Content uploaded by Jenny Muir
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jenny Muir on Jan 04, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
CEBE Transactions, Vol. 6, Issue 2, September 2009 pp 50-69 (20)
ISSN: 1745-0322 (Online)
50
Copyright © 2009 CEBE
Student Attendance: Is It Important, and What Do Students
Think?
Dr Jenny Muir, Lecturer in Spatial Planning
School of Planning, Architecture and Civil Engineering, Queen’s University Belfast,
Northern Ireland
Email: j.muir@qub.ac.uk
Abstract
There is an increasing trend for higher education institutions to be expected to monitor
student attendance, on the assumption that better attendance leads to higher retention
rates, higher marks, and a more satisfying educational experience. Surprisingly, the
subject has received little attention in the planning pedagogical literature.
This article reports the results of research on whether attendance does actually affect
assessment performance, and on planning students’ opinions about attendance issues.
The research shows that there is a tendency for students who attend classes more
regularly to gain better marks, especially if they are weaker or if they have the potential
for a top mark, although it is not clear cut. In addition, there seems to be support
amongst students for a more punitive approach to poor attendance, particularly in the
context of improving the perceived quality of tuition on offer. The responses of staff
colleagues to the research findings, and a consequent Departmental policy change on
attendance, are also discussed. The paper’s conclusion reviews the issues raised by
the research, including the fundamental question of whether staff should monitor
attendance at all. It is suggested that a graduated approach to attendance monitoring is
the most effective response, in which sanctions have a place, although only as a last
resort.
Keywords: Planning, Education, Student Attendance, Student Motivation
J. Muir: Student Attendance: Is it Important, and What Do Students Think?
51
CEBE Transactions, Vol. 6, Issue 2, September 2009
Copyright © 2009 CEBE
Introduction
There is an increasing trend for higher education institutions to be expected to monitor
student attendance, on the assumption that better attendance leads to higher retention
rates, higher marks, and a more satisfying educational experience that will be reflected
in student feedback such as the National Student Survey.
This article reports the results of research that considered the effect of attendance on
student performance; surveyed planning students about attendance issues; shared the
results with colleagues including agreement on a Departmental policy change; and
assessed the approach academic staff should take towards poor attendance.
The article begins with a brief review of the learning and teaching issues in planning
education literature, highlighting the lack of attention paid to attendance and student
motivation. Examples of previous research on attendance from the wider higher
education literature follow, providing the context and methodological background for
the empirical research.
The findings from two pieces of action research are then presented, which examine the
stated reasons behind the decisions students make about attendance at lectures,
seminars, field trips and any other events which are nominally a compulsory part of
their course: an analysis of attendance in relation to assessment marks for two
anonymised MSc modules in the Department of Environmental Planning (‘the
Department’); and an online questionnaire sent to all students in the Department. The
research shows that there is a tendency for students who attend classes more regularly
to gain better marks, although it is not clear cut; and that there is much support
amongst students for a more punitive approach to poor attendance (i.e. either failing
the module or being awarded a basic pass only), although within the context of
improving the perceived quality of tuition on offer. The responses of staff colleagues to
the research findings, and a consequent change of Departmental policy on attendance,
are also discussed.
The results are used to reflect on the extent to which the responsibility for attendance
should lie with students or with academic staff. It is concluded that a graduated
approach to attendance monitoring is the most effective response, in which sanctions
have a place, although only as a last resort.
Attendance Issues in the Literature
Planning education literature
There is scant reference to attendance in planning education literature. This is
surprising because planning is a discipline which emphasises the development of skills
as well as knowledge (QAA, 2008). Generic skills identified as important for a planning
graduate include a number that can only be developed through face-to-face contact
J. Muir: Student Attendance: Is it Important, and What Do Students Think?
52
CEBE Transactions, Vol. 6, Issue 2, September 2009
Copyright © 2009 CEBE
with staff and fellow students, for example presentation skills, critical reflection, working
in groups, evaluation of others’ opinions and values, leadership and networking skills,
and contact with professionals (all from QAA, 2008 p. 9).
Planning education adopts a multidisciplinary approach, with a focus on work-related
skills, taught through group and individual project work and field trips as well as
conventional lectures and seminars (Frank, 2006). Debates on the future of planning
education have included greater emphasis on ethical behaviour, ‘future thinking’ (i.e.
planning ahead) and working with communities (Dalton, 2001). In the UK, planning
education has “moved beyond land use planning and infrastructure provision to areas
such as community planning, regeneration and sustainability” (Frank, 2007, p. 635).
Clearly, effective planning education depends upon interaction between staff and
students, between students themselves, and between students, staff and
professionals.
Both generic and specialist skills are important for obtaining employment in planning
and related areas, particularly at a time when jobs have become scarce in the UK.
Good written and verbal communications skills are the most valued skills (Alexander,
2001; Guzzetta and Bollens, 2003), whether in the public or the private sector
(Guzzetta and Bollens, 2003). A lack of staff with the relevant interpersonal skills for
working with communities has been identified in urban regeneration (Egan, 2004;
Bailey, 2005). It is acknowledged that the interaction required for the development of
generic skills does not have to take place in the classroom, but planning courses
develop generic skills in the context of a wide range of planning scenarios, providing an
experience that students cannot gain elsewhere.
