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

[email protected]

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