EXPLORING REASONS WHY UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS LEFT ESU: SPRING 2014 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

EXPLORING REASONS WHY UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS LEFT ESU: SPRING 2014 – SPRING 2016 Report Prepared for the Provost, August 2016 Andrew Scott Ziner, Ph.D. Director of Assessment and Accreditation Office of Institutional Effectiveness, Planning and Assessment East Stroudsburg University

OBJECTIVES OF TODAY’S PRESENTATION • Identify reasons why students left ESU found through Banner codes over a four- and six-year time frame • Expand our understanding of why students leave ESU by merging 2016 Campus Experience Survey of Undergraduates (CESU) with Banner data (by student ID) to explore additional factors that significantly contribute to why students leave based on current data on those who left • Provide a series of open-ended (qualitative) responses from students who recently left ESU about why they would probably-to-definitely not enroll again at ESU

Reasons Why Undergraduate Students Left ESU: An Introduction This data inset (n=5251) covers terms between the • fall 2012 and spring 2016 • Excluded (removed) are all students who left ESU due to their graduation and all students who left ESU and returned after at least one semester Each category is created from Banner codes • (Banner is ESU’s System of Record) The top three reasons why students left ESU: • 1. No Reason Given (39.7%) 2. Transferred to 2-Year College (38.8%) 3. Transferred to 4-Year College (14.1%) Question: Will these “reasons” vary over time? We’ll now recast the same data across the past • five semesters at ESU (i.e., Spring 2014 – Spring 2016) and see if any pattern emerges 1

Reasons Why Undergraduate Students Left ESU, Spring 2014 – Spring 2016 • Percentages are calculated across each semester to total 100% While the reasons why students left ESU varies, the three previously cited codes dominate over time: “No • Reason Given” (41%, Spg 2014), “Transferred to 2-Year College” (39.8%, Fall 2014), “No Reason Given” (41.7%, Spg 2015), “Transferred to 2-Year College” (40.9%, Fall 2015), and “No Reason Given” (45.5%, Spg 2016) 2

Q: For the students who left ESU and fall in the “No Reason Given” and “Transfer to another 2- or 4-Year Institution” categories, how can we expand our understanding of why they left ESU? A: Link Banner Data with the 2016 Campus Experience Survey of Undergraduates (CESU) to examine how these students’ academic experiences and circumstances contribute to reasons for leaving ESU. 3

Expanding Our Understanding of Why Students Left ESU: Linking Banner Data with the 2016 Campus Experience Survey of Undergraduates (CESU) • T o more fully understand why students left ESU, Banner data was merged with the 2016 CESU by student ID. The 2016 CESU was administered by the OIEPA in the late spring to all undergraduates (sample=1069) • Among the many areas CESU examined were students’ satisfaction with Academic Programs, Academic Services Designed for Student Success, Student Services, Non-Classroom Experiences, including Living On and Off Campus and, most relevant to this analysis: • Whether students would select ESU if they had the chance to do it all over again • Reasons (qualitative) why students would not select ESU the second time around • The remaining focus of this presentation is on the subset of students in the Banner data set who also participated in the 2016 CESU 4

Expanding Our Understanding of Why Students Left ESU: Linking Banner Data with the 2016 Campus Experience Survey of Undergraduates (CESU) Students who completed the 2016 CESU prior to leaving ESU were asked, “If you had to do it over, would you enroll again at ESU? The following five results were found to be statistically significant: 1. Students who reported they would not choose to enroll again had significantly higher total credits earned than students who reported they would enroll again. 2. Students who reported they would not choose to enroll again had significantly higher term balances owed to ESU than students who reported they would enroll again. 5

Expanding Our Understanding of Why Students Left ESU: Linking Banner Data with the 2016 Campus Experience Survey of Undergraduates (CESU) 3. Students who reported they would not choose to enroll again had significantly lower satisfaction with academic programs and/or services than students who reported they would enroll again. 4. Students who reported they would not choose to enroll again were significantly more likely to disagree-to-strongly disagree that ESU offered enough campus-based opportunities for them to be socially involved than students who reported they would enroll again. 5. Students who reported they would not choose to enroll again were significantly more likely to state they would not recommend ESU to prospective students than students who reported they would enroll again. 6

Expanding Our Understanding of Why Students Left ESU: Linking Banner Data with the 2016 Campus Experience Survey of Undergraduates (CESU) Students who completed the 2016 CESU prior to leaving ESU also were asked about their overall level of satisfaction with ESU’s academic programs and/or services. The following results were found to be statistically significant: Students who reported they were dissatisfied-to- very dissatisfied with ESU’s academic programs and/or services had … 1. Significantly higher GPAs than students who reported they were satisfied-to-very satisfied with academic programs and/or services at ESU. 2. Significantly higher balances due for the term than students who reported they were satisfied-to- very satisfied with academic programs and/or services at ESU. 7

Expanding Our Understanding of Why Students Left ESU: Linking Banner Data with the 2016 Campus Experience Survey of Undergraduates (CESU) Students who completed the 2016 CESU prior to leaving ESU also were asked if they’d recommend ESU to prospective students. The following results were found to be statistically significant: Students who reported they would probably-to-definitely not recommend ESU to prospective students had a significantly higher balance due for the term than students who reported they would probably-to-definitely recommend ESU to prospective students. 8

Exploring Qualitative Responses in the 2016 CESU Provided by Students Who Left ESU Finally, students who completed the 2016 CESU prior to leaving ESU offered a wide range of open- ended responses as to why they would probably-to-definitely not enroll again at ESU. The following are highlights from qualitative responses found in the investigation: • “Classes not really spread throughout the day, most are mornings and early mornings which leads to schedule conflicts with other classes.” (Student #221) • “Workers in the financial aid office are rude in person and over the phone, cafeteria workers can be somewhat rude at times, and many professors are cold and unhelpful when you try to ask for help” (Student #242) • “You're on your own here, I never felt like anyone whether it was staff or professors actually cared about what was going on. If I'm paying for you to teach me or to be there, I expect respect” (Student #394) • “Just the fact that so many current students don't have any where to stay next semester” (Student #889) 9

Exploring Qualitative Responses in the 2016 CESU Provided by Students Who Left ESU (Continued) “Not enough diversity” (Student #495) • “Faculty and staff need to be more oriented to help the students become well-rounded • individuals instead of only helping the students who bring it to their attention, not every student knows who to go to for certain help” (Student #1,056) “Registration, Financial Aid, and Parking!” (Student #726) • “You should have your faculty actually care about the students instead of just going through the • motions” (Student #45) “Some classes are offered only once a year” (Student #645) • “Housing is terrible and over priced” (Student #844) • 10