Where Does It Hurt? Using Coordinating Board Data to Identify and Improve Real Retention Problems

Where Does It Hurt?Using Coordinating Board Data to Identify and Improve Real Retention Problems

Thomas K. Martin, Ph.D.Collin County Community College District

and

David M. Bailey, Ph.D.Tyler Junior College

College Station, Texas

February 24-27, 2004

26th Annual Conference of the

Texas Association for Institutional Research

Student Retention Defined

• “Retention” has many meanings: e.g., persistence to degree/certificate attainment, persistence to educational goal attainment, persistence from term-to-term, course completion, etc.

• For purposes of this presentation, “retention” is discussed within the context of course completion.

• Operationally, “retention” refers to students who were enrolled in courses on a given term’s census date who were still enrolled on the last day of the term.

• “Retention rate” refers to the proportion of students who were enrolled at the end of a given term relative to the number enrolled on the term’s census date as reported on the CBM-004 and the CBM-006.

Conceptual Model of Course Completion

Course Completion

Examples of InputsCollege Readiness (+)

Commitment (+)Time Conflicts (-)

Quality of Instruction (+)Educational Goals (+/-)

Examples of OutputsProgram Completion (+)

Baccalaureate Attainment (+)Successful Employment (+)

Time to Completion (-)Student Satisfaction (+)

1

2

3

n

Inputs

1

2

3

n

Outputs

Literature Review

• How do things affect course completion? (David)

• How does course completion affect subsequent student outcomes? (Tom)

How do things affectcourse completion?

• Transfer and Retention of Urban Community College Students (LACCD)

• 5000 student transcripts, from Fall 2000 to Winter 2002– 11% of all Census Day registrations were dropped by

first-time students during their first semester– 32% of first-time students enrolled after Census Day

dropped at least one course during their first semester– 77% of all students dropped at least one course

during those three semesters.

How do things affectcourse completion? (2 of 5)

• Transfer and Retention of Urban Community College Students (LACCD)

Type of Course:Students who dropped at least one course after Census Day during the three semesters of the study

– 26% of students in English courses dropped– 38% of students in Math courses dropped– 14% of students in Remedial courses dropped– 65% of students in Transfer courses dropped– 34% of students in Occupational courses dropped


• Transfer and Retention of Urban Community College Students (LACCD)– No relationship between race, gender, or

cultural origin and dropping– No relationship between expectations of

earning a college degree and dropping.– No relationship between enrollment at multiple

campuses and dropping.


• Transfer and Retention of Urban Community College Students (LACCD)– Strong relationship between number of courses

enrolled and courses dropped.– Married students were less likely to drop courses than

unmarried students.– Curvilinear relationship between number of hours

worked and courses dropped:• Students without jobs and students with full-time

jobs were less likely to drop.


• Transfer and Retention of Urban Community College Students (LACCD)– Strong curvilinear relationship between rate of course

drops in first semester and persistence into second semester:

• Persistence rate high for students who completed all courses and for students who dropped 1 or 2 courses.

• Persistence rate for those who dropped 3 or more courses was 20-25% lower.

How does course completion affect subsequent student outcomes?

• Virginia Community College System Study– Tracked fall 1989 entering students through

June 1992– Selected Findings:

• The college’s location, and the student’s major, and course load had stronger relationships with program completion than did age, race, or gender.

• Students who initially enrolled full-time were 5 times more likely to graduate than part-timers.

• Colleges with large numbers of part-time students had lower graduation rates even after 7 years.

Course Completion and Subsequent Student Outcomes (2 of 6)

• While the Virginia Study doesn’t directly address the effects of course completion on subsequent student outcomes, a few things can be inferred if these relationships are causal.– The more courses from which a student withdraws,

the lighter the student’s load; hence, the less likely the student may be to complete a program.

– The more courses from which a student withdraws, the more likely the student is to be a part-timer; hence, the less likely the student may be to graduate.


• Prince George’s Community College (Maryland) developed a typology to study outcomes in two-year open enrollment institutions

• Defined “achievers” as students who:– Transferred after receiving an award– Transferred with no award– Received an award, but did not transfer– Attained sophomore status in good standing

• Study was based on students who entered in fall 1990 and were tracked for 4 years.

