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