View
223
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
INSTITUTIONS’ EFFORTS TO SUPPORT PERSISTENCE: DEVELOPING THE BIG PICTURE
International Assessment and Retention Conference
The BIG Questions
The limits of current theories and research on student persistence provide the backdrop.
What policies, practices, and organizational structures do institutions enact to try to enhance student persistence?
How do the ways in which students interact with and experience institutional practices influence their success and graduation?
A Metaphor for Our Efforts
I have $1.3 million to spend on retention programs and I only want to spend these dollars on programs that work.
Overview
We are interested in understanding how campuses can intervene to positively influence persistence.
Because the way that campuses deliver programmatic initiatives is so variable, we are also interested in how campuses organize themselves to address issues of student persistence.
4
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)
The College Board Pilot Study on Student Retention
Two Foci for Development of New Surveys Institutional Survey: to enhance institutions’
understanding of the link between their own practices and student retention
Student Survey: to explore how student experiences and attitudes about campus practices relate to persistence
Pilot Cycle: Two Rounds
Broadened Goals for Institutional Survey National-scope description and benchmarking of
retention practices and policies at colleges and universities
Development of a survey for two-year colleges and universities
Focus groups to test and re-center constructs
College Board Pilot Study on Student Retention
Institutional Survey
Survey ofInstitutional Retention Practices
2006: Survey of 4-year institutions in California, Georgia, Indiana, New York, & Texas
Web-based administration 275 institutions surveyed Response rate of 32.8%
Findings focus on: Retention Coordinator &
Institutional Retention Committee Actionable Institutional
Policies/Practices Orientation Academic Advising First-Year Experience
Institutional Characteristics
Mean scores on select variables Fall-to-fall retention rate
for first-time, first-year students 78.1% (min 51% - max 99%)
72.3% of first-year students living in campus residence halls
Median financial figures Instructional expenses
$6,076/FTE Tuition and fee revenues
$8,207/FTE Total revenue $70,643,587
45.6
53.3
1
Public
Private np
Private fp
Mean SAT scores: 995 (25th
percentile) 1195 (75th
percentile)
Coordination of Retention Efforts 73.9% have a retention committee 72.1% report coordinating retention-related
programs “somewhat” or “to a great extent” Mean FTE devoted to research on retention
= .78 FTE 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 campus coordination of
retention efforts
Retention Coordinators
59.1% report having an administrator charged with tracking and improving retention & persistence 72.6% of these report that the retention coordinator has
some or a great deal of authority to implement new initiatives
43.1% of these report that retention coordinator has some or a great deal of authority to fund new initiatives
Mean FTE dedicated to retention coordinator role = .29 FTE
Responses revealed patterns in authority allocated to retention coordinators:
Authority to implement new initiatives Authority to fund new initiatives % FTE for the retention coordinator
Retention Analysis Activity
98.8% of institutions analyze retention data annually
Annual analyses, broken out by class year, 95%
Annual analyses, broken out by race/ethnicity, 88.8%
Annual analyses, broken out by major, 70.9%
Policies for Early Warning & Faculty Interaction
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
61.0% report average class size for courses primarily taken by 1st 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
Early Warning Faculty Interaction Practices
Orientation
80.5% report that more than three-quarters of first-year students participated in entire orientation program.
90.8% report that more than 50% of first-year students participated in entire orientation program.
Orientation program entails 4.74 days (mean) for entering first-year students.
44% report having an orientation program that extends through the first semester of classes.
Academic Advising
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
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
Advising Practices Advising Roles
First-Year Experience
73.4% offer for-credit courses specifically designed to help students adjust to college.
50% report that all or almost all of their first-year students enrolled in a course designed to help students adjust to college.
42.1% report that all or almost all of their students enrolled in a first-year seminar.
Regression on Retention RatesVariables Beta Sig.
Authority of Retention Coordinator (Factor) -.113Advising Required Each Term .106Midterm Grade Reporting -.099Residentialness .503 ***Total Revenue .142Instructional Expenditures .301 **Resources for Student Affairs (Index) -.015
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001n=77
Some Caveats
Inferential analyses comprise an exploratory thread …and a work in progress …in a predominantly descriptive-level study
Some potential non-response bias Responding institutions Item-missing data
Focus on four-year colleges and universities
Discussion of Key Findings
Negative relationships between institutional efforts and persistence rates are intuitive and encouraging – the institutions that should be most concerned appear to be more focused on persistence.
But…how focused, extensive, and coordinated are these efforts? Only 59% of respondents have retention
coordinators and less than half are able to fund new initiatives.
The amount of time dedicated to the retention coordinator position is minimal.
Few incentives for faculty to take first-year teaching and advising seriously.
More Discussion on Key Findings
Residentialness matters which makes it tough for commuter institutions
A good, but worrisome sign – the amount of money that schools spend on instruction matters (but national trends in this area are going in the wrong direction).
Understanding and improving student persistence takes institutional commitment.
College Board Pilot Study on Student Retention
Student Survey
College Board Pilot Study on Student Retention: Student Survey (Year One)
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 In-class paper-and-pencil administration Self-administered via campus mail
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
Participating Campuses
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
Survey focus on 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
Institution-Specific Analyses
Descriptive information Participation in student programs Classroom experiences Time diary items Satisfaction
Inferential analyses Explore factors associated with persistence
Merge data with SAT Questionnaire program and fall 2006 enrollment data to explore covariates of persistence
Results from Residential Campuses
Year-to-year persistence rates ranged from 74.6% to 94%
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 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
Overview Students’ Intent to Persist
Results from Commuter Campuses
Year-to-year persistence rates ranged from 73.7% to 83.4%
Logistic regressions showed that a scaled-down traditional persistence model enhanced the prediction of which students did not persist
Overall variance explained by the models was relatively low 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
Overview Students’ Intent to Persist
Summary of Cross-Case Findings
Robust factors for capturing complexity
of individual campus environments
practices surrounding retention
A consistent “satisfaction” factor emerged across campuses High reliabilities, ranging from .847 to .903 Encompasses students ratings of
satisfaction on overall educational experiences overall quality of teaching in classes technological resources social experiences level of support for students
Differences across campuses begin to emerge (promising, given goal of pilot study)
Challenges, Questions, Next Steps Challenges
Identification of policy levers associated with persistence Lack of variability in survey responses on some questions Use of findings by colleges to improve persistence
Questions Implications for policymakers? Who is the audience and how would the results be used?
Next steps Student survey has been revised and we are
administering in class whenever possible Institutional survey focus groups and refining of
instrument Student survey is paired with an institutional survey
effort
Where Are We Going?
Working with the College Board to create national benchmarking surveys for two- and four-year schools.
First goal is to provide descriptive information about what peer institutions are doing.
As we gather data from more institutions we will also continue to examine how institutional intensity of effort, policies, and practices influence student success.
Contact Us
Indiana UniversityProject on Academic Success
http://pas.indiana.edu
Recommended