The Role of CBSL Courses in the Retention of Non-traditional Students.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
First-Year Graduate Student Survey INTRODUCTION As part of the Graduate Schools recruitment and retention efforts, a graduate student survey was developed.
Advertisements

Mobility, Time to Degree, and Institutional Practices: Towards a New Conceptual Model of Undergraduate Retention for Underrepresented Students Lucy Arellano,
 Increasing degree attainment rates is a national priority  Living communities, first year seminars, and supplemental instruction are among institutional.
David Fairris Tarek Azzam
Maximizing Your NSSE & CCSSE Results
Predictors of Students’ Satisfaction with Their Educational Experience: Preliminary Findings from the NSSE Survey, 2006 Cecelia G. Martin and Beatriz Joseph.
Institutional and Student Characteristics that Predict Graduation and Retention Rates Braden J. Hosch, Ph.D. Director of Institutional Research & Assessment.
High Risk Factors for Retention Freshman Year Experience Review of the Literature Review of Preliminary Data.
2012 National Survey of Student Engagement Jeremy D. Penn & John D. Hathcoat.
Is College Success Associated With High School Performance? Elizabeth Fisk, Dr. Kathryn Hamilton (Advisor), University of Wisconsin - Stout Introduction.
INVESTIGATING MILESTONES AND COMPLETIONS AT A LOCAL INSTITUTION BASED ON ADELMAN’S STUDY, “THE TOOLBOX REVISITED.” What’s in YOUR toolbox? DANIEL MARTINEZ,
College Completion: Roadblocks & Strategies Appalachian Higher Education Network Conference Asheville, NC – June 10-12, 2014 Presented by: Zornitsa Georgieva.
Toya Roberts-Conston African American Male Transfer Students’
The Tension between Student Persistence and Institutional Retention: An Examination of the Relationship between First- Semester GPA and Student Progression.
1 Predicting Success and Risk: Multi-spell Analyses of Student Graduation, Departure and Return Roy Mathew Director Center for Institutional Evaluation.
Undergraduate Persistence and Graduation Rates Bernadette Gray-Little Faculty Council September 15, 2006.
Urban Universities: Student Characteristics and Engagement Donna Hawley Martha Shawver.
Who are our Undergraduates? Prepared for Office of Student Life February 26, 2008 Jennifer Brown, OIRP.
Who is Really Responsible for On-line Students’ Technical Support? James R. Lackey, Ph.D. Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma.
Siobhan Goldberg SOC 680 Fall  US Census (2011)  Hispanic Population  Individuals identified as Hispanic or Latino in origin  California: 38.1%
Life Impact The University of Adelaide Saturday, August 22, 2015 Factors Contributing to Attendance Type of Domestic Undergraduate students R.Senaka Arachchi.
A Longitudinal Analysis of the College Transfer Pathway at McMaster Karen Menard Ying Liu Jin Zhang Marzena Kielar Office of Institutional Research and.
 Gregory Schutz Rion McDonald Chris Tingle TASSR Fall Conference October 24, 2013.
National Survey of Student Engagement 2006 Marcia Belcheir Institutional Analysis, Assessment & Reporting.
Jennifer P. Hodges, Ph.D. Bucking the Trend: Balancing Work, Family, Commuting, and Academics.
MPI Mission Perception Inventory Institutional Characteristics and Student Perception of Mission: What Makes a Difference? Ellen Boylan, Ph.D. ● Marywood.
Dual Credit and Advanced Placement: Do They Help Prepare Students for Success in College? Mardy Eimers, Director of Institutional Research & Planning Robert.
Revisiting Retention: A Four Phase Retention Research Initiative 2012 SLOAN Conference October 10 th, 2012 Gary J. Burkholder, PhD Senior Research Scholar.
Regular Versus Shorter University Orientations: A Comparison of Attendee Make-up Carla Abreu-Ellis & Jason Brent Ellis.
WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY Institutional Research WEST VIRGINIA ADVENTURE ASSESSMENT Created by Jessica Michael & Vicky Morris-Dueer.
UMass Boston Retention, Persistence, and Graduation Rates UMass Boston Advising Collaborative March 28, 2013 Office of Institutional Research and Policy.
1 Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis Edward C. Moore Symposium Getting Students to the Finish Line What Does It Take? Charles R. Bantz Chancellor.