It is only possible to speculate on why attendance issues, and the related subject of
student motivation, are not of greater interest within planning pedagogy. Perhaps there
is an assumption amongst planning educators that students are highly motivated due to
the vocational nature of the discipline and the requirement for the academic
qualification as part of the path of professional accreditation. Until recently, the ready
availability of employment may also have been a motivating factor. However, if
motivation does remain high, anecdotal evidence suggests that it does not always
translate into good attendance.
The wider picture
Much greater attention is paid to attendance issues in the wider literature on higher
education. It is noted that the increase in attendance monitoring in higher education is
a change from the traditional approach of placing the onus on the student (Bowen et
al., 2005). Low attendance is commonly linked with poor student motivation (e.g. Race,
2007) and retention issues (Bowen et al., 2005). But it has to be asked whether
students are simply making better use of their time by not attending classes and
studying on their own instead. Students today are more focused on assessment
J. Muir: Student Attendance: Is it Important, and What Do Students Think?
53
CEBE Transactions, Vol. 6, Issue 2, September 2009
Copyright © 2009 CEBE
requirements, they use technology such as online learning materials strategically, and
they have to support themselves through paid work. Therefore the key research
question is whether students with good attendance records perform better than others.
Romer (1993) found that students who attended more classes did better in assessment
and that attendance was better in smaller classes and in classes which were taught by
permanent staff. Therefore although attendance is problematic, it is a symptom of a
deeper malaise:
Students who are more interested in the material, or more skilled academically,
or more focused…are almost certain to attend class more often than students
who are less interested, less skilled, or less focused….If this is the case, then
the results…to some extent reflect a general impact of motivation on
performance rather than a true effect of attendance (Romer, 1993, p. 171).
Marburger (2006) found that attendance was higher in classes where absenteeism was
penalised and, again, that higher attendance led to better exam results; earlier
research revealed that absenteeism was higher on Fridays and increased as the
semester progressed (Marburger, 2001). Attendance alone does not guarantee good
results; those who attend and participate in lectures and tutorials do better than those
who simply turn up. The most common reasons for non-attendance included sickness,
being too busy, or having to do paid work (Massingham and Herrington, 2006).
Most usefully, Colby (2005) confirmed the connection between absenteeism and poor
results, and identified some trigger points for action (Figure 1). Colby also found that
chasing non-attenders had almost no effect.
1. The Seventy Percent Rule
If a student does not attend at least seventy percent of teaching sessions they have a
two in three chance of failing, and a four in five chance of not getting a first or upper
second.
2. The Eighty Percent Rule
If a student does not attend at least eighty percent of teaching sessions they have an
even chance of failing, and a two in three chance of not getting a first or upper second.
3. The Week Two Rule
If a student is absent for only one or two teaching sessions…during the first two weeks
of any module then this is cause for concern…
Source: Colby (2005) para. 5, direct quotes.
Figure 1: Colby’s Trigger Points for Action
As part of a study into an electronic attendance monitoring system, Bowen et al. (2005)
noted the problems with paper-based monitoring systems, most particularly students
signing in for each other or genuinely missing signing the register, and delays in
J. Muir: Student Attendance: Is it Important, and What Do Students Think?
54
CEBE Transactions, Vol. 6, Issue 2, September 2009
Copyright © 2009 CEBE
aggregating and acting on the data. This study is also valuable for its inclusion of
students’ opinions on electronic monitoring:
The majority of students (75%) thought the University should monitor
attendance as it gave them a feeling that the University cared about their
success...Of those students who thought attendance should be monitored, 90%
stated that the University should intervene if attendance was unsatisfactory.
This was due to students being unaware of who to contact with academic
problems (Bowen et al., 2005, p. 382).
In other words, students’ concerns were primarily that their own poor attendance
should be followed up, as a support issue, although monitoring also provided
“additional motivation” (p. 384) to attend. Mature students were less happy to have
their attendance monitored.
It is interesting that this short review of research on attendance does not identify
teaching quality as a major issue, although more general points about the learning
experience do cause some concern. The main problems lie with students’ own
behaviour, although it is possible that students may not include comments on poor
teaching in response to research carried out by staff in their own institutions.
However, it would be irresponsible to discount the possibility that poor teaching
removes motivation to attend. It has been suggested that poor attendance is linked to
an ‘instrumental’ approach to learning (Massingham and Herrington, 2006), a concept
connected to the typology of ‘surface’ and ‘deep’ approaches to learning developed by
Biggs (1999). The surface learner will concentrate on facts rather than analysis; the
deep learner will engage with underlying meaning and will understand the importance
of context. Biggs (1999) stated that teaching styles can encourage a surface approach
and that use of constructive alignment can increase student motivation and
understanding, through defining clear learning objectives, choosing teaching methods
to suit the objectives, and through assessment tasks that adequately test the
objectives: “all components in the system address the same agenda and complement
each other” (Biggs, 1999, p. 26). There is a responsibility to maximise the chance that
students will adopt a deep learning approach, so that attendance at classes becomes a
natural part of the student experience rather than an enforced activity.
