Transcript Affecting Student Persistence via Institutional Levers:
Don Hossler Mary Ziskin Indiana University Paul Orehovec University of Miami
DEVELOPING THE BIG PICTURE:
HOW POSTSECONDARY INSTITUTIONS SUPPORT STUDENT PERSISTENCE
College Board Forum 2007
The Search for Policy Relevant Insights into Student Persistence
We are interested in understanding how campuses can intervene to positively influence persistence.
We are interested in a better understanding of how we can enhance student experiences to improve student persistence & graduation
2
3
Literature on Institutional Role in Student Persistence Many have pointed to the importance of this question
(Braxton, 1999; Hossler, 2005; Perna & Thomas, 2006; Tinto & Pusser, 2006)
Policy levers Work identifying pivotal practices
(Braxton, Hirschy, McClendon, 2004; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Stage & Hossler, 2000)
Directions identified through theory and research
( Braxton & McClendon, 2001-2002; Peterson, 1993)
Empirical record remains uneven
(Patton, Morelon, Whitehead, & Hossler, 2006)
4
Two Ongoing Efforts
College Board Institutional Survey
What are institutions doing to improve student retention?
College Board Student Survey
What are students’ experiences with institutional policies relevant to student persistence?
Survey of 275 four year institutions Websurvey and in class administration
5
Institutional Survey
College Board Pilot Study on Student Retention
6
Survey of Institutional Retention Practices 2006: Survey of 4-year institutions in California, Georgia, Indiana, New York, & Texas Findings focus on: How institutions organize themselves around retention efforts.
Actionable Institutional Policies/Practices Orientation Academic Advising First-Year Experience Seminar
Coordination of Retention Efforts
7
Analyses identified patterns in how institutions coordinate retention efforts: Presence of a campus wide retention committee FTE devoted to research on retention The respondents’ ratings of how coordinated the retention efforts on a campus are 73.9% have a retention committee 72.1% report coordinating retention-related programs “somewhat” or “to a great extent”
8
Retention Coordinators
59.1% report having an administrator charged with tracking and improving retention & persistence Mean FTE reported for this position was .29
42.9% report that the retention coordinator has some or a great deal of authority to implement new initiatives 25.5% report that retention coordinator has some or a great deal of authority to fund new initiatives Responses revealed patterns in authority allocated to retention coordinators: Authority to implement new initiatives Limited authority to fund new initiatives Relatively small %FTE allocated to role of retention coordinator
9
Policies for Faculty Interaction & Early Warning
Early Warning
58.1% report they collect mid term grade information for first year students
However…
52.9% report they do not flag specific courses with high percentages of Ds, Fs, or
Withdrawals Faculty Interaction Practices
61.0% report average class size for courses primarily taken by 1 st year students is between
1-30 students
However…
69.2% report that incentives for full-time faculty to teach first year classes were non-existent
or small
10
Academic Advising
Advising Practices
82.6% require first-year students to meet with an academic advisor every
term
70.0% report that incentives for full-time faculty to serve as academic advisors were non-existent or small
Advising Roles
57.1% estimate that more than three-quarters of their first-year students were advised by full-time
faculty
28.4% estimate that more than three-quarters of first-year students were
advised by professional advisors
11
Student Survey
College Board Pilot Study on Student Retention
Participating Campuses
12
Campuses included 3 commuter campuses 2 small private liberal arts colleges 3 residential public universities 1 public HBCU 1 private HBCU Institutions in six states
13
Student experiences of actionable institutional practices Advising structures and policies Orientation Interaction with faculty Active learning Experiences with financial aid practices Perceptions of campus climate Perceptions of academic regulations Availability and use of Services and Facilities
14
Institution-Specific Analyses
Descriptive information
Experiences in student programs Classroom experiences Time diary items Satisfaction
Inferential analyses
Confirmatory factor analysis based on policy levers Merge data with fall 2006 & 2007 enrollment data to explore how these experiences affect persistence
Example: Western University
Commuter Campus—Large, somewhat racially diverse, Public, Doctorate-granting research institution, less selective
Variable
White Female Certainty of funding
Logistic Regression Results
Odds ratio Sig.
0.35 * 1.81
1.09 Combined SAT score (in 100s) Orientation' Advisor Interaction' Faculty Interaction' Student Interaction' 1.87 ** 1.32 1.21
1.07 1.03
Perception of Bias' Financial Aid' Social Activities' Diversity Perception' Family Encouragement Transition Satisfaction Late Assignments Staff Respect for Students
'Represents a factor *p<.10, **p<.05, ***p<.01, ****p<.001
2.17 ** 0.93
0.69 1.26
4.77 **** 2.56 *** 0.64
0.75
17
Conclusions
College Board Pilot Study on Student Retention
Institutional retention efforts: The emerging national picture
18
59% of respondent have retention coordinators; less than half of these are able to fund new initiatives Potential to provide a snapshot of Practices institutions are using to improve persistence and graduation rates.
Policies The intensity of those efforts Few institutions report incentives for faculty to take advising undergraduates seriously Explorations of what matters for retention Resources devoted to instruction Residentialness
Student Experiences: Sharpening the focus at each institution
19
Student level investigations reveal dynamics that vary campus to campus Actionable implications specific to WSU emerge A multipronged approach to support transition to college Opportunities to tap into encouragement from students’ families
Contact Us Indiana University Project on Academic Success http://pas.indiana.edu
Presentation available via download:
http://pas.indiana.edu/cb/resources.cfm
Institutional Characteristics
53.3
1 45.6
Public Private np Private fp
Mean SAT scores: 995 (25th percentile) 1195 (75th percentile ) Mean scores on select variables Fall-to-fall retention rate for first time 1 st year students 78.12% (min51%-max99%) 72.3% of first-year students living in campus residence halls Median revenue figures Instructional expenses $6,076 Tuition and fee revenues $8207/per FTE Total revenue $70,643,587
Regression on Retention Rates
Variables Authority of Retention Coordinator (Factor) Advising Required Each Term Midterm Grade Reporting Resources for Student Affairs (Index) Residentialness Total Revenue Instructional Expenditures Beta Sig.
-.113
.106
-.099
-.015
.503
.142
.301
*** ** *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
n=77
Pleasant State University
Variables
Female Race: White Certainty of funding Combined SAT Score Perceptions of Campus Openness (Factor) Interaction with Faculty (Factor) Perception of Diversity on Campus (Factor) Late Assignments Registration Problems Learning Communities Quality of Advising
Beta
-2.593
-.133
-.062
-.001
.581
.247
.609
-.772
.168
.704
-.108
Std Err
.075
.875
.940
.999
1.787
1.281
1.838
.462
1.183
2.022
.898
Odds Ratio
1.110
.662
.166
.003
.307
.340
.364
.397
.191
.691
.216
Sig.
** * * * *p<.10, **p<.05, ***p<.01, ****p<.001
N=222