1 / 23

Developing the Big Picture: How Postsecondary Institutions Support Student Persistence

Don Hossler Mary Ziskin Indiana University Paul Orehovec University of Miami. Developing the Big Picture: How Postsecondary Institutions Support Student Persistence. College Board Forum 2007. The Search for Policy Relevant Insights into Student Persistence.

billie
Télécharger la présentation

Developing the Big Picture: How Postsecondary Institutions Support Student Persistence

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Don Hossler Mary Ziskin Indiana University Paul Orehovec University of Miami Developing the Big Picture: How Postsecondary Institutions Support Student Persistence College Board Forum 2007

  2. The Search for Policy Relevant Insights into Student Persistence • We are interested in understanding how campuses can intervene to positively influence persistence. • We are interested in a better understanding of how we can enhance student experiences to improve student persistence & graduation

  3. 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)

  4. Two Ongoing Efforts College Board Institutional Survey College Board Student Survey • What are institutions doing to improve student retention? • Survey of 275 four-year institutions • What are students’ experiences with institutional policies relevant to student persistence? • Websurvey and in-class administration

  5. Institutional Survey College Board Pilot Study on Student Retention

  6. Survey ofInstitutional Retention Practices 2006: Survey of 4-year institutions in California, Georgia, Indiana, New York, & Texas • Findings focus on: • How institutions organize themselves around retention efforts. • Actionable Institutional Policies/Practices • Orientation • Academic Advising • First-Year Experience Seminar

  7. Coordination of Retention Efforts • 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 how coordinated the retention efforts on a campus are • 73.9% have a retention committee • 72.1% report coordinating retention-related programs “somewhat” or “to a great extent”

  8. Retention Coordinators • 59.1% report having an administrator charged with tracking and improving retention & persistence • Mean FTE reported for this position was .29 • 42.9% report that the retention coordinator has some or a great deal of authority to implement new initiatives • 25.5% report that retention coordinator has some or a great deal of authority to fund new initiatives • Responses revealed patterns in authority allocated to retention coordinators: • Authority to implement new initiatives • Limited authority to fund new initiatives • Relatively small %FTE allocated to role of retention coordinator

  9. Policies for Faculty Interaction & Early Warning Early Warning Faculty Interaction Practices • 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

  10. Academic Advising Advising Practices Advising Roles • 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

  11. Student Survey College Board Pilot Study on Student Retention

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. Institution-Specific Analyses • Descriptive information • Experiences in student programs • Classroom experiences • Time diary items • Satisfaction • Inferential analyses • Confirmatory factor analysis based on policy levers • Merge data with fall 2006 & 2007 enrollment data to explore how these experiences affect persistence

  15. Example: Western University Commuter Campus—Large, somewhat racially diverse, Public, Doctorate-granting research institution, less selective

  16. Conclusions College Board Pilot Study on Student Retention

  17. Institutional retention efforts: The emerging national picture 59% of respondent have retention coordinators; less than half of these are able to fund new initiatives Few institutions report incentives for faculty to take advising undergraduates seriously • Potential to provide a snapshot of • Practices institutions are using to improve persistence and graduation rates. • Policies • The intensity of those efforts • Explorations of what matters for retention • Resources devoted to instruction • Residentialness

  18. Student Experiences: Sharpening the focus at each institution Student level investigations reveal dynamics that vary campus to campus • Actionable implications specific to WSU emerge • A multipronged approach to support transition to college • Opportunities to tap into encouragement from students’ families

  19. Contact Us Indiana University Project on Academic Success http://pas.indiana.edu Presentation available via download: http://pas.indiana.edu/cb/resources.cfm mziskin@indiana.edu

  20. Institutional Characteristics Mean scores on select variables Fall-to-fall retention rate for first time 1st year students 78.12% (min51%-max99%) 72.3% of first-year students living in campus residence halls Median revenue figures Instructional expenses $6,076 Tuition and fee revenues $8207/per FTE Total revenue $70,643,587 • Mean SAT scores: • 995 (25th percentile) • 1195 (75th percentile)

  21. Regression on Retention Rates

  22. Pleasant State University

More Related