Institutional Research and Data Warehouse (IRDW) Office of the Vice President of Planning and Development (OIPD) Qatar University

Transcription

1 Institutional Research and Data Warehouse (IRDW) Office of the Vice President of Planning and Development (OIPD) Qatar University November 2008

2 Executive Summary: In spring 2008, the Office of Institution Planning & Development (OIPD) conducted a study on student retention at Qatar University. This study is a part of planned longitudinal study on retention at QU. The study focused on first-time students who were enrolled at QU during the fall 2007 semester, but did not return in the next semester (spring 2008). The purpose of the study was to understand the reasons why students did not continue their education. Students were asked a variety of questions related to their decisions to leave QU. The response rate was 66%. Out of 178 students who responded, fifty-two percent would like to return to the University. Out of 85, who stated that they would not return in fall 2008, most of them were having problems with academic issues. The results suggest that intervention may most profitably lie in the communication and interaction networks established between students and university service units. Some highlights: o Almost 14% of new students who enrolled in fall 2007 did not appear in the next semester. o Almost 66% of non-retaining students (178) responded to the telephone survey. o Most of the non-retaining students (81%) stated that QU was there first choice. o Around 20% of non-retaining students said that they didn t come to QU in spring 2008 because of personal reasons, around 17% because they have moved to another university, and 11% because of working. o More than half of the non-retaining students (93) intended to come in fall o Out of 85, who stated that they would not come in fall 2008, almost 41% said they have moved to another university, around 13% were working, and around 11% were having difficulties in the Foundation Program. Sample: A list of students who registered as first-time freshmen in fall 2007 and did not appear in spring 2008 was developed. A total of 269 students fit this definition. Since the number of leavers was small, we decided to call all in the list. Out of that group of 269, 178 students responded to the survey, with a response rate of 66%. Methods: A list of students who were registered in fall 2007 and did not return in spring 2008 was extracted from the Banner SIS system. The list includes name, addresses, college, gender, nationality, address, and telephone numbers. Since the number was small, we decided to call everyone in that list. Two groups of student interviewers were selected. The interviewers were referred by the Foundation because these students worked for Foundation as part-time interviewers. The telephone survey method was selected. Male and female students were interviewed by the female and male interviewers, respectively. We have used SQL, EXCEL, and SPSSX to extract, process, and analyze data. Frequency tables and graphs were generated.

3 Instrument: A very short and simple instrument was developed by the Office of Institutional Research. The instrument was developed using a number of similar questionnaires that were used in various higher education institutions throughout the world. The following items were listed in the questionnaire: Section I: In this section, there were four questions developed for interviewers: 1. Write the students ID 2. Record status of the response 3. Record maximum number of calls made 4. Record the time needed to complete the survey The respondents were asked the following questions: 1. Was QU your first choice? Yes/No 2. Reasons for not returning in the Spring of 2008 (open ended question) 3. Do you plan to return to QU next fall? Yes/No 4. If no, reasons for not returning (open ended question) 5. Any other concern(s) (open ended question) Justification of this study: 1. Since Foundation experienced dropout rates almost 15% ( based on three cohorts average) in second semester and almost 35% in the sixth semester, it was very important for us to continue to collect data though various methods (survey, system database, focus groups and so on) and to identify factors that might have influenced students non-return and dropout; 2. The Foundation completion rate was also poor (55%) at the end of the cycle. Impact of the study: 3. This study will enable us to understand various factors might have been impacting the students non-return and incompletion; 4. Once we know the problems and issues, various units of the University will be aware of the problems and issues that students were facing; 5. Various units will be able to provide necessary service to improve students quality of campus life; and 6. Many studies found that by reducing the attrition rate during the first year of college increased the graduation rate. Therefore, it was our intention to assist the university in increasing the retention to improve our graduation rates. 7. This study results will compliment other studies in the future.

4 Limitations of the study: One of the greatest continuing debates in higher education community is on the prediction of retention and success in college. No one knows for certain what predictors, if any, accurately determine whether a first year student will be an academic whiz, a drop out, or just your regular run-of-the-mill college student (Gutkowski, 1998) 1. Based on the number of current and previous studies in North America and other colleges and universities, we plugged in HGPA, college, gender and nationality as independent variables in this study. We would like to add first-semester/year college grade, TOEFL/IELTS and ACT/SAT scores, and type of high schools students graduated in the future study. This study will continue in each semester in order to collect data to build a longitudinal database. Once we have enough data from a number of cohorts, we should be able to do an in-depth analysis using high level statistics and models. Since we do not have enough historical data from survey research, we will just run frequency and percentage using tables and graphs based on this survey. Analysis: This study includes two types of variables: Independent and Dependent Independent (system data): HGPA, college, gender and nationality Dependent: All questions that were responded by the students can be treated as dependent variables. Table 1: Non-Return Rates For One Semester (Fall to Spring) Fall05 Fall06 Fall07 HGPA % 4% 6% < 90 14% 9% 16% Foundation 13% 8% 15% College 12% 7% 6% Male 19% 12% 22% Female 10% 7% 11% Qatari 12% 7% 13% Non Qatari 13% 10% 16% Total 13% 8% 14% 1 Gutkowski, J. 1998, "Prediction of success of college students" School of Education, University of Michigan. www-personal.umich.edu/~joeg/success.html

