From the non returner survey to the retention survey part i
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 19

From the Non-Returner Survey to the Retention Survey Part I. PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 97 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

From the Non-Returner Survey to the Retention Survey Part I. . Why students leave. W. Allen Richman, Ph.D. Laura Ariovich, Ph.D. Nicole Long, Ph.D. Presentation goals. Introduce the Non-returner survey (mandate & history) Show what’s behind stable enrollment patterns

Download Presentation

From the Non-Returner Survey to the Retention Survey Part I.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


From the non returner survey to the retention survey part i

From the Non-Returner Survey to the Retention Survey Part I.

Why students leave

W. Allen Richman, Ph.D.

Laura Ariovich, Ph.D.

Nicole Long, Ph.D.


Presentation goals

Presentation goals

Introduce the Non-returner survey (mandate & history)

Show what’s behind stable enrollment patterns

Propose a revamped methodology to survey non-returners

Present survey results & next steps to reduce the non-returner rate


Pgcc at a glance

PGCC at a glance

  • Predominantly Black Institution (PBI)

    • 76% African-American

  • Credit and Non-credit programs

    • 143 active credit programs

  • 40,000+ students annually

    • Fall 2011 headcount for credit

      • 14, 647 students

      • 60% female

      • 70% part-time

  • Faculty

    • ≈250 full-time

    • ≈ 700 adjuncts


Non returner survey mandate history

Non-returner survey mandate & history

All MD Community Colleges are required by the State to survey non-returning students, defined as those students who attended college in the Spring but did not return or graduate in the following fall.

Survey asks students to:

State their educational goals for attending PGCC

Report whether they achieved them

Indicate what factors they perceive as reasons for not returning

Comment on how PGCC could better serve their educational needs


Pgcc enrollment trends

PGCC enrollment trends


Typical enrollment flow at pgcc

Typical enrollment flow at PGCC


The non returner survey in the past

The Non-returner survey in the Past

Old Methodology

Random sample of 1,000 non-returners

Students would receive questionnaire by mail

Students who didn’t reply would receive a second mailing

Old result

1.7 to 3% response rate (between 84 & 160 respondents)


The revamped non returner survey

The Revamped Non-Returner Survey

Methodology

Electronic questionnaire sent by email to all non-returners with valid email addresses

Four reminders sent to those who did not reply (sent on different days and times)

Initial invitation & all reminders signed by PGCC President

Use of an incentive


Non returner survey fall 2012

Non-Returner Survey Fall 2012

964 students responded (15.4% response rate)

High quality data:

Even if only the three initial questions were set as “mandatory,” 96% of respondents completed the full survey.

65% of respondents chose to answer the final, open-ended question: “In what ways could PGCC better serve your educational needs?”


Non returners goal achievement

Non-returners’ goal achievement


Factors identified as major reasons for not returning

Factors identified as major reasons for not returning


Factors not perceived as reasons for not returning

Factors not perceived as reasons for not returning


What the numbers tell us

What the numbers tell us

To sum up:

48% of students came to PGCC for an associate’s degree. A smaller percentage came for transfer (26%) or for other reasons (26%).

Students who came for transfer or for other reasons were significantly more likely to complete their goals.

Among those students who didn’t report transferring or having achieved their academic goal, the factors identified by most as a “major reason” for leaving were not having money to enroll (43%), personal problems (38%), being unhappy with one’s academic progress (25%), and being unhappy with the College’s services for students (25%).


A nalysis of students comments

Analysis of students’ comments

Stage 1: Preliminary review of all comments and formulation of tentative categories.

Stage 2: Coding of comments based on tentative categories and reformulation of categories to achieve better fit with the data.

Stage 3: Recombination and elimination of categories based on the type of comments and the number of quotes included in each category. Recoding of all comments using the final set of categories.

The analysis resulted in four major classes of comments, three of them further classified into sub-categories.


Positive comments about pgcc examples paraphrased

Positive comments about PGCC (examples paraphrased)

  • Percentage of all comments: 26%

  • Subcategories:

    • Goal achievement: “At PGCC, I had the chance to take the only class I was missing to complete my program.”

    • Encompassing positive experience: “My experience at PGCC was excellent in every way.”

    • Positive experiences with faculty: “I was able to show what I’m capable of thanks to Professor X.”

    • No complaints: “PGCC is fine, I have no complaints.”


Lack of college responsiveness examples paraphrased

Lack of college responsiveness (examples paraphrased)

Percentage of all comments: 28%

Subcategories:

Problems with advising/financial aid: “Advisors tell you to go to the website, but you need more help. I ended up taking classes that don’t count for transfer.”

Problems with faculty: “Some professors, like Professor X, just tell you to look in the book. They won’t try to help you understand.”

General problems with college responsiveness: “College employees are not well informed or think that someone else will assist you.”


Affordability examples paraphrased

Affordability (examples paraphrased)

Percentage of all comments: 21%

Subcategories:

Locations, times, days, and frequency: “The classes I needed to finish were not available on evenings or weekends. Had to find another school.”

More online or hybrid classes: “The online class I wanted was full. Offer more online or hybrid classes.”

Affordability: “More grants for Hospitality Management students. I have a decent job but it’s not enough.”


What the comments tell us

What the comments tell us

To sum up:

65% of respondents answered the open-ended question: “In what ways could PGCC better serve your educational goals?” These comments were coded resulting in the identification of three classes of comments:

Positive (26%) – generally happy with the college

Lack of college responsiveness (28%) – dissatisfied with the level or quality of support in academic advising, financial aid, the classroom, or the college as a whole

Lack of course availability / affordability (21%) - dissatisfied with course availability or concerned about affordability and the need for more financial assistance


Summary of strengths weaknesses next steps

Summary of strengths & weaknesses – Next steps

The Non-Returner survey’s new methodology contributed to:

Increasing the response rate

Producing high-quality data

Saving resources

But even the revamped Non-returning survey has limitations:

Focuses on students who already stopped attending classes at the College (at least temporarily)

Thus, it cannot be used as a direct intervention to prevent students from exiting the College

Next step was to survey all credit students in the Spring.


  • Login