Qualitative research synthesis is a systematic approach to the meta-analysis of previously published qualitative research and this paper follows the method outlined by Major and Savin-Baden (2010).

Timilak (2014) suggests that one of the main aims of meta-analysis is ‘to provide a concise and comprehensive picture of findings across … studies’ (Timilak, 2014: 481). While ‘qualitative research has been valued because of its ability to provide depth of information about a particular phenomenon’ with the research presenting ‘a rich, thick description of a snapshot in time and place’ (Major & Savin-Baden, 2010: 15), synthesis complements this ‘by pursuing both depth and breadth simultaneously. Qualitative research synthesis can provide an overarching and comprehensive glimpse of what the in depth individual qualitative snapshot reveals’ (Major & Savin-Baden, 2010: 15).

While the intention of this paper is to present an analysis of published work on students’ transitions in a particular country, the aim is to present insights for practitioners and policymakers working in tertiary education in Scotland and beyond. By presenting a broad view ‘qualitative research synthesis can provide answers from a range of research, which most users of research (i.e., practitioners and policy makers) are more comfortable in relying on, in preference to results from only one individual study’ (Major & Savin Baden, 2010: 15).

A common, if misconceived, criticism of qualitative research is the lack of transferability of findings from individual studies to other contexts. By broadening analysis across a number of studies, qualitative research synthesis can make transferability, and actionable insights, more obvious thus helping to support evidence-informed practice.

In contrast to a narrative literature review, which may ‘produce a description or demonstration of a state of knowledge’ (Major & Savin Baden, 2010: 16), a qualitative synthesis seeks to treat the literature identified as a source for further analysis (hence the crossover with the term ‘meta-analysis’). Therefore, as with any research data, the selection of papers follows a systematic approach.

Given the features of the Scottish tertiary sector outlined above, the following search criteria were applied for this synthesis:

This search produced 44 candidate papers for analysis. Both researchers then independently read the abstracts of these papers to ensure that they met the above criteria. An additional criterion, that was difficult to allow for in a keyword search, was added at this stage:

This process led to 10 papers being identified for inclusion in the analysis. Table 1 presents a summary of the studies. As the research did not involve human subjects ethical approval was not required.

Analysis was guided by the six phases of Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis approach. As Braun and Clarke (2021) emphasise that this is intended to be a reflexive approach the process was flexible and collaborative. Data familiarisation (Phase 1) occurred through the process of selecting and reading papers. Both researchers then used an inductive approach to generate codes independently (Phase 2). An ‘initial’ or ‘open’ coding approach was used (Saldana, 2013) with the researchers using different techniques during code generation, one favouring a software-supported approach (using MaxQDA) and the other using a more manual process. Through a series of discussions, themes were developed (Phase 3) from the initial coding and, in an iterative process, these were reviewed and refined through the collaborative writing process (Phases 4–6).

This research takes an exclusively qualitative approach presenting a ‘thick’ description (Geertz, 1973) of the practice presented in the papers studied.

The criteria developed by Lincoln and Guba (1985) to assess the quality of qualitative research were applied to this study:

A key consideration across all the papers is the importance of routes from college to university in widening access to, and participation in, higher education in Scotland. Such routes are seen as ways in which ‘under-represented communities’ (Campbell & McAdam, 2022: 106), including those with ‘non-traditional qualifications or students from areas of social or economic deprivation’ (Mayne et.al., 2015: 165) can gain access to university. A wide variety of different routes are presented, but there is a recognition that these were more prevalent and developed in the ‘post-1992’ institutions than in other traditional or ‘elite’ ones. Opening routes to university is not, by itself, seen as the solution as:

Despite this perceived benefit, several papers identified a lack of alignment between the college and university systems. This is partly historical and related to the purpose of different institutions. Colleges have had an emphasis on ‘skill development and lifelong learning’ (Mayne et al., 2015: 167), whereas higher education has historically been the focus at university:

This disconnect in terms of purpose is enhanced by a disconnect in terms of how things are done. O’Donnell et al. (2018: 30) highlight ‘differences between the two sectors in terms of course structure, conventions and rules and demands’. The approach to teaching is often different ‘with students describing learning at college as being “spoon-fed”, while self-directed study is necessary at university’ (Meharg et al., 2017b: 89). Teaching is central to the role of staff in college but ‘the research culture, a priority in HE, is not generally a feature of working in FE’ (Mayne et al., 2015: 167).

