Admission to Higher Education: Difficulties felt. How to fight them?

Abstract

The School of Engineering of the University of Minho (EEUM), aiming at improving the quality of Higher Education (HE), has been adapting to the new demands and realities. Bologna Process brought a number of challenges to higher education institutions, notably in teaching, learning and assessment [1], [2]. Based on needs identified by students, such as autonomy management and student responsibility in their education, continuous evaluation, associated to the promotion, empowerment and facilitation of professional development and the active role of the student in the evaluation process [3], the EEUM sought to respond with direct actions for students. In 2006/2007, a study was carried out on writing skills in university students, diagnosing difficulties in textual comprehension, which is reflected in the expression and transmission of the intended message [4]. Thus, since 2004, EEUM has developed training actions for students that address: (1) new requirements inherent to the transition to Higher Education; (2) self-regulation of learning; and (3) teamwork. In 2006, three training modules were added, namely (4) writing skills; (5) bibliographic research; (6) oral skills. During these ten years, Steering Committees of each course of the School were given the option to opt for the various training modules or only for some more specific ones. Thus, over 1000 hours of contact with the students were taught in the 12 years of the EEUM. These actions are taught grossly in the 1st year of the Study Plan. However, there are some more focused on the 3rd and the 5th years. At the end of each training course, students respond to an inquiry with a few closed questions and three open questions, namely “Aspects I considered most positive in training”, “Aspects I considered less positive in training” and “Suggestions and comments”. This article presents a content analysis of the open answers of students at the end of the training. This type of analysis allows us to understand student's opinions and a more introspective feedback of actions. Concerning positive points, students highlight the contents covered in general, followed by the relationship between trainer and trainees, work preparation, time management and content presentation in a clear way. Concerning less positive points, students focused on the duration of the session, much information for a short time, asked for more practical and specific examples and too much time between the sessions. For suggestions and comments, although many students do not make any mention, there are many positive reinforcements to the training in general, the initiative, the more dynamic approach in the integration of the new students and the contents, there are also references to the duration, evidencing that they should be shorter sessions. This analysis is essential take stock of ten years of training at the EEUM, the impact it had and has on students and what can be adjusted to promote the improvement of teaching and learning in engineering and technology.