Upload
lucas-nelson
View
214
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Rethinking Grade Transfer Shock: Examining Its Importance In The Community College Transfer Process
(Article published In The Journal Of Applied Research In The Community College Vol. 14, No. 1, Fall 2006, p. 19-33).
Presented By:Ron Pennington, Director Of Institutional Research
6th Annual Conference Of The Institute For The Study Of Transfer StudentsJanuary 23-25, 2008
Dallas, Texas
Introduction
2
3
What is Grade Transfer Shock (GTS)?
A decrease in a student’s grade point average during their first semester at a four-year institution when compared to their cumulative GPA at a community college (CC).
4
Why Is GTS A Problem?
Native student studies: CC transfers have lower graduation rates even with SES and academic ability controls
GTS could be an intervening variable adversely affecting four-year student success
Academic integration first/social integration later
Native four-year students will not experience GTS
CC TransferExperience
Level of GTSExperienced
Eventual 4-yearSuccess
5
Research Shows GTS Is A Persistent Problem
Review of the literature suggests students lose about1/3 of a grade point
e.g. 3.0 down to 2.70
2.5 down to 2.20
Studies consistent over time
Hills (1965)Richardson & Doucette (1980)Diaz (1992)Carlan & Byxbe (2000)
6
Why Might CC Transfers Experience GTS? Poor academic prep at the CC level (Dougherty,
2000)
Within an institution – academic in-process measures
Between institutions
Poor transfer prep (Nolan & Hall, 1978; Holahan & Kelley, 1978; Land, 1996; Laanan, 1996; Lee & Hoey, 1996; Rhine, 2000, Debard, 1996)
Poor cognitive maps (Lovitts, 2001)
Attribution Theory (Heidner, 1958; Weiner, 1974)
Potential Interventions To Reduce GTS Change the emphasis from traditional transfer
counseling strategies like: Where to transfer Meeting the prerequisites of four-year schools
To:
More proactive strategies designed to reduce GTS Workshops on the new four-year academic culture Student mentoring programs at the four-year school
(Laanen, 1996; Rhine et al., 2000)
7
8
Research Questions
Is GTS related to four-year student success?
Does GTS occur when student demographic and institutional process variables are controlled?
Do traditional two-year and four-year transfer counseling practices reduce GTS levels?
Methodology
9
10
Measuring GTS Is Problematical Gain score:
(4-year term GPA) – (2-year cumulative GPA)
Problem: The two GPA measures are different
Based on two schools’ grading system
4-year term GPA is less reliable than the CC cumulative GPA
Less course taking Shorter time period
Regression to a lower 4-year GPA scale
11
Two Basic Solutions Using a lower level of measurement:
A dichotomous variable
An ordinal variable
Regress the CC cumulative GPA on the 4-year term GPA
-.25 0
GTS No GTS
+.25
-.25 +.25
Negative Grade Change (GTS)
No Grade Change Positive Grade Change
0
12
Data Collection Methods
Telephone survey of MO community college transfer students – Summer 1999
Student data came from community colleges Demographic Academic in-process measures
Student outcome data (MO EMSAS file)
Study’s Sample Initial list of 7,055 CC transfer students completed 24
credit hours from 1995 to 1998
2,656 were surveyed using several call back attempts (response rate = 38%)
Many outdated telephone numbers
Additional criteria used to eliminate cases
Senior transfers (>96 credits) Pooling of 5 urban community colleges First-time transfers prior to fall 1998 semester
Usable cases = 686
13
Findings
15
Is GTS Related To Four-Year Student Success?
Modest relationship between GTS and CC transfer success at four-year schools.
Grade measure of GTS better predictor of transfer success than survey measure
16
Nearly three times as many students actually experienced GTS than reported it in the survey
17
Regression Findings
Does GTS occur when student demographic and institutional process variables are controlled?
Do transfer two-year and four-year traditional counseling practices reduce GTS levels?