Student Affairs 08/10. Enrollment 11,648 undergraduate students –9,855 Full Time –1,793 Part Time 2,222 graduate students –1,237 Full Time – 985 Part.
Bringing Together Survey Results of the UNLV Student Experience
Dr. Joni L. Swanson Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction Geneseo CUSD #228 Geneseo, IL
TEMPLATE DESIGN © Challenges using IPEDS for examining the Early Childhood teacher preparation pipeline Abstract The purpose.
Undergraduate Student Persistence and Completion: Do Pell Grants Matter? Charles Hatcher, California Competes CAIR Conference, Tongshan Chang, University.
A Tool for Tracking the Enrollment Flow of Older Undergraduates William E. Knight and Robert W. Zhang Bowling Green State University Dwindling state financial.
Training Future Scientists: Factors Predicting Underrepresented Minority Student Participation in Undergraduate Research Sylvia Hurtado, M. Kevin Eagan,
Kevin Eagan, Ph.D. Ellen Bara Stolzenberg, Ph.D. Higher Education Research Institute University of California, Los Angeles.
The University of Hawai ʻ i at Mānoa ACCESS TO SUCCESS: LEADING INDICATORS WORKGROUP.
Identifying At-Risk Students Gary R. Pike Information Management & Institutional Research Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis.
Predicting Individual Student Attrition and Fashioning Interventions to Enhance Student Persistence and Success Dr. Thomas E. Miller University of South.
Student Engagement and Academic Performance: Identifying Effective Practices to Improve Student Success Shuqi Wu Leeward Community College Hawaii Strategy.
By: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nagarajah Lee Prof. Dr. Latifah Abdol Latif
Individual and school-level effects of academic preparation and socioeconomic factors on retention of university students in Puerto Rico Sandra L. Dika,
Predicting Student Retention: Last Students in are Likely to be the First Students Out Jo Ann Hallawell, PhD November 19, th Annual Conference.
Keene State College – New Hampshire Marj Droppa, PhD Dick Jardine, PhD ACHA Annual Conference 2013.
The Case for Degree Completion: African American Transfer Students at a Traditionally White Institution Toyia Kiana Younger, Ph.D. Director of Student.
Ken Gonzalez, University of San Diego and Mary A. Millikin, Tulsa Community College 89th Annual AACC Convention April 5, 2009 Focus Groups: Putting the.
· IUPUI · Conceptualizing and Understanding Studies of Student Persistence University Planning, Institutional Research, & Accountability April 19, 2007.
Center for Institutional Effectiveness LaMont Rouse, Ph.D. Fall 2015.
HELEN ROSENBERG UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-PARKSIDE SUSAN REED DEPAUL UNIVERSITY ANNE STATHAM UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN INDIANA HOWARD ROSING DEPAUL UNIVERSITY.
Canadian College Student Attrition for Student Aid Receivers By: Paul J. Madgett University of Ottawa.
Vicki A. McCracken, Professor, School of Economic Sciences Fran Hermanson, Associate Director, Institutional Research Academic Performance and Persistence.
Undergraduate Student Persistence & Graduation advisor UI/WSU Advising Symposium September 9, 2011 Joel Michalski, Ph.D. Candidate & Karla Makus, Academic.
Template provided by: “posters4research.com” Academic Performance and Persistence of Undergraduate Students at a Land-Grant Institution: A Statistical.
A Collaborative Approach to Assessing the Impacts of Service-Learning on Retention and Success Charlotte Belezos (Roxbury CC) Ted Carlson (Bunker Hill.
STUDENT DIVERSITY AND HOW IT RELATES TO STUDENT SUCCESS Dr. Michael Conyette.
Abstract Improving student success in postsecondary education is a key federal, state, and university objective that is inseparable from the focus on increasing.
Academic Performance and Persistence of Washington State University Students Vicki A. McCracken, Professor, School of Economic Sciences Fran Hermanson,
A Statistical Analysis Utilizing Detailed Institutional Data
Defining Non-Traditional Students
Rabia Khalaila, RN, MPH, PHD Director, Department of Nursing
Student Entry Information Cumulative1 2nd Semester
University of Michigan
Dissertation RESULTS by Erin E. Cooper
Helen Zaikina-Montgomery, Ph.D. Scott Burrus, Ph.D.
Defining Non-Traditional Students for Retention Studies
Developing Honors College Admissions Rubric to Ensure Student Success
Presentation transcript:

The Role of CBSL Courses in the Retention of Non-traditional Students

Non-traditional students less likely to graduate Identifying non traditional students Older, part-time, working, caregiving, married, commuting…. Older students, 43% of undergraduates Predicted to grow 20% as opposed to 11% for traditional age students (NCES, 2011). High correlation among measures makes non-traditionality difficult to analyze Students with two or more non-traditional characteristics less likely to complete degree (CSSE, 2005; NCES, 2008). The term "nontraditional student" is not a precise one (NCES, 2002)

Factors contributing to retention Tinto (1975, 1997, 2005) identified four factors that affect retention: academic integration social integration financial pressures psychological differences Engagement as measure of academic integration: NSSE finds that students involved in “high impact practices” more likely to re-enroll (Kuh, 2012)

Service learning and retention Bringle, Hatcher and Muthiah The role of service learning on retention of first-year students to second year. Michigan Journal on Community Service Learning Spring 2010: Method: Eleven colleges in Indiana, freshman Student interviews about plans to reenroll; quality of CBSL course AND data about actual reenrollment Results: Freshman who take service learning course are more likely to reenroll (not significant when controlling for students’ stated plans to reenroll)

Rosenberg, Reed, Statham and Rosing (2011) compared students’ perceptions of their CBSL experiences at three universities and found… …adult and working students less likely to strongly agree that service learning enhanced classroom experience or skills …those with fewer previous opportunities to develop skills through work experiences appreciated CBSL …significant differences between our universities…public/private, more urban/less urban Service-learning with non-traditional students

Sample Incoming students in Fall, 2009 for three Midwestern Universities Incoming students include freshmen and transfer students University of Wisconsin-Parkside DePaul University, Chicago University of Southern Indiana Data obtained from Institutional Research Offices (IRO) Help with data collection and analysis from IRO varied by campus

Independent Variables Measures of Non-traditionality Age Fulltime/Part Time First Generation College Student Race Service Learning Demographics Gender Freshman/Transfer Students GPA Interaction terms

Methodology Logistic Regression Analysis predicts persistence or graduation or non-enrollment as dichotomous dependent variable Used backwards, stepwise technique for exploratory analysis Allows entry of sets of variables in stepwise manner to assess the relative variance explained by each model First step entered measures of non-traditionality, demographics and effects of taking a CBSL course Second step entered fulltime/part time student status Third step entered GPA Followed sample cross 1, 2, and 3 years © 1998 G. Meixner

Comparison of Means of Variables in Analysis (by Campus) Independent Variables USIUW-ParksideDePaul Service Learning Course Race (1=white) Age (1=<24) First Generation (FG=1) Entry Status (Freshman=1) Gender (Male=1) Full Time/Part Time (1=FT) GPA

USI Results Logistic Regression on Fall 2010 Enrollment/Graduation 95% CI for Odds Ratio 95% CI for Odds Ratio 95% CI for Odds Ratio B (SE)Odds RatioB (SE)Odds RatioB (SE)Odds Ratio Included Constant Service Learning.608(.166) (.197) Race.269 (.122) (.144) Age ( (.191) First Generation -.246(.087) Entry Status (.134) (.135).609 Gender -.145(.083) (.095) (.107)1.249 Full Time 2.918(.140) (.148) GPA 1.233(.069)3.433 Note: R 2 = X (Hosmer & Lemeshow),.016 (Cox & Snell),.023 (Nagelkerke). Model X 2 (1) = 45.25, p<.01. *p<.01. Note: R 2 = X (Hosmer & Lemeshow),.211 (Cox & Snell),.295 (Nagelkerke). Model X 2 (1) = , p<.01. *p<.01. Note: R 2 = X (Hosmer & Lemeshow),.334 (Cox & Snell),.468 (Nagelkerke). Model X 2 (1) = , p<.01. *p<.01.

95% CI for Odds Ratio 95% CI for Odds Ratio 95% CI for Odds Ratio B (SE)Odds RatioB (SE)Odds RatioB (SE)Odds Ratio Included Constant Service Learning.448(.108) (.116) Race.582 (.167) (.193) Age -.637(.216) (.774)-.529 First Generation Entry Status -.382(.165) (.134) (.206).461 Gender (.132) Full Time 2.771(.159) (.182)9.326 GPA 1.734(.119)5.666 Note: R 2 = X (Hosmer & Lemeshow),.027 (Cox & Snell),.042 (Nagelkerke). Model X 2 (1) = 44.05, p<.01. *p<.01. Note: R 2 = X (Hosmer & Lemeshow),.194 (Cox & Snell),.301 (Nagelkerke). Model X 2 (1) = , p<.01. *p<.01. Note: R 2 = X (Hosmer & Lemeshow),.297 (Cox & Snell),.459 (Nagelkerke). Model X 2 (4) = , p<.01. *p<.01. USI Results Logistic Regression on Fall 2011 Enrollment/Graduation

95% CI for Odds Ratio 95% CI for Odds Ratio 95% CI for Odds Ratio B (SE)Odds RatioB (SE)Odds RatioB (SE)Odds Ratio Included Constant Service Learning.430(.090) (.094) Race.679 (.218) (.254) Age -.680(.232) (.297)-.578 First Generation Entry Status -.590(.213) (.213) Gender Full Time 2.709(.191) (.196)9.591 GPA 1.73(.160)5.657 Note: R 2 = X (Hosmer & Lemeshow),.033 (Cox & Snell),.006 (Nagelkerke). Model X 2 (1) = 50.10, p<.01. *p<.01. Note: R 2 = X (Hosmer & Lemeshow),.169 (Cox & Snell),.304 (Nagelkerke). Model X 2 (4) = , p<.01. *p<.01. Note: R 2 = X (Hosmer & Lemeshow),.236 (Cox & Snell),.423 (Nagelkerke). Model X 2 (3) = , p<.01. *p<.01. USI Results Logistic Regression on Fall 2012 Enrollment/Graduation