Research Background, Design and Methodology
Background
The research was carried out in the Department of Environmental Planning in the
School of Planning, Architecture and Civil Engineering at Queen’s University Belfast
(QUB). At the time of the research, QUB regulations stated that full-time students were
expected to be in attendance during each semester and to attend “all scheduled
sessions and other forms of instruction as defined by the programme of study” with
J. Muir: Student Attendance: Is it Important, and What Do Students Think?
55
CEBE Transactions, Vol. 6, Issue 2, September 2009
Copyright © 2009 CEBE
exceptions only on grounds of sickness or other extenuating circumstances, which
must be documented (QUB, 2007a: sections 7.4 – 7.6).
In the Department of Environmental Planning, a more specific policy had been adopted
for all degrees, the example below from the MSc in Environmental Planning module
outline states:
…Regular attendance at lectures and satisfactory performance in tutorials,
project work etc. are a requirement for all modules and are essential if you want
to do well in your studies. In recent years a small proportion of students have
had poor attendance records and for this reason, a register will now be taken
regularly. Students should note that attendance is a compulsory requirement in
all modules and those students that are regularly absent will not be permitted to
pass, even if they do achieve over 40% in the assessment…(QUB, 2007b, para
5.2)
However, inconsistencies in attendance monitoring meant that in practice this policy
was not followed, despite continuing problems with student attendance. In response to
this policy background, a class register was taken for two MSc modules in the
academic year 2007-08, which form part of the research data for this project.
Research design and methodology
The project followed the principles of action research, defined as “a cyclical iterative
process of action and reflection on and in action” (Zuber-Skerritt, 2001, p. 2). Action
research is a form of feedback process that may be linked to Kolb’s (1984) learning
model and also to reflective practice (Moon, 1999). In the field of teaching and learning,
it is proposed that action research can improve practice by the application of praxis:
“the interdependence and integration…of theory and practice, research and
development, thought and action” (Zuber-Skerritt, 2001, p. 15).
The aims of the research were:
1. To consider the effect of attendance on student performance;
2. To find out what students themselves think about attendance issues;
3. To share the results with colleagues and to reflect on their implications for
attendance policy;
4. To assess the approach staff should take towards poor attendance.
The research methods were as follows. First, using existing attendance records, an
analysis of attendance and assessment results was carried out for two MSc modules
from the second semester of 2007-08, anonymised as Module 1 (Mod1) and Module 2
(Mod2). Both modules covered aspects of property development. Assessments
consisted of a valuation exercise with a short essay, and an exam, each for 50% of the
marks. Both modules were a compulsory component of their respective courses.
J. Muir: Student Attendance: Is it Important, and What Do Students Think?
56
CEBE Transactions, Vol. 6, Issue 2, September 2009
Copyright © 2009 CEBE
Secondly, a questionnaire on attendance issues was sent to all students in the
Department of Environmental Planning (one BSc course and three MSc courses, total
241 students) via the online Surveymonkey questionnaire web site. The questionnaire
was designed using material from Massingham and Herrington (2006), consultation
with a colleague, and personal experience, and was piloted with a colleague.
Thirdly, results were shared with colleagues, resulting in a paper jointly authored by the
author and the course director for the undergraduate degree, reviewing potential
actions to be taken in order to encourage better attendance, and resulting in a
Departmental policy change.
There would be scope to repeat the research in a year or two, in order to test
consistency in student attitudes towards attendance policy and to assess the impact of
the new policy.
Research Findings
Attendance and assessment results in the two MSc modules
Table 1 provides an analysis of attendance and overall assessments marks for Module
1. Although there is not an exact match, the higher marks were gained by the better
attenders, and all those who failed were poor attenders. However, two students who
attended only two classes managed to obtain marks in the 60 – 69% band, which was
the most common marks band for the class. Therefore the analysis showed a trend
towards higher marks for better attendance.
Table 1: Module 1 Analysis
No. of sessions
attended Mark 49% or
under (fail) 50 – 59% 60 – 69% 70% or over Totals
12 2 1 3
11 2 6 1 9
10 1 1
9 2 4 2 8
8 4 1 5
7 1 3 4
6 1 1 2 4
5 1 1
4 1 1
3 1 1
2 2 2
1 0
Totals 3 9 23 4 39
Note: The range of marks for this module was 33% - 73%
J. Muir: Student Attendance: Is it Important, and What Do Students Think?
57
CEBE Transactions, Vol. 6, Issue 2, September 2009
Copyright © 2009 CEBE
Table 2 provides the same information for Module 2, where attendance and marks
were both better, including no fails. On this course the marks were bunched into the 60
– 69% band and, interestingly, attendance had less impact, although all those gaining
70% or over were better attenders. Two students who did less well attended most of
the classes. Therefore, again, it can be said that there is a trend towards higher marks
for better attenders, but in this case only at the First Class level (i.e. those students
achieving 70% and higher).
