A Mixed Methods Approach to Examine Factors Affecting College Students' Time to Degree
description
Transcript of A Mixed Methods Approach to Examine Factors Affecting College Students' Time to Degree
Presenters: Pat Estes, Assessment Analyst, [email protected] Liang Hou, Research Intern, [email protected]
Edgewood College Office of Institutional Assessment and Research
This research was conducted under the supervision of Dr. Yang Zhang, previous Director of Institutional Research at Edgewood College. She can be contacted at: Dr. Yang Zhang Director of Institutional Research Manoa Institutional Research Office Office of the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs University of Hawaii at Manoa [email protected]
2
Overview 1. Background
2. Literature review
3. Purpose of study
4. Methodology
5. Data analysis and results
6. Recommendations and conclusions
7. Discussion
3
Background – Edgewood College Founded in 1881 by the Dominican Sisters of Sinsinawa
Located in Madison, WI
Total enrollment is around 2,700, with 2,000 undergraduates and 700 master and Ed.D. students
Majors: Liberal Arts and Professional degree programs (i.e., Education, business, nursing)
Edgewood College is accredited by Higher Learning Commission since 1958
4
10 Year Average Edgewood College (EC) Graduation Rates 4-year graduation rate – 29%
2012: 36%
5-year graduation rate – 48%
2012: 53%
6-year graduation rate – 51%
2012: 53%
5
EC vs. HLC Peers = 4 Yr Grad
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
2010 4-year Graduation rate
Retrieved from College Results Online
6
Recommended Goals 4-year graduation rate – 50% (+21%)
5-year graduation rate – 62% (+14%)
6-year graduation rate – 66% (+15%)
7
Problem Statement College tuition
Federal and state funding
Accountability
Pressure to improve graduation rates/time to degree
8
Importance of Graduation Rates and Time to Degree Living out our mission & our promise
Graduation rate – common measure of success
Less time = less debt + more income
Happy alumni!
9
Literature Review Student Characteristics Institutional Characteristics
Academic factors (e.g., academic performance, Choice of major/field of study, changing majors, taking remedial courses, study abroad)
Institutional effectiveness (i.e., supportive academic and social environments)
Pre-college factors (e.g., student scores on college-admission tests SAT and ACT, HSGPA, AP credits)
Institutional type (e.g., 4-year, non-profit, religious)
Family background (e.g., low SES, first generation)
Percentage of low-income students on campus
Personal life (e.g., working, living off-campus, marriage)
Institutional size and college selectivity
Demographics (e.g., gender and race) Financial aid and cost of tuition
10 For an extensive literature review, refer to Desjardins, Kim, & Rzonca (2003); Knight (1994, 2002, 2004); Burns (2010), & Kuh, Kinzie, & Buckley (2006)
So What Is the Solution?
11
Purpose of Current Research Studies that examine factors impacting college
students’ time to degree from the students’ perspective are limited
Typically relied on quantitative methodology
Our study deploys quantitative AND qualitative methodologies
12
Research Questions 1. Do students graduate within a timeframe they are
satisfied with?
2. What factors help or hinder timely graduation?
3. What steps can be taken to decrease time to degree?
13
Methodology Data collected Spring 2012
Small mid-west liberal arts college
Online survey distributed via Qualtrics
All senior students expecting to graduate in Spring or Summer 2012
62% response rate (162 / 263 students)
14
When you began at Edgewood, within what timeframe did you expect to graduate? “Within 1 year” through “More than 6 years” How long did it actually take you to graduate from Edgewood College since you began here? “Within 1 year” through “More than 6 years” How satisfied are you with the length of time it took you to complete your degree? “Very Satisfied” through “Very Dissatisfied” (5-point Likert scale) Please comment on those factors that helped you to graduate on time and/or the barriers you experienced to a timely graduation. Open-ended
15
Quantitative Analysis - Gap Analysis 8% graduated one or two years earlier than expected
72% graduated within expected time frame
15% took one year longer than expected
4% took two years longer than expected
Only 1% graduated in three years or longer than expected
16
Quantitative Analysis -Satisfaction All Respondents
83% combined satisfaction rate 46% “very satisfied” and 37% “satisfied”
Mean = 4.22 (on 5-point scale)
Started at Edgewood M = 4.26
Transfer M = 4.18
Compared to 80% of students who graduated in their expected time frame, a higher satisfaction rate of 83% was found in students’ responses.
