1 / 18

Report of Achieving the Dream Data Team

Report of Achieving the Dream Data Team. November 14, 2007. Contents. Comparison of failure rates by instructor position Comparison of failure rates by instructor Persistence and Retention by course load Persistence and Retention by family contribution. Methodology.

duman
Download Presentation

Report of Achieving the Dream Data Team

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Report of Achieving the DreamData Team November 14,2007

  2. Contents • Comparison of failure rates by instructor position • Comparison of failure rates by instructor • Persistence and Retention by course load • Persistence and Retention by family contribution

  3. Methodology • Achieving the Dream (AtD) defines student success in a course as a grade of A, B, C, or S; students earning a grade of D, F, U or W are defined as unsuccessful. • 1000-level courses were selected by high enrollment (300 or greater) and high failure rates (30% or greater). • 2000-level courses were selected by high enrollment (100 or greater) and high failure rates (30% or greater) • All persistence and retention data is based on the ATD cohort, which includes all students who enter OCCC for the first-time in the fall semester.

  4. Comparison of Failure Rates by Instructor Position Methodology • Compared the failure rates by course by instructor position groupings for each semester since Fall 04. • Faculty • Adjunct • Full-time Staff • Part-time Staff • Identified differences and statistically significant differences between position groupings by course. • Used basic ANOVA with pair-wise comparisons • Identified and compared the range of failure rates by groupings for the Spring 07 Semester. • Identified level of standardization of course. • Textbook • Curriculum • Test • Outcomes

  5. Comparison of Failure Rates by Instructor Position Zero-Level Course Findings • Statistically significant: • College Writing II - Faculty have lower failure rate than Adjunct group. • Elementary Algebra - Adjunct have lower failure rate than Faculty group. • Ranges of failure rate: • Faculty have a smaller range of failure rates for the developmental courses, except for Elementary Algebra. • Adjuncts have a smaller range of failure rates for Elementary Algebra. • Zero Level course by type of contract • Zero Level course by individual instructor

  6. Comparison of Failure Rates by Instructor Position 1000 Level Findings • Statistically significant: • College Algebra - Faculty have lower failure rate than Adjunct group. • U.S. History-Pre Civil War - Adjunct have lower failure rate than Faculty group. • American Federal Government - Adjunct have lower failure rate than Faculty group. • Intro to Psychology - Adjunct have lower failure rate than Faculty group. • Ranges of failure rate: • Faculty have a smaller range of failure rates for English Composition I and U.S. History - Pre Civil War. • 1000 Level course by type of contract • 1000 Level course by individual instructor

  7. Comparison of Failure Rates by Instructor Position 2000 Level Findings • Statistically significant: • Accounting I/Financial - Adjunct have lower failure rate than Faculty group. • World Regional Geography – Is only taught by Adjunct. • Ranges of failure rate: • Faculty have a smaller range of failure rates for Accounting I. • Adjunct have a smaller range of failure rates in Business/Intro to Statistics. • 2000 Level course by type of contract • 2000 Level course by individual instructor

  8. Comparison of Failure Rates by Instructor Methodology • Removed the names of the instructors as well as other identifiers. • Compared the overall failure rates by course by individual instructor combining all six semesters. • Ordered instructors from low to high failure rates. • Examined the range of failure rates for the total group and for the Spring 07 Instructors. • Examined the mean, median and mode for each course.

  9. Comparison of Failure Rates by Instructor General Findings • Ranges of failure rate: • As expected the range for six semesters is much greater than the range for Spring 07. • There is substantial variance in the failure rates of instructors. • Zero-Level courses tend to have a much wider range of failure rates than the 1000 and 2000 level courses. • Mean, Median, Mode • Median is misspelled through out your handouts.

  10. Things to Consider • Consider possible reasons for differences between Faculty and Adjunct failure rates and the implications. • What are the possible reasons for the variance in failure rates by individual instructors? • What is the relationship between standardized curriculum and the variance in failure rates? • If there is substantial variance in failure rate, but the course is standardized, what does that mean? • If there is substantial variance in failure rate but the course is not standardized, what does that mean? • Considering the role of the instructors and curriculum in these courses, what can be done to improve student learning and success?

  11. Persistence and Retention • Fall 2004 and Fall 2005 AtD Cohorts include all students who enter OCCC for the first-time in the fall semester. • Persistence is defined as a student from a fall cohort attending the following spring semester. (Fall to Spring) • Retention is defined as a student from a fall cohort attending OCCC the following fall semester. (Fall to Fall) • Looking at the demographic profile of the two AtD Cohorts in comparison to all students enrolled at OCCC’s during the same time frame, the following differences can be seen: • AtD Cohorts have a higher percentage of males. • AtD Cohorts have a higher percentage of 18-24 year olds. • AtD Cohorts have a higher percentage in all race/ethnic groups except Asian.

  12. Persistence and Retention • Both persistence and retention declined from Fall 2004 Cohort to Fall 2005 Cohort in basically all areas. (Exception: 30-34 age group) • A student in the Fall 2004 Cohort had approximately: • three in five chance of persisting • one in two chance of being successful in spring classes • almost a two in five chance of being retained • less than a one in three chance of being successful in fall classes

  13. Persistence and Retention • Full-time students comprise 56% of the Fall 2004 cohort and 48% of the Fall 2005 Cohort. • Full-time students comprise approximately 40% to 42% of the OCCC total student body • Decline of 8 percentage points in full-time students from Fall 2004 to Fall 2005 • OCCC total full-time students declined 2 percentage points during same time frame • Full-time students persisted and were retained at a significantly higher rate than part-time students.

  14. Persistence and Retention • Family Contribution (FC) is calculated automatically when an individual fills out a Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). • FC of less than $1,500 qualifies a student for Oklahoma Tuition Aid Grant (OTAG). • FC of less than $3,950 qualifies a student for PELL.

  15. Persistence and Retention • Over half of both fall cohorts (53%) did not apply for financial aid. • Of those who did apply for financial aid, over half had a FC of $1,500 or less. • Students who did not apply for financial aid persisted at a much lower rate than any other group. • Students who did not apply for financial aid and students whose FC was $1,500 or less were retained at a much lower rate. • Fall 2004 students who had a FC of $1,500 or less declined 31 percentage points from persisting in the spring to being retained in the fall.

  16. Persistence and Retention • Other income groups that had an approximate 30 percentage point decrease between persistence and retention: • Students whose FC was $10,001 to $15,000 decreased 30.1 percentage points • Students whose FC was Greater than $20,000 decreased 29.6 percentage points • Students who did not apply were less successful in their spring and fall classes than any other group. • Even though students whose FC was $1,500 or lower persisted at a high rate, the success rate in spring classes was lower than other groups with the exception of students who did not apply.

  17. Things to Consider • Consider possible reasons for differences in persistence and retention rates between full-time and part-time students. • What are the possible reasons for the variance in peristence and retention rates for students whose FC is $0 to $1,500? • What are some possible reasons that students who did not apply for financial aid are persisting and being retained at a lower rate than any other group.

  18. AtD Data Team Members • Alan Stringfellow • Brandi Henson • E.J. Warren • Harold Case • Joyce Morgan-Dees • Stephen Crynes • Yutika Kim

More Related