Retention Research: Issues in Comparative Analysis

1. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Institutional Research, Long Beach, CA, June 2001. Retention Research: Issues in Comparative Analysis Joseph W. Filkins Laura E. Kehoe Gerald W. McLaughlin

2. Introduction • Retention research at DePaul • Background on retention • Retention as a strategic issue • Studies completed • Communicating with constituencies

3. Introduction • Retention research at DePaul • Background on retention • Retention as a strategic issue • Studies completed • Communicating with constituencies • Communication is key!

4. Models of Student Persistence • Tinto’s Student Integration Model • Degree of student-institutional “fit” plays an important role in student persistence.

5. Models of Student Persistence • Tinto’s Student Integration Model • Degree of student-institutional “fit” plays an important role in student persistence. • Bean’s Student Attrition Model • Students’ beliefs about their institutional experience affect persistence. • Recognizes the influence of external factors on student persistence.

6. Models of Student Persistence • Tinto’s & Bean’s models have spawned new research on student retention • Confirm, deny & integrate basic tenets of these models • Focus on particular student populations • Identify factors affecting student persistence

7. Models of Student Persistence • Tinto’s & Bean’s models have spawned new research on student retention • Confirm, deny & integrate basic tenets of these models • Focus on particular student populations • Minority Students • Commuter Students • Graduate Students • Two-Year College Students • Transfer Students • Non-Traditional & Adult Students • Identify factors affecting student persistence

8. Models of Student Persistence • Tinto’s & Bean’s models have spawned new research on student retention • Confirm, deny & integrate basic tenets of these models. • Focus on particular student populations • Identify factors affecting student persistence • Academic Aptitude • Student-Faculty Interaction • Student Services • Financial Factors • Learning Communities In and Outside the Classroom

9. Establishing Student Retention as a Strategic Issue • Strategic issues have serious consequences for the long-term success of the institution.

10. Establishing Student Retention as a Strategic Issue • Strategic issues have serious consequences for the long-term success of the institution. • Retention is a strategic issue

11. Establishing Student Retention as a Strategic Issue • Strategic issues have serious consequences for the long-term success of the institution. • Retention is a strategic issue • Federal, state and private consortia request these data • U.S. News and other college rankings • Common Data Set

12. Establishing Student Retention as a Strategic Issue • Dolence’s Research Evaluation Matrix • Relationship between various criteria: • Leadership • Comprehensiveness • Key Performance Indicators • Participation, etc., • Across four dimensions: • Decisions • Information and Data • Processes • People

13. Communicating with Constituencies • Overcoming obstacles that impede flow of information

14. Communicating with Constituencies • Overcoming obstacles that impede flow of information • Presenting attrition in terms of lost tuition revenue

15. Communicating with Constituencies • Overcoming obstacles that impede flow of information • Presenting attrition in terms of lost tuition revenue • Getting stakeholders to accept undesirable change

16. Communicating with Constituencies • Chickering and Gamson’s Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Learning–

17. Communicating with Constituencies • Chickering and Gamson’s Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Learning– Good Practice: • Encourages contact between the student and faculty • Develops reciprocity and cooperation among students • Uses active learning techniques • Gives prompt feedback • Emphasizes time-on-task • Communicates high expectations • Respects diverse talents and ways of learning

18. Types of Retention Comparisons • Internal Comparison • External Comparison • Entry/Intent (Special Student Populations) Comparisons

19. Types of Retention Comparisons • Internal Comparisons • Cohort-to-cohort retention studies • Trends in retention and graduation through multiple cohorts • Identify changes within and between groups of students • Longitudinal retention studies • Tracks magnitude of retention or graduation of one cohort, or set of cohorts through multiple enrollment years. • Identify patterns of retention and graduation within particular cohorts or groups of students • External Comparisons • Entry/Intent Comparisons

20. Types of Retention Comparisons • Internal Comparisons • External Comparisons • Evaluate retention rates referenced against other similar institutions • Identify areas of strength and weakness in terms of retention • Powerful tool for addressing retention as a strategic issue • Entry/Intent Comparisons

21. Types of Retention Comparisons • Internal Comparisons • External Comparisons • Entry/Intent Comparisons • Student populations other than traditional first-time, full-time freshmen • Transfer Students • Non-Traditional Students (e.g., Part-Time & Adult) • Graduate Students • Provides a more complete institutional picture from which more meaningful decisions can be made

22. Internal Comparisons • Cohort-to-Cohort Analysis: Overall Retention and Graduation Rates

23. Internal Comparisons • Cohort-to-Cohort Analysis: Students Earning a First-Term GPA Between 2.00-2.49

24. Internal Comparisons • Cohort-to-Cohort Analysis: Retention and Graduation by Gender

25. Internal Comparisons • Longitudinal Analysis: Attrition of New Freshmen Over Six Years

26. Internal Comparisons • Longitudinal Analysis: Attrition Rates by Bridge Status and Academic Status Over Six Years

27. External Comparisons • Establishing a Reference Group • Choose institutions similar to yours based on pre-determined statistical and mission-related factors • DePaul is a large, Catholic & urban Doctoral Intensive institution with a large non-traditional student population