Table 2: Module 2 Analysis
No. of sessions
attended Mark 49% or
under (fail) 50 – 59% 60 – 69% 70% or over Totals
11 9 3 12
10 1 10 1 12
9 1 6 1 8
8 4 4
7 1 1
6 2 2
5 1 1
4
3
2
1
NONE
Totals 0 2 33 5 40
Note: The range of marks for this module was 56% - 72%
Key points from the analysis include:
Both classes showed a trend towards higher marks for the better attenders,
although this was a pattern only and there were exceptions both in terms of low
attendance and high marks, and high attendance and comparatively low marks.
In the class with the largest range of marks (Mod1), the three students who failed
were all poor attenders.
In the class with a narrower range of marks (Mod2), attendance made less
difference to the marks gained, although those obtaining first class marks were
better attenders.
The results for Mod1 confirmed the pattern identified by Colby (2005) although the
similarities were less evident for Mod2.
The caveats on the data are first, that self-completion registers were used and it is
possible that students signed in for each other (see also Colby, 2005 and Bowen et al.,
2005); and second, that all absences were recorded, including those for which
J. Muir: Student Attendance: Is it Important, and What Do Students Think?
58
CEBE Transactions, Vol. 6, Issue 2, September 2009
Copyright © 2009 CEBE
apologies were sent. Some students may have been absent for good reasons, but they
were still in a position where they had to catch up with the work missed.
Therefore the overall conclusion from this analysis is that tendencies, patterns and
trends point towards higher attendance being connected with better marks, particularly
in two cases: if students are weaker, and at the first class level. However, as university
lecturers know all too well, there will always be exceptions.
The student questionnaire
The Department of Environmental Planning’s 241 students were sent an e-mail inviting
them to complete a Surveymonkey online questionnaire. The e-mail emphasised that
results were anonymous and would not be able to be traced back to the student. A
26% response rate was achieved (n=63), which was lower than expected given that
students were likely to be familiar with the Surveymonkey package and with online
questionnaire completion generally. The sample was self-selecting and therefore may
not be representative of all the Department’s students: given the nature of the
responses, it may be reasonable to assume that the better attenders responded. In
addition, students were asked to assess their own attendance and may not have done
so accurately; in retrospect, the strengths of the survey results were the qualitative
responses on reasons for not attending and on what could be done to increase
attendance, rather than the quantitative self-assessment of attendance.
The survey population
Of the 63 students that responded, 61% were female and 39% male; 7% had a
disability and 16% had childcare or other caring responsibilities during the 2007-08
academic year. The majority of students (55%) were in the 20 – 22 years age range,
with only 9 (16%) being over 25. Two-thirds of the respondents had a paid job during
term time: of those, 42% were working for more than 15 hours a week, 33% for
between nine and 15 hours, and 22% between five and eight hours.
Students were asked about transport factors, in case travel issues were affecting their
ability to attend classes: 52% of students walked to classes and a further 29% travelled
in their own car; 63% of students took half an hour or less to travel to classes from their
term time (weekday) home. Therefore it appeared that, for the majority, there was in
theory no problem with travelling to classes.
Students were also asked how they planned their working week and just under half
(48%) usually spent four days a week on campus, either in classes or in the library.
They were also asked about their term-time living arrangements: a high 41% lived
permanently with their family and another 32% visited their family every weekend.
J. Muir: Student Attendance: Is it Important, and What Do Students Think?
59
CEBE Transactions, Vol. 6, Issue 2, September 2009
Copyright © 2009 CEBE
Attendance at classes
Students were asked to self-assess their attendance at various types of classes.
Overall, just over two-thirds stated that they attended 80% or more of all classes. The
figure varied from 22% for special events such as careers days to 92% for field trips.
Table 3 compares self-assessed attendance of all students who responded with those
in particular categories, which might be thought to be a higher risk for poor attendance.
The only category where attendance was much lower than the norm was amongst
students who went ‘home’ (i.e. to their family home) every weekend, which showed a
marked drop into the 50 – 65% bracket. Those who worked more than 15 hours a week
and those who lived with their family had the highest attendance (there could, of
course, have been some overlap amongst categories).
Table 3: Responses to question ‘Would you say your overall level of attendance
over the past academic year was…’
80% or over 66 - 79% 50 – 65% 25 – 49% Under 25%
All students n=63 68.3 17.5 12.7 3.2 0.0
All with paid job n=37 64.9 18.9 13.5 2.7 0.0
Working more than 15
hours per week n=15 73.3 13.3 13.3 0.0 0.0
Living with family n=23 73.9 17.4 4.3 4.3 0.0
Going home every
weekend n=18 55.6 16.7 27.8 5.6 0.0
Note: Results are presented as percentages
Table 4 shows the reasons provided by students for not attending classes or other
events over the past year, in order of frequency. Sickness was the most common
reason, followed by other work for the course and feeling that the session would be a
waste of time. A smaller number than expected thought they would rely on the
University’s online teaching resource Queen’s Online (QOL) instead. Table 4 shows
fairly similar results to Massingham and Herrington (2006), where the top reasons for
non-attendance were sickness, ‘too busy’ (not used in this survey), and working (not
specified whether academic or paid work).
It is easy to conclude from these responses that issues relating to teaching quality were
relatively unimportant. However, the more general issues of the quality of the learning
experience are covered in a number of responses, (starred in Table 4) which together
resulted in 62 responses.
