An Alternate Approach to Studying Transfer Student Outcomes Suresh Gangireddy, GRA Lakshmi Kokatla, GRA Sam Houston State University Office of Institutional Research & Assessment Fang Duan, Former GRA Xiaohong Li, GRA Rita Caso, Director 1TAIR 2008 Conference, 2/6/08

SAM HOUSTON STATE UNIVERSITY BACK GROUND WHY DO WE STUDY TRANSFER STUDENTS? HOW DO WE STUDY TRANSFER STUDENTS? FREQUENTLY USED METHOD PROPOSED NEW METHOD COMPARING FREQUENTLY USED METHOD TO PROPOSED NEW METHOD CONCLUSION PRESENTATION OUTLINE 2 TAIR 2008 Conference, 2/6/08

Located in Huntsville, TX (Piney Hills, East TX) 90 miles north of Houston Founded in 1879, member of the Texas State University System, and Carnegie Classified Doctoral, Professional Dominant There are 79 undergraduate degree programs, 52 masters' programs, and 5 doctoral programs There are 5 colleges within the university: Arts and Sciences, Business Administration, Criminal Justice, Education, and Humanities and Social Sciences Fall 2007 Total Enrollment of approximately 16,416 of whom 28% are minorities, and 1% are International students Average class size is 31 students and the Faculty: Student ratio is 1:20 SAT Admissions standards are above the national average In Fall 2007, 1755 new transfers enter SHSU, compared to an 2213 New Freshmen. ABOUT SAM HOUSTON STATE UNIVERSITY (SHSU) 3 TAIR 2008 Conference, 2/6/08

WHY DO WE STUDY TRANSFER STUDENTS? To determine if we are providing the best environment & experiences to promote their success and to improve these for better outcomes i.e., Enrollment Mgmt Enrichment and Support Programs; Student Services Academic Depts with Articulation Agreements To satisfy external accountability requirements TX Association of Institutional Research (TAIR) 2008 Conference, 2/5-7/08 4TAIR 2008 Conference, 2/6/08

HOW DO WE STUDY TRANSFER STUDENTS? Examine outcomes such as retention, graduation rates and final GPAs by.. Comparing outcomes among subgroups within the transfer population. I.e., Gender, Ethnicity Type of transfer Entry cohort # of SCHs transferred at entry, etc. Comparing them against pre-existing “idealized,” external, ‘or internal benchmarks Comparing transfer student outcomes to native student outcomes. TX Association of Institutional Research (TAIR) 2008 Conference, 2/5-7/08 5TAIR 2008 Conference, 2/6/08

EXAMPLE: Comparison with pre-existing benchmarks external, or internal benchmarks New Transfer Cohort 2001 Idealized benchmarks: Graduation within three years if entering with 30 or more credits o 54% of Transfers with >29 credits graduate in three years Graduation within four years if entering with <30 credits o 40% of Transfers with <30 credits graduate in four years External benchmarks: State benchmark for Fall 2005 Cohort = 44% Internal benchmarks 6TAIR 2008 Conference, 2/6/08

EXAMPLE: Comparing Transfers to New Freshman Natives Who Entered in Same Year Comparison of Graduation Rates up to S2007 by ethnicity for.. Students who entered SHSU as New Freshmen (NFN) University Transfers (UT) Community College Transfers (CCT) 7 TAIR 2008 Conference, 2/6/08 25% 66.67% 32.83% 39.04% 58.33% 43.18%

EXAMPLE: Comparing Transfers to New Freshman Natives Who Entered in Same Year on Graduation GPA 8 TAIR 2008 Conference, 2/6/08 Comparison of GPA up to S2007 by ethnicity for.. Students who entered SHSU as New Freshmen (NFN) University Transfers (UT) Community College Transfers (CCT)

ALTERNATE APPROACH: Comparing New Transfers to Credit-Comparable Natives Graduation Rates of F2001University Transfers (UT) and Community College Transfers (CCT) with credits between 12-30; 31-45; 46-60; and >60 VS. Native Students with Comparable Credits in F2001 (CCN ) 9 TAIR 2008 Conference, 2/6/ % 60.59% 65.11% 47.35% Note: CCN’s are Students who are previously enrolled as Native Freshmen.

