slides

The Tension between Student Persistence and Institutional Retention: An Examination of the Relationship between FirstSemester GPA and Student Progression Rates of First-Time Students (Session 529) Braden J Hosch Ph D J. Hosch, Ph.D. Director of Institutional Research & Assessment Central Connecticut State University, New Britain, CT hoschbrj@ccsu.edu Association for Institutional Research Annual Forum Seattle, WA May 26, 2008 This presentation is online at http://www.ccsu.edu/oira/research Overview The Relationship Between First-Semester 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 First-semester grade point average of fullfull 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 j academic performance, but also encompasses factors such as Preparation Effort Eff t Commitment Emotional adjustment j Social integration Financial stability Etc. Etc Institutions should not be let off the hook for improving: Instructional quality Integration of cocurricular activities i l ti iti Student contact with faculty and staff Ineffective policies and procedures CSRDE Study Consortium for the Study of Retention Data Exchange (CSRDE) collects institutionreported data about progress and graduation rates of full-time, first-time students Data for cohort entering in 2000 published in 2007. Institutions with incomplete data excluded Institutions reporting <3% of entering cohort earning first semester GPA<2.0 excluded CSRDE Institutions Included in Study Population Institutional Type Baccalaureate Master's Doctoral Other Total Percent of Total Control Private (N) Public (N) Total (N) 15 45 11 4 75 24% 20 105 112 3 240 76% 35 150 123 7 315 % of Total 11% 48% 39% 2% Institutional Success Rates by First Semester GPA Mean Pct Retained or Graduated d 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 82% 65% 76% 53% 72% 45% 65% 33% 3% to 10% (N=56) 11% to 20% (N=155) 21% to 30% (N=82) 31% and higher g (N=22) Proportion of Cohort Earning 1st Sem. GPA < 2.0 One-Year Retention Rate (Mean) ( ) Six-Year Graduation Rate (Mean) ( ) Error bars represent +/- one standard deviation Source: 2006-07 CSRDE Retention Report Scatterplot of Institutions and Retention Rates RetnRate = 0.858 - 0 575*Below2 0 0 858 0.575 Below2.0 R2 = 0.255 N = 315 institutions, DF= 2, SSE = 1.76, SE = 0.075, p < 0.001; Excludes institutions reporting less than 3% DF 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) Scatterplot of Institutions and Graduation Rates GradRate = 0.719 -1 14*Below2 0 0 719 -1.14 Below2.0 R2= 0.315 N = 315 institutions, DF= 2, SSE = 5.16, SE = 0.128763, p < 0.001. Excludes institutions reporting less than DF 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) Univariate Regression Models Institutional One-Year Retention Rate (Adj. R2=0.255) Constant Percent of cohort with first semester GPA < 2.0 β 0.858 -0.576 0.576 S.E. 0.011 0.055 t 80.04 -10.41 10.41 Sig. *** *** Institutional Six-Year Graduation Rate (Adj. R2=0.315) Constant Percent of cohort with first semester GPA < 2.0 β 0.719 -1.141 1.141 S.E. 0.018 0.095 t 39.22 -12.05 12.05 Sig. *** *** *** Si ifi t at p<0.001 Significant t 0 001 Multivariate Regression Models Institutional One-Year Retention Rate (Adj. R2=0.367) ( ) Constant Percent of cohort with first semester GPA < 2.0 Baccalaureate institution Master’s institution Public control Institutional Six-Year Graduation Rate (Adj. R2=0.380) Constant Percent of cohort with first semester GPA < 2.0 Master’s institution Baccalaureate institution β 0.872 -0.576 -0.073 0 073 -0.044 0.022 S.E. S 0.012 0.055 0.014 0 014 0.009 0.010 t 73.29 -10.41 -5.36 5 36 -5.10 2.17 Sig. S *** *** *** *** * β 0.758 -1.085 -0.079 -0.097 S.E. 0.019 0.091 0.015 0.023 t 40.65 -11.97 -5.54 -4.18 Sig. *** *** *** *** institutional control was not significant for graduation rates in a stepwise regression * Significant at p<0.05; *** Significant at p<0.001 Institutional Profile: Central Connecticut State University Public – part of Connecticut State Univ. System p y 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 full time 52% female; 16% minority Full-time, first-time students: 1,469 (56% residential) Full-time, new t F ll ti transfer students: 678 f t d t Six-year graduation rates: 44% full-time, first-time students , 56% transfer students (full-time upon entry) Institutional