The Tension between Student Persistence and Institutional Retention: An Examination of the Relationship between First- Semester GPA and Student Progression Rates of First-Time Students (Session 529) Braden J. Hosch, Ph.D. Director of Institutional Research & Assessment Central Connecticut State University, New Britain, CT Association for Institutional Research Annual Forum Seattle, WA May 26, 2008 This presentation is online at

Overview The Relationship Between First-Semester GPA and Graduation and Retention Rates of Full-Time, First-Time Students (And two brief caveats) The National Picture – Data from CSRDE Case Study – Central Connecticut State U. Conclusions and Implications

Major Findings First-semester grade point average of full- time first-time students is: very predictive of graduation and retention rates this relationship is underreported Implications Students who perform well stay and graduate, students who do not perform well tend to depart Corollary: students get out of their education what they put into it

Caveats GPA is not just about academic performance, but also encompasses factors such as Preparation Effort Commitment Emotional adjustment Social integration Financial stability Etc. Institutions should not be let off the hook for improving: Instructional quality Integration of co- curricular activities Student contact with faculty and staff Ineffective policies and procedures

CSRDE Study Consortium for the Study of Retention Data Exchange (CSRDE) collects institution- reported data about progress and graduation rates of full-time, first-time students Data for cohort entering in 2000 published in Institutions with incomplete data excluded Institutions reporting <3% of entering cohort earning first semester GPA<2.0 excluded

CSRDE Institutions Included in Study Population Control Institutional TypePrivate (N)Public (N)Total (N)% of Total Baccalaureate % Master's % Doctoral % Other % Total Percent of Total24%76%

Institutional Success Rates by First Semester GPA Error bars represent +/- one standard deviation Source: CSRDE Retention Report

Scatterplot of Institutions and Retention Rates N = 315 institutions, DF= 2, SSE = 1.76, SE = 0.075, p < 0.001; Excludes institutions reporting less than 3% of the full-time, first-time cohort earned a first semester GPA below 2.0, on the basis that these institutions are not representative of most post-secondary institutions. Data source (CSRDE, 2007) RetnRate = *Below2.0 R 2 = 0.255

Scatterplot of Institutions and Graduation Rates N = 315 institutions, DF= 2, SSE = 5.16, SE = , p < Excludes institutions reporting less than 3% of the full-time, first-time cohort earned a first semester GPA below 2.0, on the basis that these institutions are not representative of most post-secondary institutions. Data source (CSRDE, 2007) GradRate = *Below2.0 R 2 = 0.315

Univariate Regression Models *** Significant at p<0.001 Institutional One-Year Retention Rate (Adj. R 2 =0.255) β S.E. tSig. Constant *** Percent of cohort with first semester GPA < *** Institutional Six-Year Graduation Rate (Adj. R 2 =0.315) β S.E. tSig. Constant *** Percent of cohort with first semester GPA < ***

Multivariate Regression Models institutional control was not significant for graduation rates in a stepwise regression * Significant at p<0.05; *** Significant at p<0.001 Institutional One-Year Retention Rate (Adj. R 2 =0.367) β S.E. tSig. Constant *** Percent of cohort with first semester GPA < *** Baccalaureate institution *** Master’s institution *** Public control * Institutional Six-Year Graduation Rate (Adj. R 2 =0.380) β S.E. tSig. Constant *** Percent of cohort with first semester GPA < *** Master’s institution *** Baccalaureate institution ***

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 2007 Enrollment: 12,106 headcount (9,704 undergraduate, 23% residential); 9,288 full-time equivalent enrollment 52% female; 16% minority Full-time, first-time students: 1,469 (56% residential) Full-time, new transfer students: 678 Six-year graduation rates: 44% full-time, first-time students 56% transfer students (full-time upon entry)

Institutional Progress Rates

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

Six-Year Graduation Rate by First Semester GPA (Full-Time First-Time Students Entering 1999, 2000, 2001)

One-Year Retention Rates by First Semester Grade Point Average

Six-Year Graduation Rates by First Semester Grade Point Average

Logistic Regression Institutional One-Year Retention Rate (Cox & Snell R 2 =0.178, Nagelkerke R 2 =0.260) βS.E. Odds RatioSig. Constant First semester GPA *** Prediction accuracy improves from 72% to 81% Institution’s Six-Year Graduation Rate (Cox & Snell R 2 =0.187, Nagelkerke R 2 =0.252) βS.E. Odds RatioSig. Constant First semester GPA *** Prediction accuracy improves from 58% to 67% *** Significant at p<0.001 Variables of HS rank, gender, and race/ethnicity were not observed to be significant (p<0.05) in forward conditional entry.

Implications and Conclusions (1) Institutions should focus on student success and improved graduation rates will follow Successful students stay and graduate, unsuccessful students do not Graduation and retention rates are indicators of student success, not outcomes

Implications and Conclusions (2) Focus on the first semester FYE, early intervention programs Student GPA over time remains relatively consistent after controlling for attrition Fall 2001Fall 2002Fall 2003Fall 2004 First Semester GPAN Sem. GPAN N N No GPA Below Cohort Total

Implications and Conclusions (3) Consider student engagement, especially time spent on academics Source: NSSE National Results, 2007

Implications and Conclusions (4) Grade inflation Reassure faculty they are not being asked to grade differently, but instead to develop ways to prompt students to learn more effectively Nevertheless, grade inflation is a possibility: Source: NCES (2007), National Postsecondary Student Aid Study

Implications and Conclusions (5) Reframe the national debate: Balance notions of retention (institution’s responsibility) with persistence (student’s responsibility) Student success (i.e. program completion) requires a partnership among students, institutions, and policymakers

The Tension between Student Persistence and Institutional Retention: An Examination of the Relationship between First- Semester GPA and Student Progression Rates of First-Time Students (Session 529) Braden J. Hosch, Ph.D. Director of Institutional Research & Assessment Central Connecticut State University, New Britain, CT Association for Institutional Research Annual Forum Seattle, WA May 26, 2008 This presentation is online at