1. 1 What Works in Student Retention? ACT’s Fourth National Survey on College Retention Dr. Wes Habley Principal Associate Educational Services ACT, Inc.

2. 2

3. 3 Types of Attrition  Expected and Justified realized a goal other than a degree/certificaterealized a goal other than a degree/certificate  Stopping Out not on our timeframenot on our timeframe  Unnecessary and subject to institutional intervention

4. 4RETENTION The process of holding or keeping in one’s possession

5. 5 The process or state of being gradually worn down.ATTRITION Migrant Mother, Dorothea Lange Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division [ reproduction number LC-USF34-9058-C]

6. 6PERSISTENCE To continue to exist or prevail

7. 7 Retention Trends1983-2009 Freshman-Sophomore Year Highest %Lowest %Current % Two-Year Public 53.7 (’08,’09) 51.3 (’04) 53.7 BA/BS Public70.0(’04) 66.4(’96,’05)67.6 MA/MS Public71.6(’06)68.1(’89)69.8 PhD Public78.1(’04)72.9(’08)74.4 Two-year Private72.6(‘92)55.5(’08)55.5 BA/BS Private74.0(’89)69.6(’08)69.9 MA/MS Private78.0(’85)72.3(’08)72.0 PhD Private85.0(’85)80.4(’08)80.6

8. 8 Completion Trends1983-2009 Two-year Colleges – Graduation in 3 years or less Highest %Lowest %Current % Public38.8(’89)27.1(’07)28.3 Private66.4(’90)50.2(’08)51.6 ALL44.0(’89)28.9(’07)30.8

9. 9 Survey Details  Overall responses Mailing: 3360 institutionsMailing: 3360 institutions Usable returns: 1104 (32.9%)Usable returns: 1104 (32.9%)  Community college responses: Mailing: 949 institutionsMailing: 949 institutions 305 usable returns (32.1%)305 usable returns (32.1%)

10. 10 Survey Details Survey sections I.Background II.Retention and degree completion rates III. III. Factors affecting attrition IV. IV. Retention practices V. V. Highest impact programs

11. 11 Section III: Factors affecting attrition  42 factors listed  To what degree does each factor affect attrition at your school 5 = Major affect on attrition5 = Major affect on attrition 4 3 = Moderate affect on attrition3 = Moderate affect on attrition 2 1 = Little or no effect on attrition1 = Little or no effect on attrition

12. 12 Highest Rated Contribution to Attrition  level of student preparation for college-level work (4.3)  student study skills (4.1)  adequacy of personal financial resources (4.1)  level of student commitment to earning a degree (4.0)  level of student motivation to succeed (3.9)  student family responsibilities (3.9)  level of job demands on students (3.8)

13. 13 Highest Rated Contribution to Attrition (continued)  student low socio-economic status (3.8)  amount of financial aid available to students (3.6)  student personal coping skills (3.6)  student educational aspirations and goals (3.6)  level of certainty about career goals (3.5)  level of emotional support from family, friends, and significant others (3.5)  student first-generation status (3.5)

14. 14 Attrition factors: highest % of institutions ranking item 4 or 5  student study skills (80.4%)  level of student preparation for college-level work (79.1%)  adequacy of personal financial resources (76.1%)  level of student commitment to earning a degree (70.8%)  student family responsibilities (68.6%)  level of student motivation to succeed (68.5%)  level of job demands on students (67.3%)  student low socio-economic status (65.5%)

15. 15 Why do we have a problem?  We have….. a beautiful campus a beautiful campus great facilities great facilities a rich set of co-curricular experiences a rich set of co-curricular experiences excellent academic programs excellent academic programs an outstanding faculty an outstanding faculty

16. 16 The problem must be that we have the…. WRONG STUDENTS

17. 17 Lowest Rated Contribution to Attrition  ratio of loans to other forms of financial aid (2.8)  student peer group interaction (2.7)  student access to needed courses in the appropriate sequence (2.6)  level of intellectual stimulation or challenge for students (2.6)  relevancy of curricula (2.6)  commuting/living off-campus (2.5)  student physical health issues (2.3)

18. 18 Lowest Rated Contribution to Attrition (continued)  extracurricular programs (2.2)  cultural activities (2.1)  distance from students' permanent homes (2.1)  rules and regulations governing student behavior (2.1)  campus safety and security (1.9)  residence hall facilities (1.5)  programs to support students' transition to residence hall living (1.4)

19. 19 Attrition factors: lowest % of institutions ranking item 4 or 5  extracurricular programs (10.9%)  campus safety and security (9.5%)  rules and regulations governing student behavior (8.2%)  cultural activities (7.8%)  residence hall facilities (7.3%)  programs to support students' transition to residence hall living (3.2%)

20. 20 John Gardner comments…. It is disturbing to note….that in spite of all we know about student retention that institutions are still inclined to hold students responsible for their retention/attrition while dramatically minimizing the institutional role in student retention.