Despite these challenges, there were suggestions that the college and university approaches are starting to align. For example, Mayne et al. (2015: 175) identified a ‘shift in educational paradigm from teaching-centred to learner-centred approaches is evident in both sectors, designed to meet the learning needs of an increasingly diverse student population.’ This is not the case for all subjects, however. Mayne et al. (2015) found that, in nursing, ‘the most commonly identified theme … was that teaching methods, the students themselves and in many ways the educational process were similar across both sectors’ (Mayne et al., 2015: 173).

All of the papers discuss the academic challenges students making the transition from college to university face. This is a significant issue as Meharg et al. (2017a: 95) highlight that articulating students from college ‘are less likely to receive a First or 2.1 classification than their continuing counterparts and are more likely to leave with an ordinary degree than progress to the fourth year.’

Part of the academic challenge comes from the differences between the college and university systems (as discussed in the previous section), and the need for students to navigate and ‘demystify’ these differences. For example:

Students coming from college are often uncertain about ‘what was expected of them as independent learners’ (Breeze et al., 2020: 25). Tett et al. (2017) describes this as ‘learning shock’ (Tett et al., 2017: 395), and making a successful transition requires embracing ‘the identity of the autonomous learner’ (Tett et al., 2017: 399). Students feel that university lecturers are more meticulous ‘in terms of adhering to course rules such as referencing, assessment guidance/deadlines’ (O’Donnell et al., 2018: 30) than their college counterparts.

The relationship with staff is a key difference. While support from staff could help in making effective transitions, students perceive university teaching staff as more distant and less approachable than those at college (Breeze et al., 2020; Meharg et al., 2017b).

The development of relevant academic skills is seen as crucial in making an effective transition to university from college. Some students struggle with ‘how to do university learning’ (Breeze et al., 2020: 25) such as note taking in lectures or critical thinking. Successful students (Christie et al. 2013; Christie et al. 2016) are those who recognise the need to adapt and learn new skills. A form of ‘self-critical reflection’ (O’Donnell et al., 2018: 34) is common in successful students, which enables students to identify and critique material they previously would have taken for granted (Tett et al., 2017). Despite various support programmes, summer schools and associate student schemes, the literature suggests that college students still ‘showed signs of being behind’ (Glen, 2018: 97) those at university when they start the transition.

Academic challenges manifest themselves most obviously in assessment:

Students who struggle with assessments at university report not ‘knowing or understanding what was expected of them’ (Christie et al., 2013: 630). These students worry about the conventions of essay writing and referencing which were ‘less important at college’ (Christie et al., 2013: 630). Assessments at university are thought to be more demanding:

But assessment, and successful engagement with it, can also be a positive for students in transition. Those who make the transition work are found to ‘prioritise university study’ (Christie et al., 2016: 486) and embrace the idea of independent learning. ‘Receiving (good) marks and feedback on course work helped the students to increase their self-confidence’ (Tett et al., 2017: 397). Successful students understand the point of feedback ‘to improve their performance in future assessment’ (Christie et al., 2013: 629).

All of the papers discuss the social and emotional aspect of making the transition from college to university. Meeting and connecting with others making that same transition is crucial to share concerns and recognise you are not alone (Breeze et al., 2020: 27). Students have indicated that ‘working in small peer groups – outside of formal teaching – preserved their sense of emotional wellbeing’ (O’Donnell et al., 2018: 32). Social bonds are also useful in helping meet some of the academic challenges outlined above (Meharg et al., 2017a: 99). Wider support, such as friends and family reaffirming and confirming to students that they ‘were doing the right thing’ (Tett et al., 2017: 398) is also important.

As indicated above, a further dimension of the students’ success was their good time management. Many commentators have documented the plethora of competing commitments faced by (non-traditional) students, and the stress of balancing studying with working and family life (Christie et al., 2013: 629).

