Upload
lisbeth-hillier
View
218
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Institutional and Student Characteristics that Predict Graduation and Retention Rates
Braden J. Hosch, Ph.D.Director of Institutional Research & Assessment
November 4, 2008
North East Association for Institutional Research Annual MeetingProvidence, RI
This presentation and paper are online at http://www.ccsu.edu/oira
Overview
Impetus for Study – Institutional Findings
Methodology
Correlations and Major Factors in Isolation
Results from Regression Analyses
Implications
Caveats
Graduation/retention rates of full-time, first-time students have serious limitations as metrics
Institutions participating in data sharing consortium have a special interest in progress rates
Institutional metrics include only students who enroll at these institutions
Institutional Profile: Central Connecticut State University Public – part of Connecticut State Univ. System Carnegie 2005 Master’s-Larger Programs New Britain, CT (Hartford MSA) Fall 2008 Enrollment:
12,233 headcount (9,906 undergraduate, 23% residential); 9,429 full-time equivalent enrollment
52% female; 17% minority Full-time, first-time students: 1,303 (57% residential) Full-time, new transfer students: 779
Six-year graduation rates: 46% full-time, first-time students entering F ‘02 57% transfer students (full-time upon entry F ‘02)
CCSU Six-Year Graduation Rates and One-Year Retention Rates
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%
77%
69%
80%
76%
79%
45%41%
43%
40%
44% 46%
1-Year Retention Rate 6-Year Graduation Rate
Year of Entry
CCSU Six-Year Graduation Rates Disaggregated (Entry F’99-F’01)
Fem
ale
Mal
e
Not M
inor
ity
Min
ority
3.00
-4.0
0
2.00
-2.9
9
Belo
w 2.
0 or
WD
Gender Race/Ethnicity First Semester GPA
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
48%
35%43%
31%
63%
48%
9%
Six-
year
Gra
duat
ion
Rate
Graduation Rates of FT, FT Students by Number of Course Grades of D, F, or W
Zero
(55%
of c
ohor
t)
One
(21%
of C
ohor
t)
Two (1
1% o
f Coh
ort)
Three
of M
ore
(13%
of C
ohor
t)0%
20%
40%
60%59%
40%
24%
5%
Number of Final Course Grades of D, F, or W in 1st Semester
Six
-Yea
r G
rad
uat
ion
Rat
e
Full-Time, First-Time Students Entering CCSU in Fall 2001
Methodology
Data requested from Consortium for the Study of Retention Data Exchange (Appendix 3) for Full-Time, First-Time Cohort Entering Fall 2001
Institutions missing data about HS performance excluded
Supplemented with Data from IPEDS Peer Analysis System
Institutions in Study Population
Carnegie Classification Private Public Total
Baccalaureate-Associate's 1 0 1
Baccalaureate-General 18 16 34
Baccalaureate-Liberal Arts 3 9 12
Others 0 2 2
Master's I 57 119 176
Master's II 10 5 15
Doctoral/Research Intensive (DRI) 13 46 59
Doctoral/Research Extensive (DRE) 7 89 96
Grand Total 109 286 395
Correlations with Six-Year Graduation Rates and Other Progress Rates
Factors Related to 6-Year Graduation Rate NPearson’s
R R2
Current Cohort’s Five-Year Graduation Rate 392 0.966 0.933
Previous Cohort’s Six-Year Graduation Rate 390 0.964 0.929
Current Cohort’s One-Year Retention Rate(Fall to Fall) 395 0.889 0.790
Relationship Between Six-Year Graduation Rates and One-Year Retention Rates
Factors that Correlate with Six-Year Graduation RatesFactors Related to 6-Year Graduation Rate N
Pearson’s R R2
SAT (Math + Verbal) or ACT Composite Score 391 0.797 0.635
High School Rank (Percent in Top Quartile) 320 0.743 0.552
Percent of All Undergraduate Who Attend Part-Time 395 -0.611 0.373
Cohort’s Mean First Semester GPA 363 0.603 0.364
Percent of Cohort with First Term GPA Below 2.0 350 -0.569 0.324
