a rozhodnutí. Ta ovlivňují skrze řadu nástrojů (financování, akreditace a řízení kvality, kvantitativní omezení počtu míst na vysokých školách atd.) chování vzdělávacího systému a mohou tak jak vyrovnávat nerovnosti vytvořené předchozími dvěma skupinami faktorů, tak produkovat zcela nové záměrné i nezáměrné impulsy pro změnu míry a struktury studijní neúspěšnosti.

Institucionální faktory: na mezoúrovni je studijní neúspěšnost ovlivněna podmínkami specifickými pro každou instituci (vysokou školu), ať už jde o explicitní rozhodnutí, např. nastavení pravidel pro zkoušky a průchod studiem, nebo obecné rysy prostředí a společenské atmosféry v rámci akademické obce.

Osobní faktory: na úrovni individuálního studenta může hrát roli celá řada specifických faktorů, například zdravotních (včetně psychického zdraví),

(10)

rodinných, pracovních, kulturních a náboženských vlivů, náhodných životních událostí, vlivu okolí (přátel, spolužáků) atd. Z těchto důvodů není možné zcela předvídat úspěch nebo neúspěch konkrétního studenta ani při zachycení všech ostatních vlivů. Podle některých autorů může tato „náhodná“ složka hrát mnohem významnější roli, než by se na první pohled zdálo (RANLHE 2011).

Studijní faktory: v neposlední řadě hrají roli i dispozice studenta a jeho přístup k učení, tedy faktory částečně zachytitelné pomocí psychometrických metod a sledování průběžných výsledků ve vzdělávání.

3. Cíle diplomové práce

Cílem práce je analyzovat trendy v mírách studijní úspěšnosti v českém vysokém školství, popsat hlavní příčiny a navrhnout opatření, která by mohla pomoci sestupné tendence zvrátit nebo alespoň zmírnit jejich negativní důsledky. Práce se zaměří zejména na analýzu a detailnější rozpracování příčin na institucionální úrovni, přihlížet ale bude i k dalším faktorům.

4. Výzkumné otázky a hypotézy

1. Jaký je vývoj studijní úspěšnosti v čase a jaké predikce je možné činit do budoucna?

2. Jaké faktory je možné identifikovat pomocí analýzy administrativních dat? Nakolik závisí míra studijní úspěšnosti na oboru, městě studia, předchozím vzdělání, občanství, věku studenta a dalších parametrech?

3. Jaké další příčiny je možné odhalit přímým pozorováním vybraných vysokých škol? Jaké další faktory na institucionální úrovni, které nebylo možné odhalit z centrálně shromažďovaných dat, ovlivňují studijní úspěšnost?

4. Jaká doporučení je možné na základě pozorování formulovat pro vzdělávací politiku?

(11)

5. Metody a prameny

Základem práce bude dvoustupňová výzkumná strategie. V první fázi budou analyzována existující administrativní data pomocí statistických metod. Klíčovým pramenem budou data z databáze Sdružených informací z matrik studentů, podpůrnou roli mohou hrát další doplňující údaje například z výročních zpráv vysokých škol a kontextová data Ministerstva školství nebo Českého statistického úřadu. Výstupem z této fáze by mělo být zodpovězení prvních dvou výzkumných otázek dle předchozího bodu a určení vhodných případů pro kvalitativní studium v následujícím kroku.

V druhé fázi bude provedeno detailnější kvalitativní pozorování vybraných institucí na úrovni fakult a studijních programů jako více-případové studie mající prohloubit porozumění jevům pozorovaným na centralizovaných datových souborech. Zkoumány budou případy, které přes řadu společných vnějších rysů vykazují výrazně odlišné míry studijní neúspěšnosti a odchylují se od obecných trendů pozorovaných v předchozím kroku. Cíl porozumět lépe příčinám úspěšného a neúspěšného ukončování na úrovni fakulty bude naplněn zejména rozhovory a analýzou dokumentů (studijní předpisy, kurikulární dokumenty, …).

Poslední výzkumná otázka, jaká doporučení je možno činit pro vzdělávací politiku, bude zodpovězena na základě syntézy poznatků ze všech předchozích částí práce.

6. Předpokládaná struktura diplomové práce

1) Úvod

2) Teoretická východiska 3) Metody

4) Deskriptivní část 5) Analytická část 6) Závěry

7. Základní literatura k tématu

Beneš, Josef a Závada, Jiří. 2009.„Nová struktura vysokoškolského studia z pohledu kvantitativních dat“ In: Andragogická revue. 2009, Sv. 1, stránky 80-98.

(12)

http://www.csvs.cz/projekty/2009_spav/data/spav/2009/Andragogiga1_Benes_Zavada.pd f.

Kleňhová, Michaela a Vojtěch, Jiří. 2011.Úspěšnost absolventů středních škol ve vysokoškolském studiu, předčasné odchody ze vzdělávání - 2011.Národní ústav pro vzdělávání. http://www.nuov.cz/vip2/uspesnost-absolventu-strednich-skol-ve- vysokoskolskem-studiu.

Mouralová, Magdalena a Tomášková, Alice. 2007.„Studijní neúspěšnost na českých vysokých školách (a důvody, které k ní vedou)“ In: Aula. 2007, Sv. 15.

http://www.csvs.cz/aula/clanky/03-2007-1-studijni-neuspesnost.pdf.