J. Muir: Student Attendance: Is it Important, and What Do Students Think?
60
CEBE Transactions, Vol. 6, Issue 2, September 2009
Copyright © 2009 CEBE
Table 4: Responses to question ‘Please list the reason(s) why you did not attend
classes or other events over the past year (tick all that apply)’
63 students responded; total of 192 responses
*= reason connected with the value of the teaching experience
Reason % No.
Sick 52.4 33
Doing other work for my course 46.0 29
* Thought the session would be a waste of time 25.4 16
Couldn’t be bothered 19.0 12
* Got class material from QOL (online teaching resource) instead 17.5 11
* Thought I could cover the work without attending 17.5 11
* Didn’t like the subject 15.9 10
* Teaching quality of previous sessions was poor 15.9 10
Working at a paid job 14.3 9
* Previous sessions were not interesting enough 14.3 9
Other family commitment (i.e. other than childcare) 12.7 8
Couldn’t find the room 11.1 7
Social commitment 9.5 6
Sporting commitment 6.3 4
* Previous sessions were too difficult to understand 3.2 2
* Disliked the lecturer/ tutor 3.2 2
Room was too hot or too cold 3.2 2
Childcare or other caring responsibility None
Room was overcrowded None
Other, included:
Family bereavement (2)
Lecturer talked for too long without a break and basically just
read off the powerpoint which I could have done in my own
time
Travelling distance
I didn’t miss any classes this year (2)
Medical appointment (2)
Hungover after the night before
Time of class may have been too early-attendance more likely
if afternoon class
17.5 11
Note on analysis: Percentage is calculated against no. of students (63), on the assumption
that no student has provided the same answer twice. Percentages will add up to more than
100, as students were invited to indicate as many reasons as they liked.
J. Muir: Student Attendance: Is it Important, and What Do Students Think?
61
CEBE Transactions, Vol. 6, Issue 2, September 2009
Copyright © 2009 CEBE
Table 5 presents the top three reasons for non-attendance for all students and for
groups that might be thought to be high risk for poor attendance. Reasons for non-
attendance were fairly similar amongst all groups, although percentages changed. It is
interesting that those working more than 15 hours a week were less likely to miss
classes through sickness and more likely to be doing other work for the course (as well
as actually doing their paid work), implying that those in paid work for longer hours may
be missing classes in order to catch up on their studies in their own time.
Table 5: Top three reasons for non-attendance, from responses to question
‘Please list the reason(s) why you did not attend classes or other events over the
past year (tick all that apply)’
Top three reasons for non-attendance
All students n=63 Sick 52.4%
Doing other work for my course 46.0%
Thought the session would be a waste of time 25.4%
All with paid job n=37 Sick 56.8%
Doing other work for my course 37.8%
Thought the session would be a waste of time 27.0%
Working more than 15 hours
per week n=15 Doing other work for my course 46.7%
Working at a paid job 40.0%
Sick 33.3%
Living with family n=23 Sick 56.5%
Doing other work for my course 30.4%
Working at paid job 17.4% joint with:
Teaching quality of previous sessions was poor 17.4%
Going home every weekend
n=18 Sick 61.1%
Doing other work for my course 44.4%
Thought the session would be a waste of time 38.9%
Students were given a number of statements to agree or disagree with concerning
attendance issues and the results are outlined in Figure 2. Students agreed strongly
that they should make every effort to attend classes, and the statements with which
students agree also showed a commitment to good attendance, with the interesting
exception that it is considered acceptable to miss classes due to childcare or other
caring commitments.
Although a later question found some dissatisfaction with the quality and timing of
classes, statements concerning the quality of tuition and the capacity for independent
study to make up for attending classes showed that students did not feel either were a
valid excuse for not turning up. However, it should be noted that only just over half
disagreed with the statement ‘It’s up to the lecturer to make the course interesting, and
if it isn’t then I’m entitled not to attend’.
J. Muir: Student Attendance: Is it Important, and What Do Students Think?
62
CEBE Transactions, Vol. 6, Issue 2, September 2009
Copyright © 2009 CEBE
Agree strongly
I should make every effort to attend all the lectures on my course 66.1%
I should make every effort to attend all the seminars on my course 64.3%
Agree
I usually get something from a lecture, seminar or field trip which
I couldn’t have learned just from reading 50.0%
If I have a social commitment which clashes with a lecture, I’ll go to
the lecture 41.8%
It is hard to pass a module without attending lectures 39.3%
It’s not acceptable for students to miss lectures due to job commitments 39.3%
It’s perfectly OK for students to miss lectures due to childcare or other
caring commitments 35.7%
As I pay fees, I make sure I attend everything I’ve paid for 33.9%
No opinion - none
Disagree
It’s up to the lecturer to make the course interesting, and if it isn’t
then I’m entitled not to attend 51.8%
It is unrealistic for the lecturer to expect more than 50% attendance 54.5%
I can do my work from Queen’s Online sources and so I don’t have
to bother with going to lectures and seminars 41.1%
I don’t think the lecturer cares whether I’m there or not 37.5%
It doesn’t matter whether I attend lectures, seminars and so on –
the important thing is that I get my work done and pass the module 35.7%
I know I’m meant to go to lectures and seminars, but the lecturer
doesn’t take a register so they can’t chase me up 28.6%
Disagree strongly
It doesn’t matter if I don’t attend the course field trips 67.9%
I don’t see the point of special events such as careers days and
guest speakers, so I don’t go to them 42.9%
Note: The number of students who replied to each question varied.
