The Tension between Student Persistence and Institutional Retention: An Examination of the Relationship between First-Semester GPA and Student Progression Rates of First-Time Students (Session 529)

Braden J. Hosch, Ph.D.Director of Institutional Research & Assessment

Central Connecticut State University, New Britain, CThoschbrj@ccsu.edu

Association for Institutional Research Annual ForumSeattle, WA

May 26, 2008

This presentation is online at http://www.ccsu.edu/oira/research

Overview

The Relationship Between First-Semester GPA and Graduation and Retention Rates of Full-Time, First-Time Students (And two brief caveats)

The National Picture – Data from CSRDE

Case Study – Central Connecticut State U.

Conclusions and Implications

Major Findings

First-semester grade point average of full-time first-time students is: very predictive of graduation and retention rates this relationship is underreported

Implications Students who perform well stay and graduate,

students who do not perform well tend to depart Corollary: students get out of their education what

they put into it

Caveats

GPA is not just about academic performance, but also encompasses factors such as Preparation Effort Commitment Emotional adjustment Social integration Financial stability Etc.

Institutions should not be let off the hook for improving: Instructional quality Integration of co-

curricular activities Student contact with

faculty and staff Ineffective policies

and procedures

CSRDE Study

Consortium for the Study of Retention Data Exchange (CSRDE) collects institution-reported data about progress and graduation rates of full-time, first-time students

Data for cohort entering in 2000 published in 2007.

Institutions with incomplete data excluded Institutions reporting <3% of entering cohort

earning first semester GPA<2.0 excluded

CSRDE Institutions Included in Study Population

ControlInstitutional Type Private (N) Public (N) Total (N) % of Total

Baccalaureate 15 20 35 11%

Master's 45 105 150 48%

Doctoral 11 112 123 39%

Other 4 3 7 2%

Total 75 240 315

Percent of Total 24% 76%

Institutional Success Rates by First Semester GPA

3% to 10%(N=56)

11% to 20%(N=155)

21% to 30%(N=82)

31% and higher(N=22)

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

82% 76% 72% 65%65%53% 45%

33%

One-Year Retention Rate (Mean) Six-Year Graduation Rate (Mean)

Proportion of Cohort Earning 1st Sem. GPA < 2.0

Me

an

Pc

t R

eta

ine

d o

r G

rad

ua

ted

Error bars represent +/- one standard deviationSource: 2006-07 CSRDE Retention Report

Scatterplot of Institutions and Retention Rates

N = 315 institutions, DF= 2, SSE = 1.76, SE = 0.075, p < 0.001; Excludes institutions reporting less than 3% of the full-time, first-time cohort earned a first semester GPA below 2.0, on the basis that these institutions are not representative of most post-secondary institutions. Data source (CSRDE, 2007)

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

First Semester GPA Below 2.0

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

RetnRateControl

PrivatePublic

ControlPrivatePublic

RetnRate = 0.858 - 0.575*Below2.0R2 = 0.255

Scatterplot of Institutions and Graduation Rates

N = 315 institutions, DF= 2, SSE = 5.16, SE = 0.128763, p < 0.001. Excludes institutions reporting less than 3% of the full-time, first-time cohort earned a first semester GPA below 2.0, on the basis that these institutions are not representative of most post-secondary institutions. Data source (CSRDE, 2007)

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

First Semester GPA Below 2.0

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

GradRate

ControlPrivatePublic

ControlPrivatePublic

GradRate = 0.719 -1.14*Below2.0R2= 0.315

Univariate Regression Models

*** Significant at p<0.001

Institutional One-Year Retention Rate(Adj. R2=0.255) β S.E. t Sig.Constant 0.858 0.011 80.04 ***

Percent of cohort with first semester GPA < 2.0 -0.576 0.055 -10.41 ***

Institutional Six-Year Graduation Rate(Adj. R2=0.315) β S.E. t Sig.Constant 0.719 0.018 39.22 ***

Percent of cohort with first semester GPA < 2.0 -1.141 0.095 -12.05 ***

Multivariate Regression Models

institutional control was not significant for graduation rates in a stepwise regression* Significant at p<0.05; *** Significant at p<0.001

Institutional One-Year Retention Rate (Adj. R2=0.367) β S.E. t Sig.Constant 0.872 0.012 73.29 ***Percent of cohort with first semester GPA < 2.0 -0.576 0.055 -10.41 ***Baccalaureate institution -0.073 0.014 -5.36 ***Master’s institution -0.044 0.009 -5.10 ***Public control 0.022 0.010 2.17 *

Institutional Six-Year Graduation Rate (Adj. R2=0.380) β S.E. t Sig.Constant 0.758 0.019 40.65 ***Percent of cohort with first semester GPA < 2.0 -1.085 0.091 -11.97 ***Master’s institution -0.079 0.015 -5.54 ***Baccalaureate institution -0.097 0.023 -4.18 ***

Institutional Profile: Central Connecticut State University Public – part of Connecticut State Univ. System Carnegie 2005 Master’s-Larger Programs New Britain, CT (Hartford MSA) Fall 2007 Enrollment:

12,106 headcount (9,704 undergraduate, 23% residential); 9,288 full-time equivalent enrollment

