October 22 2013

Sometimes we hear, “Doesn’t our retention rate have more to do with the students in our incoming class than with how good our programs are? We’ve seen the research” (Astin, 2002). When we look at differences in university retention and graduation rates, it’s easy to look first at the academic profile of the incoming class and think that must be the only rational answer! Credo’s lead consultant on student success, Dr. Joretta Nelson, weighs in passionately on this topic. The answer is yes… But no.  -Joretta Nelson, Ph.D. I respond to this question as a student success scholar, a practicing student success consultant, and as an individual who spends a great deal of time synthesizing the most recent research related to improving conditions for student success. Prior academic achievement is still the most reliable predictor of first-year retention and persistence to degree, particularly prior high school performance, high school quality, and high school curriculum (Robbins, 2006). To that end, there is a correlation between the admission standards of an institution and its retention/graduation rates. Institutions admitting larger percentages of students with higher prior academic achievement metrics will likely experience higher mean retention and graduation rates. However, prior academic achievement only explains 25% of the variance in first-year achievement and retention to the second year (Robbins et al., 2003; 2006). Seventy-five percent of the variance is yet to be explained. The research of the last two decades has fill this gap and is making progress. Psycho-social factors have been key areas of research and now help to explain an additional 9 – 25% of this variance, while controlling for prior academic achievement and socio-economic status (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Robbins et al., 2006; Schreiner, 2012; 2013). In addition, a tremendous amount of research has been completed on different student groups (race/ethnicity, gender, first-generation), pointing toward substantive differences in performance and achievement in higher education, regardless of prior academic achievement (Pascarella et al., 2004; Schreiner, 2012; 2013). What we are realizing is that increasing motivation, engagement, and support are strategies under the control of the institution through the educational environment created; prior academic achievement is not. The most recent research within the "thriving" paradigm points clearly to students who are able to thrive and succeed in all ways that institutions and constituents recognize as successful measures, in spite of prior academic achievement, socio-economic status, race/ethnicity, or first-generation status. Dr. Laurie Schreiner, Dr. Shane Lopez, Dr. Jenny Bloom, Dr. Wes Habley, Dr. Steve Robbins…the list goes on and on of those contributing to the most recent research about successful interventions – pointing to students out-performing their "prior picture." It is happening on different campuses (regardless of private/public or selectivity). My point is that prior academic achievement gives us a window into one component of student readiness, and is a strong validated predictor. However, prior academic achievement does not explain 75% of the variance in student achievement and retention. This implies that what institutions have been doing to manage the 75% has not been effective – not that that 75% is not malleable. The "proof” is in the variance in retention and graduation rates within selectivity ranges in each segment of achievement ranks (ACT, 2012). With a swing of as much as 20% in the standard deviation within one selectivity range, it is apparent that different institutions provide different experiences and have different results. Thriving private institutions are placing student success at the center of their focus (Credo, 2012; Kuh et al., 2005). My concerns with a focus solely on prior academic achievement as a rationale for lower expectations are that this position:
  • Explains away responsibility of those serving our students.
  • Sets low expectations for students, which are then lived down to.
  • Works from a position of gaps rather than a position of strengths.
  • Compares institutions, rather than students individually within the institution.
  • Fails to incorporate recent empirical research on students of color, first-generation students, and other student-groups who respond differently to institutional environments.
  • Fails to incorporate the most recent research on psycho-social factors related to student success and their role, adding between 5% and 15% to the variance in first year retention and achievement and persistence to graduation (Robbins et al., 2006; Schreiner et al., 2012; 2013).
  • Fails to respond to the decreasing number of high-achieving, "well-prepared" students available in higher education, perpetuating an environment that may result in declining new student enrollment numbers in the coming decades.
George Kuh, in writing about Documenting Effective Educational Practices (DEEP) schools, says it well: There are two key components that contribute to student success:
  • Amount of time and effort students put into their studies and other activities that lead to the experiences and outcomes that constitute student success.
  • The ways the institution allocates resources and organizes learning opportunities and services to induce students to participate in and benefit from such activities (p. 9).
At all DEEP schools, a unique combination of external and internal factors worked together to crystallize and support an institution-wide focus on student success. No blueprint exists to reproduce what they do, or how, in another setting. (Kuh, 2005, p. 21).

Continue Reading

Recent Posts

Categories