Quinn, Jocey. 2012.Dropouts and completion rates in higher education in Europe-what is the current situation and what can be done to increase the retention of students?

Plymouth : Plymouth University. [Rukopis]

Quinn, Jocey, a další. 2005.From Life Crisis to Lifelong Learning.Joseph Rowntree Foundation. http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/1859354130.pdf.

RANLHE. 2011.Acces and Retention: Experiences of Non-traditional Learners in Higher Education.http://www.dsw.edu.pl/fileadmin/www-ranlhe/documents.html.

Scio. 2012.Predikce úspěšnosti studia na Národohospodářské fakultě VŠE v Praze testem OSP.http://scio.cz/vyzkum/analyzy/korelace_uspesnosti_NF_VSE.asp.

Tinto, Vincent. 1987.Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition.Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

(13)

1 Research topic, methods and theory

1.1 Introduction

Since early 2000s, Czech higher education has been subject to many changes. The number of students doubled and their background diversified, private institutions emerged, Bologna model of separated bachelor’s and master’s studies was introduced and changes emerged also in national policy and in the way institutions are organized. Over that time, the number of students who quit their study programme kept rising as well, in particular in the early stage of studies. The share of first year bachelor’s students dropping out increased from 21% in 2005 to 32% in 2013 and the trend does not seem to slow down.

FIGURE 1: Dropout from first year of bachelor study programmes (on- campus studies only) in individual study years, enrolment cohorts 2003- 2013. Source of data: MŠMT.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Cumulative dropout (in %)

Enrolment cohort

First year dropout from bachelor's programmes

(17)

In 2000, the Strategic Plan of the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (Ministerstvo školství, mládeže a tělovýchovy, MŠMT) declared dropout to be a problem (MŠMT 2000) and in 2005, the subsequent Strategic Plan predicted that with the enforcement of new policy measures, graduation rates would rise to 80-85% (MŠMT, 2005). In 2015, a ministerial background paper did not support the expectations: “out of the 111 831 students who started their bachelor’s studies in 2009, 46 719 of them, i.e. 41,8 %, graduated successfully within the standard duration of studies extended by one year.” (MŠMT 2015 b).

In the academic year 2013/2014, an estimated number of 30 000 first year students had quit their study programs at public institutions. With a mean annual normative of 34 000 CZK, their short tertiary education experience had cost over one billion CZK (36 million EUR), close to 7 % of the entire institutional budget of Czech higher education.¹

Still, as shown in the chapter 2.1, there is no explicit national success / dropout policy in the Czech Republic and only relatively few measures have been implemented in this respect. This thesis is analysing how the Czech higher education policy reflects the issue of success and dropout and tries to explain how the policy was developed. For this purpose, the approach of “problem delimitation” is taken, building on the claim that a public policy problem is not likely to be dealt with successfully unless it is presented as well structured.

1.2 Terminology

As a first point of my thesis, I find it necessary to define several terms used in the text in order to ensure its comprehensibility and comparability with other publications. In the

1These figures have not been published so far and different methods of calculation are possible, leading to considerably different results, depending on who is actually considered a “student” and a “first year student”

(higher education institutions are funded per study rather than per student, and not all the study places are funded). The number 30 000 was estimated based on data analysed in chapter 2.2, with regard to the official HE budget (MŠMT i) in order to make the figure compatible. The method applied is rather conservative and tends to underestimate the economic burden slightly due to multiple reasons, including the fact that first year dropout is the highest in technical disciplines and chemistry with above-average costs per student.

(18)

academic literature, vast amount of different expressions are used for what is called success and dropout here, often with many nuances and subtle differences in meaning. In addition, there are multiple possible approaches to calculation of dropout (retention, completion ...) rates and to quantitative representation of success and dropout.

The term dropout is used here for the discontinuation of studies in a study program, i.e.

every time a student decides to quit a program he or she is enrolled in or an institution decides to expel a student for non-fulfilment of study obligations are considered to be a dropout event. In literature, the terms attrition, wastage, mortality, dismissal, withdrawal, turn-over, non-completion, discontinuation, departureor stopoutare used to describe such events.²Importantly, different terms might imply different framing of the event, refer to different assumptions and values and shape the public debate in this respect.

However, other authors use some of these expressions only for the event when a student quits higher education completely, not enrolling again in another program in a span of years (or ever). Cases where a student transfers from one study to another are then referred to as program switching, re-orientation, student transfer or (horizontal) mobility.

The term successis used in this thesis more loosely for successful integration of a student to higher education leading to obtaining both a diploma and corresponding knowledge, skills and competences. The simple fact of not dropping out and staying within an active study can be referred to as retention (or persistence and sometimes re-enrolment in the literature) and the event of fulfilling all study obligations and being awarded a degree is called completionor graduationhere or sometimes also attainmentin different contexts in other publications. In some cases, time limits for graduation since enrolment might be imposed - whenever this is referred to in this thesis, it is specified in the text.

2In Czech, the term “neúspěšnost” (unsuccessfulness or failure) is predominant in ministerial documents.

Other expressions such as “úmrtnost” (mortality) or “propadovost” (drop through, dropout, failure) are also used frequently by some authors and stakeholders.