Figure 2: Responses to question ‘Please indicate whether you agree or disagree
with all these statements’ – percentage of most common response listed
Increasing student attendance
Figure 3 provides responses from the open-ended questions that asked students for
suggestions of what could be done to increase attendance. Of the 44 responses, the
most popular suggestion (41%) was that a register should be taken with penalties for
those who did not attend, or rewards for those who did; the second most popular
statement was that a register should be taken but with no penalties (stated or implied).
J. Muir: Student Attendance: Is it Important, and What Do Students Think?
63
CEBE Transactions, Vol. 6, Issue 2, September 2009
Copyright © 2009 CEBE
Together, these two categories covered 68% of the responses, far higher than the
concerns about quality of tuition which were next at 11 responses (25%), although 14
responses (32%) address some aspect of the learning experience.
These results show that many students feel the unfairness of poor attenders still being
able to obtain their degree. It also reflects the findings of Bowen et al. (2005) who
found that 75% of their research sample thought attendance should be monitored and,
of those, 90% thought staff should intervene if attendance was poor. There is, however,
a question about whether the views of students are sufficient on their own to justify the
introduction of sanctions, although it is useful to know that penalties would be
supported by the majority.
Take a register and penalise those who don’t attend OR reward those who do: 18
“Have an attendance register and have a certain quota so to pass the module.”
“I do not think it is right to give marks to people for turning up, but instead take marks
off those who do not. I think if people do not meet a target, for example 80%
attendance (unless they have a serious reason) they should be dropped from the
course or only receive a pass mark of 40 and not be able to get any higher even if their
work was good.”
Take a register, no penalties: 12
“Making sure attendance is taken at each class & the lecturer must make sure people
do not sign in for missing friends by taking a head count once the sign in sheet is
passed up. I do not think it is fair on the people that attend all classes that those who
do not turn up get credit for going when they have not actually attended.”
“Taking a register at every class. What’s the point in going to class when there is no
register taken. I was very disheartened by this fact considering I attended all but one of
the classes this year. What benefit did I achieve by doing so over people who didn’t
bother attending? They didn’t get singled out or lose any marks.”
Make lectures, seminars etc. more interesting; improve quality generally: 11
“Don't spoon feed students. Seminars should be utilised more to interact with students
and to engage in further debate - this was really missing from the planning Masters.”
“Some lecturers make great use of an hour or two so that you feel you would miss a lot
by not showing. Others take a long time to put across relatively simple information, so
showing up feels like a wasted couple of hours for what you get.”
Make the times more convenient: 3
Have more lectures (i.e. fewer classes removes incentive to attend): 1
Make sure lecture is teaching what is needed to pass the module: 1
I pay fees so I can choose whether to attend lectures or not: 1
And in one case just about everything! “Register attendance, make lectures shorter,
prevent repetition of content, improve delivery, vary methods of delivery, class
participation, improve relationship between lecturer and student, reduce timetable
changes, rooms and times.”
Figure 3: Responses and sample comments referring to the question ‘In your
opinion, what could be done to increase student attendance?’ n = 44
J. Muir: Student Attendance: Is it Important, and What Do Students Think?
64
CEBE Transactions, Vol. 6, Issue 2, September 2009
Copyright © 2009 CEBE
Finally, students were asked if they had any further comments to make, as reported in
Figure 4. Two perspectives were evident. First, there was clearly a sense of injustice
among some students who had made an effort to attend. One student mentioned the
effect of poor attendance on groupwork, a very important aspect of modules where
assessment depends upon collective projects, and another thought lecturers didn’t care
about attendance. Second, an equal number thought it was up to the individual whether
they attended or not, and one person felt that students who attended reluctantly could
be disruptive for everyone else.
Reinforced point that poor attendance should be penalised: 7
“I don’t feel it is fair that other pupils can attain higher marks when they have not
attended half the lectures.”
“Attendance levels are not good enough and the lecturers don’t appear to be bothered
by attendance levels. It would appear that as long as they still get paid why should they
worry about who comes to class, it’s not the right attitude but it would appear to be that
way. The number of class hours was small so I don’t know why people can’t make the
effort to attend. If the course had been 9-5 every day I could see people getting fed up,
however the course was a max of 12 hours a week so it would have been nice for
people to make an effort to attend.”
“This should be looked at, as it is not fair if during group work one member continually
does not attend, yet takes credit in the form of good results.”
University factors including scheduling and teaching quality: 3
“If a student has 5 hours of lectures a week spread over three days, s/he is likely to
have a poorer attendance than if s/he had 15 hours of lectures. Why? Because so few
contact hours suggest (whether correctly or incorrectly) that as the lecturers and the
School are only providing minimal teaching, that only minimal effort need be made by
the student.”
Personal factors: 7
“Some people are just lazy.”
