Transcript The Student Learning Progress Model

Chuck Hughes
Associate VP, Academic Effectiveness
Cindy Boling
Director of Institutional Research
Bill Radke
Provost and VP of Academic Affairs
NCA HLC Annual
Conference
Mar 30 – Apr 3, 2012







About UCO
The Need For a New Approach
The SLPM Beta Test Group
Tracking students in the SLPM
The Successful Learning Rate
Summary of UCO’s Findings To Date
Conclusion
• Located in Edmond, Oklahoma
(northern suburb of Oklahoma
City)
• Metropolitan designation
• Oklahoma’s oldest institution of
higher education
 Largest regional in OK
 PUI
 Master’s – larger
 15,000 UG
2,000 GR
 Primarily nontraditional
(10% live on campus)
 Most international UGs in OK
 ~ 450 FT faculty/~670 FTE faculty
 Teaching load: 12 hrs/semester (4x4 load)
 5 colleges, 1 grad college, 1 institute
Mission: “Helping Students Learn by providing transformative experiences
so that they may become productive, creative, ethical, engaged citizens
and leaders contributing to the intellectual, cultural, economic and social
advancement of the communities they serve.
The Central Six
UCO’s Center for Transformative Learning (2010)
Transformative Learning at UCO
1) Discipline Knowledge
2) Leadership
3) Research Scholarly and
Creative Activities
4) Service Learning and Civic
Engagement
5) Global and Cultural
Competencies
6) Health and Wellness
Public Higher Education
Expectations of
accountability
Public support
 Accountability measures must accurately represent our
impact on meeting students’ academic goals.
 Measures must help us target areas to make
improvements.
How Do We Meet Students’ Academic Goals
Current measures:
 Retention and graduation rates based on the
“Student Right To Know” (SRTK) cohort.
 Student Right-to-Know and Campus Security Act
– 1990.
 SRTK cohort identified each fall semester
Entering students who are first-time, full-time degree
seeking freshmen.
Incoming fall
student class
UCO Fall 2011 Admission Types
 44% First Time Freshmen (FT+PT)
 36% Transfers
 4% Non Degree
 15% Readmits
1/3 are PT
“Student Right to Know” (SRTK) Cohort
UCO:
SRTK
32%

Excludes part-time students,
transfer students, “swirling”
students

At UCO: SRTK Cohort represents
only 32% of the incoming fall
class of students (F 2010) and 10%
of all students enrolled that
semester.
Incoming fall
student class
SRTK Graduation Rate
 Percentage of SRTK who earn
award within 200% of catalog time
(until recently, this was 150%).
 4-year college students  8 years.
2-year college students  4 years.
UCO:
SRTK
32%
Incoming fall
student class
Where are these students go after 8 years?
IR also tracking
some other
student cohort
groups
Non-returned
(disappeared)
Transferred out
Intermittent
enrollment
Continuously
enrolled
UCO:
SRTK
32%
Graduate
within 8 years
Incoming fall
student class
Where are these students go after 8 years?
Non-returned
(disappeared)
Current
institutional
success is based
on this SRTK
graduation rate
UCO:
SRTK
32%
Transferred out
Intermittent
enrollment
Continuously
enrolled
Graduate
within 8 years
SRTK in
these
groups are
considered
failures
even if
ultimately
successful.
Changing How We Measure Student
Success
 Student Learning Progress Model
(SLPM) shifts definition of “Student
Success” beyond SRTK.
 Developed by Dr. Gary Rice, Assoc VP
for IR at University of Alaska
Anchorage.
SLPM Final Beta Test Sites
Institution
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
University of Alaska Anchorage
Springfield College
University of Maine, Fort Kent
Metropolitan State Coll of Denver
College at Brockport- SUNY
Indiana University Southeast
Northern Kentucky University
Macon State College
Georgia College and State Univ
10. University of Central Oklahoma
11. Sam Houston State University
12. Houston Community College
13. Dakota State University
14. California State Monterrey Bay
15. Missouri Western State University
16. Emporia State University
17. Black Hills State University
18. Mount Hood Community College
 SLPM - internally tested at U of Alaska Anchorage (UAA).
 Mount Hood CC (Oregon) participated in an initial pilot.
 2011 – originally 18 additional Beta testers
Requirements for Beta testers:

Calculate and report success measures
using UAA template.

Establish local Advisory Councils.