(19)

These terms are also used for the analysis of quantitative data in order to calculate dropout, retention and completion rates. In this thesis, a true cohort method is applied for dropout analysis, i.e. students are tracked throughout their study programme from the moment of enrolment in order to identify whether they complete their study successfully or not. Other authors sometimes apply different methods for dropout/completion rate calculation, such as cross-cohort comparison (comparing a number of students dropping out with the overall number of students in the system or new enrolees) or exit cohort method (comparing number of students graduating with the number of those dropping out) which might prove useful in particular when only aggregated data are available.

1.3 Research goal and research questions

At least since 2000, dropout has repeatedly been identified as a problem in the strategic documents of the Czech Ministry of Education. Still, almost no measures have been adopted and no explicit success / dropout policy is in place. The principal research goal of this thesis is to explain the development and current state of the policy.

In order to answer this, the thesis uses multiple operational research questions driven by the problem delimitation approach:

 How has the problem been framed and delimited and in the post-1998 policy documents?

 Who are the relevant actors³ dominantly affecting the formation of a national success / dropout policy?

 Do all relevant actors share one delimitation of the problem?

 What are the underlying values of problem delimitation?

3In this thesis, terms „actor“ and „stakeholder“ are used as synonymous.

(20)

 Are these values consensual?

 Is there knowledge shared among key actors on relevant means tackling the problem and improving student success? Is this knowledge in line with available empirical evidence and with the perspective of the actual main target population – students?

Besides answering these questions, chapter 2 of this thesis brings about a closer description of the actual prevalence of dropout in Czech higher education and of the policies in place constituting the context necessary for proper understanding of the research focus itself.

1.4 Theoretical framework

Problem delimitation in the policy process

In this thesis, perception of the dropout issue in the policy process and the consequent policy formation is a subject of analysis. As claimed by Veselý (2009), an issue can be dealt with in a policy arena only in case it is declared a problem. “Issues and problem situations do not get on the policy agenda, do not receive legitimacy and cannot mobilize the actors unless the problem is clearly delimited,” (ibid, p. 79).

In this respect, the definition of a “problem” is fundamental. Veselý (ibid) in line with older definitions of Dunn (2003) and Hisschemöller and Hoppe (2001) claims that the concept of a “problem” is applied only in cases where a situation (current or expected in the future) is not fully in accordance with what would be considered ideal. Simultaneously, this discrepancy have to be conceptualized as disagreeable and arduous to reconcile but reconcilable in nature. Three elements are therefore essential for the conceptualization of a problem:

1. Normative standard (underlying values and goals),

2. Description of a current state or an expectation of future situation,

(21)

3. Cognitive construction linking the normative standard to the situation and setting a claim the gap have to be dealt with (see Veselý 2009, p. 78).

In the policy-making process, at least elementary consensus on all these three elements is necessary for the issue to be put on agenda. Therefore, there are at least three conflict situations in which a policy response will not be easy to reach:

1. When actors do not share a normative framework and/or a common goal, and do not agree on what is good or bad in the context given,

2. When actors do not share a description of the current state or predictions of future development,

3. When the actors do not agree on the interpretation of the relationship between the normative standard and the state given, the necessity to deal with the discrepancy or its reconcilability.

In this perspective, problems are constructed based on a mixture of both objective (empirical, analytical) and subjective (normative and cognitive) elements. As Veselý highlights (ibid), even where relatively robust empirical data are available, uncertainty about the nature of a problem situation might occur, in particular when it comes to hidden mechanisms and causal relationships behind the individual facts. Relevant knowledge is also necessary for designing feasible and effective policy responses. Therefore, a lack of information might lead to the problem being considered unsolvable even when other conditions are met.

In line with this, Hisschemöller and Hoppe (2001) distinguish four “types” of problems based on the extent to which they are well-structured:

(22)

Consensus on relevant norms and values?

YES NO

Certainty about relevant

knowledge?

YES Structured problem

Moderately structured problem

(means) NO

Moderately structured problem

(ends)

Unstructured problem

FIGURE 2: Four types of policy problems according to Hisschemöller and Hoppe (2001, p. 44).

In their perspective, public authorities prefer to present problems as fully structured, which allows for relatively straightforward “technical” solutions. In case full structuration is not reached, further problem delimitation is necessary. Strategies of accommodation of conflicting values or negotiation on acceptable measures are applied in this context.

This thesis takes a constructivist perspective and makes problem delimitation (as a cognitive process of actors in a policy arena) the subject of its analysis. Less attention is dedicated to the objective nature of the current situation, although it is necessary to consider it while evaluating the actors’ behaviour.

Success and dropout in higher education

As discussed by Švec and Koláčková (2012), success and dropout studies in the US are rooted as deep as in the 17th century but the actual development of modern theoretical models has only begun in the 1970s. Despite multiple perspectives being taken in addressing the topic in the literature, Vincent Tinto’s⁴ model based on a concept of academic and social integration of students became the most influential and widespread (see e.g. the research mapping by Larsen et al. 2012).

4 Tinto developed his theory through multiple works from 1970’s, summarising the results in his book Leaving College (1993).

(23)

In his theory, Tinto puts emphasis on the identity of a student as a member of an academic community and his or her commitment which generates the willingness to fulfil study obligations, progress in studies and invest effort in graduation. In this respect, the

“integration” of a student is a crucial element, further split into two main aspects –academic and social.

