Search Results

Attempts to improve retention in conventional college settings in the United States have emphasised the importance of institutions having good information systems and appropriate interpretation of information as a means of identifying where retention is a problem and what might be causing student withdrawal, and for monitoring the impact of interventions designed to improve retention. This article describes the information on student retention collected within the Open University (UK), its interpretation, and the uses made of such information to improve student retention. Observations are made about overall retention rates and students’ reasons for withdrawing, and a model for tackling courses with low retention is described.

Published abstract reprinted by permission of the copyright owner. Show less

There are substantial ethnic gaps in higher education in NZ, despite more than a decade of considerable policy effort aimed at this concern. This study uses newly linked administrative data to examine the underachievement of Maori and Pasifika relative to Europeans. We follow a population cohort born between 1990 and 1994 from school through to young adulthood to assess the relative contributions of prior academic performance, socioeconomic status and parental education to these gaps. Controlling for the relevant covariates narrows the Maori-European gap and completely eliminates the Pasifika-European gap in bachelor's degree participation rates. Utilising Fairlie decompositions, we find that school performance is by far the largest contributor to the ethnic gaps. Low socioeconomic status and parental education are also pertinent, but less important. Our results suggest that ethnic-based policies aimed at encouraging participation are likely to have a limited effect if used in isolation and signal the need for policy interventions earlier in the education system.

Published abstract. Show less

In July 2009, President Barack Obama set out a bold higher education agenda for his administration and promised that the [United States] US would once again lead the world in college degree attainment. Given the nation’s current level of college completion, it is reasonable to wonder whether such ambitions are feasible. While there is a sense that the country needs to recreate the ‘Golden Age’ of American higher education, where high completion rates were the norm, few have bothered to ask whether this era was actually as golden as the conventional wisdom would suggest. In one of the few efforts to examine this question, John R. Thelin, research professor at the Education Policy Studies School at the University of Kentucky, reevaluates the idyllic image of university life in an earlier period and uncovers the historical roots of America’s ‘attrition tradition’. Thelin finds that not only did university students often drop out at a high rate in the early 1900s, but also that college attrition was largely ignored until the last few decades. If we are to tackle the challenge of raising graduation rates in an era of increased access - a strikingly modern goal - it will require fine-grained, institution-level analysis, Thelin argues, in addition to significant investments in improved data systems for America’s colleges and universities. Using detailed cohort tracking data and a seasoned historical perspective on the origins of today’s ‘war on attrition’, this AEI working paper should give pause to ambitious completion promises and prod university leaders to reflect on their own performance data to map a better course for serving students. Without an accurate sense of how far we have come in our higher education aspirations - how difficult and costly it has been to get there - we cannot strategically plot the road ahead.

Edited excerpt from publication. Show less

This research project investigated student retention and persistence behaviour in relation to tertiary studies in Queensland. The focus of the study was factors affecting students' decisions to continue with a program of study. A longitudinal study was conducted with first-year students at 10 Queensland tertiary institutions. Students were surveyed in April 2000 and again in July 2001. The actual rate of attrition (total drop-out) was relatively low (four per cent of the second phase sample had withdrawn/dropped out). Mobility (23%) was mainly due to students changing their course of study, some also having changed institutions. Key findings were that: (1) students who changed courses were more likely to have done so because the new program provided better employment opportunities and because they had lost interest in their initial course; in addition, failure to gain entry to their course of first choice plays a significant role as indicated by the number who said they never really wanted to complete the program or only enrolled in the hope of later changing courses; (2) students who changed institutions did so primarily because the new institution offered better quality programs or the one they wanted to study in the first place; another influencing factor for these people was a lack of support for individual needs at some institutions; and (3) financial difficulties, work commitments and a lack of interest were the main reasons for withdrawal or deferral from courses; about half of the students revealed that they had not received adequate guidance/counselling and information about future job opportunities. The results also showed that a range of factors often contributed to the decision to change. The research suggests that there are several ways to reduce attrition rates. Show less

Current definitions of retention and graduation rates distort the picture of student success by limiting it to completion of a degree at the institution of entry. By incorporating data from the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC), a clearer picture emerges. The NSC data captures retention and graduation at both entry and transfer institutions. To accommodate this polychotomous definition of success, more sophisticated methods of modeling limited dependent variables are needed. Though multinomial logit is often considered the most accessible method, the strict assumptions it imposes may be inappropriate. We therefore compare multinomial regression techniques to assess their utility in modeling multi-institutional student success.

Published abstract. Show less

The two major benefits claimed for occupation-specific education in US high schools are: (1) giving students the option of choosing career-technical courses in high school helps student retention, raises the high school graduation rate and induces some students to continue their occupational preparation in college; and (2) students who start preparing for an occupation in high school are more successful in the labour market as they are more likely to find a job, more likely to enter the occupation of their choice and end up earning more. This chapter assesses the empirical evidence for these two claims and concludes that offering students the option of preparing for an occupation in high school does tend to increase school attendance of 15 to 19 years olds and to improve labour market outcomes of high school graduates.