21. 21

22. 22 Section IV – Retention Interventions  92 identified retention practices  2 wild cards  Two sub-sections: Is this intervention offered? (yes or no)Is this intervention offered? (yes or no) If it is offered, rate the contribution to retentionIf it is offered, rate the contribution to retention  Five-point Rating Scale 5 = Major Contribution to Retention5 = Major Contribution to Retention 4 3 = Moderate Contribution to Retention3 = Moderate Contribution to Retention 2 1 = Little or no contribution to Retention1 = Little or no contribution to Retention

23. 23 Section IV – Retention Interventions  Intervention clusters First-year transition programs (8 items)First-year transition programs (8 items) Academic advising (15)Academic advising (15) Assessment (9)Assessment (9) Career Planning and Placement (6)Career Planning and Placement (6) Learning Assistance/Academic Support (19)Learning Assistance/Academic Support (19) Mentoring (4)Mentoring (4) Faculty Development (7)Faculty Development (7) Financial Aid (3)Financial Aid (3) Co-curricular Services/Programs for specific sub- populations (10)Co-curricular Services/Programs for specific sub- populations (10) Other activities/programs (10)Other activities/programs (10)

24. 24 Highest rated mean interventions  reading center/lab (4.1)  comprehensive learning assistance center/lab (4.1)  tutoring (4.1)  mandated placement of students in courses based on test scores (4.1)  remedial/developmental coursework (required) (4.1)

25. 25 Highest rated mean interventions (continued)  increased number of academic advisors (4.0)  writing center/lab (4.0)  mathematics center/lab (4.0)  first-generation students (4.0)  advising interventions with selected student populations (3.9)  academic advising center (3.9)

26. 26 Lowest Rated Mean Interventions  fraternities/sororities ( 2.4)  recognition/rewards for non-faculty academic advisors (2.6)  recognition/rewards for faculty academic advisors (2.6)  degree guarantee program (2.8)  freshman interest groups (FIGS) (2.9)

27. 27 Lowest Rated Mean Interventions  enhanced/modified faculty reward system (3.0)  gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender students (3.0)  health and wellness course/program (3.0)  residence hall programs (3.0)

28. 28 Combining Percentage of Use with Item Means Top one-thirdMiddle one-thirdLowest one-third Highest rated items Lowest rated items Percentage of Institutions offering a specific intervention (INCIDENCE)

29. 29 This is not rocket science! This is not rocket science!

30. 30 GOOD BET: Highest ratings in top third of usage  comprehensive learning assistance center/lab (4.1)  tutoring (4.1)  mandated placement of students in courses based on test scores (4.1)  remedial/developmental coursework (required) (4.1)  writing center/lab (4.0)  mathematics center/lab (4.0)  advising interventions with selected student populations (3.9)  academic advising center (3.9)  supplemental instruction (3.8)

31. 31 CONSIDER: Highest Ratings in middle third of usage  reading center/lab (4.1)  increased number of academic advisors (4.0)  first-generation students (4.0)  recommended placement of students in courses based on test scores (3.9)  remedial/developmental coursework (recommended) (3.8)  international students (3.7)  diagnostic academic skills assessment (3.7)  racial/ethnic minority students (3.7)  freshman seminar/university 101 (credit) (3.7)

32. 32 SLEEPER: Highest ratings and bottom third of usage  integration of advising with first-year transition programs (3.9)  organized student study groups (3.8)  extended freshman orientation (credit) (3.7)  foreign language center/lab (3.7)  peer mentoring (3.7)  staff mentoring (3.6)

33. 33 DATA - !%&#!%*&&@! BORING!

34. 34 Section V: Top 3 Interventions mandated placement of students in courses based on test scores - 36% tutoring - 22% remedial/developmental coursework (required) - 20% comprehensive learning assistance center/lab 4% academic advising center - 12%

35. 35 Section V: Top 3 Interventions early warning system - 12%early warning system - 12% freshman seminar/university 101 (credit) – 10%freshman seminar/university 101 (credit) – 10% summer orientation - 10%summer orientation - 10% training for faculty academic advisors - 10%training for faculty academic advisors - 10% 40 interventions between 1% and 9% 43 interventions not mentioned at all

36. 36 Top Four Clusters Learning Assistance/Academic Support Assessment Academic Advising Programs/Services for specific student sub-populations

37. 37 Comparing Attrition Factors  Top quartile first to second year retention rate (high performers) v. bottom quartile first to second year retention rates (low performers) High = 69 institutions Low = 70 institutions  All contributions to attrition rated 3.5 or higher  Differential between high and low performers of.2 or greater

38. 38 High/Low Attrition Differences ITEM  level of student preparation for college- level work  level of student commitment to earning a degree  student personal coping skills HIGH LOW 4.1 4.4 3.8 4.1 3.4 3.6

39. 39 Comparing Intervention Practices  Top quartile first to second year retention rate (high performers) v. bottom quartile first to second year retention rate (low performers) High = 69 institutions Low = 70 institutions  Included only items with a mean > 3.6 for all community colleges  High performer incidence rate > 10% above low performer incidence rate

40. 40 High/Low Intervention Differences Intervention High Low  reading center/lab 61% 48%  comprehensive learning assistance center/lab 81% 70%  increased number of academic 44% 32% advisors  integration of advising with first-year transition programs 43% 28%  remedial/developmental coursework 51% 37%

41. 41 High/Low Intervention Differences Intervention High Low  pre-enrollment financial aid 93% 77% advising  diagnostic academic skills 69% 41% assessment  racial/ethnic minority students 63% 41%  center(s) that integrates advising with career/life planning 61% 45%  staff mentoring 29% 18%

42. 42

43. 43 What Works in Student Retention? ACT’s Fourth National Survey on College Retention