Associate Professor George Subotzky Executive Director: Information and Strategic Analysis

1. The Triple Jump: The Challenges of Enrolment Planning, Success & Throughput at UnisaPresented at the Assessment Project ColloquiumKloofzicht 29 September 2008 Associate Professor George Subotzky Executive Director: Information and Strategic Analysis

2. Background • The Assessment Project forms part of Unisa’s larger project to achieve the strategic objectives of: • Enhancing the student experience • Responsibly managing open access & enrolments, and simultaneously to • Improving success & throughput • Increasing the quality, relevant and effectiveness of Unisa’s graduates in the African context • The main purpose of this presentation is to place the Assessment Project in this larger perspective and to provide an informational and analytic backdrop to key institutional strategic initiatives currently being undertaken to achieve the strategic objectives mentioned above

3. Background • In particular, the presentation focuses on the current challenges faced by the University in relation to: • Enrolment planning • Success and throughput modelling and intended interventions • The presentation draws on insights from: • Analyses of recent enrolment output trends and projections patient to the ministerial targets • A recent national workshop convened by DISA entitled Conceptually Modelling Success & Throughput at Unisa • My recent study tour of several UK universities and attendance of a conference on Institutional Research in Southampton • The first cohort-based throughput case studies conducted at Unisa, and an analysis of the exam results of students with 1 module outstanding who were identified to receive interventions • Initial steps in modelling success & throughput

4. Background • The presentation updates and substantially revises the previous presentation at the Assessment Project Symposium in July, entitled Building the Temple: The Assessment Project as part of the bigger picture • Last night, the Principal sketched the bigger picture in relation to policy trends and institutional issues & challenges in a broad strategic overview • This presentation examines the bigger picture of enrolment, success & throughput in terms of recent relevant information & analyses

5. Another metaphor • Many current metaphors in current change & transformation discourse: • Minding the gap • Closing the gap • Bridging distance • The triple jump: progression through the student walk envisaged as successful leaps and bridging gaps between the key milestones of: • Entry: access/enrolment • Success/throughput • Effective engagement in society • More accurately, perhaps: a quadruple jump, as progressing from success to throughput constitutes another step

6. Entry: Choice/ Inquiry/ Enrolment Learning activities/ interactions Success PersistenceRetention Through-put/ Graduation Employ-ment/ Citizenship • 1. Socio-Economic Circumstances: • Background/ Schooling • Current • 2. Individual • Factors/Attributes: • Ability • Skills • Attitudes & Interests • 3. Institutional • Factors: • Quality • Relevance • Effectiveness TRACKING: Individual-level progress through HE process aggregated by profile elements PROFILING/MODELLING/PREDICTION: - Snapshot/trends - Views: Course/Qualification; Dept/School/College/Institution

7. Key premises • Indications from considerable number of research findings, as well as throughput cohort studies: non-academic factors play a significant role in impeding success & throughput – ontological/sociological construct at the heart of the throughput model • Graduateness: ontological versus epistemological foundation: not so much what to students need to know, but who do they need to be in order to be effective in society as critical citizens and the market place as flexible innovators

8. The Challenges of Enrolment Planning in relation to Trends & Targets

9. HEMIS Enrolment Trends, 2004-7 • TotalHEMIS HCs • Increased from 206 178 in 2004 to 254 136 in 2007 • 2006/5: 9,43% up • 2007/6: 11,69% up • Active HCs • 2007: 239 581 (94,3% active rate) – 5,4% increase on 2006 • Approaching 2010 ministerial target of 258 023

10. 2008 Enrolment Projection • Provisional HC Enrl • Current: 286 335 • 2008 projected: 285 619 • HEMIS HC Enrl • 2007 actual: 239 581 • 2008 Total proj: 273 128 • 2008 Active proj: 257 485 • Just below ministerial target: 258 336

11. Actual & projected enrolment & output performance against targets

12. The Key Strategic Decision • Continued Open access in line with DoE requirements for widened participation, market demand vs • New ‘Responsible’ open admission & enrolment in line with renegotiated DOE enrolment targets, emphasis on success & throughput, operational considerations

13. Policy Tension in Enrolment Planning At the heart of Unisa’s enrolment planning lies such a policy tension namely: • Expansion & and open admissions, driven by: • National policy framework emphasising widening participation, driven, in turn, by both equity and development needs • Unisa’s social mandate to provide affordable, flexible access to higher education for non-traditional, disadvantaged students through quality distance education • Increasing and unabating market demand for distance education • Unisa’s emerging role in addressing urgent National and continental HRD needs, in particular teacher education and the impact of HIV/AIDS