18
19
Independent Variables- CC Lib Arts Maj (0=N,1=Y)- CC Bus Maj (0=N, 1=Y)+ CC Degree (0=N, 1=Y)+ CC Financial Aid (0=N, 1=Y)+ Cumulative CC Credits- Dev course work
Transfer Experience+ CC Prep (0=not SAT, 1=SAT)
+ CC Acad Adv (0=no, 1=yes)
+ CC Fac Adv (0=no, 1=yes)
+ CC Couns (0=no, 1=yes)
+ Cred Transfer Success (0=no, 1=yes)
+ 4-year Couns (0=no, 1=yes)
+ 4-Year First-Term Credits
+ CCGPA
- 4-Year ACT
CC Academic ChallengeCC1CC2
± CC3CC4CC5
+ Age- Gender (0=F, 1=M)- African American (0=AA,1=Oth)+ Previous College (0=N, 1=Y)
Summary Of Key Regression Findings CC GPA was the strongest predictor variable of 4-year GPA by 4 to 1
4-year and 2-year academic challenge variables were the second strongest set of predictors
Other significant variables were:
Taking developmental CC coursework (indicator of academic readiness?)
Age (indicator of maturation?) CC financial aid (indicator of financial dependency at the CC?) 4-year credits (indicator of clearer transfer goals) Controls on demographic and institutional process variables
actually enhanced GTS Traditional counseling variables were not significant individually or
as a set
20
21
Regression Findings: Results
Significant Not Significant
Variable Exp. Actual BetaCC GPA Pos Pos 0.46 Gender4-Yr. ACT Neg Neg -0.12 African-American
CC4+ — Neg 0.11 Previous collegeAge Pos Pos 0.10 Bus major at CCDev Crs Wk Neg Neg -0.10 Lib Arts major at CCFin Aid Pos Neg -0.09 CC degree4-Yr. Cr Pos Pos 0.08 CC credits
All other transfer experience variables+ All CC academic vars sig as a set (F=4.99)
22
Summary of the Regression Results By Sets and CC GPA Coefficients
Set By Order of Data EntryVariables
In SetChange inCC GPA b R2
R2
Change1. Transfer Shock (CC GPA) 1 .91 .29 .29 255.27 ***2. 4-Year Academic Challenge 1 .93 .30 .01 11.95 **3. CC Academic Challenge 5 .93 .32 .02 3.15 *4. Student Background 4 .85 .33 .01 3.57 *5. CC Experience 6 .80 .35 .02 2.55 *6. 4-Year First Sem Term Experience 1 .79 .36 .01 5.35 *7. Transfer Experience 6 .78 .36 .00 0.86* p<,05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001
Changein F
Implications And Discussion
23
GTS can be measured as a
CC GPA 4-year regression study
Or
As a dummy variable in a regression study
24
Regression study question
Will the relationship between GTS and 4-year outcome success hold up under various controls?
This study shows that the GTS variables should be split at -.25 to -.30 if coded as a dummy variable
25
Other predictor variables should be examined
More academic process variables at the CC level
Like this study’s CC developmental coursework, CC financial aid, and 4-year credit variables
Other examples: school attendance, course scheduling (Karl Boughhan)
Student engagement
Inter-institutional variables like the 4-ACT and set of CC variables
Will be needed for institutional accountability assessments Hierarchical linear modeling could be used to “level out the
playing field”
26
Need to test if new transfer counseling programs should be adopted
Specific program interventions
Better financial aid assistance and information Counseling program (two or four-year) targeted to
increase students’ Cognitive maps (campus visits, student mentoring, etc.)
More systemic strategies and explanations
Attributional Theory vs.
Academic and Social Integration models
27
What is Attributional Theory?
A psychological theory – instead of a sociological theory
An achievement-motivational theory that predicts a person's future motivation to act based on causative explanations for why certain outcomes have occurred in the past
Concepts include: Locus of control Controllability Event stability
28
Many have argued that intervention programs based on attribution theory could improve the academic success of CC transfers (Finley & Cooper, 1983; Pascarella, Edison, Hagedorn, Nora, & Terenzini, 1996; Perry, Hector, Menec, & Weinberg, 1993; St. Clair, 1993; Valla, 1989)
But all future program interventions to improve GTS need to be evaluated Need a program logic for how the intervention is
suppose to work Need to implement an experimental design to see
if it does work
29
30