Outline Aim of the research Motivation for the research Background - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Ready, Set, FLY [First Learning Year]:

A CAUSAL MODEL FOR RISK AT THE

UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA

Juan-Claude Lemmens jlemmens@up.ac.za

Department for Education Innovation: Unit for Higher Education Research & Innovation (HERI)

Outline

• Aim of the research
• Motivation for the research
• Background
• Methodology
• Questionnaire design
• Results (Quantitative & Qualitative)
• Conclusion

Aim of the research

AIM OF STUDY

PROFILING RISK OF FIRST YEAR STUDENTS

QUALITATIVE STUDY

EXIT INTERVIEWS WITH STUDENTS

QUANTITATIVE STUDY

ACADEMIC READINESS SURVEY

SYNTHESIS

RISK MODEL AND PROFILE FOR EARLY WARNING

Motivation for the research

The Dean of Economic and Management Sciences commissioned and investigation

• Improve retention
• Lower drop-out
• Non-cognitive entry

characteristics

Background

South African Higher Education Landscape (1994 – 2005)

• Equitable system with access to all the racial

groups

• Increase and broaden participation

African Coloured Indian White Overall 1993 9% 13% 40% 70% 17% 2000 13% 9% 39% 47% 16% 2005 12% 12% 51% 60% 16%

Gross participation rates for South Africa (Scott et al., 2007, p. 10; Bunting in Cloete, et al., (eds.), 2006b, p. 106)

Background

South African Higher Education Landscape (2000 cohort)

• High withdrawal and low graduation rates
• f student who are in the system

Grad within 5 years Still registered after 5 years Left without graduating SA Universities All degrees 50% 12% 38% Academic first B- degrees Business/Management 50% 7% 43%

National graduation rates (Scott, Yeld & Hendry, 2007, p. 12)

Background

University of Pretoria Context (2001 cohort)

• Contact institution
• Tuition in both English and Afrikaans

Graduation rates of all Academic first B-degrees (BIRAP, 2009)

Grad within 5 years Still registered after 5 years Left without graduating Total UP 54.8% 18.4% 26.8% White 59.4% 17.3% 23.3% Coloured 50% 19.6% 30.4% Indian 31.5% 16.1% 22.4% African 36.8% 23% 40.2%

Background

Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences Context

• Contributed 24.6% of all undergraduate enrolments for the 2008

cohort

• Academic and professional first B-degrees over a three year

period Grad within 5 years Still registered after 5 years Left without graduating Total EMS 58.2% 17.1% 24.7% White 63.5% 14.5% 22% Coloured 56% 20% 24% Indian 59.3% 22.1% 18.6% African 40.7% 24% 35.3%

Graduation rates of Academic first B-degrees, 2001 cohort (BIRAP, 2009)

Data collection

QUANTITATIVE Second phase (2008)

• Academic Readiness

Questionnaire administered to students from the Faculty

• f Economic and

Management Sciences in the beginning of February 2008 during the orientation week

• Biographical data (BIRAP)

QUALITATIVE Third phase (2008)

• Exit interviews at the end of

the academic 2008 year

• Discovering the main reason

for withdrawal from studies, as well as sub-reasons that may have contributed to the decision to discontinue studies.

First phase (2007)

Literature study: entry characteristics and biographical variables that correlate with withdrawal and academic performance

Questionnaire development

• Theoretical foundation

– Social and academic integration (Tinto, 1993) – Psychological model of College Student Retention (Bean & Eaton, 2005) – Psychological perspectives: Constructs that have been related to student success: Internal locus of control, expectancy theory, self-efficacy theory, and motivational theory – Structured questionnaires

• Non-cognitive Questionnaire (Tracey and

Sedlacek, 2004)

• Survey of Academic Orientations

(Davidson, Beck & Silver, 2001)

Questionnaire development

• Academic

Readiness Questionnaire – 70 items and is answered

• n a five point

Likert-type scale

• Factor Analysis

– N=829 – 11 Items discarded Factors

• 1. Achievement Motivation
• 2. Learning efficacy
• 3. Planning
• 4. Integration and support
• 5. Reading behaviour

