\àëá TÄÄ TuÉâà ZÜtwâtà ÉÇ4

Transcription

1 ZÜxxà Çzá YÜÉÅ g{x hç äxüá àç Éy jxáà ZxÉÜz t4 \àëá TÄÄ TuÉâà ZÜtwâtà ÉÇ4 Presentation Points What are the Problems leading to Low Graduation Rates? LOTS AND LOTS OF ANALYSIS! How do we Know this? What are we going to do about it? How Do We Know What the Problem Is? Graphical Analysis Overall Retention and Graduation Rates By Ethnicity and Gender Comparisons with ithpeers Drilling Down to Root Causes Trends in UWG Overall Fall Retention Rates Percent

2 Trends in UWG s 6-Year Graduation Rates, Fall cohorts Trends in UWG s Second-Year Retention Rates by Ethnicity and Gender % Trends in UWG s Six-Year Graduation Rates by Ethnicity, Cohorts % UWG & Comparator Institutions: Six-Year Graduation Rates (Fall 2002 Cohort) UWG & Comparator Institutions: Median SAT Scores, 2007 UWG, Comparator, & Robust-Tier Institutions: 6-Year Graduation Rate Aspirationals (Median) 63% Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania 59% SUNY College at Oswego 57% University of Wisconsin-Whitewater 56% Central Washington University 55% East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania 54% Kutztown University of Pennsylvania 53% University of Central Missouri Southeast Missouri State University Minnesota State University-Mankato Bridgewater State College California University of Pennsylvania 50% Edinboro University of Pennsylvania 44% Salem State College 43% Saginaw Valley State University 38% University of Central Oklahoma 36% Jacksonville State University 33% University of West Georgia 32% Northeastern State University 30% Southeastern Louisiana University 28% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% % 13 SUNY College at Oswego 1,090 University of Wisconsin Whitewater 1,030 Central Washington University 1,028 Southeast Missouri State University 1,025 University of Central Missouri 1025 Bridgewater State College 1,020 University of West Georgia 1,020 Minnesota State University Mankato 1,010 Kutztown University of Pennsylvania 995 University of Central Oklahoma 990 Saginaw Valley State University 990 East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania 985 Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania 975 Northeastern State University 9 Edinboro University of Pennsylvania 955 California University of Pennsylvania 950 Southeastern Louisiana University 950 Salem State College 945 Jacksonville State University 930 Median Score

3 UWG, Comparator, & Robust-Tier Institutions: First-Time Freshmen s 1 st Term GPA UWG, Comparator, & Robust-Tier Institutions: Percent of 2007 First-Time Freshmen Cohort with First Term GPA Less than 2.00 Retention Losses at the End of Each Year As a Percentage of Entering Cohort.0% Avg. excluding UWG=17% 60.0% 50.0% 1.9% 1.2% 6.9% 2.4% 2.6% 7.5% 1.2% 1.2% 3.4% 1.7% 6.3% 7.5% 40.0% 30.0% 19.4% 19.3% 18.5% 19.0% Fifth Year Fourth rthyear Third Year Second Year 20.0% 27.4% 30.6% 10.0% 28.2% 29.3% 0.0% Source: Consortium for Student Retention Data Exchange Report, May Source: CSRDE Retention Report, Center for Data Exchange and Analysis, May 2009 Fall 2001 Fall 2002 Fall 2003 Fall 2004 Retention Losses at the End of Each Year As a Percentage of the Previous Year s Base How Has UWG Performed Since 2005 in Selected Core Courses Identified (DFW Rates)? How Has UWG Performed Since 2005 in Selected Core Courses Identified (DFW Rates)? 90.0% 80.0% 8.3%.0% 60.0% 50.0% 0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 6.2% 5.8% 2.5% 15.0% 13.0% 26.7% 27.9% 27.4% 30.6% 3.7% 3.8% 7.3% 3.9% 11.8% 14.6% 25.8% 26.9% 28.2% 29.3% Fifth Year Fourth rthyear Third Year Second Year Significant change due to change in staffing philosophy converting temporary instructor lines to permanent lecturer lines with departmental responsibility Significant change due to change in staffing philosophy Senior Tenured faculty teach first year course Fall 2001 Fall 2002 Fall 2003 Fall