Student identity is highlighted in several papers. Some express concerns about students being able to make the transition, particularly in relation to a ‘lack of ambition’ (Glen, 2018: 93) shown by those in widening participation routes. In contrast, Meharg et al. (2017b: 90) suggest that transition students ‘have attributes that may be lacking in continuing students, specifically excitement and enthusiasm’. Both Christie et al. (2016) and O’Donnell et al. (2018) highlight the process of becoming for students making the transition, how they negotiate a way through the experience:

The process of becoming can, if successful, help students belong at university. This is often a challenge, even with simple things like ‘references to first-year content as assumed common knowledge’ (Breeze et al., 2020: 26) which undermines transition students’ confidence. Successful students seek ‘to become acculturated in the teaching and learning styles, and procedures and practices, of the new university environment’ (Christie et al., 2013: 634). This enculturation can change perceptions of what university is and is for, and about what it is to be a university student (O’Donnell et al., 2018: 32).

A few of the papers refer to ‘everyday logistics’ and the importance these have on successful transitions from college to university. A new physical environment can be difficult to adjust to (Christie et al., 2013), as can adapting to new travel, study, and IT methods (Meharg et al., 2017a).

How to best prepare students for this challenge is less clear, but being on the university campus ahead of the actual transition is seen as a helpful step. Campbell and McAdam (2022: 108) outline a nine-week on-campus programme of activities ‘including workshops on academic skills and “taster” lectures on topics relevant to the subject group’. Breeze et al. (2020: 26) argue that students might benefit more from the practical experience of being on campus rather than an induction programme itself, ‘especially in terms of transitioning to more autonomous learning’.

Our findings highlight a question of responsibility: where does the responsibility for making effective transitions from college to university lie? The papers considered suggest a range of different potential answers.

First, one line of thought in the papers discussed was that it was colleges’ responsibility to adapt and align their teaching, engagement and assessment practices to better fit the university environment students transition into. Moving from a system of so-called ‘spoon-fed’ material with high levels of tutor contact, towards a system that encourages and enables independent learning could help ‘demystify’ things for students. It could mean that university is less of a ‘learning shock’. Second, in contrast, one might see a request in the literature placed on the universities to better support students making the transition from college. Better induction procedures, including access summer schools and preparatory modules, have been shown to be effective in promoting student confidence and performance. Indeed, such ‘bridging programmes’ have been praised in relevant reports:

Associate Student schemes, whereby students at college have access to and interaction with universities and their facilities, have also been shown to be effective. Third, it has been suggested that the SFC and bodies/initiatives they fund have responsibility for ensuring effective transitions. Supporting initiatives, such as that presented by Glen (2018) provide a coherent pathway of programmes for pupils at school, through to university, with an overarching perspective. The SFC has previously funded additional articulation places to support such measures; although this has increased the number of universities offering articulation ‘it has not necessarily led to all institutions viewing articulation as a core activity’ (Scottish Government, 2016: 33).

Finally, our findings have surfaced the view that (at least some) responsibility for making an effective transition from college to university rests on the student themselves, and on their attributes and dispositions. Christie et al. (2013) and Christie et al. (2016) both highlight the differences between successful and unsuccessful students coming from college into university, arguing that successful students are more likely to be those who adapt to the different learning environment, are critically self-aware, and come to recognise the importance of independent and self-directed learning.

The intended moves towards an integrated tertiary sector in Scotland should bring the question of responsibility into focus. It is likely that each of the factors considered here is relevant, and so a combined approach to responsibility is required, as recognised in the whole system approach identified in A Blueprint for Fairness (Scottish Government, 2016). Indeed, a core recommendation of the National Articulation Forum Final Report (Universities Scotland, 2020) is that colleges and universities have a shared responsibility:

To what extent is alignment between colleges and universities feasible, or indeed desirable? Our findings suggest a clear tension for colleges. On the one hand, as we have seen, there is a pressure for colleges to align their teaching practices to that of universities, on the other there is recognition of clear difference in terms of approach, rationale and identity between colleges and universities. Expansion of routes to university may well be a ‘real success story of Scottish higher education’ (Scottish Government, 2016: 32), but the colleges face a balancing act.

