Muha, Joseph G.; Snyder, John H. Penalty-No Penalty Drop ...DOCUMENT RESUME. ED 093 436 JC 740 249....
Transcript of Muha, Joseph G.; Snyder, John H. Penalty-No Penalty Drop ...DOCUMENT RESUME. ED 093 436 JC 740 249....
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 093 436 JC 740 249
AUTHOR Muha, Joseph G.; Snyder, John H.TITLE Penalty-No Penalty Drop Policy.PUB DATE 14 Dec 73NOTE 19p.; A practicum report for the Doctoral Degree in
Education, Nova University
EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS
ME-SO.75 HC-$1.50 PLUS POSTAGE*Academic Records; *Dropout Rate; *Dropout Research;School Holding Power; *Student Enrollment
ABSTRACTThis study sought to determine what effect the
utilization of a penalty or no-penalty drop policy would have onretention of students at Pasadena City College. It was found thatthere was a significant difference both in grades received and theretention of students as a result of the adoption of a 16 weekno-penalty drop policy at the college. The attrition rate increased,but withdrawal from classes was gradual and distributed throughoutthe semester, rather than being all at the end of the semester.(SW)
F
PENALTY - NO PENALTY DROP POLICY
APPLIED EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
AND
EVT,UATION
by
JOSEPH G. MUHA, M.A.
r-and
17> JOHN H. SNYDER, M.S.
Pasadena City College
John Dayitt, D.
Cluster Coordinator
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
A PRACTICUM PRESENTED TO NOVA UNIVERSITYIN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
NOVA UNIVERSITY
Dec. 14, 1973
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE 1
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM 1
HYPOTHESES 2
BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE 2
DEFINITION OF TERMS 6
LIMITATIONS 7
BASIC ASSUMPTIONS 7
PROCEDURES FOR COLLECTING THE DATA 8
PROCEDURES FOR TESTING THE DATA 8
RESULTS 8
Figure 1 10
Figure 2 11
CONCLUSIONS - RECOMMENDATIONS 13
TITLE
What effect does the utilization of a penalty or
no penalty drop policy have on retention of students in
classes at Pasadena City College?
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
In recent years enrollment at Pasadena City college has
been steadily climbing but the increased rate of attrition
is of continuing concern to faculty, administration, and
Board of Trustees.
Many theories have been proposed to explain the situation.
One that persists and is voiced repeatedly is class drop
policy. Between the years 1966-68 the following policy
was in effect:
A student in good standing may arrange withhis counselor to drop officially a course orcourses without penalty up to the last day ofthe sixth week of the semester. Any courseor courses dropped after the close of the sixthweek will be recorded with a grade of F.
In 1968-70 the policy read as follows:.
Date Class Drooped
During first three weeks (eithervoluntarily or by administrativeaction)During fourth, fifth and sixthweeksFrom the seventh week to finalthree weeks
a. If teacher reports studentpassing
b. If teacher reports studentfailing
Last three weeks of semester
Grade
No entry on permanentrecord
w
w
FNo drops permitted
(2)
Since 1970 the policy was changed to read as follows:
During the first three weeks of a semestera student may drop by filing an appropriateform. The class will not be recorded on thestudents transcript. Beginning with thefourth and extending through Friday of thesixteenth week, if the clerical proceduresare followed a grade of W will be recordedon the permanent record. Failure to followformal drop procedures will result in an Fbeing recorded.
HYPOTHESES
1. There is no significant difference between the %of drops during 1966-68 and 1969-72 in the re-tention of students at Pasadena City College
2. There is no significant change in the distributionof grades prior to and after 1968.
BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE
This drop policy alteration brought forth significant
reaction from the faculty after the first year of
operation. Generally the questions centered in two
areas:
1. The philosophical desirability of such apractice
2. The effect on student retention
In the first instance the question of stated school objec-
tives as published in the College Bulletin come to the fore.
One primary objective is to provide an educational experience
that emphasizes the acquisition of knowledge and skills,
(3)
and the development of constructive attitudes that lead
to growth and development of the students so that, among
other things, he can take his place as an able and re-
sponsible citizen in the society.
A question posed by this objective is whether a policy
that permits a student to remain in a class sixteen weeks,
then drop without penalty, develops responsibility and
teaches one to make choices. Making choices is an essential
part of the educational process. According to Ruitenbeek,
"In contemporary mass society, individuals have not been
reared along lines that develop their powers of choice and
independence."