17
Gap * Satisfaction Crosstabulation
Satisfaction
Total
Very Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied
Very Dissatisfied
Gap
-2 % of Total 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1%
-1 % of Total 6% 1% 0% 0% 0% 7%
0 % of Total 41% 26% 5% 1% 0% 72%
1 % of Total 0% 9% 5% 2% 0% 15%
2 % of Total 0% 1% 1% 2% 1% 4%
3 % of Total 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1%
Total % of Total 46% 37% 10% 5% 1% 100% 18
Qualitative Analysis Procedure Grounded theory
Generate or discover a theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967)
Grounded theory defined as:
The discovery of theory from data systematically obtained from social research’
(Glaser and Strauss 1967: 2)
19
Data Coding Procedures 1. Preview all responses and record emerging indicators.
Continued to add new indicators, until eventually the indicators become saturated and no new ones could be formed.
2. Compared indicators. Consistent and similar ones were combined into themes. Similar themes were used to form factors. Themes that could not be combined with other themes were considered independent factors.
3. Built a coding book that includes indicators, themes, and factors. Assigned a code to each indicator.
20
Data Coding and Factor Generating Cont’ 4. Used the coding book to code short narrative responses
into the SPSS data file. Note: A response may include multiple indicators. In this way, qualitative data of students’ short narrative responses are converted into quantitative data and are ready for quantitative analysis.
5. Re-read and recoded responses to make sure no new indicators emerged.
6. Used SPSS to generate frequencies of the indicators, themes, and factors mentioned by survey respondents.
21
Qualitative Results Using this grounded theory approach, seven factors
that influence students’ time to degree were generated from respondents’ narrative responses.
22
Factors Influencing Time to Degree 1. Curriculum Length
2. Academic Planning and Choice
3. Student Accountability
4. Personal Experience and Preference
5. Finance
6. Facilitators
7. Procedures and Scheduling
23
Factors Defined 1. Curriculum Length: Student choices that extended program
length, such as adding a second major, or the actual requirements of certain programs.
2. Academic Planning and Choice: Changing or deciding on programs and majors, as well as planning out courses and requirements towards graduation.
3. Student Accountability: Course load, student motivation, student accountability, choosing to take courses elsewhere.
4. Personal Experience and Preference: Individual or situational differences of students, such as depression or health-related issues.
5. Finance: Aspects relating to funding education, such as having to work during school to pay for their education.
6. Facilitators: Advisors, staff, and faculty. 7. Procedures and Scheduling: Class scheduling and availability,
graduation and program requirements, other administrative-type issues.
24
#1 Curriculum Length Definition: Student choices that extended program length, such as adding a second major, or the actual requirements of certain programs.
Verbatim Quote: “Though I graduated a year later than I originally expected, I was able to spend a semester in the Czech Republic, a semester in Italy, a month in China, AND add a second major before graduating. Even though student debt is going to suck, I'd say the extra year was worth it!”
Coding Procedures: Study abroad Curriculum Length
Add second major Curriculum Length
25
#2 Academic Planning & Choice Changing or deciding on programs and majors, as well as planning out courses and requirements towards graduation.
“Changed my major from art education to just an art major”
Deciding major Academic Planning & Choice
26
#3 Student Accountability Course load, student motivation, student accountability, choosing to take courses elsewhere.
“I worked hard in order to graduate early from my program.”
Student accountability Student Accountability
27
#4 Personal Experience & Preference Individual or situational differences of students, such as depression or health-related issues.
“I was forced to take a semester off due to a medical illness, and was poorly advised on classes I should take pretty much the entire time I've been here.”
Health issues Personal Experience & Preference
Advisor Facilitator
28
#5 Finance Aspects relating to funding education, such as having to work during school to pay for their education.
“Working full time allowed me to only go to school part time, otherwise I would have finished sooner.”
Work Finance
29
#6 Facilitators Advisors, staff, and faculty.
“The liberal arts and sciences advisors told me the wrong classes to take my first semester for my major, but the math department helped me to figure out a solution so I could graduate on time.”
