Rethinking Grade Transfer Shock
Download
Report
Transcript Rethinking Grade Transfer Shock
Rethinking Grade Transfer Shock:
Examining Its Importance In The Community College
Transfer Process
(Article published In The Journal Of Applied Research In The
Community College Vol. 14, No. 1, Fall 2006, p. 19-33).
Presented By:
Ron Pennington, Director Of Institutional Research
([email protected])
6th Annual Conference Of The Institute For The Study Of Transfer Students
January 23-25, 2008
Dallas, Texas
Introduction
2
What is Grade Transfer Shock (GTS)?
A decrease in a student’s grade point
average during their first semester at a
four-year institution when compared to
their cumulative GPA at a community
college (CC).
3
Why Is GTS A Problem?
Native student studies: CC transfers have lower
graduation rates even with SES and academic
ability controls
GTS could be an intervening variable adversely
affecting four-year student success
CC Transfer
Experience
Level of GTS
Experienced
Eventual 4-year
Success
Academic integration first/social integration later
Native four-year students will not experience GTS
4
Research Shows GTS Is A Persistent Problem
Review of the literature suggests students lose
about1/3 of a grade point
e.g. 3.0 down to 2.70
2.5 down to 2.20
Studies consistent over time
Hills (1965)
Richardson & Doucette (1980)
Diaz (1992)
Carlan & Byxbe (2000)
5
Why Might CC Transfers Experience GTS?
Poor academic prep at the CC level (Dougherty,
2000)
Within an institution – academic in-process
measures
Between institutions
Poor transfer prep (Nolan & Hall, 1978; Holahan & Kelley,
1978; Land, 1996; Laanan, 1996; Lee & Hoey, 1996; Rhine, 2000,
Debard, 1996)
Poor cognitive maps (Lovitts, 2001)
Attribution Theory (Heidner, 1958; Weiner, 1974)
6
Potential Interventions To Reduce GTS
Change the emphasis from traditional transfer
counseling strategies like:
Where to transfer
Meeting the prerequisites of four-year schools
To:
More proactive strategies designed to reduce GTS
Workshops on the new four-year academic culture
Student mentoring programs at the four-year school
(Laanen, 1996; Rhine et al., 2000)
7
Research Questions
Is GTS related to four-year student success?
Does GTS occur when student demographic
and institutional process variables are
controlled?
Do traditional two-year and four-year transfer
counseling practices reduce GTS levels?
8
Methodology
9
Measuring GTS Is Problematical
Gain score:
(4-year term GPA) – (2-year cumulative GPA)
Problem: The two GPA measures are different
Based on two schools’ grading system
4-year term GPA is less reliable than the CC cumulative
GPA
Less course taking
Shorter time period
Regression to a lower 4-year GPA scale
10
Two Basic Solutions
Using a lower level of measurement:
A dichotomous variable
GTS
No GTS
-.25
+.25
An ordinal variable
Negative Grade
Change (GTS)
Positive Grade
Change
No Grade Change
-.25
0
0
+.25
Regress the CC cumulative GPA on the 4-year
term GPA
11
Data Collection Methods
Telephone survey of MO community college
transfer students – Summer 1999
Student data came from community colleges
Demographic
Academic in-process measures
Student outcome data (MO EMSAS file)
12
Study’s Sample
Initial list of 7,055 CC transfer students completed 24
credit hours from 1995 to 1998
2,656 were surveyed using several call back attempts
(response rate = 38%)
Additional criteria used to eliminate cases
Many outdated telephone numbers
Senior transfers (>96 credits)
Pooling of 5 urban community colleges
First-time transfers prior to fall 1998 semester
Usable cases = 686
13
Findings
Is GTS Related To Four-Year Student Success?
15
Modest relationship between GTS and CC
transfer success at four-year schools.
Grade measure of GTS better predictor of
transfer success than survey measure
16
Nearly three times as many students actually
experienced GTS than reported it in the survey
17
Regression Findings
Does GTS occur when student demographic
and institutional process variables are
controlled?
Do transfer two-year and four-year traditional
counseling practices reduce GTS levels?
