Presenters: Pat Estes, Assessment Analyst, PEstes@edgewood.edu Liang Hou, Research Intern, LHou@edgewood.edu

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 yz6@hawaii.edu

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