1 / 34

Institutional and Student Characteristics that Predict Graduation and Retention Rates

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 Meeting Providence, RI.

jagger
Télécharger la présentation

Institutional and Student Characteristics that Predict Graduation and Retention Rates

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. 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 Meeting Providence, RI This presentation and paper are online at http://www.ccsu.edu/oira

  2. Overview • Impetus for Study – Institutional Findings • Methodology • Correlations and Major Factors in Isolation • Results from Regression Analyses • Implications

  3. 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

  4. 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)

  5. CCSU Six-Year Graduation Rates and One-Year Retention Rates

  6. CCSU Six-Year Graduation Rates Disaggregated (Entry F’99-F’01)

  7. Graduation Rates of FT, FT Students by Number of Course Grades of D, F, or W Full-Time, First-Time Students Entering CCSU in Fall 2001

  8. 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

  9. Institutions in Study Population

  10. Correlations with Six-Year Graduation Rates and Other Progress Rates

  11. Relationship Between Six-Year Graduation Rates and One-Year Retention Rates

  12. Factors that Correlate with Six-Year Graduation Rates

  13. Relationship Between SAT Scores and Success Rates *Includes converted ACT scores

  14. Relationship Between Six-Year Graduation Rates and SAT Scores Math + Verbal SAT Score; includes converted ACT scores

  15. Relationship Between HS Rank and Success Rates

  16. Relationship Between Six-Year Graduation Rate and HS Rank

  17. Relationship Between 1st Semester GPA and Success Rates

  18. Relationship Between Six-Year Graduation Rate and First Semester GPA

  19. Relationship Between Campus Housing and Success Rates

  20. Relationship Between Six-Year Graduation Rate and Housing

  21. Relationship Between Federal Grant Aid and Success Rates

  22. Relationship Between Six-Year Graduation Rate and Federal Grant Aid

  23. Relationship Between Expend On Instruction + Academic Support per FTE on Success Rates

  24. One-Year Retention Rate Regression Model Using SAT Scores 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.

  25. Six-Year Graduation Rate Regression Model Using SAT Scores 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.

  26. One-Year Retention Rate Regression Model NOT Using SAT Scores 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.

  27. Six-Year Graduation Rate Regression Model NOT Using SAT Scores 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.

  28. Six-Year Graduation Rate Regression Model Using Academic Inputs ONLY

  29. 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

  30. Implications and Conclusions (2) • Policy implications: • Evaluate institutional graduation rates in the context of an expected graduation rate • Communicate realistic expectations to stakeholders

  31. 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

  32. Implications and Conclusions (4) • Gaming the system - Institutions may continue to realize incentives to inflate grades

  33. Implications and Conclusions (5) • Arms race in selectivity will be exposed by demographic change in next decade; downward pressure on graduation rates is likely Projections of Graduates of Public High Schools, by Racial and Ethnic Group in North East White, Non-Hispanic Hispanic Black, Non-Hispanic SOURCE:Knocking at the College Door (2008, Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education) Reproduced in The Chronicle of Higher Education 54.29. Asian/Pacific Islander

  34. 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 Meeting Providence, RI This presentation and paper are online at http://www.ccsu.edu/oira

More Related