Persistence in College: A Longitudinal Study on the
Download
Report
Transcript Persistence in College: A Longitudinal Study on the
Persistence in College:
A Longitudinal Study on the Influence
of Concurrent Enrollment and
Advanced Placement Programs
Presented by:
Bill Duffy
University of Tennessee at Martin
National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment
Partnerships (NACEP)
October 11, 2004
AGENDA
(Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle)
Pose question
Literature Review: AP, CEP & Persistence
Purpose of study
Research questions
Methodology
Future research
Suggestions
Repose question
2
PERSISTENCE IN COLLEGE
(Audience briefly shares experiences, and
considers question during presentation)
What does your institution’s concurrent
enrollment program do to enhance the
following areas for high school students?:
– Commitment to a college
– Commitment to graduate from college
– Social integration in college (student-to-student
and student-to-faculty interactions)
3
LITERATURE REVIEW
Advanced Placement
Concurrent Enrollment Programs
Persistence
4
ADVANCED PLACEMENT (AP)
Established in 1955 (1229 AP exams; 25 colleges)
2002: 1.5 million AP exams; 937,000 students; over
14,000 schools worldwide; 80 countries
90 percent of US colleges/universities have AP policies
In 2001, 11% increase, and 6th straight year of doubledigit growth
Has become a criteria for success in evaluating high
schools (Newsweek)
Performance and retention exceed college norms
5
CONCURRENT ENROLLMENT (CEP)
Education Commission of the States – All states have
policies pertaining to CEPs with varying restrictions
and guidelines
Most programs are local/regional partnerships, and
established by colleges to:
– Enhance learning opportunities/challenges for HS
students (senioritis)
– Increase access to higher education
– Reduce college costs
– Reduce time to graduate
– Increase college enrollments and revenue
NACEP established national standards
Performance and retention exceed college norms
6
AP/CEP ISSUES
(Association of American Colleges and Universities)
Credibility: Is the learning in these
programs truly college level given the
enormous range of academic standards in
higher education?
Turf: Who determines the standards for
college credit, and to what degree are the
answers corrupted by self-interest?
7
AP CREDIBILITY AND TURF
ISSUES
Many AP course content decisions determined at
HS level:
– Harvard only accepts AP Exams of “5”
– National Research Council criticized Math & Science
AP courses – memorization versus problem solving and
discussion
Tremendous loss of college revenue: AP student
receiving credit for 10 college courses at Stanford
saves $25K (and only paid $1000 for the AP
exams)
Financial aid for AP exams
Access into college and scheduling of AP exams
8
CEP CREDIBILTY AND TURF
ISSUES
NACEP accreditation standards address the following
– Lack of national standards
– Academic quality
– Faculty credentials and qualifications (note: not an “on-
campus” issue for AP program)
Transferability of grades
Course experience for students
Student maturity
State funding for HS and College (double-dipping)
Impact on students’ subsequent academic and social
performance in college
9
PERSISTENCE
Tinto’s theory of student departure: most mature
research in higher education, and possibly the
most studied in social science:
– Students enter with pre-entry attributes: family
background, skills and attributes, pre-college
achievements and educational experiences
– Pre-entry attributes influence commitment to an
institution and commitment to graduate from
college
– Upon arrival at college, academic and social
experiences influence initial commitments, and
influence an individual’s decision to remain in
college
– Academic and social integration are core constructs
10
of Tinto’s theory.
PERSISTENCE (cont.)
31-45 percent student departure rate
Influencing factors: Student intentions, institution type,
voluntary versus involuntary
Two major empirical studies on persistence (ie.
research on the existing body of research):
– Pantages and Creeden (1978)
– Braxton, Sullivan, & Johnson (2000)
Braxton, Sullivan & Johnson:
– Strong empirical support for the influence of both
student entry characteristics and social integration
on student persistence
– Modest empirical support for academic integration
on student persistence
Lack of persistence research in the classroom, and on
students “before” entering college (most research prior
to college pertains to “college choice”)
11
PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY
Determine impact, if any, CEP/AP have on
“initial” commitments to the institution and
to graduating from college
Determine relationships, if any, between
CEP/AP students and persistence after entry
into college (commitments and integration)
12
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
What relationship, if any, exists between CEP/AP
students and persistence in college?
What relationship, if any, exists between CEP/AP
students commitment to graduating from college?
What relationship, if any, exists between CEP/AP
students and commitment to an institution?
What relationship, if any, exists between CEP/AP
students and social integration in college?
13
METHODOLOGY
Only survey NACEP Accredited CEPs (ensures
standards for institutions offering CEPs)
Pre-post survey
– Fall 2005: newly enrolled “senior” CEP and AP
English Composition student
– Spring 2007: after completing one year of college
Validated “persistence” survey instrument
Path Analysis statistical study
14
PERSISTENCE VARIABLES
Commitment to Institution
Commitment to graduating from college
Social Integration: peer-to-peer interactions and
peer-to-faculty interactions
Institution type: 4-yr, 2-yr; public, private, urban,
rural, HBC
Pre-entry characteristics: ACT/SAT, GPA, class
rank, SES, parents education level, family support,
gender, race
15
FUTURE RESEARCH
Based on existing research and theory accepted by the
Academy: Astin, Bean, Chickering, Hossler, Pascarella,
Tinto, etc.
Peer-reviewed publications
Validated survey instruments
Persistence:
– By college types
– By academic discipline
– Nationally, regionally or statewide
– Gender, race, socio-economic (SES), parents
education
– Instructor type: HS faculty and “on-campus”
faculty teaching in high schools
College Choice
16
Subsequent academic performance in college
CONSIDERATIONS
NACEP fund scholarships in support of
NACEP member research on CEPs
NACEP CEP definition include “oncampus” faculty teaching CEPs at high
schools given likely impact on college
social/academic integration
17
PERSISTENCE IN COLLEGE
What “CAN” your institution’s concurrent
enrollment program do to enhance the
following areas for high school students?:
– Commitment to a college
– Commitment to graduate from college
– Social integration in college (student-to-student
and student-to-faculty interactions)
18
CONTACT INF0RMATION
Bill Duffy
– Director, Office of Extended Campus &
Continuing Education; UT Martin
– Phone: 731-425-9277
– Email: [email protected]
19