Transcript Affecting Student Persistence via Institutional Levers:

In Search of a Grail:
Identifying Best Practices for
Attracting and Retaining Students
Don Hossler ([email protected])
Mary Ziskin ([email protected])
Jacob P.K. Gross ([email protected])
Indiana University – Project on Academic Success
Lauck Parke ([email protected])
Vice President for Undergraduate Studies
University of Vermont
Overview
• What student retention efforts seem
to work (or not)?
• But why?
• Where does this leave us?
• What are we learning from pilot
studies on student retention?
2
A Sampling of Retention Initiatives
• Supplemental instruction
• Major/Career counseling programs
• Learning communities
• First-year experience seminars
3
Supplemental Instruction
• Participants more than twice as
likely to persist year-to-year as
nonparticipants
• Undergraduates were trained in
cooperative learning strategies &
stuck to this approach
• They had a training manual
• In other words, the institution
devoted time & resources to
training – it continues to do so
4
Major/Career Counseling
• Program for undeclared
students at a churchaffiliated residential
institution
• Participants 6 times more
likely to persist to degree
• Strong institutional focus –
campus has a director for
this program
• Could success be linked to
faith-based approach?
• Program is now required &
we are continuing study of
the effects
• Program for undecided
students at a commuter
campus run by career
center
• Participants were over 8
times more likely to persist
year-to-year as non
participants
• Participation was strongly
encouraged by campus
• Program connects students
to staff advisors, faculty
mentors, and potential
employers
5
Learning Communities
on a Commuter Campus
• Had positive impact at a nonselective
institution on first-to-second-semester
persistence
• No effects on year-to-year persistence
• We know little of how the program was
implemented and sustained over time
• Has this been a success?
6
First-Year Seminars
at a Community College
• Program implemented at three separate campuses
within one region
• IPAS undertook program evaluation studies using
both qualitative and quantitative methods
• No evidence of program impact from these studies
• Little training of or coordination among faculty
instructors
• No additional institutional resources
devoted to program
• Why would we expect this to work?
7
Some Caveats
• Student self-selection into programs likely
contributes to positive findings
• The time commitments of participating
campuses & their lack of experience with
doing evaluation research resulted in their
not collecting key data elements needed
for rigorous assessment
8
Where Does This Leave Us?
• We remain interested in better
understanding how campuses can
intervene to positively influence
persistence.
• Because the commitments of
campuses to the way they deliver
programmatic initiatives is so
variable, we are also interested in
how campuses organize themselves
to address issues of student
persistence. We think this might
be an important factor.
9
And…We Are Trying To Do This!
• To understand how campuses can
adopt policies that enhance
persistence
• We next report on two pilot study
efforts we have underway, both
funded by the College Board.
• One is a student survey that helps
campuses identify the policy levers
they can use to improve persistence.
• The other survey looks at how
institutions organize themselves to
enhance persistence & how this
might differentially affect persistence
rates.
10
College Board Pilot Study
on Student Retention
• A survey of first-time, full-time, first-year
students at 8 four-year institutions
• Students surveyed at the end of their first year
(spring 2006)
• Web-based instrument, or
• In-class paper-and-pencil administration
• Response rates varied widely from under 10% to
over 35%
• Follow-up data collected from institutions to
show enrollment in fall 2006
• Allows us to look at persistence
11
A few examples of survey questions
• How certain are you that you have received useful academic
advising at this college?
• How often have you participated in classroom discussions…
that included contributions from students with diverse
backgrounds?
• How certain are you that you've taken advantage of all
federal and state financial aid programs you are eligible for?
• How often have you been unable to register for a course that
you needed…?
• How many times per semester have you received prompt
feedback…from Instructors?
• How often have you felt out of the loop with regard to
campus policies and procedures?
