1. Exam Absence Survey: Preliminary Analysis & Findings Presented at STLSC 15 February 2010 Exam Absence Survey: Preliminary Analysis & Findings Presented at STLSC 15 February 2010 Professor George Subotzky Executive Director: Information & Strategic Analysis Professor George Subotzky Executive Director: Information & Strategic Analysis

2. Acknowledgements The following staff members of DISA were involved in design, administration & analysis of this survey: –Hanlie Liebenberg: design –Yuraisha Chetty: design & oversight –Lerato Tladi: design, implementation, data analysis & preparation of presentation –George Subotzky: design, interpretation & presentation –Pam Pistorius: admin support

3. Introduction & Background Efforts to improve Unisa’s course success rates are thwarted not only by failure, but also attrition prior to writing Analyses have shown that up to 10% of students are admitted to exams, but for a variety of reasons do not write At the final signoff meeting for the exam results of the 2009 Oct/Nov sitting, it was decided to investigate the reasons for this Accordingly, DISA was requested to design and conduct a survey to do this and to report by the end of January

4. Conceptual Framework & Method At the heart of the Success & Retention model lies the assumption that non-academic factors impact as much, if not more than academic ones one student success Accordingly, the survey was designed to investigate all probable reasons for exam absence – both academic & non-academic 13 questions & 158 items Relevant students were identified –Problem of not being able to distinguish absentees from results outstanding, practical & PG students) Survey notification sent by e-mail & SMS with link to access electronic survey

5. Focus Preliminary analysis – focusing on main findings Subsequent analysis – focusing on relationship between variables and background demographics

6. Response Rate Survey population (13 Jan):27 299 Response rate (25 Jan): 2 359 (8,7%) (full) Response rate (2 Feb): –Total responses: 5 318 (19,5%) –Full responses: 3 891 (14,3%) This represents a remarkably high response rate Frantic responses from many students – part of the findings