INSTITUTIONS’ EFFORTS TO SUPPORT PERSISTENCE: DEVELOPING THE BIG PICTURE International Assessment and Retention Conference

The BIG Questions The limits of current theories and research on student persistence provide the backdrop.  What policies, practices, and organizational structures do institutions enact to try to enhance student persistence?  How do the ways in which students interact with and experience institutional practices influence their success and graduation?

A Metaphor for Our Efforts I have $1.3 million to spend on retention programs and I only want to spend these dollars on programs that work.

Overview  We are interested in understanding how campuses can intervene to positively influence persistence.  Because the way that campuses deliver programmatic initiatives is so variable, we are also interested in how campuses organize themselves to address issues of student persistence. 4

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)

The College Board Pilot Study on Student Retention  Two Foci for Development of New Surveys  Institutional Survey: to enhance institutions’ understanding of the link between their own practices and student retention  Student Survey: to explore how student experiences and attitudes about campus practices relate to persistence  Pilot Cycle: Two Rounds  Broadened Goals for Institutional Survey  National-scope description and benchmarking of retention practices and policies at colleges and universities  Development of a survey for two-year colleges and universities  Focus groups to test and re-center constructs

College Board Pilot Study on Student Retention Institutional Survey

Survey of Institutional Retention Practices 2006: Survey of 4-year institutions in California, Georgia, Indiana, New York, & Texas  Web-based administration  275 institutions surveyed  Response rate of 32.8%  Findings focus on:  Retention Coordinator & Institutional Retention Committee  Actionable Institutional Policies/Practices Orientation Academic Advising First-Year Experience

Institutional Characteristics  Mean scores on select variables  Fall-to-fall retention rate for first-time, first-year students 78.1% (min 51% - max 99%)  72.3% of first-year students living in campus residence halls  Median financial figures  Instructional expenses $6,076/FTE  Tuition and fee revenues $8,207/FTE  Total revenue $70,643,587  Mean SAT scores:  995 (25th percentile)  1195 (75th percentile )

Coordination of Retention Efforts  73.9% have a retention committee  72.1% report coordinating retention-related programs “somewhat” or “to a great extent”  Mean FTE devoted to research on retention =.78 FTE  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 campus coordination of retention efforts

Retention Coordinators  59.1% report having an administrator charged with tracking and improving retention & persistence  72.6% of these report that the retention coordinator has some or a great deal of authority to implement new initiatives  43.1% of these report that retention coordinator has some or a great deal of authority to fund new initiatives  Mean FTE dedicated to retention coordinator role =.29 FTE  Responses revealed patterns in authority allocated to retention coordinators: Authority to implement new initiatives Authority to fund new initiatives % FTE for the retention coordinator

Retention Analysis Activity 98.8% of institutions analyze retention data annually Annual analyses, broken out by class year, 95% Annual analyses, broken out by race/ethnicity, 88.8% Annual analyses, broken out by major, 70.9%

Policies for Early Warning & Faculty Interaction  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

Orientation  80.5% report that more than three-quarters of first- year students participated in entire orientation program. 90.8% report that more than 50% of first-year students participated in entire orientation program.  Orientation program entails 4.74 days (mean) for entering first-year students.  44% report having an orientation program that extends through the first semester of classes.

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

First-Year Experience  73.4% offer for-credit courses specifically designed to help students adjust to college.  50% report that all or almost all of their first-year students enrolled in a course designed to help students adjust to college.  42.1% report that all or almost all of their students enrolled in a first-year seminar.

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

Some Caveats  Inferential analyses comprise an exploratory thread …and a work in progress …in a predominantly descriptive-level study  Some potential non-response bias  Responding institutions  Item-missing data  Focus on four-year colleges and universities

Discussion of Key Findings  Negative relationships between institutional efforts and persistence rates are intuitive and encouraging – the institutions that should be most concerned appear to be more focused on persistence.  But…how focused, extensive, and coordinated are these efforts?  Only 59% of respondents have retention coordinators and less than half are able to fund new initiatives.  The amount of time dedicated to the retention coordinator position is minimal.  Few incentives for faculty to take first-year teaching and advising seriously.

More Discussion on Key Findings  Residentialness matters which makes it tough for commuter institutions  A good, but worrisome sign – the amount of money that schools spend on instruction matters (but national trends in this area are going in the wrong direction).  Understanding and improving student persistence takes institutional commitment.

College Board Pilot Study on Student Retention Student Survey

College Board Pilot Study on Student Retention: Student Survey (Year One)  A survey of first-time, full-time, first-year students at 8 four-year institutions  Students surveyed at the end of their first year (spring 2006)  Web-based instrument  In-class paper-and-pencil administration  Self-administered via campus mail  Response rates varied widely from under 10% to over 35%  Follow-up data collected from institutions to show enrollment in fall 2006  Allows us to look at persistence

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

Survey focus on 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

Institution-Specific Analyses  Descriptive information  Participation in student programs  Classroom experiences  Time diary items  Satisfaction  Inferential analyses  Explore factors associated with persistence  Merge data with SAT Questionnaire program and fall 2006 enrollment data to explore covariates of persistence

Results from Residential Campuses  Year-to-year persistence rates ranged from 74.6% to 94%  Factors capturing aspects of academic engagement emerge on one campus  Campus 2: High Academic Engagement ( α =.629 )  Campus 2: Use of Public Space for Learning ( α =.607)  Logistic regressions showed that a traditional persistence model enhanced the prediction of which students did not persist  Variables that contribute significantly to intent to persist  Campus 1: development of friendship networks, class attendance, and positive perceptions about placement practices  Campus 2: high combined SAT score  Variables that detract significantly from respondents’ intent to persist  Campus 2: distance of residence from campus, time spent preparing for class OverviewStudents’ Intent to Persist

Results from Commuter Campuses  Year-to-year persistence rates ranged from 73.7% to 83.4%  Logistic regressions showed that a scaled-down traditional persistence model enhanced the prediction of which students did not persist  Overall variance explained by the models was relatively low though comparable to other research on persistence  Academic engagement variables included in the models did not show a significant effect  Variables that contribute significantly to intent to persist  Campus 1: development of friendship networks  Campus 2: certainty of being able to pay for college OverviewStudents’ Intent to Persist

Summary of Cross-Case Findings Robust factors for capturing  complexity of individual campus environments  practices surrounding retention  A consistent “satisfaction” factor emerged across campuses  High reliabilities, ranging from.847 to.903  Encompasses students ratings of satisfaction on overall educational experiences overall quality of teaching in classes technological resources social experiences level of support for students  Differences across campuses begin to emerge (promising, given goal of pilot study)

Challenges, Questions, Next Steps  Challenges  Identification of policy levers associated with persistence  Lack of variability in survey responses on some questions  Use of findings by colleges to improve persistence  Questions  Implications for policymakers?  Who is the audience and how would the results be used?  Next steps  Student survey has been revised and we are administering in class whenever possible  Institutional survey focus groups and refining of instrument  Student survey is paired with an institutional survey effort

Where Are We Going?  Working with the College Board to create national benchmarking surveys for two- and four-year schools.  First goal is to provide descriptive information about what peer institutions are doing.  As we gather data from more institutions we will also continue to examine how institutional intensity of effort, policies, and practices influence student success.

Contact Us Indiana University Project on Academic Success