14. Policy Tension in Enrolment Planning • Controlled growth & responsibly managed admissions, driven by: • Concern for systemic and institutional quality, efficiency & improved success/throughput • Treasury’s policy of fiscal constraint • Unisa's concerns for maintaining quality, operational efficiency & service delivery

15. Current situation • Letter has been drafted forwarded to the Ministry. This requests • Renegotiating the overall enrolment target (our size) either upwards or onwards and addressing the subsidy implications of this • Reviewing the internal distribution of our enrolments by field of study and qualification level (our shape) • Reviewing throughput and success norms appropriately for an ODL institution; • Confirming the definition of the active student as a key determinant of the teaching input grant • Alternatively, in the light of the DE policy process underway, a reprieve on our enrolment planning targets, and the issues raised above considered either as part of the DE policy process, or subsequent to the policy being finalised • 2009-10 IOP includes new objectives around enrolment planning: task team

16. Responsibly managed open access • Not exclusionary, but realistically supportive in the light of changing student profile • Key premise: access & success inextricably linked • Identifies • Academic readiness as well as: • Socio-economic readiness through rigorous pre-registration engagement to: • Ensure conducive & supportive life conditions • Ensure right programme & subject choice and realistic study loads • Identify appropriate tutorial & Pastoral support and channelling

17. A visual metaphor ... • Key success factor: adequate time for study • Key risk factor: unrealistic course load • Consequence: no progression!

19. The Challenges of ImprovingSuccess & Throughput

20. Improving success • Unisa’s course success rate is not bad • 2007: 54,8% vs ministerial target of 56% • Regarded as an achievable target • However, as Principal mentioned last night, success is not just about exams • Unisa loses many potential successful students as a result of risk areas: around 10% • Also, the ‘killer module’ syndrome is being addresseds • Disaggregated 2007 figures and analysis currently being prepared for presentation at next EMC

21. Exam Process Model Gross Enrolments Canc. + Non-Active Nett Enrolments Exam Results Metrics Not Admitted Key Counts Exam Admission Qualified Readmission Re-registration (Repeaters) 3 Key Indicators Absent Admitted Drop Out/ Stop Out Stuck Writing Exam Pass Rate = Passed/Wrote Fail Write Not Admitted Results Sup. Admission Course Success Rate = Passed/Nett Enrolments Pass Absent Admitted Sup. Writing Fail Write Course Attrition Rate = (CA + NA + Abs)/ Gross Enrolments Sup. Results Success Pass 7 Risk Areas

22. Modelling and Improving Success & Throughput • CONCEPTUAL MODELLING: • Explaining success and throughput by systematically identifying all factors and their interrelationships • MEASUREMENT: • Profiling/tracking by means of available/obtainable data & information • STATISTICAL MODELLING: • Reliably establishing cause & effect • Identifying & predicting risk • Confirming/refining conceptual model • IMPROVING THROUGHPUT & SUCCESS: • Identification & implementation of interventions • Monitoring & evaluation of impact • Further improvements

23. Tinto’s model: point of departure

24. ROAP: • Pre-registration engagement & counselling: socio-economic readiness, qualification and course choice & load Towards a model Individual Attributes • INDIVIDUAL FACTORS • Epistemological & Ontological Development • Academic Performance • Goal Commitment • Institutional Commitment • Bridging interactions across distances • Profiling, tracking & predicting individual, academic & socio-economic risk • PREPAREDNESS • Academic • Socio-Economic • INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS • Learner Support • Academic & Operational Systems • PERSISTENCE • Academic integration • Social integration SUCCESS THROUGHPUT & GRADUATE-NESS • BACKGROUND • Socio-Economic • Schooling • Culture • SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS • Conducive Conditions & Support: Finance, time, health & wellness • Quality, relevance , service excellence, efficiency, effectiveness Acknowledgements to Professor Chris Swanepoel, Dr Paul Prinsloo (members of modelling task team) and Dr At van Schoor

25. ­ Socio-economic & educational background • Socio-economic status • Family income, employment & educational background • Location (OU proxy measure!) • Educational background & outcomes • Quality of teaching • Quality of learning environment • Preparedness for higher learning • Literacy and numeracy: basic, ICT and academic • Language skills • Conceptual framework and vocabulary • Social dimensions of schooling, domestic and individual life: • Attitudes to life issues of identity formation, sex, alcohol, drugs, etc • Role models, support, expectations and encouragement: family and peers

26. ­ Individual attributes and qualities • Academic merit: actual and potential • Motivation, focus, expectations, energy and persistence • Learning style, reading patterns, self-discipline, time management and other study habits & skills • Confidence and self-construction in relation to academic life and success • Successful integration into and mastery of academic life: independence, self-management, self-regulation, etc.