Academic integration represents the normative compliance of a student with the content of education as well as with values and norms shared by the academic community, including following study regulations. According to Tinto, students who value what they learn within their studies and accept the rules of the given institution are considered well academically integrated and are more likely to graduate. Nevertheless, as discussed by Kuh et al. (2006, p. 12), proper operationalisation of academic integration is not straightforward and only limited evidence has been found to support the link to student success.

In Tinto’s model, social integration represents the relations among peers as well as interactions with a faculty. According to Kuh et al. (ibid), the evidence for social integration and its effect on student persistence is relatively robust. Moreover, the process of integration-building is central to Tinto’s model, consisting of the steps of “separation”

(loosening ties with the former communities), “transition” (establishing new ways of interaction with the members of the new community) and “incorporation” of the normative values and behavioural patterns related to the new identity. However, Kuh et al. (ibid) argue that these steps of the process are not always sequential, i. e. separated in time. Rather, an entire complex of integrational processes is likely to take place simultaneously in the early stage of studies. The result of this process is dominantly determining students’ later success and the likelihood of dropout.

Besides Tinto’s theory, empirical research has described a broad range of factors that can affect success or dropout of a student in complex interactions. Quinn (2013) sorts these factors into six categories, ordered from macro- to micro-level:

1. “Socio-cultural factors: where there is an expectation and self-fulfilling prophecy on the part of families, local communities and university staff that non-

(24)

traditional students will not complete their studies. This influences the way such students are treated and the way they think of themselves, normalising drop-out for them. Regional cultures and local job markets also have a strong influence on patterns of drop-out, helping to shape student expectations as to whether it is worth completing their studies.

2. Structural factors: where the unequal positioning of the student in society because of poverty, class, race, gender causes pressures that make it difficult to persist. Such pressures might include coming from communities where higher education is not valued and even disparaged, or not having sufficient family income to pay for the resources needed to support study. Structural factors also help determine the quality of education they have received at school level and the range of subjects available to study.

3. Policy factors: where strategic decisions about Higher Education (HE) negatively impact on the ability of students to complete. This can include aspects such as removing financial support to students, cutting resources for universities, removing transition programmes from Further Education (FE) to higher education.

4. Institutional Factors: where institutional cultures and practices do not support students to succeed. This can include factors such as poor assessment practices, unsupportive staff who do not respect student difference, curricula and pedagogies that are rarely student-centred and fail to acknowledge diverse forms of knowledge; inaccessible buildings and facilities and lack of recognition of the needs of students with disabilities.

5. Personal Factors: where illness, mental health issues, traumatic experiences or the influence of family, peers or cultural, work or religious commitments lead students to withdraw. Caring responsibilities have been found to have a strong impact on drop-out, as has living at home and travelling long distances to get to university.

(25)

6. Learning Factors: where student approaches to learning and/or poor quality higher education teaching prevents them from completing their studies. This might include such aspects as prior ability and poor qualifications, choosing the wrong course of study, poor attendance at lectures and seminars, problems with conventions of academic writing, problems with metacognition and goalsetting, difficulties in recognising how their studies relate to future career opportunities, poorly organised and non-stimulating teaching.”

(Quinn 2013, p. 71)

Broad, predominantly quantitative, research has been produced on correlations of many of these factors with the probability of dropout. However, in many cases clear causal explanations are not present in the publications. It is often suggested that dropout is somewhat closely related to low socio-economic status, immigrant and non-academic background or low achievement during secondary education (as well as other factors mentioned above) but it is not always clear why this is so. Nevertheless, Tinto’s model has proven to be a valid basis for analysis.

An analysis of the effect of a student’s background or attitude towards studies has been perhaps the most prevalent focus of success/dropout research, nevertheless, the role of national policies and institutional practices is also studied by many.⁵Based on this research, Kuh et al. (2010) claim that what students actually do during their studies is more important for their success than what their background is like and which institution they attend.

Further on, organizational and psychological research as reviewed by Kuh et al. (2006, p.

13-14) emphasizes the importance of psychological contract, relationships within the community and the sense of belonging:

“The most frequently cited organizational perspective, Bean’s (1983) student attrition model, posits that beliefs shape attitudes, attitudes shape behaviors, and

5In their research mapping, Larsen et al. (2012) calculated that out of 62 (European) studies involved, 53 focused on causes and 11 on reduction (pp. 51-55). However, only 3 of the 11 were rated as relevant and reliable enough for the final synthesis.

(26)

behaviors signal intents. A student’s beliefs are affected by experiences with the institution, which then evolve into attitudes about the institution, which ultimately determine a student’s sense of belonging or “fit” with the institution. Thus, students’ perceptions of the fairness of institutional policies and the responsiveness of faculty and staff presumably affect decisions to persist or leave the institution.

Similarly, the leadership and decisionmaking approaches favored by senior administrators are also thought to have some affect (sic!) on student satisfaction and adjustment (Berger and Braxton 1998).” (Kuh et al. 2006, p. 13)

In this respect, Tinto (2006) also discusses other aspects of institutional practices such as, inter alia, the choice of teachers for first year courses. This is more generally related to how teaching young undergrads is perceived in the academia:

"In this regard it is striking that many institutions, in particular the larger state colleges and universities, continue to assign the least experienced, typically least well paid, faculty to the key first year courses. The use of adjuncts and junior faculty for these typically large classes continues even though research tells us that the first year is the critical year in which decisions to stay or leave are most often made, where the foundations for effective learning are or are not established and where, by extension, the potential returns to institutional investment in student retention and learning are likely to be greatest. This is not to say that adjuncts and junior faculty may not be effective teachers. They may be. But they are generally less experienced and typically less connected to the institution than are senior faculty.”