“I feel if the individual can competently pass the module with the aid of QOL resources
to a certain extent then they should be allowed. If they were to fail it would be their own
fault.”
“It's hard to learn when people who don't normally show up to lectures do. They make
the point that they don't want to be there and disrupt the class.”
No further comments: 4
Figure 4: Responses and sample comments referring to the question: ‘Are there
any other comments you wish to make about student attendance issues?’ n=21
Staff Response and Policy Implications
Because attendance was regarded as a problematic issue within the Department, the
research findings were of interest to colleagues. A separate discussion paper, co-
authored by the author of this paper and the Course Co-ordinator of the undergraduate
J. Muir: Student Attendance: Is it Important, and What Do Students Think?
65
CEBE Transactions, Vol. 6, Issue 2, September 2009
Copyright © 2009 CEBE
programme, was discussed at a Departmental teaching meeting along with an earlier
draft of this paper.
When writing the discussion paper, a number of issues arose for reflection. The starting
point was that the literature review and empirical findings from the research showed
that there was a connection (albeit not completely linear) between attendance and
achievement, and that students would support action being taken against poor
attenders. In addition, it was accepted that some kind of action had to be taken against
poor attenders for regulatory as well as pedagogical reasons, as university
administrators believed there was a link between student retention levels and poor
attendance.
Three other issues were:
The balance between ‘carrot’ and ‘stick’: the findings from Colby (2005) were
considered particularly helpful for pointing out to students and colleagues the
importance of attendance in the early stages of a module.
Teaching quality: better feedback from students on individual sessions should be
sought, and staff should reflect on the added value students gain from attending
classes through interactive teaching and learning.
The practicalities of monitoring attendance: issues such as students signing in for
each other would have to be acknowledged; also there would need to be
consistency across modules in monitoring procedures and sanctions.
The discussion paper proposed a number of actions listed under five categories that
together formed a structured approach to addressing student attendance issues as
follows:
Communicate the importance of attendance to students;
Improvements in the relevance and effectiveness of teaching;
Improving students’ self-motivation to attend;
Record attendance;
Penalise poor attendance.
The wider discussion amongst colleagues at the teaching meeting focused on the
practicalities of introducing a meaningful system of attendance monitoring and
sanctions, although the point that poor attendance could be seen as an indicator of
poor quality was contested. There was majority support for taking action against non-
attenders, although strong views were also expressed that it was students’ own
responsibility to manage their attendance. It was, however, accepted that attendance
should be discussed in annual course reviews.
J. Muir: Student Attendance: Is it Important, and What Do Students Think?
66
CEBE Transactions, Vol. 6, Issue 2, September 2009
Copyright © 2009 CEBE
The final decision was that a new policy of 75% attendance would be introduced from
the academic year 2009-10. Students who failed the module, and who had not met the
attendance requirement, would be required to retake the module ‘with attendance’ the
following year. No action would be taken against students who passed with lower
attendance, but it would be made clear to students in the first few weeks that their
chances of doing well would be increased by attending classes. It was not felt to be
realistic or defensible to require students to retake the module if they had passed on
lower attendance.
Conclusion
This paper has reported the results of research that considered the effect of attendance
on student performance; found out what a group of planning students thought about
attendance issues; and shared the results with colleagues as part of reflections on
attendance policy. The conclusion will now assess the approach staff should take
towards poor attendance.
It was found that the planning education literature pays little attention to attendance or,
indeed, to student motivation in general, in contrast to the wider literature on teaching
and learning in higher education, where research has shown a connection between
higher levels of attendance and better marks in assessment, and has connected poor
attendance with low motivation to study. There is a research gap in planning
pedagogical research on the examination of links between student attendance,
motivation and retention.
The empirical research then found that there is a tendency for students who attend
classes more regularly to gain better marks, although it is not clear cut; and that there
is much support amongst students for a more punitive approach to poor attendance,
although within the context of improving the quality of tuition on offer. The
questionnaire exposed a real sense of injustice amongst some students that poor
attenders should still be able to obtain their degree, even if they do less well than those
who attend regularly. The findings were broadly in line with those of Colby (2005),
Bowen et al. (2005) and Massingham and Herrington (2006), although again it must be
emphasised that none of these studies involved planning students. Finally, an account
was given of the use of the research to reflect on current practice in attendance
monitoring in the Department of Environmental Planning, QUB and to develop a five-
point approach and policy benchmark of 75% attendance.
Academic staff, students and attendance policy
The debate on attendance policy raises some important issues about the relationship
between academic staff and students in the age of mass higher education. There is
amongst some staff a deep-seated and understandable resistance to taking a register
or penalising students for non-attendance, on the basis that students are adults
J. Muir: Student Attendance: Is it Important, and What Do Students Think?
67
CEBE Transactions, Vol. 6, Issue 2, September 2009
Copyright © 2009 CEBE
responsible for their own time management, and that universities are not schools. It
may well be that the higher education sector has adopted a more punitive approach to
attendance primarily at the behest of administrators, but this does not mean there is
automatically no pedagogical merit in the practice.
