DEVELOPING THE BIG PICTURE: HOW POSTSECONDARY INSTITUTIONS SUPPORT STUDENT PERSISTENCE College Board Forum 2007 Don Hossler Mary Ziskin Indiana University Paul Orehovec University of Miami

 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 2 The Search for Policy Relevant Insights into Student Persistence

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, ; Peterson, 1993)  Empirical record remains uneven (Patton, Morelon, Whitehead, & Hossler, 2006) 3

Two Ongoing Efforts  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 College Board Institutional SurveyCollege Board Student Survey 4

College Board Pilot Study on Student Retention Institutional Survey 5

Survey of Institutional 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 6

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” 7

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 8

Policies for Faculty Interaction & Early Warning  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 1 st 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 WarningFaculty Interaction Practices 9

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 PracticesAdvising Roles 10

College Board Pilot Study on Student Retention Student Survey 11

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 12

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 13

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 14

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

College Board Pilot Study on Student Retention Conclusions 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 Presentation available via download:

Institutional Characteristics  Mean scores on select variables  Fall-to-fall retention rate for first time 1 st 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 )

Regression on Retention Rates VariablesBetaSig. Authority of Retention Coordinator (Factor)-.113 Advising Required Each Term.106 Midterm Grade Reporting-.099 Resources for Student Affairs (Index)-.015 Residentialness.503*** Total Revenue.142 Instructional Expenditures.301** *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 n=77

Pleasant State University Variables BetaStd Err Odds RatioSig. Female ** Race: White Certainty of funding Combined SAT Score Perceptions of Campus Openness (Factor) * Interaction with Faculty (Factor) Perception of Diversity on Campus (Factor) * Late Assignments * Registration Problems Learning Communities Quality of Advising *p<.10, **p<.05, ***p<.01, ****p<.001 N=222