(Tinto 2006, p. 8)

Moreover, the role of programme choice is discussed in the research repeatedly – for many it is one of the multiple events in the entire process of education, while for others it became the main focus of research, as reviewed e.g. by Hossler et al. (1999). Multiple models interpret how students decide on their higher education pathway. Various aspects affecting students’ decision can be taken into account – their social background, family and peer influence, reputation and social constructs related to individual institutions and fields,

(27)

financial costs, career perspectives, information available but also the admission criteria etc.

In the context of this thesis, two perspectives are relevant: first, the “fitness” or “match” of a student and the chosen study programme with regard to the level of academic demands, knowledge expected etc. and are both measurable. The better the fit, the more likely is the student to graduate successfully. Second, students’ expectations regarding the content and form of studies are related to the programme choice. The more detailed, accurate and properly evaluated information a student has prior to application, the less likely dissatisfaction with the choice will occur.

In the Czech Republic, limited research on success and dropout has been done so far.

Besides the register data analysis cited in chapter 2.2, there has been a survey-based research of Švec and Tichá (2007) or more recently Slepičková and Fučík (2014), and a qualitative analysis by Mouralová and Tomášková (2007). Slepičková and Fučík (2014) claim that for a substantial share of students, in particular in the early years of undergraduate studies, program dissatisfaction is a stronger driver for dropout than inability to meet the demands. Dissatisfied students usually switch to other programmes (sometimes within the institution, sometimes outside) but some leave the HE sector for good.

In chapter 4.1, conclusions of these authors are confronted with findings of other parts of this thesis.

1.5 Data and methods

Multiple methods and a combination of inductive and deductive approach are applied in this thesis.

First, quantitative analysis of student register data is used to acquire elementary insight into the situation in the Czech Republic. Both existing publications of the Ministry of Education as well as unpublished ministerial data are discussed in this respect. Simple secondary

(28)

review of resources is used as well as statistical methods, in particular descriptive statistics such as frequency analysis. Since the student register contains information on all students since 1998, there are no sampling issues. On the other hand, no data on student background, economic situation, motivation, attitudes, academic performance or similar are collected so only limited inference can be made based on this data source. Moreover, privacy protection allows only the analysis of aggregated data which limits the scope of methods applicable.

Second, a review of official post-1998 ministerial documents is drafted to describe the policy framework and to analyse problem framing through the period. Simple content analysis is applied and since the relevant parts of the documents are usually relatively short, almost all of them are quoted (and translated) entirely. Subsequently, additional analysis is made of institutional policies and broader policy context. Here, multiple documents are reviewed including secondary literature while qualitative data collected for the following part of the thesis are employed together with the professional experience of the author.

Third, qualitative data were collected by two methods crucial for this thesis: stakeholder interviews and participative observation of the policy-making process. Eleven anonymous stakeholder interviews and one focus group were conducted during the year 2014 covering HEI management representatives, members of the Higher Education Council and its presidency, Ministry of Education policy officers and independent experts. However, More than a half of these interviews have not been recorded, partly because of technical reasons (noisy environment) and partly on the request of communication partners who were afraid of misuse of sensitive information. Unrecorded interviews were analysed only as part of the field notes (see below) and recorded interviews were given priority in selection of quotations for the text of the thesis. Majority of these interviews were collected within the HEDOCE project⁶. All the opinions expressed are anonymous so the relevant statements

6Higher Education Dropout and Completion in Europe (HEDOCE) is a research project running from May 2014 to August 2015, funded by the European Commision and implemented by the Dutch Centre for Higher Education Policy (CHEPS) and the Norwegian Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and

(29)

are quoted in a way that does not allow for identification of individual communication partners. Codes starting with A have been assigned to individual communication partners as well as four participants of the focus group quoted in this thesis.

Participative observation had taken place at the Department of Higher Education of the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports from September 2012 to February 2015. During that period, the author of this thesis participated directly on the preparation of strategic and analytical papers, including the two key policy documents of that period (the HE Framework 2020 and the Strategic Plan 2016-2020, see below) and collected substantial first-hand experience. The content of formal negotiations, internal communications as well as informal talks became the object of analysis. As in the previous case, only anonymised information is reproduced in this thesis.

In the case of both the interviews and the participative observation, inductive qualitative approach towards data analyses was employed. The author was looking for reflections of the current national policy, information on institutional policies and also direct as well as indirect manifestations of problem framing with relation to the dropout issue. Particular attention was dedicated also to what is not present in the interviews – causes behind student dropout and related topics were in the focus of a discussion for tens of minutes so it is interesting to see also which factors described in the literature or present in the student stories were notmentioned by the policy makers.

Finally, students themselves were interviewed in order for the author to gain a closer insight into the individual ground-level experience. In this case, secondary-to-tertiary education transition was the core focus since dropout rates are highest in the first years of undergraduate studies (see chapter 2.2). Altogether, twelve people were interviewed in

Education (NIFU) (for more information see NIFU 2014). The author of this thesis was member of the national expert team elaborating a case study on the dropout policy in the Czech Republic.