It has also been acknowledged that the relationship between attendance and
achievement is non-linear and there will always be exceptions, either students who do
well without attending classes, or students who fail despite good attendance. The
research shows only that there is a greater likelihood that students who attend will do
well. It was explained that using poor attendance as a measure of poor quality teaching
was contested in the Departmental meeting; however, perhaps the most important
point about teaching quality to come out of the debate was the importance of offering
something extra to students to help them achieve learning outcomes, for example the
ability to improve their analytical skills through group discussions and presentations. A
related factor here is the nature of assessment. If students can pass the course without
significant attendance, it may point to the need to review how the learning outcomes
are tested. However, the question of whether to reward students for attendance with a
small component of the mark takes us into the disputed and, for most, unacceptable
territory of rewarding students for ‘just turning up’.
Although it is reassuring that students are in favour of penalising poor attenders, that in
itself does not provide a defensible reason for doing so in pedagogical terms. We must
not lose sight of the fact that many students are very motivated, seeking to attend their
classes except in cases where they are genuinely sick, struggling with deadlines, or
where they feel the tuition is of poor quality. The survey evidence from this research
found that these students are demoralised by low attendance and, specifically, by a
failure to penalise non-attenders. Whilst it is important to continue to provide pastoral
support to students who have genuine problems with attendance, and to reflect on the
contribution poor quality teaching may be making to student absence, this paper has
made a strong case for a graduated approach to attendance monitoring in which
sanctions have a place, although only as a last resort.
Acknowledgements
Thanks are due to my colleagues in the Department of Environmental Planning at
Queen’s University Belfast for permission to include comments on the draft paper and
for contributions to the discussions on policy changes, especially to Geraint Ellis with
whom I wrote the Departmental policy paper. Thanks also to Aileen Stockdale and
Brendan Murtagh for assistance with the research. The contributions of the anonymous
reviewers to the final version of the article are also gratefully acknowledged.
J. Muir: Student Attendance: Is it Important, and What Do Students Think?
68
CEBE Transactions, Vol. 6, Issue 2, September 2009
Copyright © 2009 CEBE
References
Alexander, E. (2001) What do planners need to know?’ Journal of Planning Education
and Research, 20 (3), 376-380.
Bailey, N. (2005) Professionalism and skills enhancement in the built environment: The
role of higher education in a changing policy context in England. CEBE Transactions, 2
(2), 48-62.
Biggs, J. (1999) Teaching for quality learning at University. Buckingham: SRHE and
Open University Press.
Bowen, E., Price, T., Lloyd, S. & Thomas, S. (2005) Improving the quantity and quality
of attendance data to enhance student retention. Journal of Further and Higher
Education, 29 (4), 375-385.
Colby, J. (2005) Attendance and attainment – a comparative study. Italics e-Journal 4
(2) http://www.ics.heacademy.ac.uk/italics/Vol4-2/ITALIX.pdf (Accessed 22 September
2008).
Dalton, L. (2001) Weaving the fabric of planning as education. Journal of Planning
Education and Research, 20 (4), 423-436.
Egan, J. (2004) Skills for sustainable communities. (The Egan Review) London: Office
of the Deputy Prime Minister.
Frank, A. (2006) Three decades of thought on planning education. Journal of Planning
Literature, 21 (1), 15-67.
Frank, A. (2007) Entrepreneurship and enterprise skills: A missing element of planning
education? Planning Practice and Research, 22 (4), 635-648.
Guzzetta, J. & Bollens, S. (2003) Urban planners’ skills and competencies: Are we
different from other professions? Does context matter? Do we evolve? Journal of
Planning Education and Research, 23 (1), 96-106.
Kolb, D. (1984) Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Marburger, D. (2001) Absenteeism and undergraduate exam performance. Journal of
Economic Education, 32 (2), 99-109.
Marburger, D. (2006) Does mandatory attendance improve student performance?
Journal of Economic Education, 37 (2), 148-155.
Massingham, P. & Herrington, T. (2006) Does attendance matter? An examination of
student attitudes, participation, performance and attendance. Journal of University
Teaching and Learning Practice, 3 (2), 82-103.
J. Muir: Student Attendance: Is it Important, and What Do Students Think?
69
CEBE Transactions, Vol. 6, Issue 2, September 2009
Copyright © 2009 CEBE
Moon, J. (1999) Reflection in learning and professional development. London: Kogan
Page.
QAA (2008) Honours degree benchmark statement: Town and country planning.
Gloucester: Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/benchmark/statements/townAndCountryPl
anning08.pdf (Accessed 19 June 2009).
QUB (2007a) General regulations 2007-08. Belfast: Queen’s University Belfast.
QUB (2007b) MSc environmental planning module outline 2007-08. Belfast: Queen’s
University Belfast.
Race, P. (2007) The lecturer’s toolkit: A practical guide to learning, teaching and
assessment. (3rd ed.) London: Routledge.
Romer, D. (1993) Do students go to class? Should they? Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 7 (3), 167-174.
Zuber-Skerritt, O. (2001) Action learning and action research: Paradigm, praxis and
programs. In Sankara, S., Dick, B. & Passfield, R. (eds.) Effective change management
through action research and action learning: Concepts, perspectives, processes and
applications. Lismore: Southern Cross University Press.