28. External Comparisons • First-Year Retention: DePaul vs. Reference Group over several cohorts

29. External Comparisons Benchmarking First-Year Retention

31. External Comparisons Benchmarking Sixth-Year Graduation

33. Entry/Intent Comparisons • Retention of Students Entry/Intent Status • Transfer Students • Transfer Institution Type • Transfer Level of Student • Part-Time Adult Students • Undergraduate & Graduate Level • Expansion of Suburban Satellite Campuses

34. Entry/Intent Comparisons • Retention of Students by Transfer Type • Likelihood of graduating from DePaul varies by transfer institution type • Transfers from other four-year institutions and transfers from the City Colleges of Chicago seem less likely to graduate

35. Entry/Intent Comparisons • Retention of Students by Transfer Type • Likelihood of graduating from DePaul varies by transfer institution type • Transfers from other four-year institutions and transfers from the City Colleges of Chicago seem less likely to graduate • Degree of “Transfer-Shock” varies by transfer institution type • Transfers from two-year institutions experienced more transfer-shock than students from four-year institutions.

36. Entry/Intent Comparisons • Retention of Students by Transfer Type • Likelihood of graduating from DePaul varies by transfer institution type • Transfers from other four-year institutions and transfers from the City Colleges of Chicago seem less likely to graduate • Degree of “Transfer-Shock” varies by transfer institution type • Transfers from two-year institutions experienced more transfer-shock than students from four-year institutions. • Research in this area has sparked interest in transfer student success

37. Entry/Intent Comparisons • Retention of Students by Transfer Level

38. Entry/Intent Comparisons • Retention of Students Entry/Intent Status • Transfer Students • Transfer Institution Type • Transfer Level of Student • Part-Time Adult Students • Undergraduate & Graduate Level • Expansion of Suburban Satellite Campuses

39. Entry/Intent Comparisons • Adult Students (Graduate & Undergraduate) • Expansion of Suburban Satellite Campuses Has Been Met With Annually Increasing Enrollments

40. Entry/Intent Comparisons • Adult Students (Graduate & Undergraduate) • Expansion of Suburban Satellite Campuses Has Been Met With Annually Increasing Enrollments • Annual ‘Snapshot’ Research Is Not Appropriate • Part-Time adults exhibit transitory enrollment patterns • Patterns differed greatly between programs

41. Entry/Intent Comparisons • Adult Students (Graduate & Undergraduate) • Expansion of Suburban Satellite Campuses Has Been Met With Annually Increasing Enrollments • Annual ‘Snapshot’ Research Is Not Appropriate • Part-Time adults exhibit transitory enrollment patterns • Patterns differed greatly between programs • Cohorts Created by College, Level and Entry Campus • Credit-hour enrollment patterns examined for each cohort

42. Entry/Intent Comparisons • Credit Hour Analysis: Northwest Campus, Part-Time Graduate Business Cohort

43. Lessons Learned • Reach Your Primary Audience • First-Year Program Faculty & Administration • The majority of attrition of traditional freshmen cohorts occur in the first year. Interested in comparing freshmen. • Student Advising Center • Transfer students have expressed various difficulties and concerns about the transfer process. Better advising may improve their retention. • Office of Multicultural Student Affairs • This office runs a program designed to assist both first-year and transfer, multicultural students transition to DePaul. • Deans • Responsible for assessment and some get growth revenue.

44. Lessons Learned • Research Studies Should Meet the Criteria for “Good Practice” • Encourage Contact Between Researcher & Audience • Comparative studies provide multiple contact opportunities but do not automatically cause frequent interactions. • The lack of data on various student populations prevents meaningful discussions with some key audiences such as the Adult and Professional Education programs. • Develop Reciprocity/Cooperation Among Audiences • DePaul’s rapid growth created a sense that we are over capacity. • External comparisons revealed that DePaul is doing well in terms of retention.

45. Lessons Learned • Criteria for “Good Practice” (Cont’d) • Practice uses active learning techniques. • The studies resulted in involvement of the various audiences in a direct and in an indirect manner. • Encourage questions and nurture follow-ups. • Gives good feedback • Rapid access to external data good but limited to freshmen. • Able to up-date, replicate, and drill-down into categories. • Emphasizes time-on-task. • The comparative study in and of itself is a presentation of a set of facts. The amount of time on task by the audience depends on the level of concern that exists, or that the research creates. Only moderately successful.

46. Lessons Learned • Criteria for “Good Practice” (Cont’d) • Communicates high expectancies. • We were able to set an external expectancy by comparison to a reference group of institutions. • DePaul is already performing at, or above, the level of the reference group. If it had been otherwise the results would have been much more compelling. • We resisted the temptation to select a group of small private schools and reconstitute the reference group. • Respects diverse talents and ways of learning. • Comparative analyses is most compelling to those who are looking for limited key indicators and the tracking them over time. • Those who are “context” people and “people” people are less well served.

47. Retention Research: Issues in Comparative Analysis Copies of this presentation and the paper are available on our website at: http://oipr.depaul.edu/open/general/presentations.asp