The Triple Jump: The Challenges of Enrolment Planning, Success

& Throughput at UnisaPresented at the

Assessment Project ColloquiumKloofzicht 29 September 2008

Associate Professor George SubotzkyExecutive Director: Information and Strategic Analysis

Background• The Assessment Project forms part of Unisa’s larger

project to achieve the strategic objectives of:– Enhancing the student experience– Responsibly managing open access & enrolments, and

simultaneously to– Improving success & throughput– Increasing the quality, relevant and effectiveness of

Unisa’s graduates in the African context• The main purpose of this presentation is to place the

Assessment Project in this larger perspective and to provide an informational and analytic backdrop to key institutional strategic initiatives currently being undertaken to achieve the strategic objectives mentioned above

Background• In particular, the presentation focuses on the current

challenges faced by the University in relation to:– Enrolment planning– Success and throughput modelling and intended interventions

• The presentation draws on insights from:– Analyses of recent enrolment output trends and projections

patient to the ministerial targets– A recent national workshop convened by DISA entitled

Conceptually Modelling Success & Throughput at Unisa– My recent study tour of several UK universities and attendance

of a conference on Institutional Research in Southampton– The first cohort-based throughput case studies conducted at

Unisa, and an analysis of the exam results of students with 1 module outstanding who were identified to receive interventions

– Initial steps in modelling success & throughput

Background• The presentation updates and substantially

revises the previous presentation at the Assessment Project Symposium in July, entitled Building the Temple: The Assessment Project as part of the bigger picture

• Last night, the Principal sketched the bigger picture in relation to policy trends and institutional issues & challenges in a broad strategic overview

• This presentation examines the bigger picture of enrolment, success & throughput in terms of recent relevant information & analyses

Another metaphor• Many current metaphors in current change &

transformation discourse:– Minding the gap– Closing the gap– Bridging distance

• The triple jump: progression through the student walk envisaged as successful leaps and bridging gaps between the key milestones of:– Entry: access/enrolment– Success/throughput– Effective engagement in society

• More accurately, perhaps: a quadruple jump, as progressing from success to throughput constitutes another step

Employ-ment/

Citizenship

Through-put/

Graduation

PersistenceRetentionSuccess

Learning activities/

interactions

Entry:Choice/Inquiry/

Enrolment

PROFILING/MODELLING/PREDICTION: - Snapshot/trends - Views: Course/Qualification; Dept/School/College/Institution

1. Socio-Economic Circumstances:

• Background/ Schooling

• Current

2. Individual Factors/Attributes:

• Ability• Skills• Attitudes & Interests

3. Institutional Factors:

• Quality• Relevance• Effectiveness

TRACKING: Individual-level progress through HE process aggregated by profile elements

Key premises• Indications from considerable number of

research findings, as well as throughput cohort studies: non-academic factors play a significant role in impeding success & throughput – ontological/sociological construct at the heart of the throughput model

• Graduateness: ontological versus epistemological foundation: not so much what to students need to know, but who do they need to be in order to be effective in society as critical citizens and the market place as flexible innovators

The Challenges of Enrolment Planning in relation to

Trends & Targets

• Total HEMIS HCs– Increased from

206 178 in 2004 to 254 136 in 2007

– 2006/5: 9,43% up– 2007/6: 11,69% up• Active HCs – 2007: 239 581 (94,3%

active rate) – 5,4% increase on 2006

– Approaching 2010 ministerial target of 258 023

HEMIS Enrolment Trends, 2004-7

2004

(Tota

l)

2005

(Tota

l)

2006

(Tota

l)

2007

(Tota

l)

2007

(Activ

e)

2010

MOE Targ

et -

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

• Provisional HC Enrl –Current: 286

335– 2008 projected: 285

619

• HEMIS HC Enrl– 2007 actual: 239

581– 2008 Total proj: 273

128– 2008 Active proj: 257

485 – Just below ministerial

target: 258 336

2008 Enrolment Projection

Provisional Enrolments (To date)

Provisional Enrolments (Entire year)

HEMIS Total (Excl cancel.)