(30)

fourteen unstructured to semi-structured individual interviews and another four focus groups were undertaken.⁷

Students of different ages were interviewed, including those in the last year of secondary education (deciding on whether to go to tertiary and which institution and program to choose), those in the very first weeks of their first year in HE, those right after their first exam period, those in the second year of studies (looking back on the first year experience) and those who dropped out from the undergraduate studies or transferred to another study program. The sample is diversified also with respect to gender (3 females and 9 males), the region of origin (4 from Prague, 8 outside of Prague), the type of high school the individual graduated from (6 general academic high school, 6 professional high school), the field of studies and the HEI attended (only in two cases, two students attended the same faculty but in different enrolment cohorts).

Most interviews took from 30 to 60 minutes and were made in an informal setting in order to stimulate openness of the communication partners. Codes starting B were assigned to individual interviews and codes C1-4 to individual focus groups.

Unlike in the previous case, a quasi-deductive approach was taken in student interviews both in data collection and in the analysis. The questions asked were driven by the theoretical literature and research and reflected also the perspective of policy makers analysed in chapter 3.3. The author was deliberately seeking for stories and experiences that would either confirm or challenge the findings of other chapters. However, qualitative nature of this method does not leave space for quantitative inferences but allows confronting the theoretical perspectives with individual stories and testing their applicability in the Czech context.

7Multiple communication partners were interviewed repeatedly in order to analyze deeper how their attitudes are changing and as to what extent their expectations are fulfilled. Two students were interviewed individually twice. Another three students first participated in a focus group prior to enrolment and later interviewed individually in the first year of studies.

(31)

Records of interviews are available on demand.

(32)

2 Success, dropout and its policy in the Czech Republic

This chapter analyses briefly the policy context in the Czech Republic. Attention is paid to the key related national policies affecting student and institutional behaviour as well as to dominant institutional approaches. Second, quantitative data on success and dropout are reviewed bringing insights into the historical development and dropout of specific target groups.

2.1 Policy context

National policy

Problem framing and the reflection of the dropout issue in the post-1998 ministerial strategic documents are analysed separately in chapter 3.1, covering also the historical perspective. In this chapter, only a brief review of policy is offered. However, as mentioned above, there is no explicit success / dropout policy in the Czech Republic currently. This was also confirmed in the interviews analysed in detail in chapter 3.3 further:

“There is no stimulus, no sanction, no specific instrument for that. (…) I don’t think there is any effective stimulus motivating institutions to change their behaviour.

(…) If there are any measures, it does not seem to me they have any effect in the disciplines where dropout is the most prevalent.” (interview A1)

Despite there being only limited national success / dropout policy, other policies may also affect the institutional and student behaviour, either directly or indirectly. Perhaps the most influential of these is the funding mechanism.

Over the entire period discussed in this thesis, the main criterion for public funding of HEIs has been the number of students – per capita contribution multiplied by the “economic costs coefficient”, which is set down for individual disciplines. Starting from 2010, elements of “quality-based funding” have been implemented, supporting in particular the employability of graduates, internationalization and research performance of an institution.

The budget share distributed based on this criteria rises every year, reaching almost 25 %

(33)

of the “institutional” funding in 2015. However, many of the criteria correlate closely with the size of an institution and hence they have changed the balance between contributions for an individual institution only to a limited (if not insignificant) amount. By this formula, institutions are de facto stimulated to attract as many students as possible to reach the economies of scale and reduce per capita expenditures on teaching and learning.

The incentives given to institutions to increase their student numbers are balanced by a numerus clausus policy or funding caps. Prior to every year, the Ministry sets a limit to funded study places for each institution in five categories - first year students in every type of study program (bachelor, “long” master, “short” master and doctoral) and all other students. Student numbers exceeding such limit are not to be taken into account in the HE budget calculation but many institutions overstep the limit in at least some of the categories.

Starting from 2010/2011, the funding caps are reduced every year in order to compensate for the demographic decline and to keep the proportion of cohort entering higher education constant. The overall numerus clausus is distributed to individual HEIs based partly on their historical limits but also with respect to performance criteria (similar to those discussed above) which leads to relatively steady numbers or even increase for top- performing (research-oriented) universities and steep decline for some regional ones. In calculation of the “other” (non- first year students), limit dropout rates are explicitly included - the higher dropout in the first year, the lower limit in the following study years.

Finally, the accreditation process, serving as the main external quality assurance measure in the Czech Republic, might step in the process. Individual study programs are subject to accreditation by a single body – the national Accreditation Commission – which has multiple working groups composed dominantly by active academics. Formally, a broad range of criteria are applied but as is evident from the plenary sessions reports, institutions are most frequently asked about the amount and qualification of their staff and its research performance. In this respect, not much attention is dedicated to issues of student success and actual teaching and learning (no site visits and interviews neither with faculty nor with students are undertaken), hence the institutions are not prevented by the external quality assurance process from reducing expenditure on education and related activities.