Percent of Cohort that Resided in Campus Housing (1st Year) 323 0.527 0.278
Percent of Cohort Over Age 24 385 -0.509 0.259
Financial Aid: Percent of Cohort Receiving Federal Grants 394 -0.456 0.208
Expenditures on Instruction and Academic Support per FTE 388 0.424 0.180
Percent of Cohort from Underrepresented Minority Groups 391 -0.355 0.126
Percent of Undergraduates in Headcount 394 -0.316 0.100
Financial Aid: Percent of Cohort Receiving Institutional Grants 394 0.270 0.073
Relationship Between SAT Scores and Success Rates
Below 900 (N=22)
900-990 (N=111)
1000-1090 (N=157)
1100-1190 (N=80)
1200+ (N=21)
0102030405060708090
100
69 6976
8392
3541
53
65
82
1-Year Retention Rate 6-Year Graduation Rate
Mean Institutional SAT Score*
Per
cen
t R
etai
ned
/Gra
du
ated
*Includes converted ACT scores
Relationship Between Six-Year Graduation Rates and SAT Scores
Math + Verbal SAT Score; includes converted ACT scores
Relationship Between HS Rank and Success Rates
0-10 (N=5)
11-20 (N=21)
21-30 (N=54)
31-40 (N=52)
41-50 (N=76)
51-60 (N=53)
61-70 (N=28)
71-80 (N=9)
81-90 (N=10)
91-100 (N=12)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
6469 70 71
7580 82
8691 93
3239
44 4653
60 63
7479
84
1-Year Retention Rate 6-Year Graduation Rate
Percent of Cohort Graduating in Top Quartile of HS Class
Pe
rce
nt
Re
tain
ed
/Gra
du
ate
d
Relationship Between Six-Year Graduation Rate and HS Rank
Relationship Between 1st Semester GPA and Success Rates
0-10 (N=82) 11-20 (N=176) 21-30 (N=81) 31+ (N=11)0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
9081
7670
6563
53
4133
1-Year Retention Rate 6-Year Graduation Rate
Percent of Cohort Earning 1st Semester GPA < 2.0
Per
cen
t R
etai
ned
/Gra
du
ated
Relationship Between Six-Year Graduation Rate and First Semester GPA
Relationship Between Campus Housing and Success Rates
00-40 (N=35)
41-50 (N=22)
51-60 (N=29)
61-70 (N=43)
71-80 (N=46)
81-90 (N=73)
91-100 (N=75)
0102030405060708090
6974 72 75 77 76
82
3947 47 50
55 5665
1-Year Retention Rate 6-Year Graduation Rate
Percent of Cohort Residing in Campus Housing
Per
cen
t R
etai
ned
/Gra
du
ated
Relationship Between Six-Year Graduation Rate and Housing
Relationship Between Federal Grant Aid and Success Rates
00-10 (N=11)
11-20 (N=114)
21-30 (N=127)
31-40 (N=69)
41-50 (N=32)
51-60 (N=20)
61-100 (N=21)
0102030405060708090 84 80
75 71 71 70 727161
5246 44 43 40
1-Year Retention Rate 6-Year Graduation Rate
Percent of Cohort Receiving Federal Grant Aid
Per
cen
t R
etai
ned
/Gra
du
ated
Relationship Between Six-Year Graduation Rate and Federal Grant Aid
Relationship Between Expend On Instruction + Academic Support per FTE on Success Rates
4.9 or less
5.0-7.4 7.5-9.9 10.0-12.4 12.5-14.9 15.0 or more
0102030405060708090
6974 77 80 81 85
4349
5460 62
69
1-Year Retention Rate 6-Year Graduation Rate
Expenditures ($000) on Instruction and Academic Support per FTE Enrollment
Per
cen
t R
etai
ned
/Gra
du
ated
One-Year Retention Rate Regression Model Using SAT Scores
Institutional One-Year Retention Rate (Adj. R2=0.642) β S.E. t Sig.
(Constant) 2.472 4.054 .610
Combined Math and Verbal SAT score* .067 .004 16.140 ***
Baccalaureate Institution (dummy var.) -4.348 1.074 -4.049 ***
Pct of Cohort Resided in Campus Housing .058 .016 3.656 ***
Addition of following factors can increase model power by 4.1% (R2=0.681): percent graduating in the top quartile of HS class; percent of cohort receiving student loans, and the percent of the cohort receiving federal grants; Percent of Cohort with 1st Term GPA Under 2.0.
Six-Year Graduation Rate Regression Model Using SAT Scores
Institutional Six-Year Graduation Rate (Adj. R2=0.764) β S.E. t Sig.