52% female; 16% minority Full-time, first-time students: 1,469 (56% residential) Full-time, new transfer students: 678

Six-year graduation rates: 44% full-time, first-time students 56% transfer students (full-time upon entry)

Institutional Progress Rates

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

0.7230000000000010.771000000000001

0.748000000000001

0.397963184883621

0.491114534636634

79%

69%

78%

80% 79%

46%

40%44%

One-Year Retention Rate and Six-Year Graduation Rate of Full-Time First-Time Students

National Peer Group Median 1-Year Reten-tion Rate

National Peer Group Median 6-Year Grad-uation Rate

Institutional 1-Year Reten-tion Rate

Institutional 6-Year Gradua-tion Rate

Fall of Entry

Six-Year Graduation Rates Disaggregated (Entry F’99-F’01)

Fema

le

Male

Not M

inorit

y

Mino

rity

3.00

-4.0

0

2.00

-2.9

9

Below

2.0

or W

D

Gender Race/Ethnicity First Semester GPA

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

48%

35%

43%

31%

63%

48%

9%

Institutional Avg.; 41%

Six-

year

Gra

duat

ion

Rate

Six-Year Graduation Rate by First Semester GPA (Full-Time First-Time Students Entering 1999, 2000, 2001)

1st Semester GPA0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%63%

48%

9%

3.0-4.02.0-2.99Below 2.0

6-ye

ar G

rad

uat

ion

Rat

e

32%

42%

26%

Distribution of 1st Semester

GPAs

One-Year Retention Rates by First Semester Grade Point Average

WD Below 1.0

1.00-1.49

1.50-1.99

2.00-2.49

2.50-2.99

3.00-3.49

3.50-4.00

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

19992000200120022003200420052006

First Semester GPA

Six-Year Graduation Rates by First Semester Grade Point Average

WD Below 1.0

1.00-1.49

1.50-1.99

2.00-2.49

2.50-2.99

3.00-3.49

3.50-4.00

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

199920002001

First Semester GPA

Logistic Regression

Institutional One-Year Retention Rate(Cox & Snell R2=0.178, Nagelkerke R2=0.260)

β S.E.Odds Ratio Sig.

Constant -1.360 0.102

First semester GPA 1.082 0.044 2.952 ***

Prediction accuracy improves from 72% to 81%

Institution’s Six-Year Graduation Rate (Cox & Snell R2=0.187, Nagelkerke R2=0.252)

β S.E.Odds Ratio Sig.

Constant -3.309 0.140

First semester GPA 1.194 0.051 3.301 ***

Prediction accuracy improves from 58% to 67%

*** Significant at p<0.001Variables of HS rank, gender, and race/ethnicity were not observed to be significant (p<0.05) in forward conditional entry.

Implications and Conclusions (1)

Institutions should focus on student success and improved graduation rates will follow

Successful students stay and graduate, unsuccessful students do not

Graduation and retention rates are indicators of student success, not outcomes

Implications and Conclusions (2)

Focus on the first semester FYE, early intervention programs Student GPA over time remains relatively

consistent after controlling for attritionFall 2001 Fall 2002 Fall 2003 Fall 2004

First Semester GPA NSem.

GPA NSem.

GPA NSem.

GPA NSem.

GPANo GPA 33 -- 5 2.14 2 2.63 4 3.04Below 2.0 258 1.12 103 1.82 58 2.11 41 2.532.00-2.49 255 2.26 213 2.33 178 2.45 155 2.672.50-2.99 345 2.73 284 2.59 256 2.65 236 2.823.00-3.49 240 3.21 204 2.89 184 2.99 177 3.113.50-4.00 141 3.71 114 3.33 101 3.34 95 3.45Cohort Total 1272 2.50 923 2.60 779 2.74 708 2.93

Implications and Conclusions (3)

Consider student engagement, especially time spent on academics

10 hours or less 11-20 hours per week

21 hours per week or more

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

45%35%

20%

Hrs per 7-day week FY students report preparing for class (s-tudying, reading, writing, doing homework or lab work, analyz-

ing data, rehearsing, and other academic activities),

Source: NSSE National Results, 2007

Implications and Conclusions (4)

Grade inflation Reassure faculty they are not being asked to

grade differently, but instead to develop ways to prompt students to learn more effectively

Nevertheless, grade inflation is a possibility:

Public 4-year Private nonprofit 4-year All private for-profit0%

10%20%30%40%50%

10.9% 16.7%27.8%11.2%

15.5%

17.5%

Undergraduate Grade Point Averages by Institution Type

A's and B'sMostly A's

Institution Type

Source: NCES (2007), National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 2003-04

Implications and Conclusions (5)

Reframe the national debate: Balance notions of retention (institution’s

responsibility) with persistence (student’s responsibility)

Student success (i.e. program completion) requires a partnership among students, institutions, and policymakers

The Tension between Student Persistence and Institutional Retention: An Examination of the Relationship between First-Semester GPA and Student Progression Rates of First-Time Students (Session 529)

Braden J. Hosch, Ph.D.Director of Institutional Research & Assessment

Central Connecticut State University, New Britain, CThoschbrj@ccsu.edu

Association for Institutional Research Annual ForumSeattle, WA

May 26, 2008

This presentation is online at http://www.ccsu.edu/oira/research