(34)

Institutional policies

To a certain extent, the situation differs on the institutional level in many cases. Especially in recent years, multiple institutions have started to develop initiatives in order to stimulate student success. Švec, Vlk and Stiburek (manuscript) list a number of measures declared by HEIs management in interviews:

 “Re-introducing obligatory presence at seminars and some courses, namely for freshmen;

 Distributing study obligations more evenly across the semester and academic year (midterm tests, seminar papers and presentations, etc.) as well as the entire study program (demanding theoretical courses should not be concentrated in the first year only);

 Developing student services and counselling;

 Increasing the number of consultation hours of academic staff;

 Establishing off-campus counselling centres in other cities for students in distant-learning programs;

 Introducing compensatory courses – both extra-curricular (paid) and as part of the program (non-obligatory courses);

 Offering educational resources (books, presentations, sometimes also lecture records) online for all students to reduce learning barriers;

 Dedicating more attention to student evaluations and opinion surveys to identify trouble points in the student pathway (courses with enormous study demands, poor quality of lectures or disengaging approach of teachers);

 Developing targeted support for special needs (disabled) students;

 Stimulating motivation of students by merit-based scholarships for best- performing ones;

 Ensuring the curriculum is up-to-date, in line with industry needs, and clearly career-oriented.” (ibid.)

However, as discussed in the same paper, action is usually not taken by the HEI as a whole.

Individual faculties or even departments have great autonomy in developing their own

(35)

policies, measures and attitudes, often uncoordinated with other parts of the institution.

Even in cases where an institution-wide initiative is proposed, the implementation rests on the sub-institutional level, in many cases varying greatly between the individual departments.

In addition, policies are often informal or semi-formal (and poorly documented), vaguely defined, with no explicit goals and indicators and only rarely evaluated. With the eventual exception of institutional annual reports, no comprehensive overview of these policies is available and often not possible to collect any evidence of it without asking the local stakeholders directly. For this reason, proper analysis of sub-national level developments and policy trends is hard to conduct.

Multiple institutions, in particular but not exclusively in engineering and technical fields, have developed what is called “an extended admission process policy”. Institutions implementing this approach reduce the formal admission criteria and accept big amounts of applicants (often almost everyone who applies and often more than they get funded for by the Ministry), replacing the admission process by first year courses and exams, deliberately aiming at high dropout rates in the early stages of undergraduate studies to keep only the most resilient and best prepared students on board. In such institutions, dropout reduction policy is clearly in conflict with their established strategy and it might violate what they consider a quality assurance process.

2.2 Number of student dropouts and their profile

The introduction to this thesis declared that dropout rates are rising so less and less students tend to complete their studies in the study program they started in. This chapter brings a closer insight into the dropout rates and the official statistics.

Dropout per degree levels

Dropout rates vary based on the respective degree levels. The highest dropout rates can be observed on the undergraduate level where, according to the data of the Ministry of

(36)

Education, Youth and Sports, 49,5 % out of on-campus⁸ studies started in 2007 were discontinued and only 45,9 % were completed by graduation before October 2014.

For the long-cycle master programs,⁹ the dropout rates are lower - out of the 2007 enrolment cohort, 34,5 % have dropped out and 58 % graduated. Most likely to graduate are students in structured master programs where only 19,9 % studies dropped out and 77,7

% completed.

Doctoral studies can be considered a specific case. Despite the dropout rate of 2007 cohort being comparable to the one of long master programs (34,9 %), only 25 % of these students have graduated so far. Thus, a great proportion of students remain in the pursuit of their diplomas seven years later. Since the doctoral studies are quite different compared to the bachelor and master studies and bear a number of specific aspects, it can be assumed that even the driving forces behind the study of non-completion are different and they will therefore not be analysed further in this thesis.

8In this thesis, the term „on-campus“ is used for what is called „prezenční“ study in Czech, i.e. referring to the standard, full time studies where most activities (are supposed to) take place during the working week in the campus. About 80 % students are enrolled in this kind of studies. The most of the rest is in the so-called

„kombinované“ studium (mixed) where the teaching takes place usually during weekends with a limited frequency and the majority of the work load is supposed to be the individual autonomous work. The mixed studies are not equivalent to part-time since the standard duration of studies is the same as for on-campus ones but the nature of the student population is similar to the one of part-time studies in other countries.

In this thesis, the dropout data presented are for on-campus students only.

9In the Czech Republic, two types of master’s programmes are offered – „long“ requiring no previous tertiary education experience and leading to master’s degree directly in four to six years (refered to also as „long- cycle“ programmes in this thesis) and „short“ programmes, typically two-years long, following up a previous bachelor’s studies.

(37)

dropout completion

bachelor 49,5 % 45,9 %

master ("long") 34,5 % 58,0 % master ("short") 19,9 % 77,7 %

doctoral 34,9 % 25,0 %

TABLE 1: Dropout and completion rates for 2007 enrolment cohort by individual degree levels. Source of data: MŠMT.

More detailed insights can be gained through the breakdown of cumulative dropout rates to individual study years. In the graphs below, if not stated otherwise, each cohort is represented by a single column. Cumulative dropout in the respective years, is displayed in coloured lines above – “1^st year” thus standing for studies discontinued in the first academic year of studies. Data are displayed for first six years only since the dropout rates then drop close to zero and their inclusion would reduce the legibility of the chart. For enrolment cohorts of 2006 and later, not enough time has passed for dropout data in all of the study years to become available. For those enrolled in 2013 only the information on how many of them dropped out in the first year is available since the rest of students are studying in their second year at the time of writing this thesis.

