Understanding the path to graduatj tjon Catherine F. Andersen & Thomas N. Kluwin Gallaudet University
Understanding the “Path to graduatjon” • This presentatjon covers – Need for a unifying concept for retentjon to graduatjon – Concept of a path – Defjning the turning points on the path – Uses of assessment to monitor the path
Need for a unifying concept: Improve retentjon and six year graduatjon rates Gallaudet University’s situatjon in 2007 First Return Return 100% 80% 65% 35% 28% Fall Enter Major Graduatjon Semester 2 Year 2 Enrollment • Total Credits • GPA above 2.5 • Atuendance • ENG 101 Course Taken Patuern • GPA above • ACT below 16 Passage • Department Course 2.75 • Credits taken • Course Passage toward • ACT 18 or above Passage graduatjon Path to Graduatjon
Need for a unifying concept: Aspiratjonal goal for 2015 How do we get to Gallaudet’s long term goals in an organized fashion? First Return Return 100% 90% 75% 65% 50% Fall Enter Major Graduate Semester 2 Year 2 Enrollment First Return Return 100% 80% 65% 35% 28% Fall Enter Major Graduatjon Semester 2 Year 2 Enrollment
Need for a unifying concept: Focus on the student Professional Any student moves along a path Communitjes defjned by overlapping demands Standards Gallaudet University Prospectjve Novice Professional Student or Graduate Educatjon Personal Communitjes We need to wed our operatjons to Support the reality of the student’s experience.
What is a path? • Path to graduatjon • Path has should include – Life goal – Goal, therefore directjon – Turning points – Key transitjon points – Assessments for – Guideposts or markers monitoring progress
What is a path?: A path is NOT a laundry list • Most universitjes take a direct but disorganized approach to improving retentjon to graduatjon • Some of Western Michigan’s response (htup://www.wmich.edu/provost/icss/plans/retentjon.html; downloaded 4/9/2010) • College will appoint an recruitment and retentjon facilitator • Efgorts will be made to improve advising through the offjce of the Director of Advising. • The College will endeavor to eliminate botuleneck courses with initjal efgorts directed at Chemistry and Math courses with partjcular focus on Engineering students and issues. • Senior professors will be invited to teach fjrst and second year courses-logic being that these professors are among our best teachers and researchers. • The College will endeavor to be more student-friendly. Chairs and directors will be encouraged to regularly communicate to all personnel the importance of conveying a positjve attjtude. • Efgorts will be made to communicate the good news about student achievement • The College will expand student research opportunitjes with faculty. • College will sponsor events targeted at student retentjon. For example, an event entjtled “Major Excitement” will occur during Homecoming week and is designed as an academic fair and informatjon session with faculty members. • Faculty and stafg will engage in “Walkouts” or visits with students in informal sessions-get betuer acquainted and promote programs. • Faculty will go the “extra mile” to improve student classroom success. ” • Bland generalitjes or wishful thinking do not produce results
What is a path?: Roadmap versus Path • Many instjtutjons ofger some degree of specifjc directjon at the level of the individual student – Fresno Pacifjc University charts earned credits to keep undergraduates on track to graduatjon – CSUN ofgers specifjc roadmaps for students. – Cazenovia College has a system halfway betwee n personal roadmaps and traditjonal requireme nt lists. – UC Santa Barbara has a “faux” path in that they have re-packaged traditjonal lists of requirem ents. • A roadmap is just one aid on the path to graduatjon • Gallaudet’s concept is a comprehensive instjtutjon wide system for supportjng
Why a path? • Previous research argues for more than one critjcal juncture in an undergraduate’s journey towards a completed degree • (Desjardins et al., 2002; Gansemer-Topf & Schuh, 2003; Glynn & Miller, 2002) • ACT recommends a “integrated” approach based on its extensive research efgorts. • “ Take an integrated approach in their retentj tjon efg fgorts that incorporates both academic and non-academic factors into the design and development of programs to create a socially inclusive and supportj tjve academic environment that addresses the social, emotj tjonal, and academic needs of students.” ( www.act.org/research/policy/index.html, downloaded 4/10/2010) • The path concept is a rallying point for disconnected campus efgorts while re-focusing an instjtutjonal commitment to betuer student services • Faculty remember why they are here in the fjrst place • Stafg have an important and specifjc role • Administrators have a clear roadmap for making decisions such as allocatjng resources.