Alpha 0.76 0.75 0.74 0.63 0.74

Total variance explained = 57.9%

Entry characteristics Definition Achievement Motivation The degree to which one values higher education and showing an interest in academic work. Learning efficacy The degree of confidence in one’s own ability to achieve one’s academic goals. Planning The degree to which one is able to plan your studies. Integration/support The degree to which the student has institutional, social and financial support. Reading behaviour The degree to which one finds pleasure in reading. M-score A metric score based on the six best senior certificate subjects. (Range between 0 – 30) Parental education One or both parents completed a degree. Housing Where a student is living while attending university. School location Distance of school from the university. Risk for withdrawal Students, who were discontinued, are on probation or have withdrawn from their studies. Risk for failure Students who passed less that 100% of the credits registered for and who are at risk for withdrawal. Academic success The degree of academic achievement at university. Credits registered Number of credits registered divided by the number of credits prescribed.

Description of the sample

2008 Intake African Coloured Indian White University of Pretoria 30.2% 2.2% 4.0% 63.5% Faculty of EMS 37.4% 2.2% 5.7% 54.7% Sample 24.4% 2.5% 2.7% 70.4%

Description of the sample

Enrolment status Frequency Percent Discontinuation 25 3.0 Withdrawal 53 6.4 Probation 18 2.2 Promotion 2nd 733 88.4 Total 829 100.0

Cross-tabulations

• Explore the relationship between the dependent

variables, Risk for withdrawal and Risk for failure and each of the independent variables: – Race, M-score, Parental education, Gender, Age, Housing, School location, Home language, Language of instruction, Achievement motivation, Learning efficacy, Planning, Integration/support and Reading behaviour

Results – Risk for withdrawal

Logistic Regression Analysis

• Full model (16, N=829) = 76.64, p<.000
• The model explained 11% - 21.3% of variance
• Race, M-score and number of credits registered

made a unique statistical significant contribution to the model

• Partial effects causal model based on the maximum

likelihood analysis of variance (CATMOD) – N=601 missing values for any variable are

• mitted from the analysis

– Race language

Results - Risk for Withdrawal

Category n Odds Index Mean 601 15.07 Race language*  African  Afrikaans  English 134 385 82 3.844 0.491 0.529 M-score*  Low  Medium  High 133 285 183 0.423 0.967 2.447 Credits registered*  <1  =1  >1 193 217 191 0.436 3.145 0.729

Partial effects causal model for Risk for withdrawal

Results - Risk for Withdrawal

• Gender – Male students are at risk
• Parental education – Students whose parents have a

tertiary education are at risk

• Distance from school – The farther away a student

attended school, the more a student is at risk for withdrawal

• Housing – Students who live in university residence are

at risk for withdrawal

Trends based on Partial effects causal model for Risk for withdrawal

Results - Risk for Withdrawal

• Achievement motivation – Student with medium
• r high achievement motivation scores are at

risk

• Learning efficacy – Students with medium

learning efficacy scores are at risk

• Planning – Student who are less able to plan

their study time are at risk

• Integration and support – Students from all three

categories are virtually at baseline (1)

• Reading behaviour – Students who are average

readers are most at risk for withdrawal

Trends based on Partial effects causal model for Risk for withdrawal

Results – Risk for failure

Category n Odds Index Mean 601 0.294 Race language*  African  Afrikaans  English 134 385 82 2.245 0.639 0.697 M-score*  Low  Medium  High 133 285 183 0.089 1.011 11.14 Reading behaviour f5  Low*  Medium  High 190 184 227 1.433 0.944 0.739

Partial effects causal model for Risk for failure

Results - Risk for Failure

• Gender – Female students are at risk
• Parental education – Students whose parents have a

tertiary education are at risk for failure

• Distance from school – Student attending schools in
• ther provinces are at risk for failure.
• Housing – Students from all three categories are

virtually at baseline (1)