Submit a final institutional report for
inclusion in an overall summary report.
UCO SLPM Advisory Council













Dr. Bill Radke, Provost and VP of Academic Affairs (Council Chair)
Dr. Tim Bridges, College of Business
Dr. Jim Machell, Dean, College of Education and Professional Studies
Dr. Gary Steward, Assoc Dean, College of Liberal Arts
Dr. Gayle Kearns, Assoc Dean, College of Fine Arts and Design
Dr. Charlotte Simmons, Assoc Dean, College of Math and Science
Dr. Myron Pope, VP of Enrollment Management
Mr. Jarrett Jobe, Office of the President
Dr. Kathryn Gage, VP of Student Affairs
Dr. Chuck Hughes, Assoc VP of Academic Effectiveness
Ms. Cindy Boling, Director, Institutional Research
Mr. Flynn King, Institutional Research
Dr. Cynthia Murray, College of Mathematics and Science
Incoming fall
student class
Tracking Students in SLPM

Entry Cohort = initial student
cohort: all first-time students
that enroll in a given fall
semester.

Look at UG and GR students as
two distinct cohorts.

Cohorts are tracked over 10 year
period. A total of 10 cohorts are
tracked over that period.
SLPM
Entry
Cohort
(UCO has SLPM data for 8 years, but had
already begun compiling 10-year data.)
Incoming fall
student class
SLPM follows these students for 10 years.
SLPM
Entry
Cohort
Non-returned
(disappeared)
Transferred out
Intermittent
enrollment
Continuously
enrolled
Graduate
within 8 years
Tracking Students in SLPM
UCO’s 2002 entry cohort showing year-by-year status
Tracking Students in SLPM



Sub-Cohorts = Key student groups that can be tracked
within the SLPM.
Selling point to campus stakeholders.
Identify initiatives and programs that promote student
success.
Additional sub-cohorts
UCO sub-cohorts
(requested)
(being developed)
 Greek students
 SRTK
 Athletes
 Success Central
 TRIO/SSS students
 Transfer
 Learning communities
 Graduate students
 Associate degree students  Students in specific
academic programs
 Students in Central Six
 … and at least 100
(Transformative Learning)
more.
experiences
Incoming fall
student class
Tracking sub-cohorts mirrors tracking of
Entry Cohort.
Non-returned
(disappeared)
Sub-cohort
Transferred out
Intermittent
enrollment
Continuously
enrolled
Graduate
within 8 years
Incoming fall
student class
Could shift SLPM measures up to a state or
national level.
Non-returned
(disappeared)
All public or
public+private
university
students in
state or nation
Transferred out
Intermittent
enrollment
Continuously
enrolled
Graduate
within 8 years
Identify
through Nat’l
Student
Clearinghouse
Successful Learning Rate (SLR)

A measure developed by UAA to track
the proportion of courses completed
out of total courses attempted.
Courses completed
SLR 
Total courses attempted