(38)

FIGURE 3: Cumulative dropout from bachelor study programmes (on- campus studies only) in individual study years, enrolment cohorts 2003–

2013. Source of data: MŠMT

As clearly visible, the dropout from bachelor study programs is highly concentrated in the first two years of studies, which is in line with the theory reviewed in chapter 1.4 but in strong contradiction to the expectations of many stakeholder representatives in the Czech Republic (see chapter 3.3).

What is a crucial observation for this thesis is the fact that dropout rates have been steadily increasing over almost the entire decade. Out of students who started their studies in 2005 24 % dropped out in the first year. This ratio rose to 36 % for the 2013 cohort. The increase is concentrated solely in the first and the second year of studies. Chance of graduation of students who make it to the third year is basically the same as of their predecessors five or

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Dropout from bachelor's programmes

6th year 5th year 4th year 3rd year 2nd year 1st year

(39)

more years ago. Moreover, the cumulative rates clearly show that less than half of the studies started in 2009 will be successfully concluded by graduation and it does not seem likely to improve for later cohorts but rather it is the opposite.

Despite the rise in dropout rates slowing down after 2009, the 2013 cohort first year dropout rate rose by 1,5 p.p. compared to the 2012 cohort which reverses the given trend.

FIGURE 4: Cumulative dropout from “long” master’s study programmes (on-campus studies only) in individual study years, enrolment cohorts 2003–2013. Source of data: MŠMT

The trend is different for "long" master programs in spite of their first three or four years being comparable to bachelor studies – most students enrol at the same age and under the same conditions in both types of studies. However, dropout rates in the first year of “long”

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Dropout from "long" master's programmes

(40)

master studies have been steadily decreasing from 2003 to 2009 and dropout is more equally distributed between the first, the second and partly also the third year of studies.

Starting from 2009, the trend seems to flatten at about a 10 % dropout rate in the first year.

A hypothesis might be put forward, claiming that the dropout trend in long master programs in 2003-2009 was shaped by changing degree structure. While in the early 2000s two thirds of students in the Czech HE were enrolled in 4 to 6 year-long master programs, around the middle of the decade most of these study programs were restructured to a 3 to 4–year-long bachelor's and a 2 to 3-year follow-up master's. By 2009, long master programs have remained only in a small number of fields, with the majority of new enrolees in medicine (50 % in 2014), law (23 %) and primary school teacher training (19 %), with small numbers also in selective programs in psychology, fine and performing arts and a few other fields.

From the year 2009 onwards, 7-8% of new entrants consistently enrol in long master’s programmes and the rest (92-93%) in structured bachelor’s studies (Source of data: MŠMT b).

The transfer of the majority of students from long master’s to bachelor’s programs reduces an inter-cohort comparability of data. As the master’s program dropout rates seem to be skewed by changing degree structure, the same happened to bachelor studies despite the difference not being so apparent. For this reason, merged data of both bachelor and long master students are presented, which, at least for the first three years of studies where the majority of dropouts are concentrated in, offer a comprehensive insight in the data on the entire cohort of enrolees.

(41)

FIGURE 5: Cumulative dropout from bachelor’s and “long” master’s study programmes (on-campus studies only) in individual study years, enrolment cohorts 2003–2013. Source of data: MŠMT

In this joint display, the major developments remain the same as for bachelor’s studies shown above: dropout rates have increased steadily since 2005 dominantly in the first year of studies where most of the dropout events is concentrated. Although the overall cumulative dropout rates are slightly lower thanks to the long master’s students, it still seems probable that less than half of study cohorts from 2009 on is going to graduate successfully.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Text práce (4.348Mb)

UNIVERZITA KARLOVA V PRAZE

FAKULTA SOCIÁLNÍCH VĚD

Institut sociologických studií

Šimon Stiburek

Success, dropout and problem delimitation in the Czech higher education policy

Diplomová práce

Praha 2015

Autor práce: Šimon Stiburek

Vedoucí práce: Mgr. Magdalena Mouralová

Rok obhajoby: 2015

Bibliografický záznam

Abstrakt

Abstract

Klíčová slova

Keywords

Prohlášení

Acknowledgements

TEZE DIPLOMOVÉ PRÁCE

Univerzita Karlova v Praze

Fakulta sociálních věd Institut sociologických studií Katedra veřejné a sociální politiky

P

:

P

(

)

S

D

: Bc. Šimon Stiburek

K

: Mgr. Magdalena Mouralová

Institut sociologických studií

Teze diplomové práce

1. Vymezení předmětu zkoumání a strukturace výzkumného tématu

Studijní neúspěšnost v prvních ročnících

2. Teoretická východiska

3. Cíle diplomové práce

4. Výzkumné otázky a hypotézy

5. Metody a prameny

6. Předpokládaná struktura diplomové práce

7. Základní literatura k tématu

Contents

1 Research topic, methods and theory

1.1 Introduction

First year dropout from bachelor's programmes

1.2 Terminology

1.3 Research goal and research questions

1.4 Theoretical framework

1.5 Data and methods

2 Success, dropout and its policy in the Czech Republic

2.1 Policy context

2.2 Number of student dropouts and their profile

Dropout from bachelor's programmes

Dropout from "long" master's programmes

Dropout from "long" master's & bachelor's programmes