HEMIS Final (Active only)

Ministerial 2010 Target (Active only)

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

Focus

Actual Actual Actual Projected Projected Projected 2010

Approve

d Targets

2005 2006 2007 2008 (7,5%)

2009 (7%)

2010(7%)

Overall enrolments: 207 931 227 539 239 581 257 485 275 509 294 794 258 023

Fields of study:

SET 25 771 26 085 26 639 27

039 27 579

28 131 (10%) 13%

Bus/Man:

85 639 95 605 104 047 112 371

121 360

131 069 (44%) 50%

Humanities:

72 880 80 336 82 992 90 461

97 698

105 514 (36%) 37%

Education

23 641 25 513 25 903 27 457

29 105

30 851 (10%) 12%

Qualification

levels: UG diplomas: 57 673 61 675 65 401 69

979 74 878

80 119 (27%) 28%

UG degrees: 117 757 127 694 133 508 142 854

152 853

163 553 (55%) 62%

PG < Masters: 15 506 17 469 18 472 20 689

23 378

26 417 (9%) 7%

PG M & D: 6 871 6 408 5 183 5 235

5 287

5 340 (2%) 3%

Unweighted FTEs: 100 875 109 707 116 531 

125 239

134 006 143 386 128 840

Success rate: 53,60% 50,80% 54,30%  55,00% 55,50% 56% 56%Throughput

rate: % 7,17% 6,50% 6,45%  6,26% 6,24% 6,19% 8.37%

Graduates 14 185 13 855 14 364  15 000 16 000  17 000 20 231

Teaching Input

Units: Weighted teaching input units 83 558 90 803 95 887 103

053 110 266 117 985 102 100

Actual & projected enrolment & output performance against

targets

The Key Strategic Decision

• Continued Open access in line with DoE requirements for widened participation, market demand

vs

• New ‘Responsible’ open admission & enrolment in line with renegotiated DOE enrolment targets, emphasis on success & throughput, operational considerations

At the heart of Unisa’s enrolment planning lies such a policy tension namely:• Expansion & and open admissions, driven by:

– National policy framework emphasising widening participation, driven, in turn, by both equity and development needs

– Unisa’s social mandate to provide affordable, flexible access to higher education for non-traditional, disadvantaged students through quality distance education

– Increasing and unabating market demand for distance education

– Unisa’s emerging role in addressing urgent National and continental HRD needs, in particular teacher education and the impact of HIV/AIDS

Policy Tension in Enrolment Planning

• Controlled growth & responsibly managed admissions, driven by:– Concern for systemic and institutional

quality, efficiency & improved success/throughput

– Treasury’s policy of fiscal constraint– Unisa's concerns for maintaining quality,

operational efficiency & service delivery

Policy Tension in Enrolment Planning

Current situation• Letter has been drafted forwarded to the Ministry. This

requests– Renegotiating the overall enrolment target (our size) either upwards

or onwards and addressing the subsidy implications of this– Reviewing the internal distribution of our enrolments by field of

study and qualification level (our shape)– Reviewing throughput and success norms appropriately for an ODL

institution;– Confirming the definition of the active student as a key determinant

of the teaching input grant– Alternatively, in the light of the DE policy process underway, a

reprieve on our enrolment planning targets, and the issues raised above considered either as part of the DE policy process, or subsequent to the policy being finalised

• 2009-10 IOP includes new objectives around enrolment planning: task team

Responsibly managed open access

• Not exclusionary, but realistically supportive in the light of changing student profile

• Key premise: access & success inextricably linked

• Identifies – Academic readiness as well as:– Socio-economic readiness through rigorous pre-

registration engagement to: • Ensure conducive & supportive life conditions• Ensure right programme & subject choice and realistic study

loads • Identify appropriate tutorial & Pastoral support and

channelling

A visual metaphor ...

• Key success factor: adequate time for study

• Key risk factor: unrealistic course load

• Consequence: no progression!