Many professors on the faculty contend that the necessity
to make a commitment and to pay some price for failing to
live up to such a commitment is valuable to ones' intellec-
tual development and the maturation process. (The assump-
tion is that those in the class are capable to succeed if
they apply themselves.) On the other hand, if it is not
required of the student to make a commitment, they may lack
motivation to stick to a task. The result can be a dete-
riorating classroom atmosphere.
Secondly, classroom retention of students is affected
1
1 Ruitenbeek, Hendrick M., The Individual and the Crowd.Thomas Nelsons and Sons, N.Y. N.Y. 1964.
(4)
unfavorably by such a policy because if one can drop at his
leisure a "so-what" attitude develops toward the class.
Students sometimes contend that the time spent is enough
of a price to pay but for many this is no price at all.
An exhaustive survey of the current educational litera-
ture was carried out at the extensive library facilities of
the University of Southern California. The researchers
were rather disappointed that little material was found
that vaguely resembled the hypotheses under study. Appar-
ently, the policy of the sixteenth week drop date is
latively new and it may not have been the topic of a system-
atic investigation.
In March of 1972, Boris Blai, Jr. of Harcum
Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania investigated the dropout rates of
two year colleges with the dropout rate of four year colleges.
The general conclusions formulated as a result of this
study was that small enrollment schools (250-750) whether
two year or four year schools enjoyed high retention of
students. Although the literature surveyed for this re-
port was not consistent, it was generally concluded that the
high dropout rate in two-year colleges is attributed pri-
marily to the low level of motivation and poorer academic
preparation of the student.
(5)
The Department of Health Education and Welfare spon-
sored a study by J. William Wenrich of San Mateo College
of San Mateo, California entitled "Keeping Dropouts In,
Retention of Students Identified as High Probability Drop-
outs." This study was to determine whether active partici-
pation in an individualized instructional program such as
the "Learning Center" would be related to a lower dropout
rate for freshmen, who were identified as high probability
dropouts. The study indicated that a one to one relation-
ship at the "Learning Center" was definitely helpful in
retaining students who otherwise would have been dropouts.
A study by J. Robert Thompson of McComb County com-
munity College in Michigan entitled, "Why Students Drop
Courses" was conducted by the use of questionaires sent
to 3568 students who had dropped a total of 6081 courses.
The 1434 respondents (40.19%) answered questions about
2190 courses they had dropped and gave their reasons for
doing so. The courses were dropped because of:
1. Job conflict
2. Lack of interest
3. Wrong program
4. ACademic difficulty
5. Teacher conflict
(6)
The study recommended early identification of the
problem and immediate counseling.
In 1967 John E. Rouesche of the University of Calif-
ornia at Los Angeles conducted a study of junior college
dropouts. Institutional research materials from sixteen
schools was used in the study. The findings showed little
relationship between attrition and ability as shown by grade
point average or entrance examination scores. A relation-
ship appeared to exist between dropouts and non-intellective
factors such as job conflict, family relationships, and
transportation problems.
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Drop - officially terminate a class or classes but remainin school
Withdrawal - termination of all classes at the college;either voluntarily or through faculty initiateddismissal
Retention - receiving a letter grade (A through F) (/Erepresents a drop or withdrawal)
Late-dropping - drops recorded between the sixth andsixteenth weeks inclusive
Load - number of units in which a student is enrolled
Penalty Policy - period in which an F is recorded fordropping a course
NO penalty policy - dropping a class permitted any timethrough Friday of the sixteenth weekwith the recording of a W for a graderegardless of his performance up tothat time
(7)
LIMITATIONS
The study of drops and withdrawals is a very complex
subject. The authors are limiting their research to one
facet of the problem; penalty vs. no penalty drop policy
to see if it contributes to lack of retention of students.
Specific limitations which may have bearing on the results
of this study are as follows:
1. 20% of the student body is economicallydeprived; thus, they might opt for employ-ment and drop any time opportunity beckons
2. 85.5% of the students were working or desiredwork with 52% employed. These figures wereconsistent over the seven year period of thisstudy. This increases chances for class andjob conflicts leading to drops and withdrawals
3. Prior to 1970 students may have withdrawn fromall classes rather than drop a class or classesin which they were doing poorly
BASIC ASSUMPTIONS
For purposes of this study we have assumed:
1. There is no relationship on retention ratesdue to race, ethnic, or national origin
2. Attrition rates affect all departments in thecollege but are not equally distributed
3. Time of day has little or no effect on drops
4. Drops are related to load carried
5. The vast majority of those in class are capableof success if they put forth the effort
(8)
PROCEDURES FOR COLLECTING THE DATA
All data was collected from computer printouts and
institutional research files at Pasadena City College.