Research basis for points along a path: College students’ needs change over tjme Predictors of retentjon and graduatjon Predictors of retentjon and graduatjon Semester 1 Semester 2 Year 2 Enter major Expectancy for success (Hu Academic self-effjcacy Expectancy for success Career motjvatjon (Conrad & Kuh, 2002) (Dennis et al., 2008) (Antonio, 2004; Robertson et al., 2009; Li et al.,2008) & Taylor, 2009) Personal/career motjvatjon Atuachment to college Sense of school belonging Career knowledge (Legutko, for atuending college friends (Antonio, 2004; (Fruge & Ropers-Hamilton, 2007; Walstrom et al., (Dennis et al., 2008) Swenson et al., 2008) 2008; Pituman & 2008) Richmond, 2007) Intrinsic goal orientatjon Current friendship quality Stabilizatjon of a career (Hu & Kuh, 2002) (Antonio, 2004; Swenson et choice (Gohn et al., 2000) al., 2008) High school friendship Emotjonal stability quality (Antonio, 2004; (Pritchard & Wilson, 2003) Swenson et al., 2008) Work drive (Ridgell & Student plans and Lounsbury, 2004) intentjons (Polinsky, 2002)
Research basis for points along a path • Instjtutjonal inputs have difgerentjal impacts – No one trait or point on the path predicts success • (Desjardins et al., 2002; Gansemer-Topf & Schuh, 2003; Glynn & Miller, 2002) – A high quality fjrst year experience improves GPA’s and the likelihood of graduatjng. • (Bureau &Romrey, 1994; Conner &Colton, 1999; Jacobs & Archie, 2008; Noble et al., 2007) – Academic support such as supplemental instructjon and guidance can impact GPA, retentjon, and graduatjon rates • (Gansemer-Topf & Schuh, 2003; Turner & Berry, 2000) – Undergraduates can recruit other students into majors as well as support them to graduatjon • (Koch & Kayworth, 2009).
A college career has necessary requirements • Without the path, necessary academic requirements become hoops, hurdles, or worse barriers to graduatjon • Thinking along the path, necessary academic requirements become turning points where we can guide students toward their fjnal goal.
Turning points are not all the same • Predictjve points – If a student or an entjre cohort of students is at this point in their career where will they be in 2 or 3 years? • Formatjve points – Is the student or an entjre cohort of students moving along the path according to plan? • Summatjve points – Did we succeed in moving students along the path.
Predictjve turning points • Currently at Gallaudet, we have some useful predictjve points – If 90% to 95% of fjrst tjme freshmen return for a second semester, 70% to 75% will return for a second year. – The number of chronologically and credit defjned sixth semester juniors in a cohort in a major tjmes .9 gives us an estjmate of our 6 year graduatjon rate 3 years out.
Formatjve Turning Points: Early Alert data • Betuer class atuendance – Second semester retained fjrst tjme freshmen average 3 instructor reported course cuts versus 5 for leavers • Less ofuen referred for problems – Second semester retained fjrst tjme freshmen average 5 Starfjsh referrals versus 7 for leavers – Second semester retained fjrst tjme freshmen half as likely to be recommended for tutoring
Summatjve turning points: Mid-year indicators for First Time Freshme n (FTF) 12.3 12 10.3 11 10 8.3 9 6.3 8 7 4.3 6 2.3 5 0.3 4 Fall,2006 Fall,2007 Fall,2008 Fall,2009 Fall, 2010 Fall,2006 Fall,2007 Fall,2008 Fall,2009 Fall, 2010
The path clarifjes stafg responsibility • Service & support unit mission statements are re-formulated in terms of student learning • Service & support units are assessed on the basis of – Student learning outcomes • New Gallaudet Academic Advising SLO – “Students will identjfy and utjlize resources independently to evaluate their progress toward degree completjon. “ – Measured by frequency of "hits" on career builder sofuware – Efgectjveness of moving students along path • Academic Advising efgectjveness goal – “Academic Advising supports and facilitates undergraduate students’ transitjon and integratjon into college “ – Indicator is percent of cohort movement to major by sixth semester at Gallaudet – Effjciency of unit operatjons • Academic Advising – “Academic Advising makes optjmal use of available resources “ – One indicator is raised classroom instructjonal issues by resolutjon rate and tjme to resolve
Recommend
More recommend