The Challenges of ImprovingSuccess & Throughput

Improving success• Unisa’s course success rate is not bad• 2007: 54,8% vs ministerial target of 56%• Regarded as an achievable target• However, as Principal mentioned last night,

success is not just about exams• Unisa loses many potential successful students as

a result of risk areas: around 10%• Also, the ‘killer module’ syndrome is being

addresseds• Disaggregated 2007 figures and analysis currently

being prepared for presentation at next EMC

Success

Gross Enrolments

Exam Admission

Writing

Results

Course Attrition Rate= (CA + NA + Abs)/Gross Enrolments

Course Success Rate= Passed/Nett

Enrolments

Exam Pass Rate= Passed/Wrote

Exam Results Metrics

Exam Process Model

3 Key Indicators

Key Counts

Drop Out/Stop Out

Re-registration(Repeaters)

Qualified Readmission

Stuck

7 Risk Areas

Sup.Admission

Sup.Writing

Sup.Results

AdmittedAbsent

Fail Write

Pass

Fail

Absent

Not Admitted

Not Admitted

Admitted

Write

Pass

Canc.+ Non-Active

NettEnrolments

Modelling and Improving Success &

ThroughputCONCEPTUAL MODELLING:

• Explaining success and throughput by systematically identifying all factors and their interrelationships

MEASUREMENT: • Profiling/tracking by means of available/obtainable data &

informationSTATISTICAL MODELLING:

• Reliably establishing cause & effect• Identifying & predicting risk• Confirming/refining conceptual model

IMPROVING THROUGHPUT & SUCCESS:• Identification & implementation of interventions • Monitoring & evaluation of impact• Further improvements

Tinto’s model: point of departure

BACKGROUND

• Socio-Economic

• Schooling• Culture

Individual Attributes

PREPAREDNESS

• Academic• Socio-

Economic

INDIVIDUAL FACTORS• Epistemological &

Ontological Development

• Academic Performance• Goal Commitment• Institutional

Commitment PERSISTENCE

• Academic integration

• Social integration

INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS

• Learner Support• Academic & Operational

Systems

SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS

• Conducive Conditions & Support: Finance, time, health & wellness

SUCCESS THROUGHPU

T&

GRADUATE-NESS

ROAP: Pre-registration

engagement & counselling: socio-economic readiness, qualification and course choice & load Bridging interactions across distances

Profiling, tracking & predicting individual, academic & socio-economic risk

Quality, relevance , service excellence, efficiency, effectiveness

Towards a model

Acknowledgements to Professor Chris Swanepoel, Dr Paul Prinsloo (members of modelling task team) and Dr At van Schoor

Socio-economic & educational background

•

• Socio-economic status• Family income, employment & educational background• Location (OU proxy measure!)

• Educational background & outcomes• Quality of teaching • Quality of learning environment• Preparedness for higher learning

Literacy and numeracy: basic, ICT and academic Language skills Conceptual framework and vocabulary

• Social dimensions of schooling, domestic and individual life: • Attitudes to life issues of identity formation, sex, alcohol,

drugs, etc• Role models, support, expectations and encouragement:

family and peers

Individual attributes and qualities

•

•Academic merit: actual and potential•Motivation, focus, expectations, energy and persistence

•Learning style, reading patterns, self-discipline, time management and other study habits & skills

•Confidence and self-construction in relation to academic life and success

•Successful integration into and mastery of academic life: independence, self-management, self-regulation, etc.

Current socio-economic

circumstances

•

•Employment status, conditions and responsibilities•Domestic status, conditions and responsibilities•Financial status, conditions and responsibilities•Access to study materials, library and information sources•Access to other students and the community of scholarship•Access to adequate study space and time•Changing attitudes to social life, social issues and ongoing identity formation• Individual health, safety and wellbeing.

Institutional factors• Type of institution

– University, University of Technology, Comprehensive

– Selective vs. open entry– Residential vs. DE/ODL

• PQM/Fields of Study• Teaching methods • Assessment procedures &

practices– Appropriateness– Clarity of expectations– Etc, etc

• Teaching standards – Qualifications & experience of

teaching staff– Quality, relevance and

effectiveness of study materials

– Student evaluation of teaching quality

– Inspired, motivated academic staff

• Library/Laboratory and other facilities – Student access

• Student counselling– Types and extent of counselling

and support– Ease of access to, and utilisation

of counselling services• Support

– Tutor contact hours and student utilisation

– Pastoral vs. academic support• Administrative efficiency &

service delivery

Throughput cohort studies• Preliminary studies, submitted to HEQC• Grappled with methodological issues of

measuring & benchmarking throughput (exceptionalism valid here?)