4 More Analysis With Intervention ANOVA of Graduates vs. Non-Graduates (Fall 00 Fall 03 Cohorts, 6-year Graduation): Statistically Significant Findings: Expected Family Contribution: Higher for Graduates (measure of SES?) (p.01) Living Arrangements: Residential Students Graduate at higher rates than Commuters (p.05) First Term GPA: Graduates have.8 higher h GPA after the first term (p.01) Probation Status: Non-Graduates are 3-times more likely to be on Probation after their first term (p.001) Attempted Credits in Second (Spring) Term: Graduates complete more credits in the Fall (non significant) and Spring (p.05) than Non-Graduates Second Term GPA: Graduates have a higher GPA after Spring Term (p.01) Critical Core Course Success: Non-Graduates failed at higher rates in ENGL 1101 and MATH 1111 in their first term (p.001 for both) Cannot control input variables; but can reduce their effect by intervention So, What Are the Roots of the Problem? Analysis points to problems in the first and second year The first term of first year is critical No comprehensive institutional approach to the Failure and withdrawal rates (D, F, W) in some core courses are very high Low Freshman Success Rate (FSR) and First Term GPAs FSR 42.7 % in AY 2006; 51.7 % in AY 2009 First Term GPA = 2.3 So, What Are the Roots of the Problem? (contd.) Low course load leading to extended time to degree Increased in Fall 09 due to special prioritization for core courses For those who graduated, average time to degree has been fairly constant at 12.2 semesters even a slight change would make a big difference Low retention ti and graduation rates of male students t Some policy questions: unlimited and easy withdraw; unlimited retakes; low standards for academic standing; declaration of major; restrictions on admission to major Campus Culture What we are already doing Foundations of Excellence Study of First year (set the stage for RPG Grant and addition of FYPs) Implemented For Everyone Program 97% of all first year students are in some FYP Higher retention rates for those in programs than not Early Intervention (different levels of implementation) Predictive modeling for At-Risk Students (first term) based on pre-college characteristics predicted 75% of outcomes Residential; EFC, HS GPA, Race (AA is a plus), answers on New Student Profile (Finances as Barrier and Difficulty Choosing a Major) New Student Profile -- Direct Intervention and Early Engagement Early Withdraw Intervention (wks 2-6) Early Alert (passive should be required) Success Seminars Academic Warning/Probation Intervention Appointment with Advisor; Academic Warning seminars Fall Cohort FYP Retention Rate FY Program Fall 08 Cohort Retention Rate No FYP Selection 67% Selected but Dropped 63% UWG % Learning Communities 80% Residential Peer Mentoring 74% MAP Mentoring 76% Honors 86% FY Mentoring/iServe 71% Commuter FYP Previously Commuter Retention <60% 65% Overall Retention Rate % What we are already doing RPG Guides: Direct retention and graduation program in each A&S department; meet with parents at Orientation DegreeWorks: Measures progress towards degree Academic Support Centers: Writing Ctr.; Math Lab; Biology Tutoring; EXCEL Center (tutoring, mentoring, advising) Two-Phase Orientation (Summer and Transitions) ( ) Second Year Experience program (Spring 10 initial term) First-Year Commuter program, Commuter Student Association, Commuter Lounge Policy change: Enforced 60 hour rule students must declare a major by their 60 th hour; required intervention if not Policy change: Increased threshold for Academic Good Standing; increased requirement for intervention (challenge/support) 4

5 Metrics Pass rates in core courses Pass rates lower level courses Pass rates upper level courses Successful course completion rates per semester (DFWI) Average student credit hour load per semester Freshmen success rates Retention and Success rates by Program First- and second-year retention rates. First-year retention rates by Programs/Interventions/Services Four-, five-, and six-year graduation rates National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Data What are we going to DO about it? Three-Year Plan: Big Ideas Critical DFW Improvement Strategies Predictive analysis and interventions Institutional Commitments: First-year programs Support: Orientations, Tutoring Centers, RPG Guides, etc. D W k (W lfw t h) Degree Works (Wolf Watch) Center for Teaching & Learning Increase student load per semester Engaging male students Declaring majors by 60 hours; then Departmental ownership Study Institutional Policies and Procedures affecting time to degree Note: The plan will be an evolving one and grow with faculty input. Thank you for all you do. Lt l Let s look more carefully fll at ourselves! What are we missing? 5