Trends based on Partial effects causal model for Risk for failure

Results – Risk for failure

• Achievement motivation – Student with low or high

achievement motivation scores are at risk for failure

• Learning efficacy – Students with medium or high

learning efficacy scores are at risk

• Planning – Students less able to plan their study time

are at risk for failure

• Integration and support – Students with low or high

integration and support scores are at risk for failure

• Reading behaviour – Students who enjoy reading

are at risk for failure

Trends based on Partial effects causal model for Risk for failure

Results – Academic success

• Standardised

Coefficients t Sig. Beta B p Zero order r (Constant) Achievement motivation

• .013
• .312

.755 .054 Learning efficacy

• .048
• 1.238

.216 .074 Planning .122 3.396 .001 .158 Integration and support

• .054
• 1.495

.135

• .050

Reading behaviour

• .091
• 2.556

.011 .022 Credits registered .203 6.520 .000 .210 Language of tuition .030 .737 .461 .053 Housing

• .012
• .394

.694 .067 Age

• .016
• .507

.612

• .059

M-score .571 17.563 .000 .529 Gender .077 2.419 .016

• .018

Race .223 4.966 .000 .072 Parental education

• .048
• 1.510

.131

• .025

R squared = .38

Results – Causal model

R squared = .38

Qualitative Results (main reasons)

Reason from students Frequency Percent Academic 3 7.1 Study choice 26 61.9 Family responsibilities 3 7.1 Work responsibilities 1 2.4 Health 3 7.1 Financial 2 4.8 Personal 1 2.4 Institutional 2 4.8 Faculty discontinuation 1 2.4 Total 42 100.0

Qualitative Results (Sub reasons)

Sub-reasons from students N Percent Not performing as expected 5 5.6% Workload of programme 7 7.8% Wrong career choice 15 16.7% Uncertain career goals 7 7.8% Did not enjoy the programme 8 8.9%

Qualitative Results

Influence on studies

Problem influence N Percent Caused stress/pressure 7 14.0% Wanted to give up 2 4.0% Disrupted studying 2 4.0% Not motivated 10 20.0% Not go to class 5 10.0% Not enough time to study 6 12.0% Perform poor academically 10 20.0% Difficulty concentrating 1 2.0% Did not study 2 4.0% Lack of engagement 2 4.0% No influence on studies 2 4.0% Positive influence 1 2.0% Total 50 100.0%

Qualitative Results

Start of problem and stop date

Start experiencing problems Frequency Percent Orientation week 5 11.9 First semester 17 40.5 Second semester 5 11.9 May/June 5 11.9 Third semester 4 9.5 Total 36 85.7 Missing 6 14.3 Total 42 100.0 Stop date Frequency Percent January 1 2.4 February 5 11.9 March 1 2.4 April 2 4.8 May 3 7.1 June 1 2.4 July 25 59.5 August 2 4.8 September 1 2.4 October 1 2.4 Total 42 100.0

Qualitative Results

Use of student services

Make use of SSD Frequency Percent Yes 11 26.2 No 31 73.8 Total 42 100.0 Help in UP N Percent None 15 30.0% Department/faculty head 7 14.0% Lecturer/tutor 10 20.0% Peer 7 14.0% Student support division 7 14.0% Faculty administration 3 6.0% UP mentor 1 2.0% Total 50 100.0%

Conclusion

• Retaining students is of critical importance in

South Africa

• Skewed result from Logistic Regression model

necessitate a broader definition

• Exit interviews - study choice has an adverse

effect on academic achievement

• Students do not seek help proactively
• Window of opportunity
• Decentralise support to the faculty

• Early Warning and Referral System

– Student life cycle

• Predictive power of the Academic Readiness

Questionnaire

• Using the model for support
• Profiling for risk is contentious
• Recommendations

– Determine the interaction effect – Profile students according to race

Conclusion

I THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!

Questions? Questions? Questions?