Refocusing Student Success: Toward a Comprehensive Model

1. Refocusing Student Success: Toward a Comprehensive Model A Ten-Year Model Designed by Dr. Gary Rice Implemented at the University of Alaska Anchorage

2. Genesis of the Student Learning Progress Model • The Model was founded on three core beliefs: • An institution’s instructional mission is to assist every student’s learning progress toward his/her educational goal -- within institution capabilities, resources and control, and the students’ abilities to profit from these resources. • Higher education’s current strategies to determine “student success” are insufficient. • The ultimate scientific principle, Occam’s Razor, by which the preferred explanation for any phenomenon is the one with the most economy and simplicity. (Phrasing by Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post)

3. Limitations of Graduation RateAs a Sole Measurement of University Success Graduation Rate (traditional): Proportion of first-time, full-time degree-seeking students who earn their intended award within 150% (now 200%) of catalog time • Predominant indicator of student success since 1990 Student Right-to-Know Act • Primarily for traditional four-year college path Attainment Rate: Percentage of some student group (typically adults 25-64) who earn a degree • Often used for international comparisons • What President Obama refers to in effort to “retake international lead in graduation rates by end of decade.” Deficiencies of the “Gold Standard” Metric • Does not track all students served • Sets an artificial time frame for awards • Does not reflect higher education’s instructional mission • Does not recognize learning progress • Underestimates the learning support an institution provides by reducing “student success” to a single number

4. Why Change Student Success Assessment? • The traditional metric does not answer an institution’s most fundamental question: For WHOM and where should we distribute resources for the most efficient and effective student success outcome? • Student success should be viewed from a learner’s perspective, not an institution’s. • There is no single, homogeneous student body. One-size decisions don’t fit all. • We serve all students who enroll, not only degree seekers. • Student learning is progressive, not just success or failure. • Acquiring knowledge is the one reason students enroll. An institution is responsible for optimizing that process within its capability.

5. UAA Student Learning Progress ModelImproving Completion The model includes completion ignored by the Traditional Metric: • First-time part-time students • Non-degree seekers who change their mind • Students who take longer than 200% of catalog time • Certificate earners • Interim and multiple award earners • Transfer-in students • Graduate students • It also allows you to target sub-cohorts by comparing performance and intervening to increase completion rates of specific groups. • In addition to giving a more accurate count of completers and enabling targeted completion improvement, the model acknowledges all students’ learning progress.

6. This Model is NOT… • An accounting method • A ranking method • Intended to distribute enrollees and SCH.   • Intended to profile individual students. • Intended to provide simplistic “silver bullet” answers.  • Intended to artificially raise the institution’s image. Rather, it IS intended to: • Show an institution its progress over time • Allow peer institutions to share information about successful learning • Promote dialogue in higher education about current metrics’ deficiencies.

7. Student Tracking: Retention of Initial Cohort UAA First-Time Undergraduates Fall 1998-Fall 2009 Entry Cohorts

8. Degree Seekers Non-Degree Seekers Ten-Year Student TrackingUAA First-Time UndergraduatesFall 1998 Entry Cohort

9. Learning Goal Status after 10 YearsUAA First-Time UndergraduatesFall 1998 Entry Cohort

10. Learning Goal Met Traditional Metric Goal Progress Goal Not Met Learning Goal Status after 10 YearsUAA First-Time UndergraduatesFall 1998 Entry Cohort Degree Seekers Non-Degree Seekers UAA Overall

11. Successful Learning Rate (SLR) UAA First-Time Undergraduates Fall 1998-Fall 2009 Entry Cohorts Degree Seekers Non-Degree Seekers

12. sub-cohorts Currently Being Studied at UAA Sub-Cohorts Being Studied at UAA • Non-Degree Seekers and Degree Seekers • “Traditional Metric” Undergraduates • Underprepared Students • Alaska Native Students • Traditional Age Students • Transferred Out Students • Rural Students • Undergraduates by Campus • Graduate Students

13. UAA Student Learning Progress ModelIntegration into Decision-Making Integration strategies will vary by institution and governance culture. • Keep decision makers informed as installation progresses about outputs, and issues where the model can provide information support • Share integration strategies with other Beta participants at various governance levels • Identify those responsible for particular sub-cohorts and train them to prepare their own output analysis. • Incorporate SLR as part of reaccreditation accountability • Incorporate model findings of student success tracking in institution strategic plan • Use findings to document success for internal research projects that seek to improve student success • Assess contribution of initiatives designed to improve successful learning

14. Beta Test Institutions, UAA Student Learning Progress Model