Comparing Results Using Native New Freshmen (NFN) vs. Credit-Comparable Natives as Cohorts (CCN) By Ethnicity, On Graduation Rates 10 TAIR 2008 Conference, 2/6/08 25% 66.67% 32.83% 39.04% 58.33% 43.18% 42.50% 57.53% 51.68% 46.84% 39.39% 49.69%

Comparing Results Using Native New Freshmen (NNF) vs. Credit-Comparable Natives as Cohorts (CCN) By Ethnicity, On Graduation GPA 11 TAIR 2008 Conference, 2/6/

TX Association of Institutional Research (TAIR) 2008 Conference, 2/5-7/08 Comparing Results Using Native New Freshmen (NFN) vs. Credit-Comparable Natives (CCN) as Cohorts By Gender, On Graduation GPA 12TAIR 2008 Conference, 2/6/

WHO ARE SHSU’S TRANSFER STUDENTS? TX Association of Institutional Research (TAIR) 2008 Conference, 2/5-7/08 13TAIR 2008 Conference, 2/6/08 Comparison of Fall 2001 Cohorts New Freshmen Natives Credit Comparable NativesNew Transfers Gender Male 41.80%47.28%43.60% Female 58.20%51.63%56.40% Age at entry %35.61%65.88% %21.36%18.52% > %9.09%15.60% Ethnicities American Indian 0.50%1.30%0.44% Asian 0.90%0.70%1.10% African American 13.70%15.10%10.40% Hispanic 9.10%9.20%8.60% International 1.10%0.55%1.10% White 74.70%72.80%77.80% Top 5 Graduating Majors 1st Criminal JusticeAcademic Studies -El EdCriminal Justice 2nd Gen Bussiness AdminstrationCriminal Justice Academic Studies–El Ed 3rd Kinesiology Gen Business Administration Gen Bussiness Adminstration 4th MarketingGeneral StudiesKinesiology 5th Political ScienceKinesiologyAccounting

TAIR 2008 Conference, 2/6/0814 How Different Are the NFN and CCN Comparison Populations? Cumulative GPA up to S2007 NFNCCNDifferenceUTCCT AM American Indian/Alaskan Native AP Asian Or Pacific Islander BL Black, Non-Hispanic HI Hispanic IN International WH White, Non-Hispanic NFNCCNDifferenceUTCCT F Female M Male Graduation rates upto 2007 NFNCCNDifferenceUTCCT AM American Indian/Alaskan Native25.00%42.50% %.66.67% AP Asian Or Pacific Islander66.67%57.53% 9.14%33.33%63.64% BL Black, Non-Hispanic32.83%51.68% % 46.67%44.09% HI Hispanic39.04%46.84% -7.80%50.00%57.27% IN International58.33%39.39% 18.94%50.00%100.00% WH White, Non-Hispanic43.18%49.69% -6.51%56.10%56.83% NFNCCNDifferenceUTCCT F Female45.93%51.63% -5.71%55.47%62.43% M Male39.92%47.28% -7.36%52.71%46.89%

TAIR 2008 Conference, 2/6/0815 Cohort Fall 2001 (NFN/CCN/Difference) Graduation Rates by Gender up to S2007 Cohort Fall 2001 (NFN/CCN/Difference) Graduation Rates by Gender up to S2007 How Different Are the NFN and CCN Comparison Populations?

TAIR 2008 Conference, 2/6/0816 Cohort Fall 2001 (NFN/CCN/Difference) GPA by Gender up to S2007 Cohort Fall 2001 (NFN/CCN/Difference) Graduation GPA by Gender up to S2007 How Different Are the NFN and CCN Comparison Populations?

17 Conclusion TAIR 2008 Conference, 2/6/08 One justification for comparing New Transfers to Credit-Comparable Natives, rather than Freshman New Natives is that this improves the authenticity of the comparison based on greater underlying similarities between these groups However, in this case, the CCNs were NOT much more similar to the New Transfer s except in its representation of older students With regard to graduation rate outcomes of New Transfers compared to Credit Comparable Natives, the CCN population did provide a closer comparison than New Freshman Natives.

18 Conclusion TAIR 2008 Conference, 2/6/08 HOWEVER, regarding GPA outcomes… The CCN population was found to have lower GPAs than the NFNs overall, with statistical significance between genders There was also statistically significant difference between CNN and NFN population GPAs among Asian, Black and White students. Among both males and females, the GPAs of CCNs are less comparable to New Transfers Among Whites, the GPAs of the CCNs were less comparable to New Transfers Among Asians, the GPAs of CCNs were more comparable to University Transfer Students Among Blacks, GPAs of CCNs were more comparable to Community College Transfers.