• Drawing from policy & research documents, a working benchmark throughput rate was derived

• A benchmark time-to-completion rate was based on the principle of expected minimum time, derived from course load

• Three case studies: B Com; B Compt; LLB• Qualifications profiles provided

Key findings• Overall graduation rates are very low and below

working benchmark• Time-to-completion rates below expected minimum

time• Dropout/transfer rates extremely high and well above

benchmark• Incidence of stopouts very high• Main problem is dropout rather then time-to- completion• This (and other studies) suggests non-academic reasons

for lack of retention is significant• The implication is that the rationale for the tutor

scheme must be interrogated and the possibility of counselling & Pastoral support investigated

Profiling, tracking & predicting

success/riskKey elements of throughput initiative:• Identification of risks and vulnerable moments: academic &

non-academic (ontological/sociological view of agent assumed – situated, and subject to structuration)

• Pre-empting risks and vulnerable moments by proactive engagement: University of Brighton model – Keeping on Track

• Tracking of student academic & socio-economic activities• Exception reporting through automated portal: alerting

academic staff• Gathering of detailed student activity information through

incentivised online surveys on myUnisa• Various other interventions and initiatives identified,

implemented & evaluated

Educational Background

Unisa Destination

StudentSES/

Demographics

• Matric Status (Exempt./Non)• Matric Aggregate• Previous Inst. Type

• Matric Scores

• College• CESM/FOS

• Race• Gender• Age

• Home language• Nationality

• Qual. Category (B Tech etc)• Qual. Type (Degree/Dipl/Cert.)• Qual. Level (UG/PG)

• Employment Status• Location• Marital Status• Economic Status

• Domestic/Financial responsibilities

• Health & Wellness

• Course Type• Course Load

Individual factors

• Socio-psychological metrics (?)• Academic Record• Academic Activities/Behaviours (tracking)

Student Profiling

Course level

Course type

CESM/FOS

• Entry• Exit

• Pre-requisite • Compulsory• Elective

• Humanities & Social Sciences• Law • Business/Commerce• Science, Engineering & Technology

Course history• Enrolment patterns• Success Rate (‘killer Module’?)• Student evaluation

Course Profiling

Staff profiling• Understanding (but not necessarily

condoning) the attitudes & experiences of staff is key to effective change management as a basis for realising strategic goals

• Organisational theory identifies various positions which staff take up within organisations in relation to change initiatives

• What might this look like in current Unisa climate?

Change profileSelf constructions/identity tensions:• Collegialism-managerialism: resistance to

compliance and planned environment• Teaching-Research nexis• Academic-Educator identity• Meaningful identification-alienation :

– Based on alignment of personal, departmental, institutional and social purposes, and shared understandings of institutional vision (King Solomon adage)

• Self-interested minimalists-inspired initiative takers

Key risk factors• High-risk student profile– Underpreparedness– Insufficient time, opportunity, support of

conditions: Mismatch between students’ life circumstances/ expectations/attitudes and realities & demands of HE study in general and DE in particular (especially issue of course load)

• High-risk course profile (‘Killer module’)• High-risk institutional factors

Key mutual asuccess factors

• Student Engagement/Motivation/Persistence– Perceived and experienced external & intrinsic

value (Tinto ‘choice’ – situated action theory)– Combination of individual, socio-economic &

institutional enhancing/supportive factors• Institutional factors– Combination of high quality, relevant & effective

academic practices & learner support, efficient administrative service delivery, application of relevant technologies

– Negotiated understanding of graduateness, employability (LMJU example) and citizenship

Criteria, metrics & benchmarks

• Quality– Fitness of purpose– Fitness to purpose– Equity

• Relevance– Stakeholder satisfaction: students,

employers & general society (government, civil society & private sector)

• Success & throughput– Targets and benchmarks