18
Independent Variables
+ CCGPA
- 4-Year ACT
CC Academic Challenge
CC1
CC2
±
CC3
CC4
CC5
+ Age
- Gender (0=F, 1=M)
- African American (0=AA,1=Oth)
+ Previous College (0=N, 1=Y)
- CC Lib Arts Maj (0=N,1=Y)
- CC Bus Maj (0=N, 1=Y)
+ CC Degree (0=N, 1=Y)
+ CC Financial Aid (0=N, 1=Y)
+ Cumulative CC Credits
- Dev course work
+ 4-Year First-Term Credits
Transfer Experience
+ CC Prep (0=not SAT, 1=SAT)
+ CC Acad Adv (0=no, 1=yes)
+ CC Fac Adv (0=no, 1=yes)
+ CC Couns (0=no, 1=yes)
+ Cred Transfer Success
(0=no, 1=yes)
+ 4-year Couns (0=no, 1=yes)
19
Summary Of Key Regression Findings
CC GPA was the strongest predictor variable of 4-year GPA by 4 to 1
4-year and 2-year academic challenge variables were the second
strongest set of predictors
Other significant variables were:
Taking developmental CC coursework (indicator of academic
readiness?)
Age (indicator of maturation?)
CC financial aid (indicator of financial dependency at the CC?)
4-year credits (indicator of clearer transfer goals)
Controls on demographic and institutional process variables
actually enhanced GTS
Traditional counseling variables were not significant individually or
as a set
20
Regression Findings: Results
Significant
Variable
CC GPA
4-Yr. ACT
CC4+
Age
Dev Crs Wk
Fin Aid
4-Yr. Cr
+
Not Significant
Exp.
Pos
Neg
—
Pos
Neg
Pos
Pos
Actual
Pos
Neg
Neg
Pos
Neg
Neg
Pos
Beta
0.46
-0.12
0.11
0.10
-0.10
-0.09
0.08
Gender
African-American
Previous college
Bus major at CC
Lib Arts major at CC
CC degree
CC credits
All other transfer experience variables
All CC academic vars sig as a set (F=4.99)
21
Summary of the Regression Results By Sets and CC GPA Coefficients
Set By Order of Data Entry
1. Transfer Shock (CC GPA)
2. 4-Year Academic Challenge
3. CC Academic Challenge
4. Student Background
5. CC Experience
6. 4-Year First Sem Term Experience
7. Transfer Experience
* p<,05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001
R2
Variables Change in
In Set CC GPA b R2 Change
.29
.29
.91
1
.01
.30
.93
1
.02
.32
.93
5
.01
.33
.85
4
.02
.35
.80
6
.01
.36
.79
1
.00
.36
.78
6
Change
in F
255.27 ***
11.95 **
3.15 *
3.57 *
2.55 *
5.35 *
0.86
22
Implications And Discussion
23
GTS can be measured as a
CC GPA 4-year regression study
Or
As a dummy variable in a regression study
24
Regression study question
Will the relationship between GTS and 4-year outcome
success hold up under various controls?
This study shows that the GTS variables should be split
at -.25 to -.30 if coded as a dummy variable
25
Other predictor variables should be examined
More academic process variables at the CC level
Like this study’s CC developmental coursework, CC
financial aid, and 4-year credit variables
Other examples: school attendance, course scheduling
(Karl Boughhan)
Student engagement
Inter-institutional variables like the 4-ACT and set of
CC variables
Will be needed for institutional accountability assessments
Hierarchical linear modeling could be used to “level out the
playing field”
26
Need to test if new transfer counseling
programs should be adopted
Specific program interventions
Better financial aid assistance and information
Counseling program (two or four-year) targeted to
increase students’ Cognitive maps (campus visits,
student mentoring, etc.)
More systemic strategies and explanations
Attributional Theory
vs.
Academic and Social Integration models
27
What is Attributional Theory?
A psychological theory – instead of a sociological
theory
An achievement-motivational theory that predicts
a person's future motivation to act based on
causative explanations for why certain outcomes
have occurred in the past
Concepts include:
Locus of control
Controllability
Event stability
28
Many have argued that intervention programs
based on attribution theory could improve the
academic success of CC transfers (Finley &
Cooper, 1983; Pascarella, Edison, Hagedorn,
Nora, & Terenzini, 1996; Perry, Hector, Menec,
& Weinberg, 1993; St. Clair, 1993; Valla, 1989)
But all future program interventions to improve
GTS need to be evaluated
Need a program logic for how the intervention is
suppose to work
Need to implement an experimental design to see
if it does work
29
30