Co-Admission Programs: The Role of Academic Advising Student Success and Retention Conference February 8, 2008

1. Co-Admission Programs:The Role of Academic AdvisingStudent Success and Retention Conference February 8, 2008 Cathleen L. Smith, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology Portland State University smithc@pdx.edu Janine M. Allen, Ph.D. Professor of Education Portland State University allenj@pdx.edu

2. History of Co-Admission Programs at PSU • In the 1990s PSU Office of Institutional Research & Planning (OIRP) reported that community college transfer students were retained at a lowerrate than native freshmen • Research in 1990s found “swirling” enrollment patterns

3. Co-Admission Programs Co-Admission agreements • 1997 Clackamas Community College • 1998 Mount Hood Community College • 2000 Portland Community College • 2002 Chemeketa Community College Provided • Dual enrollment • Financial aid • Academic advising and support • Access to other resources

4. PSU OIRP Reports thatCo-Admitted Students are More Successful Compared to other CC Transfer Students, Co-Admitted Students: • Are more likely to have declared a major • Are less likely to change their major • Are more likely to be retained and graduate from PSU

5. Purpose of the Present Study • To better understand the processes that contribute to the higher success rate of co-admitted students • Specifically, to investigate the role academic advising might play

6. Research Questions Are co-admitted students more likely than other community college transfer students to: • Be receiving advice? • Consider advising important? • Be satisfied with the advising they receive? • Score higher on predictors of retention?

7. Method • On-line survey of admitted & enrolled students • Administered during on-line registration for spring term 2005 & 2006 • 539 community college transfer students responded (158 co-admitted and 381 not co-admitted) • Survey responses merged with data from the Student Information System

8. Research Question 1 Are co-admitted students more likely than other community college transfer students to be receiving advice? Which of the following best describes where at PSU you get your PRIMARY academic advising? • I am not currently getting academic advice from faculty or staff at PSU

9. Results of Research Question 1 • 26.6% of co-admitted students were not receiving advice vs. 21.5% of other community college transfer students • The difference was not statistically significant

10. Research Questions 2 & 3 Are co-admitted students more likely than other community college transfer students to: • Consider advising important? • Be satisfied with the advising they receive?

11. Advising FunctionsAcademic advising that helps students: Integration (Holistic Advising) • Connect their academic, career, and life goals (overall connect) • Choose among courses in the major that connect their academic, career, and life goals (major connect). • Choose among various general education options that connect their academic, career, and life goals (gen ed connect)

12. Advising FunctionsAcademic advising that helps students: Integration (Holistic Advising) (contd.) • Decide what kind of degree to pursue in order to connect their academic, career, and life goals (degree connect) • Choose out-of-class activities that connect their academic, career, and life goals (out-of-class connect)

13. Advising FunctionsAdvising that refers students, when they need it: Referral • To campus resources that address academic problems (referral academic) • To campus resources that address non-academic problems (referral non-academic)

14. Advising FunctionsAcademic advising that: Information • Assists students with understanding how things work at this university (how things work) • Gives students accurate information about degree requirements (accurate information)

15. Advising FunctionsAcademic advising that: Individuation • Takes into account students' skills, abilities, and interests in helping them choose courses (skills, abilities, interests) • Involves knowing the student as an individual (know as individual)

16. Advising FunctionsAcademic advising that: Shared Responsibility • Encourages students to assume responsibility for their education by helping them develop planning, problem-solving, and decision-making skills (shared responsibility)

17. Measures of Advising Functions • Six point Likert-type Scales • How important is this advising function to you? 1 = Not Important 6 = Very Important • How satisfied are you with the advising you receive on this function? 1 = Not Satisfied 6 = Very Satisfied

18. Results of Research Question 2Importance Ratings

19. Results of Research Question 3Satisfaction Ratings

20. Research Question 4 Are co-admitted students more likely than other community college transfer students to score higher on predictors of retention?

21. Predictors of RetentionGoal Commitment • It’s important for me to graduate from college (Graduate College) • I have a plan to achieve my educational goals (Educational Plan)

22. Predictors of RetentionInstitutional Commitment • I plan to graduate from PSU (Graduate PSU) • I am confident that I made the right decision in choosing to attend PSU (Right Decision)

23. Other Retention Predictors • I have had at least one relationship with a faculty or staff member at PSU that has had a significant and positive influence on me (Significant Relationship) • Overall, I am satisfied with my educational experience at PSU (Overall Satisfaction)

24. Results of Research Question 4Predictors of Retention1=strongly disagree 6=strongly agree

25. So What Explains the Greater Success of Co-Admitted Students? Selection bias: • Are students who are attracted to the co-admission programs more likely to be successful under any circumstances?

26. Astin's Model of College Impact(I-E-O Model)

27. Variation on I-E-O Model

30. Post Hoc Research Question • Are the characteristics of co-admitted students different from those of other CC transfer students?

31. Results of Post Hoc Research Question Compared to other CC Transfers, Co-Admits are more likely to: (Co-admits vs. Other CC transfers) • Be female (68.4% vs. 56.4%**) • Have high financial need (53.8% vs. 42.8%*) • Have low SES (76.6% vs. 68.8%*) • Spend less time socializing and relaxing** and more time caring for dependents** (*p<.05, **p<.01)

32. Results of Post Hoc Research Question But not significantly more likely to: (Co-admits vs. Other CC transfers) • Be a 1st generation college student (60.5% vs. 51.7%) • Speak a language other than English at home (19.2% vs. 15.2%) • Be older (31 vs. 29 years old)

33. Summary of Our Results • Co-admitted students’ experiences with, and attitudes about, advising do not differ from other CC transfer students • But co-admitted students have more risk factors associated with non persistence toward degree completion: • High financial need • Low SES • Dependent care

34. Discussion How do we account for the results reported here in light of previous findings showing that co-admitted students are retained at a higher rate than other CC students?

35. One Possible Explanation • Co-admission may be an equalizing process that counterbalances the negative effects associated with risk factors • Without the co-admission program these students may be less likely to get advising, score lower on the predictors of retention and be retained at a lower rate

36. Further Questions • If it is not through advising that co-admission improves the retention rate of transfer students, what is the critical process? • Why and how do these high risk students access the co-admission programs? • What is it that the co-admission program does that mitigates these risk factors? • Would we find this same pattern of results at other institutions?

37. Thank you!