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

2. 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?

3. 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.

4. 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

5. 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, 2001-2002; Peterson, 1993)  Empirical record remains uneven (Patton, Morelon, Whitehead, & Hossler, 2006)

6. 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

7. College Board Pilot Study on Student Retention Institutional Survey

8. 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

9. 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 )

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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%

13. 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

14. 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.

15. 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

16. 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.

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. College Board Pilot Study on Student Retention Student Survey

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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)

29. 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

30. 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.

31. Contact Us Indiana University Project on Academic Success http://pas.indiana.edu