1 / 45

Measurement Perspectives on Student Tracking

Measurement Perspectives on Student Tracking. A Comparison of Three Approaches to Tracking Undergraduate Students at Indiana University Regional Campuses. Purpose. To provide a range of views of student persistence

morwenna
Download Presentation

Measurement Perspectives on Student Tracking

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. Measurement Perspectives on Student Tracking A Comparison of Three Approaches to Tracking Undergraduate Students at Indiana University Regional Campuses

  2. Purpose • To provide a range of views of student persistence • Traditional fall-to-fall retention and 150% graduation rates, and the years in between (i.e., student flow) • The “Adelman Model” for more inclusive cohort tracking • The persistence index: difference among campuses and academic divisions • A conceptual warm-up for thinking about strategies for improving student success rates

  3. Students Included in Each Method Example: 2006-07 as the base year All undergraduate, degree-seeking students enrolled in fall semester, categorized by class level, credit load, and need met/income status, tracked for one year First-time-in-college, enrolled full-time (12 + credits) during first fall semester; tracked for one and six years New to IU during summer, fall or spring of full academic year; enrolled for 6 or more credits in first fall or spring semester; tracked as traditional beginner, nontraditional beginner, or transfer; tracked for six and nine years

  4. The Traditional Method Trends in Fall-to-Fall Retention Rates and 150% Graduation Rates, and Student Flow

  5. IU Regional Campus Retention Rates

  6. IU Regional Campus Graduation Rates 150% for Bachelor’s, Associate’s and Certificates 150% for Bachelor’s Only

  7. Student Flow Tables • Semester-to-semester view of retention/graduation • Extension of “traditional” cohort reporting • Full-time beginner cohorts (2001-2006) • Intercampus persistence • Intercampus degree completion • Results may differ from official reports • Updates to cohorts • Exclusions/exceptions not considered (military) • Degree completion post 150% (Cert./Assoc.) Customize footer: View menu/Header and Footer

  8. Year Numbers Coordinate with Cohort For 2002 Cohort Year 3 is 2004-05 For 2003 Cohort Year 3 is 2005-06 Full-time Beginners Fall, Year 1 Is Enrollment at First Semester Spring, Year 1 Is Retention to Second Semester Fall, Year 2 Is Retention to Second Year No Information for Spring 08 and Fall 08 6-Cohort Aggregate 1 Cohort Less Stable? Customize footer: View menu/Header and Footer

  9. 100% for First Fall Step Pattern? Does trend line level off? Includes Certificates and Associate’s Degrees Beyond 150% Fall Semester, Year 1 Semester, Year Number Spring Semester, Year 6 Customize footer: View menu/Header and Footer

  10. Retention to the Second Semester Retention to the Second Year Customize footer: View menu/Header and Footer

  11. Subgroup Tables • Gender • Race • White, Other (African American, Hispanic) • Age • < 20, 20-24, 25+ • Geographic Origin • Home County, Other (Res/Non-res) • Financial Need • Filed FAFSA and Need > $0 Customize footer: View menu/Header and Footer

  12. Important Indicators of First Year Experience Degree Completion through Years 4 and 6 Customize footer: View menu/Header and Footer

  13. The Adelman Model A More Inclusive Method for Cohort Tracking

  14. Beyond the Traditional Cohort

  15. Application 1: The Early Years • Going back to 1997-98 thru 2001-02 • Nine year tracking for first two cohorts • Six Year tracking for all • Traditional/nontraditional distinction among beginners based solely on age (<24, 24+) • First examine size and distribution of cohorts • Then look at status after six and nine years

  16. The Early Cohorts

  17. The Early Cohorts

  18. Trends in Six-Year Status Percent Graduated or Still Enrolled

  19. Trends in Nine-Year Status Percent Graduated or Still Enrolled

  20. Comparison to Regional Composite

  21. Application 2: More Recent Years • AY 2004-05 thru 2006-07 • Refine the traditional/nontraditional distinction • Nontraditional as either financially independent or dependent/no FAFSA and age 24+ • First look at cohort size and group distribution • Then examine the first few years of persistence • Through the fourth year for 2004-05 cohorts • Through the third year for 2005-06 cohorts • Through the second year for 2006-07 cohorts

  22. More Recent Cohorts

  23. More Recent Cohorts

  24. The Early Cohorts

  25. Yearly Persistence Status

  26. Comparison to Regional Composite

  27. The Persistence Index Accounting for All Students and Examining Differences in Patterns among Campuses and Academic Groupings

  28. Methodology • Considers all undergraduate, degree-seeking students in a given fall semester • Fall 2006 for the present analysis • Tracks them to the next fall semester • Enrolled fall 2007 or received degree 2006-07 • Divides them into three sets of categories • Class level: 1st year; beyond 1st year • Credit load: 6 or fewer credits; 7-12.5 credits; 13+ credits • Need met/Income status

  29. Methodology (2) • Categories derived from analysis of cut-points that optimize group differences in retention • Chi-square automatic interaction detection (CHAID) • Need met/Income indicator more complicated • Percent of need met positively associated with persistence among those of known income • Income positively associated with persistence among those who did not have need assessed • Strange relationship among those with need assessed but no known income • Many students missing both (no FAFSA at all)

  30. The Need Met/Income Indicator

  31. The Persistence Index Categories

  32. Methodology (3) • Array students in matrix according to the combination of all three factors (2x3x3) • Determine percent of students in each cell • Calculate persistence rates for each cell • Results • Examine pattern of campus cell rates to composite matrix rates • Calculate the persistence index by multiplying cell rates by composite percentages (common weights) • Can group students by academic division, across campuses, to compare rates by division

  33. The Persistence Index Matrix: Counts All Regional Campuses, Combined (N=19,138)

  34. The Persistence Index Matrix: Percentages All Regional Campuses, Combined

  35. The Persistence Index Matrix: Persistence Rates All Regional Campuses, Combined

  36. A Campus Example

  37. The Rate and “Cell Summary” Table

  38. Academic Division Comparisons

  39. Division Summary Table

  40. Campus Summary by Division

  41. Questions? Discussion

More Related