Persistence in College: A Longitudinal Study on the Influence of Concurrent Enrollment and Advanced Placement Programs

1. Persistence in College:A Longitudinal Study on the Influence of Concurrent Enrollment and Advanced Placement Programs Presented by: Bill Duffy University of Tennessee at Martin National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships (NACEP) October 11, 2004

2. AGENDA(Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle) • Pose question • Literature Review: AP, CEP & Persistence • Purpose of study • Research questions • Methodology • Future research • Suggestions • Repose question

3. PERSISTENCE IN COLLEGE(Audience briefly shares experiences, and considers question during presentation) • What does your institution’s concurrent enrollment program do to enhance the following areas for high school students?: • Commitment to a college • Commitment to graduate from college • Social integration in college (student-to-student and student-to-faculty interactions)

4. LITERATURE REVIEW • Advanced Placement • Concurrent Enrollment Programs • Persistence

5. ADVANCED PLACEMENT (AP) • Established in 1955 (1229 AP exams; 25 colleges) • 2002: 1.5 million AP exams; 937,000 students; over 14,000 schools worldwide; 80 countries • 90 percent of US colleges/universities have AP policies • In 2001, 11% increase, and 6th straight year of double-digit growth • Has become a criteria for success in evaluating high schools (Newsweek) • Performance and retention exceed college norms

6. CONCURRENT ENROLLMENT (CEP) • Education Commission of the States – All states have policies pertaining to CEPs with varying restrictions and guidelines • Most programs are local/regional partnerships, and established by colleges to: • Enhance learning opportunities/challenges for HS students (senioritis) • Increase access to higher education • Reduce college costs • Reduce time to graduate • Increase college enrollments and revenue • NACEP established national standards • Performance and retention exceed college norms

7. AP/CEP ISSUES(Association of American Colleges and Universities) • Credibility: Is the learning in these programs truly college level given the enormous range of academic standards in higher education? • Turf: Who determines the standards for college credit, and to what degree are the answers corrupted by self-interest?

8. AP CREDIBILITY AND TURF ISSUES • Many AP course content decisions determined at HS level: • Harvard only accepts AP Exams of “5” • National Research Council criticized Math & Science AP courses – memorization versus problem solving and discussion • Tremendous loss of college revenue: AP student receiving credit for 10 college courses at Stanford saves $25K (and only paid $1000 for the AP exams) • Financial aid for AP exams • Access into college and scheduling of AP exams

9. CEP CREDIBILTY AND TURF ISSUES • NACEP accreditation standards address the following • Lack of national standards • Academic quality • Faculty credentials and qualifications (note: not an “on-campus” issue for AP program) • Transferability of grades • Course experience for students • Student maturity • State funding for HS and College (double-dipping) • Impact on students’ subsequent academic and social performance in college

10. PERSISTENCE • Tinto’s theory of student departure: most mature research in higher education, and possibly the most studied in social science: • Students enter with pre-entry attributes: family background, skills and attributes, pre-college achievements and educational experiences • Pre-entry attributes influence commitment to an institution and commitment to graduate from college • Upon arrival at college, academic and social experiences influence initial commitments, and influence an individual’s decision to remain in college • Academic and social integration are core constructs of Tinto’s theory.

11. PERSISTENCE (cont.) • 31-45 percent student departure rate • Influencing factors: Student intentions, institution type, voluntary versus involuntary • Two major empirical studies on persistence (ie. research on the existing body of research): • Pantages and Creeden (1978) • Braxton, Sullivan, & Johnson (2000) • Braxton, Sullivan & Johnson: • Strong empirical support for the influence of both student entry characteristics and social integration on student persistence • Modest empirical support for academic integration on student persistence • Lack of persistence research in the classroom, and on students “before” entering college (most research prior to college pertains to “college choice”)

12. PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY • Determine impact, if any, CEP/AP have on “initial” commitments to the institution and to graduating from college • Determine relationships, if any, between CEP/AP students and persistence after entry into college (commitments and integration)

13. RESEARCH QUESTIONS • What relationship, if any, exists between CEP/AP students and persistence in college? • What relationship, if any, exists between CEP/AP students commitment to graduating from college? • What relationship, if any, exists between CEP/AP students and commitment to an institution? • What relationship, if any, exists between CEP/AP students and social integration in college?

14. METHODOLOGY • Only survey NACEP Accredited CEPs (ensures standards for institutions offering CEPs) • Pre-post survey • Fall 2005: newly enrolled “senior” CEP and AP English Composition student • Spring 2007: after completing one year of college • Validated “persistence” survey instrument • Path Analysis statistical study

15. PERSISTENCE VARIABLES • Commitment to Institution • Commitment to graduating from college • Social Integration: peer-to-peer interactions and peer-to-faculty interactions • Institution type: 4-yr, 2-yr; public, private, urban, rural, HBC • Pre-entry characteristics: ACT/SAT, GPA, class rank, SES, parents education level, family support, gender, race

16. FUTURE RESEARCH • Based on existing research and theory accepted by the Academy: Astin, Bean, Chickering, Hossler, Pascarella, Tinto, etc. • Peer-reviewed publications • Validated survey instruments • Persistence: • By college types • By academic discipline • Nationally, regionally or statewide • Gender, race, socio-economic (SES), parents education • Instructor type: HS faculty and “on-campus” faculty teaching in high schools • College Choice • Subsequent academic performance in college

17. CONSIDERATIONS • NACEP fund scholarships in support of NACEP member research on CEPs • NACEP CEP definition include “on-campus” faculty teaching CEPs at high schools given likely impact on college social/academic integration

18. PERSISTENCE IN COLLEGE • What “CAN” your institution’s concurrent enrollment program do to enhance the following areas for high school students?: • Commitment to a college • Commitment to graduate from college • Social integration in college (student-to-student and student-to-faculty interactions)

19. CONTACT INF0RMATION • Bill Duffy • Director, Office of Extended Campus & Continuing Education; UT Martin • Phone: 731-425-9277 • Email: wduffy@utm.edu