Why students leave

From the Non-Returner Survey to the Retention Survey Part I.

W. Allen Richman, Ph.D.Laura Ariovich, Ph.D.Nicole Long, Ph.D.

• Introduce the Non-returner survey (mandate & history)

• Show what’s behind stable enrollment patterns• Propose a revamped methodology to survey non-

returners• Present survey results & next steps to reduce the

non-returner rate

Presentation goals

• Predominantly Black Institution (PBI)– 76% African-American

• Credit and Non-credit programs– 143 active credit programs

• 40,000+ students annually– Fall 2011 headcount for credit

• 14, 647 students• 60% female• 70% part-time

• Faculty– ≈250 full-time– ≈ 700 adjuncts

PGCC at a glance

• All MD Community Colleges are required by the State to survey non-returning students, defined as those students who attended college in the Spring but did not return or graduate in the following fall.

• Survey asks students to:o State their educational goals for attending PGCCo Report whether they achieved themo Indicate what factors they perceive as reasons for not

returningo Comment on how PGCC could better serve their

educational needs

Non-returner survey mandate & history

PGCC enrollment trends

2007 2008 2009 2010 20110

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

11,861 12,11013,685

14,814 14,647

Typical enrollment flow at PGCC

• Old Methodologyo Random sample of 1,000 non-returnerso Students would receive questionnaire by mailo Students who didn’t reply would receive a second

mailing

• Old resulto 1.7 to 3% response rate (between 84 & 160 respondents)

The Non-returner survey in the Past

• Methodologyo Electronic questionnaire sent by email to all non-

returners with valid email addresses

o Four reminders sent to those who did not reply (sent on different days and times)

o Initial invitation & all reminders signed by PGCC President

o Use of an incentive

The Revamped Non-Returner Survey

• 964 students responded (15.4% response rate)

• High quality data:o Even if only the three initial questions were set as

“mandatory,” 96% of respondents completed the full survey.

o 65% of respondents chose to answer the final, open-ended question: “In what ways could PGCC better serve your educational needs?”

Non-Returner Survey Fall 2012

Non-returners’ goal achievement

Factors identified as major reasons for not returning

Item % Major Reason

I did not have the money to enroll. 43

I could not attend college due to personal problems. 38

I was unhappy with my academic progress. 26

I was unhappy with the services for students at PGCC. 25

Factors not perceived as reasons for not returning

Item % Not a Reason

I needed a break from school. 77

My educational goal changed. 75

I moved away from the area. 85

I could not find child care so that I could attend classes. 88

I could not get to campus due to lack of transportation. 85

The classes or programs I wanted were not available. 76

I was unhappy with the activities for students at PGCC. 85

To sum up:

o 48% of students came to PGCC for an associate’s degree. A smaller percentage came for transfer (26%) or for other reasons (26%).

o Students who came for transfer or for other reasons were significantly more likely to complete their goals.

o Among those students who didn’t report transferring or having achieved their academic goal, the factors identified by most as a “major reason” for leaving were not having money to enroll (43%), personal problems (38%), being unhappy with one’s academic progress (25%), and being unhappy with the College’s services for students (25%).

What the numbers tell us

• Stage 1: Preliminary review of all comments and formulation of tentative categories.

• Stage 2: Coding of comments based on tentative categories and reformulation of categories to achieve better fit with the data.

• Stage 3: Recombination and elimination of categories based on the type of comments and the number of quotes included in each category. Recoding of all comments using the final set of categories.

The analysis resulted in four major classes of comments, three of them further classified into sub-categories.

Analysis of students’ comments

Positive comments about PGCC (examples paraphrased)

o Percentage of all comments: 26%

o Subcategories:o Goal achievement: “At PGCC, I had the chance to take the only class I

was missing to complete my program.”

o Encompassing positive experience: “My experience at PGCC was excellent in every way.”

o Positive experiences with faculty: “I was able to show what I’m capable of thanks to Professor X.”

o No complaints: “PGCC is fine, I have no complaints.”

o Percentage of all comments: 28%

o Subcategories: o Problems with advising/financial aid: “Advisors tell you to go to the

website, but you need more help. I ended up taking classes that don’t count for transfer.”

o Problems with faculty: “Some professors, like Professor X, just tell you to look in the book. They won’t try to help you understand.”

o General problems with college responsiveness: “College employees are not well informed or think that someone else will assist you.”

Lack of college responsiveness (examples paraphrased)

o Percentage of all comments: 21%

o Subcategories:o Locations, times, days, and frequency: “The classes I needed to finish

were not available on evenings or weekends. Had to find another school.”

o More online or hybrid classes: “The online class I wanted was full. Offer more online or hybrid classes.”

o Affordability: “More grants for Hospitality Management students. I have a decent job but it’s not enough.”

Affordability (examples paraphrased)

To sum up:o 65% of respondents answered the open-ended question: “In what ways

could PGCC better serve your educational goals?” These comments were coded resulting in the identification of three classes of comments:

o Positive (26%) – generally happy with the college

o Lack of college responsiveness (28%) – dissatisfied with the level or quality of support in academic advising, financial aid, the classroom, or the college as a whole

o Lack of course availability / affordability (21%) - dissatisfied with course availability or concerned about affordability and the need for more financial assistance

What the comments tell us

• The Non-Returner survey’s new methodology contributed to:o Increasing the response rateo Producing high-quality datao Saving resources

• But even the revamped Non-returning survey has limitations: o Focuses on students who already stopped attending classes at the

College (at least temporarily)o Thus, it cannot be used as a direct intervention to prevent students

from exiting the College

• Next step was to survey all credit students in the Spring.

Summary of strengths & weaknesses – Next steps