27. ­ Current socio-economic circumstances • Employment status, conditions and responsibilities • Domestic status, conditions and responsibilities • Financial status, conditions and responsibilities • Access to study materials, library and information sources • Access to other students and the community of scholarship • Access to adequate study space and time • Changing attitudes to social life, social issues and ongoing identity formation • Individual health, safety and wellbeing.

28. Institutional factors • Type of institution • University, University of Technology, Comprehensive • Selective vs. open entry • Residential vs. DE/ODL • PQM/Fields of Study • Teaching methods • Assessment procedures & practices • Appropriateness • Clarity of expectations • Etc, etc • Teaching standards • Qualifications & experience of teaching staff • Quality, relevance and effectiveness of study materials • Student evaluation of teaching quality • Inspired, motivated academic staff • Library/Laboratory and other facilities • Student access • Student counselling • Types and extent of counselling and support • Ease of access to, and utilisation of counselling services • Support • Tutor contact hours and student utilisation • Pastoral vs. academic support • Administrative efficiency & service delivery

29. Throughput cohort studies • Preliminary studies, submitted to HEQC • Grappled with methodological issues of measuring & benchmarking throughput (exceptionalism valid here?) • Drawing from policy & research documents, a working benchmark throughput rate was derived • A benchmark time-to-completion rate was based on the principle of expected minimum time, derived from course load • Three case studies: B Com; B Compt; LLB • Qualifications profiles provided

30. Key findings • Overall graduation rates are very low and below working benchmark • Time-to-completion rates below expected minimum time • Dropout/transfer rates extremely high and well above benchmark • Incidence of stopouts very high • Main problem is dropout rather then time-to- completion • This (and other studies) suggests non-academic reasons for lack of retention is significant • The implication is that the rationale for the tutor scheme must be interrogated and the possibility of counselling & Pastoral support investigated

31. Profiling, tracking & predicting success/risk Key elements of throughput initiative: • Identification of risks and vulnerable moments: academic & non-academic (ontological/sociological view of agent assumed – situated, and subject to structuration) • Pre-empting risks and vulnerable moments by proactive engagement: University of Brighton model – Keeping on Track • Tracking of student academic & socio-economic activities • Exception reporting through automated portal: alerting academic staff • Gathering of detailed student activity information through incentivised online surveys on myUnisa • Various other interventions and initiatives identified, implemented & evaluated

32. Student Profiling Educational Background • Matric Status (Exempt./Non) • Matric Aggregate • Previous Inst. Type • Matric Scores • Course Type • Course Load Unisa Destination • College • CESM/FOS • Qual. Category (B Tech etc) • Qual. Type (Degree/Dipl/Cert.) • Qual. Level (UG/PG) Student SES/ Demographics • Race • Gender • Age • Home language • Nationality • Employment Status • Location • Marital Status • Economic Status • Domestic/ • Financial responsibilities • Health & Wellness Individual factors • Socio-psychological metrics (?) • Academic Record • Academic Activities/Behaviours (tracking)

33. Course Profiling Course history • Enrolment patterns • Success Rate (‘killer Module’?) • Student evaluation Course level • Entry • Exit • Humanities & Social Sciences • Law • Business/Commerce • Science, Engineering & Technology CESM/FOS Course type • Pre-requisite • Compulsory • Elective

34. Staff profiling • Understanding (but not necessarily condoning) the attitudes & experiences of staff is key to effective change management as a basis for realising strategic goals • Organisational theory identifies various positions which staff take up within organisations in relation to change initiatives • What might this look like in current Unisa climate?

35. Change profile Self constructions/identity tensions: • Collegialism-managerialism: resistance to compliance and planned environment • Teaching-Research nexis • Academic-Educator identity • Meaningful identification-alienation : • Based on alignment of personal, departmental, institutional and social purposes, and shared understandings of institutional vision (King Solomon adage) • Self-interested minimalists-inspired initiative takers

36. Key risk factors • High-risk student profile • Underpreparedness • Insufficient time, opportunity, support of conditions: Mismatch between students’ life circumstances/ expectations/attitudes and realities & demands of HE study in general and DE in particular (especially issue of course load) • High-risk course profile (‘Killer module’) • High-risk institutional factors

37. Key mutual asuccess factors • Student Engagement/Motivation/Persistence • Perceived and experienced external & intrinsic value (Tinto ‘choice’ – situated action theory) • Combination of individual, socio-economic & institutional enhancing/supportive factors • Institutional factors • Combination of high quality, relevant & effective academic practices & learner support, efficient administrative service delivery, application of relevant technologies • Negotiated understanding of graduateness, employability (LMJU example) and citizenship

38. Criteria, metrics & benchmarks • Quality • Fitness of purpose • Fitness to purpose • Equity • Relevance • Stakeholder satisfaction: students, employers & general society (government, civil society & private sector) • Success & throughput • Targets and benchmarks