The research was done during the months of October and
November 1973.
The following data was collected:
1. All drops and withdrawals for the years 1966-72
2. All grades for the years 1966-72
This data was divided into two groups:
a. Grades between the years 1966-68, whenthe penalty drop policy was in effect
b. Grades between the years 1968-72, whena no-penalty policy was in effect
PROCEDURES FOR TESTING THE DATA
Chi square (X2) for two independent samples was utilized.
RESULTS
Hypothesis #1
There is no significant difference between the % of drops
during 1966-68 and 1969-72 in the retention of students
at Pasadena City College.
Chi square X2
(9)
A B
42,577(43,452)
35,584(34,708)
49,417(48.541)
37,897(38,772)
1966-68 A = represents beginningenrollment
1969-72 B = represents endingenrollment
A X2 value larger than 3.8 with ldf is significant at the .05
level.
X2 = 75.26
Therefore we reject the null hypothesis and establish that
there is a significant difference between the % of drops
during 1966-68 and 1969-72 in the retention of students.
Hypothesis #2
There is no significant change in the distribution of grades
prior to and after 1968.fez
X2 =,>_fo -
66-68
69-72
fe
12.7(13.52)
25.1(19.93)
29.3(18.72)
8.5(4.94)
5.9(4.44)
33.1(21.02)
19.6(18.77)
22.5(27.66)
15.4(25.97)
3.3(6.85)
4.7(6.16)
17.1(29.17)
X 2 = 27.252
X2 greater than 11.1 at 5df at .05 level represents a signifi-
cant difference therefore, we reject the null hypothesis that
there is no significant change in the distribution of grades
prior to and after 1968.
.i
i-
I:.
II
I1
jI
.,
.-1---,
rI.
11ii
,,,41,
1i
.;
1
'-,,
, !'1;1'11Ill,
IIli;
I
11,
I1,
,---i''
'-...t
-i---1---1
,t,.,
1ii
1,,,
,,i;"i
;,____t__.____
--'-1--i-It t--:---
;,.I;
!'1.1-: , ,
11111.---t'.'.
II
I
1,
11
''
'Z
I. 6Ii
:ii.-IL
6Ii
1
T2.-O
L61
I0L
-6961I
69-961,
1I
,1
,,
---,,i ---,*Y 1
..' m- -4
. ...__1_
.,
s,
,:
i
.I,t
iI
1
.
1,
I
!I
I
tot4.--4. .. i
.4.,--4 ,,
,,,,7I
1
1
t.
ii
1
:- «
;-
,« ,;
__.1....
_ .t,_
I
....
1.
,,
.I
II
l.
I
;;
I1
-:.
_1__
"i___,, _;___.
._1
,11
,i,,111.1r r--,
..
i,
,,
i1
..1
._
_ I__:...
_1,
I1
-,I.,
4;
',-A
_,.__
_._«I
.,,_i----.-
t __---- ..-
. -- ,-- . -- dpt.__
i:
i1
1
1 7;
i1
1
,
i,
ii
.
___,
,I
i.i
.,
,,
......_._.
4
1
I--r
14-1
.,_.-__
1
,1-- -+
i.
--,-.1
-i
;1
II1
ti
11
,.._-.1. _ ,.
_ . _ _ _ -__ ,4.
41
-4-!.
.1
-4 .-
- . ..:
11
i
III
1
1r
,..
1
1
,,
i4
,I
:
,,
;
i:
:,
1:.
iI
1
i
1,
.
i
.
,1
-,1
1
i-
i
-r-
'1".....4
-1
;1
i.
if
1I
i1
!1
I,
1
.1
1
.--t
44
,t
1I
1i
41
,I
ii
!1
ti_...,_1,
!1
,
:.
..
It
tI
1
1t
'
!,
1I
11
1t
;,
,..-
:-t --
r-
,,
.I
It
t,
,t
.
I
,'
II
_ 4,......
'____
_ -___i______ _....-, ',...,.1+
4,,.
'N
It
, 1;
-H
111
11
t1
I
1
;I
1I
I1
I
t-
.,
t,
1f
-i;
1.,
,!
i.
.,
1,__,..1
..._,
.
1
,i
,1
1
1f
..
;,,
.,
,.
.
,.,
..
.