Advisor Facilitator
Faculty Facilitator
30
#7 Procedures & Scheduling Class scheduling and availability, graduation and program requirements, other administrative-type issues. “Being willing to take on challenging course loads was helpful in completing my degree in 4 years. It was difficult at times because certain classes were only offered at one time and not every semester.”
Course load Student Accountability
Class schedules Procedures & Scheduling
Student accountability Student Accountability
31
Frequency Analysis of Factors
32
Factor Name Percent
Facilitators 47.3%
Academic Planning and Choice 43.0%
Student Accountability 25.8%
Registration Processes & Course Scheduling 24.7%
Curriculum Length 23.7%
Finance 7.5%
Personal Experience and Preference 7.5%
Recommendation #1 Importance of Advising
Communicate and reiterate to all stakeholders
Positive AND negative effects
Advisor Training and Resources
Additional or more extensive resources
Professional development
Share best practices
33
Recommendation #2 Empowering Student Decision-Making
Provide options and accurate information
Allow students to make their own decision
34
Recommendation #3 Student Accountability and Attitudes
Student motivation and accountability
It’s an educational process
35
Recommendation #4 Process Improvements
Procedures and scheduling
Focus on institutional (directly controllable) factors
36
Recommendation #5 Review, Explore, and Reflect on Existing
Data
Review open ended results from Senior Exit Survey
Mine other data sources
Continue research using quantitative and qualitative methodologies
37
Limitations In general, the limitations of this study are not any
different than other similar studies
Question wording made qualitative analysis difficult
Sample from one institution at one point in time
38
Future Considerations/Directions Online programs/classes that are flexible
Summer/winter sessions Examine enrollment numbers and courses offered
Seek institutional buy-in on proposed graduation rate goals
Future research at Edgewood on time to degree Look at that subgroup who graduated early
Replicate on next years Senior Exit Survey
39
Discussion 1. What research have you done related to this topic at your
own institution?
2. Are the findings similar? Different?
3. What has your institution done to decrease time to degree?
4. What has worked for you in terms of gaining institutional buy-in with time to degree and graduation rate initiatives/goals?
40
Thank you for your time! Questions?
Comments?
Suggestions?
41
References Astin, A.W. & Oseguera, L. (2005). Degree Attainment Rates at American Colleges and Universities. Revised Edition. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA. Burns, K. (2010). At issue: community college student success variables: a review of the literature. The Community College Enterprise, 16(2), 33-61. Center for Business and Economic Research, Miller College of Business, Ball State University (2011). An exploratory analysis: Educational attainment in Indiana. Retrieved from http://cardinalscholar.bsu.edu/bitstream/123456789/194831/1/EdAttain\ment-1.pdf. Desjardins, S.L., Kim, D., & Rzonca, C.S. (2003). A nested analysis of factors affecting bachelor’s degree completion. Journal of College Student Retention, 4 (4), 407-435. Knight, W. E. (1994, May). Why the five-year (or longer) bachelors degree? An exploratory study of time to degree attainment. In 34th Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, New Orleans, LA. Knight, W. E. (2002). Toward a comprehensive model of influences upon time to bachelor’s degree attainment. AIR Professional File, 85, 1-15.
42
References Cont’ Knight, W. E. (2004). Time to bachelor’s degree attainment: An application of descriptive, bivariate, and multiple regression techniques. IR Applications: Using Advanced Tools, Techniques, and Methodologies, 2, 1- 15. Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2006, July). What matters to student success: A review of the literature. In Commissioned Report for the National Symposium on Postsecondary Student Success: Spearheading a Dialog on Student Success. Office of Institutional Assessment and Research. (2011). Edgewood College Retention and Graduation Report. Madison, WI: Edgewood College. Owens, D., Lacey, K., Glinda, R. & Holbert-Quince, J. (2010). First-generation African American male college students: Implications for career counselors. The Career Development Quarterly, 58, 291-300. Perkins, G., Pitter, G.W., Howat, C., & Whitfield, D. (1999). Relationship of financial aid, work and college performance. In 39th Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Seattle, WA. Taylor, A.L. & Doane, D.J. (2012). Motivations to graduate in less than four years and summer session attendance. Summer Academe, 4, 7-30.
43