The monograph from which this chapter is taken is indexed at TD/IRD 88.431; individual chapters are indexed from TD/TNC 82.179 to TD/TNC 82.186. Show less

The Working Students Success Network (WSSN), an expansion of the Working Families Success Network into nineteen community colleges, represents an innovative, comprehensive strategy for supporting low-income students and students of color. The WSSN strategy brings together and integrates access to a full range of services and supports to help students improve their financial knowledge, budgeting skills and choice of financial products, and develop and implement achievable career plans, putting students on a path to securing marketable postsecondary credentials and achieving economic success. To better understand how colleges that are part of the WSSN implement this approach, the WSSN national leadership group contracted Mathematica Policy Research and DVP-Praxis to document key aspects of WSSN implementation, and to analyze participant characteristics and service receipt and their relationship to academic outcomes. Taken together, the findings from the implementation and outcomes studies of the WSSN suggest that community colleges can mobilize to address the needs of low-income students and students of color.

Key findings include: More than 50,000 students were served across the participating colleges, with large shares from low-income households (as measured by Pell grant receipt) and traditionally underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, in line with the strategy's focus on low-income students and students of color; Despite emphasis on integrated services and high-touch (one-on-one) services in the theory of change, only 32 per cent of students received services in multiple pillars and 33 per cent received at least one high-touch service; Service receipt varied widely across colleges - receipt of services across multiple pillars varied from below 5 per cent at some colleges to above 90 per cent at others, and the same range applied for receipt of at least one high-touch service; Receipt of services in multiple pillars was positively associated with persistence (though negatively associated with credential completion), and receipt of a high-touch service was positively related to both persistence and completion.

Edited abstract from publisher's website. Show less

This study uses a classification scheme, the Community College Taxonomy (CCT), to analyze outcomes for beginning community college students according to how 'directed' (strongly directed, moderately directed, or not directed) they are toward completing a program of study. Levels of direction are based on factors associated with student persistence and degree attainment, and outcomes examined included institutional retention, student persistence, 4-year transfer rates, enrollment continuity, and first-year attrition. The study is based on data from the 2004/06 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS:04/06), a national sample of undergraduates who enrolled in postsecondary institutions for the first time between July 1, 2003, and June 30, 2004; participants were interviewed in 2004 and 2006. This study includes only students who initially enrolled in a community college and were not enrolled concurrently in any other institution. Some key findings include: (1) students classified according to the CCT as 'strongly directed' toward completion had higher rates of institutional retention, student persistence, AA degree attainment, and 4-year transfer than did their less-directed peers; (2) nearly one-fourth left college in their first year and did not return within the 3-year study period. 'Strongly directed' students left college in their first year at a lower rate (16 per cent) than did their 'moderately directed' (29 per cent) or 'not directed' (41 per cent) counterparts; (3) overall, 49 per cent of students had maintained their enrollment or completed a program of study at their first institution, and 55 per cent had persisted in any postsecondary institution, within three years after their enrollment; and (4) some 10 per cent of students had earned an AA degree, five per cent had obtained a vocational certificate, and nearly 20 per cent had transferred to another institution.

Published summary from the NCES website. Show less

This report provides an overview of higher education policy and trends. It is the sixth edition of a series previously published by the Grattan Institute. Since the last edition in 2018, all chapters have been updated and new or expanded sections added on work-integrated learning, student finances, student mental health and international student migration.

The contents are as follows: Chapter 1 explains how higher education is defined in Australia, the different types of higher education provider, the various types of qualification, and what makes universities distinctive among higher education providers; Chapter 2 reports on student trends, including enrolment numbers, courses chosen, and the social background of students. It also discusses how students enter the higher education system; Chapter 3 examines the student experience, including subject pass rates, attrition, satisfaction with teaching, working while studying and mental health; Chapter 4 looks at the university workforce, including why people become academics and their employment arrangements; Chapter 5 looks at research in Australian universities, including what topics are researched and research outputs; Chapter 6 provides information on how higher education is funded, including total revenue, the [Higher Education Loan Program] HELP student loan scheme, government grants for teaching and research, and international student fees; Chapter 7 outlines how per student funding levels are determined, and how student places are distributed among higher education providers; Chapter 8 describes how the Australian Government came to dominate higher education policy, the key government departments and the higher education interest groups; Chapter 9 examines higher education's benefits to the public and employers, including whether higher education graduates meet skills needs, the quality of university research, and public satisfaction with Australian universities; and Chapter 10 reports on higher education's private benefits including graduate employment and income and, for international students, migration to Australia.

Edited excerpt from publication. Show less

In November 2016 the Minister for Education and Training, Simon Birmingham, asked the Higher Education Standards Panel to examine: (1) the trends and factors driving completions and attrition; (2) the adequacy of existing data on completions and attrition and improvements that can enhance transparency and institutional accountability; (3) strategies institutions can pursue to support student success and course completion in higher education; and (4) ways in which the identification of students at risk of non-completion, and the adoption of evidence-based support strategies to maximise their opportunity to succeed, can be systematically embedded in provider practice. This discussion paper presents the results of panel's investigation.

The first part of the paper provides a snapshot of the extensive work to date on retention, completion and success. The second part of the paper examines how higher education providers and government are supporting students to make the right choices about their higher education and how students are being supported to remain in higher education once enrolled. The paper reflects on the views of stakeholders who provided the panel with feedback on retention, completion and success through their submissions to the 2016 work on admissions transparency, as well as the experience of a number of providers the Department of Education and Training met with in the course of developing this paper. The Panel's final report is available in VOCEDplus at TD/TNC 132.716.

Edited excerpts from publication. Show less