.I.
--
-I--;,
,,
1.
,.
.,
,___,..
,.......
..._
.- .1,L
---- ---
,i
11
I
:,
.i
1I
II
'
1
-
99-496I9-996T
;9961
I,
,
'0 i
t_t
__" -- --- ---
-1
--1 1
!1
,1
!
'.4 1 -
-- .,-,-- 4--
-, ttt - -- t-
1.
1I
1i
iI
''
1._.1/4.....
;i
!I
1
,.
4.:
.,_.,
....
____i______,____.__.._.___.._ _1_ _ .4
_.
_ _1, _
4.
I-
... - -.---r .......-
'- -ti
-'.
I
,,
,t,
ii
ii
i!
ii,
1.
i:
;
,4
,1
.1
*-:
ati---
'1
T,... __r___ ..... __i ___ - _.
.
..1
_..
.
.t__ . _ ..1._ __ _ 7.,..._,___t.../,!
41
tI
II
;t
tI:-
; - -lo
-,,,,,--
L_
_ i - 1 ..--I
.I
1I
I1
__+j
,i
1I
::
:1
II
i1
I
1:
Iri
1:
I'
1
I
,I
II
i1
7,---I
i1-7141-1-
,11_._______,,
iiil
1___,,_ ___,i,
_-1-----
r1
I,
r .T
41
i____r
i'
II
i
'1
Li
.I___I
i1
11
,.
1f
,.
i1
1I
14
'#-
.. t111 ;.
i.
I
Ij
1r
1
--,, _
I-
11 _t_
.....it_....11,,...............4
.I
Ii
I
11
......-4i
+-
--+1----1
I1----
I_'
_i__....4 -4 _,-
4-_
1t
t!
i1
t!
,
t
11
'1
,
,1
I1
I
I
i.11,1
-i
II
41
1., -r
,,
iT
-,:
',
11
1I
-
__if
_i_it
F.-1.--i4.
,I
1I
;i
,
'1
1
r;
-----I, _.
......_.__ 1,-1--1
11
11
1
i;
Li
,.
.,
........*1
i1
Ii!
IIR
+4
I+
..,_______i__ _____I___i___.___i___.1....___._
____ .
1,1----1--l'i
,
1111
1111ilit1
14
41111.1411I
--4I-
-1,
i
t---
-1......_, -
- --1-
.---.L
-,.-1---r-
1--
---.--i -a-9961
1. T
I1
' -1-11
'1
i
,,
ii
_,,-_4___,,,..______.1
11
______,
1.
I,
,
.;11,1
__I,
-,_. ,
i __,_1
1
'
I1
-.4.
iI
I1
11
..
.i
It)
t1--
11
4L
I,SIY11=
11". M. ST
(10_71Y1.0.1,-- -4 ---4--- t- --4- -- --4-- --1 -
t"1r 7--r-----t--- -....,...
.,,111r
i1
11
i,
..1,
_i
ii
1,
i
'
!i
,i
it
il1
i____,_1
,4
.4.__.--1 II 4
-!. ;
it
I11
i/
h_iiH
lit1
1i
II
I
,,
'
ri
2 ,/
1I
tI
..i'//
i
,1111
....,, - , ...,"1/....tM
IIII7
i
I
1I
1I
:I
1
I1
11
1(
I:
i,4......., ...--4...i.-,..-ifi
I,I
i;
1-1-1
iI
ET
1
-
-;.--
COMPARISON OF
-1---1--),--- -4-1---1.-- -4-4-----t 1 1
I
1 1 I I
.... --.. - ..- - i -... -
L I ,:;.,
II
11 I- .... . .....................4-
, ri.-.AN COLLEGE GRAD Y. DISTRDUTION,
I I I-1- - -1--- -----1 ----i-----,
1
35
1966-68 [/,
i
P 125
C
_E
29
10
B
1
D
,
.
ti
(12)
This research indicates that the policy of extending the
withdrawal date to the end of the sixteenth week, without a
grade penalty, had a significant effect upon increasing the
attrition rate. In addition, the study showed that grades
differed to a significant degree. While the statistical analyses
Indicated in both instances a significant relationship between
policy and withdrawal and policy and grades, it does not answer
why.