• Students most likely to become achievers were those with stated transfer motives, were non-developmental students, averaged 9+ credit hours per major term, and pursued core transfer or technical professional degree programs.


• Other than the California, Virginia, and Maryland studies, not finding much research literature, so far, on how course completion affects subsequent student outcomes.

• It appears that educators take as axiomatic the notion that successful course completion leads to positive outcomes.

• Consequently, research appears to have focused on things that affect course completion.


• Reasonable Assumptions?– One could reasonably assume a negative relationship

between course completion and time to program completion.

– One could reasonably assume a positive relationship between course completion and educational goal attainment.

• However, one can’t say anything conclusive even about these “reasonable assumptions” since there appears to be little, if any, empirical research that examines the mechanisms underlying these assumed relationships.


• While educators make assumptions about the effects of course completion on subsequent student outcomes, what do we really know about the relationships? For example,– Do students who withdraw from courses make up for

the lost time by enrolling in extra courses in subsequent semesters?

– Can our data on why students withdraw from courses tell us anything about subsequent student behavior or are the data so unreliable as to render them useless?

Coordinating BoardRetention Data

atCollin County

Community College District

THECBRaw Course Completion Data

SPSS Syntax File

SPSS System File

Fall 2000-2002CCCCD-TexasComparison

Coordinating BoardRetention Data

atTyler Junior College

TYLER JUNIOR COLLEGECourse Completion Rate

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002Fall Semester

Perc

ent

of C

onta

ct H

ours

Com

plet

ed

Average, Texas Colleges

SOURCE: LBB Performance Measures

TYLER JUNIOR COLLEGECourse Completion Rate

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002Fall Semester

Perc

ent

of C

onta

ct H

ours

Com

plet

ed

Average, Texas Colleges

Tyler J unior College

SOURCE: LBB Performance Measures

TYLER JUNIOR COLLEGECourse Completion Rate – Program-Level View

Fall 2002 Completion Rate _______________________ Census TJC State Diff Day Betw Contact Pct Pct TJC &TJC Program Hours Compl Compl State____________________ ________ _____ _____ _____Biology 205,056 .70 .79 -.10Agriculture 2,144 .98 .93 .05Chemistry 40,304 .68 .77 -.10Engineering 1,408 .84 .83 .01Geology 17,088 .85 .84 .01Physics 21,792 .70 .79 -.09Health Studies 64,176 .83 .85 -.02Journalism 4,944 .93 .81 .12English 169,872 .79 .82 -.03etc.

SOURCE: THECB. Course Completion Rates by CIP. 80.3% 83.6%







TYLER JUNIOR COLLEGECourse Completion Rate -- Program-Level View


SOURCE: THECB. Course Completion Rates by CIP.

TYLER JUNIOR COLLEGECourse Completion RateCollege Preparatory Programs

Fall 2002 Completion Rate _______________________ Census TJC State Diff Day Betw Contact Pct Pct TJC &TJC Program Hours Compl Compl State____________________ ________ _____ _____ _____

College Prep Math 155,979 .84 .82 .01College Prep Reading 70,176 .82 .86 -.04 & English

College Mathematics 96,176 .66 .74 -.08College English 169,872 .79 .82 -.03Government 66,816 .83 .84 -.02History 89,328 .77 .81 -.05Psychology 59,424 .82 .84 -.02


TYLER JUNIOR COLLEGECourse Completion Rate -- Program-Level View



TYLER JUNIOR COLLEGECourse Completion RateBIOLOGY by CIP Code

Fall 2002 Completion Rate _________________ Census TJC State Diff 6-Digit Day Betw CIP Contact Pct Pct TJC & NbrCIP Classification Title Code Hours Compl Compl State CTCs______________________________ _______ ________ _____ _____ _____ ____environmental science/studies 30102 16,128 .91 .87 .04 41biology, general 260101 52,416 .80 .79 .01 69botany, general 260301 6,000 .77 .82 -.05 28microbiology/bacteriology 260501 15,168 .77 .84 -.07 67genetics, plant & animal 260613 1,440 .80 .79 .01 7zoology, general 260701 12,576 .80 .81 -.01 28physiology, human & animal 260706 101,328 .58 .77 -.19 72