Husband and Jeffrey (2016) state that ‘colleges and universities traditionally fill different needs in the post-compulsory education sector and society but articulation in provision and the narrowing of the divide in teaching and learning practice has shown increased convergence in modes of operation and delivery’ (Husband & Jeffrey, 2016: 67). This has led to a situation where the:

Recent movement towards a unified tertiary framework for the assessment of teaching quality may continue the move to align learning and teaching practice across the sectors. Any such move would need to acknowledge the differing missions of the sector and the importance of FE and school-level provision at colleges. It should be noted, however, that almost one-third of full-time equivalent enrolments in Scottish colleges are at HE level (SFC, 2022) and so cross-sector alignment here might be expected. Gallacher and Reeve (2019) suggest that the three main roles for colleges are the provision of vocational education and training, social inclusion and the provision of higher education and articulation. The desirability or possibility of developing a unified model of teaching across these roles within a college, let alone across the tertiary sector, is open to question.

As shown above, college to university transitions are frequently described as valuable in relation to widening access to and participation in higher education, and as a vehicle for enabling more ‘non-traditional’ students to attend university. While there is some truth in these claims demonstrated in the papers considered here, our findings suggest some caution in how this is understood.

We first need to consider what is meant by the phrase ‘non-traditional’ and whether, in a joined-up tertiary sector it remains a relevant and acceptable usage. The Scottish Funding Council (SFC, 2020a) suggests that 27.7% of university first-degree entrants in 2018 arrived via a college route – it does not seem sustainable that over a quarter of the university student intake should be classified as ‘non-traditional’ and their transitions to university problematised rather than being seen as ‘business as usual’. Widening participation work has been focussed on ensuring that students from ‘the 20% most deprived backgrounds should represent 20% of entrants to higher education’ (SFC 2020b: 10) and, given the demographic profile of students, the college route has been a major way in which universities have sought to meet this target. One of the challenges for building a coherent tertiary sector is ensuring that this becomes an entirely normal (or ‘traditional’) transition that is supported by the alignment of practices discussed above.

A challenge to the equity of widening participation initiatives is a difference in the relative importance (in terms of numbers) of college-university routes between different types of university. ‘Post-92’ institutions are more prominent in agreeing articulation routes for college students, and we have seen from our findings (Christie et al., 2013; Christie et al., 2016) a claim of specific and particular challenges for students entering an ‘elite’ institution. Where articulation agreements do not exist, students often do not receive full credit for their college study, even if it is at SCQF level 7 or 8. In 2019–20, one-third of students entered university via the progression route and so were required to enter year one, thus taking 5 or 6 years to complete an honours degree.

Ianelli (2018) suggests that a lack of willingness to recognise college qualifications fully is down to universities’ perceptions of the academic preparedness of college students:

As Husband and Jeffrey (2016) note: ‘higher education institutions are bound by their models and requirements for entry, which are designed to maintain exacting standards, ensure the suitability of courses of study for applicants, and maintain the cultural identity and practices of the institutions’ (Husband & Jeffrey, 2016: 69). Arguably, in failing to offer an equitable pathway for college students and requiring sometimes financially disadvantaged students to take a longer route to so-called ‘elite’ study, there is a tension with claims of widening access and participation. The difficulty of accessing high-status institutions limits opportunities for ‘non-traditional’ students as does the perceived lack of status of college-delivered HE. Husband and Jeffrey (2016) point out that the current model of progression in HE courses from college into university ‘emphasises the perceived requirement to attend university for valid HE provision’ (Husband & Jeffrey, 2016: 69–70).

This difference in access to ‘elite’ institutions and the requirement to follow a university route highlights two issues for ‘non-traditional’ students – their relatively low attendance at high-status institutions and the continued contrast in esteem between college and university education. At first glance it may seem contradictory to argue for increased access to high-status institutions while lamenting the perception of the lower status of the college education, but, as Riddell and Hunter Blackburn (2019) contend, ‘fairness will not be achieved until equal proportions of students from different social backgrounds are present in each type of institution’ (Riddell & Hunter Blackburn, 2019: 199). Resonating with many of the issues identified in our study, Riddell and Hunter Blackburn (2019) conclude that in Scotland:

In addition to the sectoral, academic and practical barriers outlined above, the vocational and technical nature of much college provision and the focus of widening participation activity in the post-92 institutions may limit choices for ‘non-traditional’ students. Smith and Duckworth (2022) argue that behind the political promise of widening participation, is a ‘skills discourse’ that perpetuates divisions between ‘academic’ and ‘vocational’ pathways’ (Smith & Duckworth, 2022: 25) and guides college students into the latter.