(Constant) -60.401 6.670 -9.055
Combined Math and Verbal SAT score† .102 .006 17.125 ***
Pct of Cohort Resided in Campus Housing .161 .021 7.731 ***
Percent of Cohort w1st Term GPA Under 2.0 -.269 .071 -3.788 ***
Addition of following factors can increase model power by 4.5% (R2=0.811): Percent of all undergraduates who attend part-time, baccalaureate institution (dummy var.), percent graduating in the top quartile of HS class; percent of cohort receiving student loans, and the percent of the cohort receiving federal grants.
One-Year Retention Rate Regression Model NOT Using SAT Scores
Institutional One-Year Retention Rate (Adj. R2=0.595) β S.E. t Sig.
(Constant) 55.50 1.363 40.72
Pct of Cohort Graduated in Top HS Quartile .286 .020 14.07 ***
Pct of Cohort Resided in Campus Housing .111 .016 6.99 ***
Baccalaureate Institution (dummy var.) -5.681 1.130 -5.03 ***
Addition of following factors can increase model power by 6.7% (R2=0.662): percent of the cohort receiving federal grants; expenditures on instruction and academic support per FTE; percent of cohort with a 1st term GPA under 2.0, public (dummy var.); percent of undergraduates who attend part-time, and percent of the cohort receiving student loans.
Six-Year Graduation Rate Regression Model NOT Using SAT Scores
Institutional Six-Year Graduation Rate (Adj. R2=0.732) β S.E. t Sig.
(Constant) 32.99 3.219 10.25
Pct of Cohort Graduated in Top HS Quartile .364 .031 11.83 ***
Pct of Cohort Resided in Campus Housing .211 .022 9.744 ***
Pct of Cohort that Received Federal Grants -.202 .039 -5.18 ***
Percent of Cohort w1st Term GPA Under 2.0 -.333 .075 -4.43 ***
Addition of following factors can increase model power by 4.5% (R2=0.811): Percent of all undergraduates who attend part-time, baccalaureate institution (dummy var.), percent graduating in the top quartile of HS class; percent of cohort receiving student loans, and the percent of the cohort receiving federal grants.
Six-Year Graduation Rate Regression Model Using Academic Inputs ONLY
Institutional Six-Year Graduation Rate (Adj. R2=0.790) β S.E. t Sig.
(Constant) -45.13 6.935 -6.51
Mean Institutional SAT score .0786 .0080 9.79 ***
Pct of Cohort Resided in Campus Housing .158 .020 8.12 ***
Percent of Cohort 24+ years -1.04 .232 -4.50 ***
Pct of Cohort Graduated in Top HS Quartile .150 .038 3.90 ***
Implications and Conclusions (1)
Results confirm and extend previous research:
Most predictive factors: Admission inputs (SAT, followed by HS rank) Proportion living in campus housing First semester performance
Race, gender, and SES appear not to add significant predictive power AFTER controlling for above factors
Implications and Conclusions (2)
Policy implications: Evaluate institutional graduation rates in the
context of an expected graduation rate
Communicate realistic expectations to stakeholders
Implications and Conclusions (3)
Recognize the impact of academic inputs BEFORE and DURING college experience Selectivity is a significant factor that intersects
degree production as well as access; consider implications of resource allocation in context of degree yield rates
Set incentives to promote performance during college, e.g. loan forgiveness vs. merit-based scholarships
Implications and Conclusions (4)
Gaming the system - Institutions may continue to realize incentives to inflate grades
Public 4-year Private nonprofit 4-year All private for-profit0%5%
10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%
10.9%16.7%
27.8%11.2%
15.5%
17.5%
Undergraduate Grade Point Averages by Institution Type
A's and B'sMostly A's
Institution Type
Implications and Conclusions (5)
Arms race in selectivity will be exposed by demographic change in next decade; downward pressure on graduation rates is likely
SOURCE: Knocking at the College Door (2008, Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education)Reproduced in The Chronicle of Higher Education 54.29.
Projections of Graduates of Public High Schools, by Racial and Ethnic Group in North East
White, Non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Black, Non-HispanicAsian/Pacific Islander
Institutional and Student Characteristics that Predict Graduation and Retention Rates
Braden J. Hosch, Ph.D.Director of Institutional Research & Assessment
November 4, 2008
North East Association for Institutional Research Annual MeetingProvidence, RI
This presentation and paper are online at http://www.ccsu.edu/oira