A measure developed by UAA to track
the proportion of courses completed
out of total courses attempted.
The Successful Learning Rate:
•
Table 5
Undergraduates First-Time at UCO
.
Successful Learning Rate Target
Successful Learning Rate
Status Point:
Year ____
Year ____
Year ____
SLR Target:
Table
5.1
Successful Learning Rate (SLR) - Proportion of Successfully Completed Courses to Total Attempted
Entering
Term
Year 1
Success
Courses
Successful
Learning
Rate
Fall 2002
24,297
Fall 2003
26,009
Fall 2004
Fall 2005
Year 2
Success
Courses
Successful
Learning
Rate
72.0%
36,748
74.6%
39,550
27,885
74.8%
26,510
73.7%
Fall 2006
25,993
Fall 2007
25,100
Fall 2005
Fall 2009
Fall 2010
Year 3
Success
Courses
Successful
Learning
Rate
78.6%
42,166
79.9%
45,510
41,944
79.4%
39,725
79.9%
74.6%
38,029
75.5%
38,112
24,597
75.8%
26,145
76.7%
28,993
74.8%
Year 4
Success
Courses
Successful
Learning
Rate
80.1%
43,034
81.1%
45,586
48,149
81.3%
45,953
81.6%
80.3%
43,213
81.7%
45,251
37,852
80.9%
43,479
82.4%
38,974
81.0%
Year 5
Success
Courses
Successful
Learning
Rate
81.0%
34,186
82.1%
36,737
47,719
82.4%
46,579
81.9%
81.7%
44,515
82.6%
83.3%
46,406
83.4%
Year 6
Success
Courses
Successful
Learning
Rate
80.2%
18,037
81.4%
20,033
38,388
81.4%
37,822
81.5%
36,112
81.5%
Year 7
Success
Courses
Successful
Learning
Rate
77.8%
11,810
78.0%
12,448
21,969
78.5%
15,009
76.5%
21,224
79.5%
Year 8
Year 9
Success
Courses
Successful
Learning
Rate
Success
Courses
Successful
Learning
Rate
76.3%
9,119
76.0%
7,420
75.7%
76.1%
8,605
76.2%
Year 10
Success
Courses
Successful
Learning
Rate
The Successful Learning Rate
Successful Learning Rate (SLR) - Proportion of Successfully Completed Courses to
Total Attempted
Year 1
Entering Term
Fall 2002
Fall 2003
Fall 2004
Fall 2005
Fall 2006
Fall 2007
Fall 2005
Fall 2009
Fall 2010
Year 2
Success Courses
Successful
Learning Rate
24,297
26,009
27,885
26,510
25,993
25,100
24,597
26,145
28,993
72.0%
74.6%
74.8%
73.7%
74.6%
75.5%
75.8%
76.7%
74.8%
Success Courses
Successful
Learning Rate
36,748
39,550
41,944
39,725
38,029
38,112
37,852
38,974
78.6%
79.9%
79.4%
79.9%
80.3%
81.7%
80.9%
81.0%
The Successful Learning Rate:
Figure 5a. Successful Learning Rate
Proportion of Courses Successfully Completed
out of Courses Attempted
84%
82%
80%
78%
76%
74%
72%
70%
68%
66%
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Year 8
Year 9
Successful Learning Rate (SLR)
85%
5a - Proportion of Courses Successfully
Completed
out of Courses Attempted
80%
60,000
Figure 5b. Number of Courses
Successfully Completed
(by the enrolled portion of the cohort)
40,000
75%
20,000
70%
65%
0
Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
40
Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Figure 5c. Average Successful Courses
6,000
per Student
30
Figure 5d. Number of Students
Enrolled Each Year
(From Initial Cohort)
4,000
20
2,000
10
0
0
Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
The Student 10-year Learning Goal
Degree Seeker
N
% Total
Learning Goal Met
Traditional Metric Graduates*
Graduated
Non Degree with Sufficient Progress
Transferred Out
Non-Transfer
Goal Met Total
Learning Goal Progress
Interim Award Recipients
No Awards
Transferred Out
Enrolled less than all terms
Non-stop Enrollment
Progress Total
Learning Goal Not Met
No Return After Year 1
No Learning Progress
Transferred Out
Non-Transfer
Goal Not Met Total
All
% Total
1163
278
1441
33.7%
8.1%
Non Degree
N
% Total
Total
N
% Total
27
0.0%
8.3%
1163
305
30.8%
8.1%
0.0%
157
48.5%
157
4.2%
0.0%
0.0%
41.8%
28
129
184
8.6%
39.8%
56.8%
28
129
1625
0.7%
3.4%
43.1%
0.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
1,130
32.8%
32
9.9%
1,162
30.8%
361
666
103
1,130
10.5%
19.3%
3.0%
32.8%
15
16
1
32
4.6%
4.9%
0.3%
9.9%
376
682
104
1162
10.0%
18.1%
2.8%
30.8%
747
21.7%
101
31.2%
848
22.5%
128
3.7%
7
2.2%
135
3.6%
75
2.2%
53
1.5%
875 25.4%
3,446 100.0%
91.4%
6
1.9%
81
2.1%
1
0.3%
54
1.4%
108 33.3%
983 26.1%
324 100.0%
3,770 100.0%
8.6%
100.0%
Learning Goal Status at the end of Fall 2010 (Degree Seekers)
Fall 2002
No Learning
Progress
(SLR<25%), 3.7%
No Return After
Year 1, 21.7%
Traditional
Metric
Graduates, 33.7%
Non-stop
Enrollment
(SLR>=25%),
3.0%
Enrolled less than
all terms
(SLR>=25%),
19.3%
Graduated, 8.1%
Transferred Out
(SLR>=25%),
10.5%
The Student 10-year Learning Goal
Table 3.1
Undergraduates First-Time at UCO
Goal Met Status by Learning Progress Level (at end of Fall 2010)
Fall 2002 Degree Seekers
Traditional Metric Graduates
Graduated
Non-stop Enrollment
Less than all terms, no awards
or transfer
Transferred Out
No Return after Year 1
Grand Total
Substantial
to
Moderate to Minimal to No Progress
Distinction Substantial Moderate to Minimal
1034 54.4% 126 15.1%
3 0.9%
202 10.6%
74 8.8%
2 0.6%
41 2.2%
52 6.2%
10 3.1%
3 0.8%
1163 33.7%
278 8.1%
106 3.1%
228 12.0%
186 9.8%
209 11.0%
1900 100%
716 20.8%
436 12.7%
747 21.7%
3446
307 36.7%
117 14.0%
161 19.2%
837 100%
131 41.1%
58 18.2%
115 36.1%
319 100%
50 12.8%
75 19.2%
262 67.2%
390 100%
Total
Using SLPM to identify which initiatives are
helping to promote student success.
Example: Success Central
 Other examples from other subcohorts
(e.g. athletics, learning communities, etc.)
Best comparison is SRTK, but have to back
out 20-40% of students in Success Central to
get to a similar group
Comparisons – Fall 2007
Success Central
First Time, Full Time
Degree Seeking
SRTK
SC-1
Retention
1st Fall
2nd Fall
3rd Fall
4th Fall
Graduation To
Date
Cohort Size
All UG Students
SLPM
SC-2
--61.2%
50.5%
46.8%
--64.1%
52.3%
48.1%
--62.1%
47.4%
37.4%
--61.8%
48.3%
44.7%
0.6%
0.4%
12.8%
0.5%
1,817
797
3,446
1,020
Comparisons – Fall 2007
Success Central
1st Fall
2nd Fall
3rd Fall
4th Fall
Graduation To
Date
Cohort Size
First Time, Full Time
Degree Seeking
SRTK
SC-1
GPA
2.43
2.36
2.76
2.64
2.90
2.79
2.94*
2.94*
*proxy
3.54
3.61
1,817
797
All UG Students
SLPM
SC-2
SLR
75.5%
81.7%
83.3%
83.4%
73.1%
80.7%
82.9%
84.1%
3,446
1,020
The SLPM at UCO
Challenges