Some increased withdrawals and grade changes were expected
when the policy was inaugurated. One could have predicted a
reduction in D and F grades. It is logical for students pre-
paring to enter finals week with a grade of F to withdraw when
there is no penalty. We still have nearly 4% who are either
eternal optimists, those unaware of policy, or careless; otherwise,
F grades should be reduced to near zero. In the case of D grades
many students are willing to accept a D and others are hopeful of
receiving a C. The 3% drop in B grades is difficult to account
for but may be unrelated to policy. It is in the C grade area
with a 10% drop that raises questions, which at this point, only
speculation could attempt to answer. Further research in this
area is indicated.
The overall withdrawal rate is probably subject to many
complex individual and societal factors in addition to school
policy. Some of these are discussed in one of the sections on
Recommendations - conclusions.
(13)
CONCLUSIONS - RECOMMENDATIONS
Joseph G. Muha
The conclusion to be drawn from this research project is
that there is a significant difference both in grades received
-and the retention of students due to the adoption of a sixteen
week no-penalty drop policy at Pasadena City College. As stated
in the study, this sixteen week no-penalty policy is a factor
in a very complex problem.
Community college students are commuters and as such are
affected by other factors in their efforts to acquire their lower
division or terminal education. Further study in the areas of
student economics, acade7-'c preparation, size of school, and
peer group pressures as they relate to grades and student re-
tention would contribute much to clarify this complex dropout
problem.
Recommendations:
1. Re-examine the original premise for the sixteen week
no-penalty drop policy.
The rationale for extending the drop period was to enable
students to broaden the base of their education. This
permitted a Business Major to take courses in other
areas without jeopardizi.ng his grade point average in
his major. This premise may have had merit, but the
eventual outcome of the policy significantly affected
(14)
all grades and lowered the final college enrollment.
2. Consider re-instituting the six-week penalty drop policy.
The desirability of making a commitment and making a
effort to fulfill that commitment should be strongly
emphasized as a major educational goal.
3. Coordinated efforts by teachers and counselors to
identify students with problems.
Student attendance and grade sheets can be duplicated
and sent to counselors periodically for scanning to
pick up impending difficulties.
4. Establishment of "Learning Centers"
Tutoring on a student to student basis has been found
to be a very effective technique for alleviating many
academic problems. Locating such centers in very pro-
minent places on campus would be highly desirable.
(15)
CONCLUSIONS - RECOMMENDATIONS
John H. Snyder
In the process of making this study, all information
assimilated, whether directly part of the investigation, in-
fluences to some extent conclusions and recommendations.
Clearly, the extension to the sixteenth week of dropping
classes without grade penalty, affects attrition and grades,
with attrition the major area of concern. This may not be as
serious as it first appears. Several purposes may be served
by this policy, which the attrition rate should not be allowed
to dominate, to wit:
1. Since the college has no system of auditing, because
of the nature of funding, the withdrawal without penalty
may serve an educational purpose for some who have no
interest in grades, tests, or credits.
2. Many students may now withdraw in greater numbers from
classes after the sixth week for excellent reasons.
In the past this option was not available to them and
if circumstances forced withdrawal, they received F
grades. They didn't fail the course, they failed be-
cause of health, economics, death in the family, the
draft, the family moved, etc.
3. Presently, many students may withdraw completely from
school, when circumstances arise necessitating such
action, without the penalty of several F grades that
often proved academically disastrous in the past.
(16)
4. The community college is often a place of "last resort"
in salvaging previous academic failures. This has re-
mained one of our great and distinguishing traits.
The current policy will prevent excessive penalties to
those who attend and for a variety of reasons do not
achieve. They may leave, find themselves, and return
years later. Then, they will not be confronted with
almost insurmountable low grade point averages because
the F penalty grades for withdrawing after a certain
arbitrary date will no longer be operative.
The attrition in classes is gradual and distributed
throughout the semester and does not represent a sudden
"bailing out" of large numbers of students near the end
of the semester. Granted there is a problem of commit-
ment that may be lacking, but the reasons stated above
tend to outweigh serious alteration of the current
policy.
Considering all the complexities related to attrition
in a large comprehensive commuter community college, we
might turn our attention to further research that is
oriented toward changes in student populations -- who
is going to college? For what reasons? What do they
hope to achieve? How soon? etc. We may also need
to recognize that larger less personal colleges in
(17 )
areas of highly mobile populations are going to have
higher attrition rates than in the past for many obvious
reasons.
If funding policies change Which is a virtual certainty
in California in the next two years) we will need to
weigh with extreme care a change of policy related to
withdrawals.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIF.LOS ANGELES
AUG 23 191,1
CLEARINGHOUSE FORJUNIOR COLLEGE
INFORMATION