Progress Rates One Year One-Year Retention Rate and Six-Year Graduation Rate of Full-Time FirstSix Year Full Time First Time Students 90% 80% 79% 70% 69% 60% 50% 40% 30% 40% 46% 49% 44% 40% 77% 72% 78% 75% 80% 79% National Peer Group Median 1Year Retention Rate National Peer Group Median 6Year Graduation Rate Institutional 1Year Retention Rate Institutional 6Year Graduation Rate Fall of Entry Six-Year Graduation Rates Disaggregated (Entry F’99-F’01) 70% 60% Six-yea Graduation Rate ar 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Female Gender Male Not Minority Minority 3.00-4.00 2.00-2.99 Below 2.0 or WD 9% 48% 43% 35% 31% 48% Institutional Avg., 41% 63% Race/Ethnicity First Semester GPA Six-Year Graduation Rate by First Semester GPA (Full-Time First-Time Students Entering (Full Time First Time 1999, 2000, 2001) 70% 63% 60% 6-year Graduation Rate R 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1st Semester GPA 9% 42% 48% 3.0-4.0 2.0-2.99 2 0 2 99 Below 2.0 Distribution of 1st Semester GPAs 26% 32% One-Year Retention Rates by First Semester Grade Point Average 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 First Semester GPA Six-Year Graduation Rates by First Semester Grade Point Average 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1999 2000 2001 First Semester GPA Logistic Regression Institutional One-Year Retention Rate (Cox & Snell R2=0.178, Nagelkerke R2=0.260) Constant First semester GPA Prediction accuracy improves from 72% to 81% Institution s Six-Year Institution’s Six Year Graduation Rate (Cox & Snell R2=0.187, Nagelkerke R2=0.252) Constant First semester GPA Prediction accuracy improves from 58% to 67% *** Si ifi t at p<0.001 Significant t <0 001 Variables of HS rank, gender, and race/ethnicity were not observed to be significant (p<0.05) in forward conditional entry. Odds Odd Ratio 3.301 3 301 β -1.360 1.082 S.E. 0.102 0.044 Odds Ratio 2.952 Sig. *** β -3.309 1.194 1 194 S.E. 0.140 0.051 0 051 Sig. *** 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 2001 First Semester GPA No GPA Below 2 0 2.0 2.00-2.49 2.50-2.99 3.00-3.49 3 00-3 49 3.50-4.00 Cohort Total N 33 258 255 345 240 141 1272 Sem. GPA -1.12 1 12 2.26 2.73 3.21 3 21 3.71 2.50 Fall 2002 N 5 103 213 284 204 114 923 Sem. GPA 2.14 1.82 1 82 2.33 2.59 2.89 2 89 3.33 2.60 Fall 2003 N 2 58 178 256 184 101 779 Sem. GPA 2.63 2.11 2 11 2.45 2.65 2.99 2 99 3.34 2.74 Fall 2004 N 4 41 155 236 177 95 708 Sem. GPA 3.04 2.53 2 53 2.67 2.82 3.11 3 11 3.45 2.93 Implications and Conclusions (3) Consider student engagement, especially time spent on academics Hrs per 7-day week FY students report preparing for class p y p p p g (studying, reading, writing, doing homework or lab work, analyzing data, rehearsing, and other academic activities), 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10 hours or less 11-20 hours per week 21 hours per week or more 45% 35% 20% Source: NSSE National Results, 2007 Implications and Conclusions (4) Grade inflation Reassure faculty they are not being asked to g grade differently, but instead to develop ways y y to prompt students to learn more effectively Nevertheless, grade inflation is a possibility: Undergraduate Grade Point Averages by Institution Type 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 17.5% 11.2% 10.9% Public 4-year P bli 4 15.5% 16.7% Private P i t nonprofit 4 fit 4-year Institution Type Source: NCES (2007), National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 2003-04 27.8% All private for-profit i t f fit A's and B's Mostly A's Implications and Conclusions (5) Reframe the national debate: Balance notions of retention (institution’s responsibility) with persistence (student’s y) ( responsibility) Student success (i.e. program completion) requires a partnership among students, institutions, institutions and policymakers The Tension between Student Persistence and Institutional Retention: An Examination of the Relationship between FirstSemester GPA and Student Progression Rates of First-Time Students (Session 529) Braden J Hosch Ph D J. Hosch, Ph.D. Director of Institutional Research & Assessment Central Connecticut State University, New Britain, CT hoschbrj@ccsu.edu Association for Institutional Research Annual Forum Seattle, WA May 26, 2008 This presentation is online at http://www.ccsu.edu/oira/research