Biology (All CIP codes) 205,056 .70 .79 -.10










TYLER JUNIOR COLLEGECourse Completion RateComparison with Other Community Colleges

physiology, human & animalCIP = 260706Fall 2002 Census End of Day Semester Contact Contact PctSchool Hours Hours Compl___________________________________ ________ ________ _____South Texas Community College 61,056 60,576 .99Vernon Regional Junior College 13,440 13,056 .97Western Texas College 6,832 6,608 .97Texas Southmost College 27,648 25,632 .93Northeast Texas Comm College 8,544 7,872 .92...NHMCCCD North Harris College 43,968 27,552 .63San Jacinto College North Campus 16,800 10,464 .62DCCCD Mountain View College 2,208 1,344 .61Tyler Junior College 101,328 58,656 .58


TYLER JUNIOR COLLEGECourse Completion RateComparison with Other Community Colleges

physiology, human & animalCIP = 260706Fall 2002 Census End of Day Semester Contact Contact PctSchool Hours Hours Compl___________________________________ ________ ________ _____Houston Community College 129,024 100,992 .78Tyler Junior College 101,328 58,656 .58Austin Community College 100,416 74,016 .74San Antonio College 82,464 57,312 .69St. Philip's College 71,712 56,224 .78Amarillo College 63,936 47,344 .74South Texas Community College 61,056 60,576 .99Del Mar College 58,992 48,048 .81Tarrant Northeast Campus 58,000 37,600 .65San Jacinto College Central Campus 54,240 37,632 .69etc.


TYLER JUNIOR COLLEGECourse Completion RateCourse Roster

CIP = 2607065103Fall 2002 Census Comple Percent Instructr Instr Day tion Diff Diff Complete Section ID Type Enroll Enroll Enroll Hours (Hours) ______________ _________ ______ ______ ______ ______ _____ ________BIOL 2401 BIOL 2401 00 000000000 Lect 38 20 18 864 52.63% BIOL 2401 00 000000000 Lect 38 23 15 720 60.53% BIOL 2401 00 000000000 Lect 37 20 17 816 54.05% BIOL 2401 00 000000000 Lect 37 22 15 720 59.46% . . . 2402 BIOL 2402 00 111111111 Lect 42 22 20 960 52.38% BIOL 2402 00 222222222 Lect 41 21 20 960 51.22% BIOL 2402 00 333333333 Lect 32 24 8 384 75.00% . . . 2404 BIOL 2404 00 444444444 Lect 86 51 35 1680 59.30% BIOL 2404 00 444444444 Lect 80 40 40 1920 50.00% BIOL 2404 00 444444444 Lect 89 66 23 1104 74.16% . . .

SOURCE: CBM004 & CBM006 Reports.

TYLER JUNIOR COLLEGECourse Completion RateCourse Roster

CIP = 2607065103Fall 2002 Census Comple Percent Instructr Instr Day tion Diff Diff Complete Section ID Type Enroll Enroll Enroll Hours (Hours) ______________ _________ ______ ______ ______ ______ _____ ________BIOL 2401 BIOL 2401 00 000000000 Lect 38 20 18 864 52.63% BIOL 2401 00 000000000 Lect 38 23 15 720 60.53% BIOL 2401 00 000000000 Lect 37 20 17 816 54.05% BIOL 2401 00 000000000 Lect 37 22 15 720 59.46% . . . 2402 BIOL 2402 00 111111111 Lect 42 22 20 960 52.38% BIOL 2402 00 222222222 Lect 41 21 20 960 51.22% BIOL 2402 00 333333333 Lect 32 24 8 384 75.00% . . . 2404 BIOL 2404 00 444444444 Lect 86 51 35 1680 59.30% BIOL 2404 00 444444444 Lect 80 40 40 1920 50.00% BIOL 2404 00 444444444 Lect 89 66 23 1104 74.16% . . .

SOURCE: CBM004 & CBM006 Reports.

A New Resourcefrom the THECB

STUDENT RETENTION REPORTfor Public Community, State and Technical

Colleges of Texas

Sample of Entire Report found athttp://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/pdf/0689.pdf

Questions and Follow-Up

To contact Tom [email protected]

972-758-3817

To contact David [email protected]

Documents

Where Does It Hurt? Using Coordinating Board Data to Identify and Improve Real Retention Problems