95% CI for Odds Ratio 95% CI for Odds Ratio 95% CI for Odds Ratio B (SE)Odds RatioB (SE)Odds RatioB (SE)Odds Ratio Included Constant.672 (.155).192 (.169) (.277) Service Learning.234 (.337) (.228)* (.241)*1.810 Race (.146) (.160)* (.170)*.650 Age (.223) (.239) (.256).896 First Generation (.134) (.147) (.158)*.679 Entry Status.129 (.158) (.172) (103).919 Gender.058 (.130) (.142) (.151).827 Full Time (.158)* (.051).827 GPA (.108)*2.804 UW-Parkside Results Logistic Regression on Fall 2010 Enrollment/Graduation

95% CI for Odds Ratio 95% CI for Odds Ratio 95% CI for Odds Ratio B (SE)Odds RatioB (SE)Odds RatioB (SE)Odds Ratio Included Constant (.154) (.185) (.426) Service Learning 1.031* (.154) (.184)* (.211)1.214 Race.266 (.141) (.166) (.198)1.138 Age (.217) (.247) (.315).750 First Generation (.131) (.157) (.196).704 Entry Status.221 (.153) (.182) (.228)1.010 Gender (.127) (.151) (.191)*.620 Full Time (.184)* (.221)*3.558 GPA (.174)*4.218 UW-Parkside Results Logistic Regression on Fall 2011 Enrollment/Graduation

95% CI for Odds Ratio 95% CI for Odds Ratio 95% CI for Odds Ratio B (SE)Odds RatioB (SE)Odds RatioB (SE)Odds Ratio Included Constant (.171) (.218) (.527) Service Learning (.102)* (.115)* (.130)*1.317 Race (.157) (.188) (.255)*.558 Age (.233) (.268) (.374).967 First Generation.062 (.140) (.177) (.226).931 Entry Status.317 (.164)* (.201)* (.282)1.090 Gender.294 (.137)* (.174)* (.224)1.295 Full Time (.223)* (.256)*7.645 GPA.276 (.130)*1.317 UW-Parkside Results Logistic Regression on Fall 2012 Enrollment/Graduation

DePaul Results Logistic Regression on Fall 2010 Enrollment/Graduation B (SE)Odds Ration Constant-.524 Service Learning (.961).270 Race.572(.415)1.771 Age.178(.916)1.195 First Generation Entry Status-.465(.133).628 Gender Full Time-2.207(.686)..110 GPA1.066(.281) R square =.115 (Cox & Snell) Chi Square= p= (Nagelkerke)

Significance of Service-Learning by Institution Students who take service-learning courses are more likely to persist. USI effect disappears after adding GPA UW-Parkside effect remains after adding GPA DePaul no significant effect

Age Age is a weak predictor of persistence at one university; younger students are more likely to reenroll USI Age effect disappears after adding full-time/part-time and GPA UW-Parkside No effect DePaul No Effect

Race Race is an inconsistent predictor of persistence with white students more likely to reenroll. USI race effect disappears after adding GPA UW-Parkside race effect remains but is weakened by adding part- time/full-time status and GPA DePaul no effect

First Generation Students who have college-educated parents are more likely to persist but this effect disappears after the 1 st year. USI effect disappears after adding full-time/part-time & GPA UW-Parkside effect disappears after adding part-time/full-time status and GPA DePaul no data

Transfer Students Transfer students are more likely to persist but the effect is mitigated by full-time/part-time & GPA. USI effect disappears after adding full-time/part-time status & GPA UW-Parkside effect disappears after adding full-time/part-time status and GPA DePaul effect disappears after adding full-time/part-time & GPA

Comparing institutions: Challenges Working with Offices of Institutional Research (e.g., degree of responsiveness) Data collected not even across institutions

Service-Learning has a positive effect on all students (traditional and non-traditional) Part-time is the most significant characteristic of non-traditional students in relation to persistent enrollment Implications

Implications for further research Extend timeframe for analysis because non-traditional students take longer to complete their degree. Difficulty of analyzing measures of non-traditionality because they are highly correlated. Consider the different reasons that students enroll part- time (defining “part-time” may be different for traditional and non-traditional students)

Discussion Thank you Susan Reed Helen Rosenberg Anne Stratham Howard Rosing