5 Table 1 shows that rates for non-returning students vary depending on a HGPA, college, gender, and nationality. Though there are fluctuations in the rates in each category for three cohorts, these data show the following pattern: Students with lower HGPA have consistently higher non-return rates; Foundation students have higher non-return rates; Males have higher non-returning rates; Non-Qataris have higher non-returning rates. Table 2: Response Categories Frequency Chart Frequency Response % 6% No Response 74 Wrong no. 17 Total % Response No Response Wrong no. Table 2 shows thatt he response rate was 66%. This rate is much higher than many universities in the United States. It shows that QU students are willing to participate in this kind of survey. Table 3: Percent of Non-Returning Vs. Registered students in fall 2007 Non-Returning Students in Spring 2008 Registered Students in Fall 2007 Gender Female Male Nationality NQ Q College Foundation Others

6 Table 3 shows that: Females rates for non-returning were proportionately less (65.0 Vs percent) while males had a much higher rates of non-return (34.0 Vs percent). Non-returning rate for Qataris was less (61.0 Vs percent). As expected, non-returning for Foundation was higher (96.0 Vs percent). Table 4: Non-Returning Students vs. Survey Respondents Respondents Non-Returning Students Gender Female Male Nationality NQ Q College Foundation Others Table 4 displays that response rates for all groups proportionately representative of the nonreturning students in each category. That shows that there was no bias in the response. Response based on the questionnaire: All non-returning students were asked a number of questions. Student responses were analyzed and displayed using tables and graphs. Graph 1. Was QU your first choice? 19% 81% Yes No

7 Graph 1 displays the result of a question: Was QU your first choice? Almost 80% stated that QU was their first choice. Reasons for not returning to QU in spring 2008 When non-returning students were asked about the reasons of not coming in spring 2008, around 20% said that it s a personal problem, around 17% because they applied to another university, and Almost 11% because of Foundation Program. Table 5: Reasons for not returning to QU in spring 2008 Frequency Percentage Related to Academic Issues: Applied in another university Foundation (Long & Difficult) TOEFL Preparing for TOEFL Others (without reason, not interested in studying, doesn't want to cont., don't like university, change major) College Admission Problems Studying difficulties Lack in Advising (No one told him he can register) Banned, Forbidden Dissatisfied with the teaching in found, teacher treatment Personal Issues Personal Problems Financial problem Getting Married Health Reasons Pregnant Working *Respondents could answer with more than one reason for not returning to QU Do you plan to return to QU in Fall 2008? Graph 2: Do you plan to return to QU in fall 2008? 48% 52% Yes No

8 When students were asked if they had any plan to return to Qatar University in Fall 2008, more than half responded that they would be back. Reasons for not returning to QU in Fall 2008 Out of 85 who stated that they will not come in fall 2008, almost 41% said they would not come because they have moved to another university, around 13% because of working, and around 11% because of the Foundation Program. Table 7: Reasons for not returning to QU in fall 2008? Frequency Percentage Related to Academic Issues: Studying Aboard/Apply to another university Foundation (Long & Difficult) TOEFL Others (not interested in studying, Doesn't want to cont) Unavailability of Programs Preparing for TOEFL Studying difficulties College Admission Problems Dissatisfied with the university Banned, Forbidden Dissatisfied with the teaching in found, teacher treatment Personal Issues Getting Married Personal Problems Financial problem Working Problem with company that pay his fees *Respondents could answer with more than one reason for not returning to QU Conclusion: The results showed that almost half of the students intended to return. However, the data also indicated that most of the non-returning students were having problems with academic issues and that is the area the university needs to be very focused and concerned. Recommendations: The results suggest that intervention may most profitably lie in the communication and interaction networks established between students and university service units; Focus groups may probe to be beneficial. Foundation Program needs to work closely with the students who were having difficulties; This study should continue and should be updated each semester; and The results should be communicated to other stakeholders for taking appropriate actions.

9 Appendix A Non-Returning Student Survey