Banner to SAS/SPSS coding

Most efficient way to produce reports

Sheer volume

Limit efforts on opportunities
Effectively using the data

Tie budgeting, planning, and
program prioritization

Quality/Continuous Improvement
efforts
“ +”
Summary: SLPM
 “Success” not limited to SRTK
cohort. SLPM looks at all
students who start in Fall Sem.
 “Success” not limited to students
who graduate in 8-yrs. SLPM
tracks 10-yrs.
 SLR measures student success in
students who do not graduate.
 Sub-cohorts allow systematic
analysis of uniformly developed
data at almost any level.
 Opportunity to review transfer,
intermittent, and not returned
rates.
“―”
 Current model excludes
students who start in Spring
semester.
 Current model doesn’t
track students who are
ultimately successful at
transfer institution.
 UAA has begun licensing
use of SLPM for new
institutions.
 Takes some effort to
develop subcohort data.
Note: SLPM does not replace SRTK.
References
AASCU State Relations and Policy Analysis Team. (2011). Top 10 Higher
Education State Policy Issues for 2011. Washington DC: American Association
of State Colleges and Universities.
National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences.
(2010). Tacking Students to 200 Percent of Normal Time: Effect on
Institutional Graduation Rates. Washington DC: U.S. Department of
Education.
Office of Institutional Research, University of Alaska Anchorage. (2011,
December 14). Frequently Asked Questions: Student Learning Progress
Model. Retrieved January 4, 2012, from University of Alaska Anchorage
website: http://www.uaa.alaska.edu/ir/reports/success/upload/FAQ-12-142011.pdf
Office of Institutional Research, University of Alaska Anchorage. (2011).
Student Learning Progress Model. Retrieved 2012, from University of Alaska
Anchorage: http://www.uaa.alaska.edu/ir/reports/success/index.cfm
“Transformative Learning: Collaborating to Enhance Student
Learning” by John Barthell, Ed Cunliff, Kathryn Gage, William Radke,
and Cheryl Steele. A Collection of Papers on Self-Study and
Institutional Improvement 26th Edition. © 2010 The Higher Learning
Commission.
Acknowledgements
Dr. Gary Rice, Associate Vice President
at the University of Alaska Anchorage
(and his colleagues)
Our many colleagues at the other Beta
test sites.
Dr. Cynthia Murray, UCO Professor of
Mathematics and Statistics
Contact Us:
Thank You!
Chuck Hughes [email protected]
Cindy Boling [email protected]
Bill Radke [email protected]
Visit us: www.uco.edu/ir
UAA info: http://www.uaa.alaska.edu/ir/reports/success/index.cfm
http://studentlearningmodel.com
Questions?