12
Participating Campuses
• Campuses included
• 3 commuter campuses
• 2 small private liberal arts colleges
• 2 residential public universities
• 1 public HBCU
• Institutions in four states
13
Institution-Specific Analyses
• Descriptive information
• Participation in student programs
• Classroom experiences
• Time diary items
• Satisfaction
• Inferential analyses
• Explore factors associated with intent to persist
• Merge data with SAT Questionnaire program and fall
2006 enrollment data to explore covariates of
persistence
14
Preliminary Results from
Residential Campuses
• A high proportion of students (87-92%) intend to persist
• Factors capturing aspects of academic engagement emerge on
one campus
• Campus 2: High Academic Engagement (α=.629 )
• Campus 2: Use of Public Space for Learning (α=.607)
• Logistic regressions showed that a traditional persistence
model enhanced the prediction of which students did not
intend to persist
• Variables that contribute significantly to intent to persist
• Campus 1: development of friendship networks, class attendance, and
positive perceptions about placement practices
• Campus 2: high combined SAT score
• Variables that detract significantly from respondents’ intent to
persist
• Campus 2: distance of residence from campus, time spent preparing
for class
15
Results from Commuter Campuses
• A high proportion (84-93.5%) intend to persist
• Logistic regressions showed that a scaled-down
traditional persistence model enhanced the prediction of
which students did not intend to persist
• Campus 1: 71.4% correctly predicted
• Campus 2: 70.0% correctly predicted
• However…
• Overall variance explained by the models was relatively low
(14.5-18.3%), though comparable to other research on
persistence
• Academic engagement variables included in the models did not
show a significant effect
• Variables that contribute significantly to intent to persist
• Campus 1: development of friendship networks
• Campus 2: certainty of being able to pay for college
16
Factor Analysis
Factor
Variables
Alphas
Perception of
openness
Ratings of social & academic climate on
campus
.70 to .89
Interaction w/
students
Support, advice, and academic
assistance from peers
.68 to .87
Interaction w/
faculty
Support, advice, assistance, and
feedback from instructors
.73 to .85
Satisfaction
Satisfaction ratings on several aspects
of college experience: quality of
teaching, support for students, financial
aid, overall educational experience
.85 to .90
Certainty of
college choice
Ratings of institutional quality, advising
practices, and own choice of college
.70 to .80
17
Cross-Case Findings
• Differences across campuses are evident
• Robust factors emerge
• Early analyses show how policies,
practices and environment play into intent
to persist, institution-by-institution
18
Lessons Learned: Pilot Year-1
• Small residential campuses have the highest response
rates, commuter campuses the lowest.
• Paper-and-pencil administration on commuter campuses
• Increased cost
• Much higher response rate
• More complicated to administer, but may also be a good
indicator of…how serious campuses are about improving student
persistence
• Timing: We hope earlier administrations will improve
response rates for residential campuses that use a
Web-based survey.
• Studying and improving student persistence is difficult.
It takes institutional commitment.
19
Next Steps
• We will merge fall enrollment records to
see who actually returned and then re-run
our current set of analyses.
• Then we will also merge financial aid data,
and SAT questionnaire data to see how
these data affect our results.
• We will readminister the survey in the
winter of 2007.
20
Institutional Survey Sneak Preview
• Survey of four-year institutions in California,
Georgia, Indiana, New York, and Texas
• Web-based administration, summer 2006
• 32.8% response rate
• Preliminary findings
• 57.1 % of responding institutions have a retention
coordinator
• 97.3% of institutions analyze retention data annually
• Annual analyses, broken out by race/ethnicity,
87.8%
• Annual analyses, broken out by major, 70.8%
21
Institutional Survey
Preliminary Findings (Continued)
• 43.5% report having semester-long orientation
programs
• 60.5% reported average class size for first-year
students at 30 or lower
• 82.9% require students to meet with advisors
each term
• 44.2% of retention coordinators rated the
availability of academic support at their
institutions as higher than at similar institutions
22
Final Thoughts
• Both surveys are works in
progress, but show
potential
• We will refine both
instruments and re-test
them early second
semester
• We hope to shed light on
how institutions organize
themselves and what they
can do to enhance student
persistence
23
Contact Us
Indiana University
Project on Academic Success
http://pas.indiana.edu
24
Appended Slides
Data & Case Descriptives
• A Public Residential University
•
•
•
•
Public, residential, research-extensive university
Approximately 9,000 undergraduates
92% White; next highest group: APA (2.5%)
49% expressed confidence that their families
would be able to pay for college
• 87% reported an intent to persist
• Data for this institution
• Response rate 22%
• Men underrepresented among respondents
(46% of population; 27% of respondents)
26
A Public Residential University
27
Findings in 4 cases
• Campus A (Nagelkerke=.245)
• (+) Friendships/Social network (p<.01)
• (+) Positive perceptions of English placement (p<.01)
• (-) Missing class (p<.05)
• Campus B (Nagelkerke=.342)
• (+) SAT (p<.05)
• (-) Distance (p<.05)
• Campus C (Nagelkerke=.320)
• (+) Certainty of major (p<.05)
• (-) Discussions with peers (p<.05)
• Campus D (Nagelkerke=.209)
• (+) Friendships/Social network (p<.05)
• (+) Feedback from instructors (p<.05)
28