An Alternate Approach to Studying Transfer Student Outcomes Suresh Gangireddy, GRA Lakshmi Kokatla,...

An Alternate Approach to Studying Transfer Student Outcomes

Suresh Gangireddy, GRA

Lakshmi Kokatla, GRA

Sam Houston State UniversityOffice of Institutional Research & Assessment

Fang Duan, Former GRA

Xiaohong Li, GRA

Rita Caso, Director

1TAIR 2008 Conference, 2/6/08

SAM HOUSTON STATE UNIVERSITY BACK GROUND

WHY DO WE STUDY TRANSFER STUDENTS?

HOW DO WE STUDY TRANSFER STUDENTS?

FREQUENTLY USED METHOD

PROPOSED NEW METHOD

COMPARING FREQUENTLY USED METHOD TO PROPOSED NEW METHOD

CONCLUSION

PRESENTATION OUTLINE


Located in Huntsville, TX (Piney Hills, East TX) 90 miles north of Houston

Founded in 1879, member of the Texas State University System, and Carnegie Classified Doctoral, Professional Dominant

There are 79 undergraduate degree programs, 52 masters' programs, and 5 doctoral programs

There are 5 colleges within the university: Arts and Sciences, Business Administration, Criminal Justice, Education, and Humanities and Social Sciences

Fall 2007 Total Enrollment of approximately 16,416 of whom 28% are minorities, and 1% are International students

Average class size is 31 students and the Faculty: Student ratio is 1:20

SAT Admissions standards are above the national average

In Fall 2007, 1755 new transfers enter SHSU, compared to an 2213 New Freshmen.

ABOUT SAM HOUSTON STATE UNIVERSITY (SHSU)


WHY DO WE STUDY TRANSFER STUDENTS?

To determine if we are providing the best environment & experiences to promote their success and to improve these for better outcomes

i.e., •Enrollment Mgmt •Enrichment and Support Programs; •Student Services •Academic Depts with Articulation Agreements

To satisfy external accountability requirements

TX Association of Institutional Research (TAIR) 2008 Conference, 2/5-7/084TAIR 2008 Conference, 2/6/08

HOW DO WE STUDY TRANSFER STUDENTS?

Examine outcomes such as retention, graduation rates and final GPAs by..

Comparing outcomes among subgroups within the transfer population. I.e.,

•Gender, •Ethnicity •Type of transfer •Entry cohort•# of SCHs transferred at entry, etc.

Comparing them against pre-existing “idealized,” external, ‘or internal benchmarks

Comparing transfer student outcomes to native student outcomes.


EXAMPLE:Comparison with pre-existing benchmarks

external, or internal benchmarks

New Transfer Cohort 2001

Idealized benchmarks:• Graduation within three years if entering with 30 or more credits

o 54% of Transfers with >29 credits graduate in three years

• Graduation within four years if entering with <30 creditso 40% of Transfers with <30 credits graduate in four years

External benchmarks:•State benchmark for Fall 2005 Cohort = 44%

Internal benchmarks


EXAMPLE: Comparing Transfers to New Freshman Natives

Who Entered in Same Year

Comparison of Graduation Rates up to S2007 by ethnicity for..•Students who entered SHSU as New Freshmen (NFN)•University Transfers (UT)•Community College Transfers (CCT)


25%

66.67%

32.83%39.04%

58.33%43.18%

EXAMPLE: Comparing Transfers to New Freshman Natives Who Entered in Same Year on Graduation GPA


Comparison of GPA up to S2007 by ethnicity for..•Students who entered SHSU as New Freshmen (NFN)•University Transfers (UT)•Community College Transfers (CCT)

3.15 3.212.81 2.90

3.283.03

ALTERNATE APPROACH: Comparing New Transfers to Credit-Comparable Natives

Graduation Rates of F2001University Transfers (UT) and Community College Transfers (CCT) with credits between 12-30; 31-45; 46-60; and >60

VS. Native Students with Comparable Credits in F2001 (CCN)


54.12%

60.59%65.11%

47.35%

Note: CCN’s are Students who are previously enrolled as Native Freshmen.

Comparing Results Using Native New Freshmen (NFN) vs.

Credit-Comparable Natives as Cohorts (CCN)By Ethnicity, On Graduation Rates


25%

66.67%

32.83%39.04%

58.33%

43.18%

42.50%

57.53%51.68%

46.84%39.39%

49.69%

Comparing Results Using Native New Freshmen (NNF) vs.

Credit-Comparable Natives as Cohorts (CCN)By Ethnicity, On Graduation GPA


3.15 3.212.81

2.903.28

3.03 2.89 2.982.70

2.843.04

2.94

TX Association of Institutional Research (TAIR) 2008 Conference, 2/5-7/08

Comparing Results Using Native New Freshmen (NFN) vs.

Credit-Comparable Natives (CCN) as CohortsBy Gender, On Graduation GPA


2.98

2.76

3.05

2.86

WHO ARE SHSU’S TRANSFER STUDENTS?


Comparison of Fall 2001 Cohorts

New Freshmen Natives

Credit Comparable Natives New Transfers

GenderMale 41.80% 47.28% 43.60%

Female 58.20% 51.63% 56.40%

Age at entry18-21 94.70% 35.61% 65.88%

22-25 1.00% 21.36% 18.52%

>25 1.24% 9.09% 15.60%

Ethnicities

American Indian 0.50% 1.30% 0.44%

Asian 0.90% 0.70% 1.10%

African American 13.70% 15.10% 10.40%

Hispanic 9.10% 9.20% 8.60%

International 1.10% 0.55% 1.10%

White 74.70% 72.80% 77.80%

Top 5 Graduating

Majors

1st Criminal Justice Academic Studies -El Ed Criminal Justice

2ndGen Bussiness Adminstration Criminal Justice

Academic Studies–El Ed

3rd KinesiologyGen Business Administration

Gen Bussiness Adminstration

4th Marketing General Studies Kinesiology

5th Political Science Kinesiology Accounting

TAIR 2008 Conference, 2/6/08 14

How Different Are the NFN and CCN Comparison Populations?

Cumulative GPA up to S2007

NFN CCN Difference UT CCT

AM American Indian/Alaskan Native 3.15 2.89 0.26 . 3.08

AP Asian Or Pacific Islander 3.21 2.98 0.23 2.83 3.18

BL Black, Non-Hispanic 2.81 2.70 0.11 2.78 2.71

HI Hispanic 2.90 2.84 0.06 3.08 2.84

IN International 3.28 3.04 0.24 3.26 2.70

WH White, Non-Hispanic 3.03 2.94 0.09 3.05 2.97

NFN CCN Difference UT CCT

F Female 3.05 2.98 0.07 3.18 3.02

M Male 2.86 2.76 0.10 2.87 2.79

Graduation rates upto 2007

NFN CCN Difference UT CCTAM American Indian/Alaskan Native 25.00% 42.50% -17.50% . 66.67%AP Asian Or Pacific Islander 66.67% 57.53% 9.14% 33.33% 63.64%BL Black, Non-Hispanic 32.83% 51.68% -18.85% 46.67% 44.09%

HI Hispanic 39.04% 46.84% -7.80% 50.00% 57.27%IN International 58.33% 39.39% 18.94% 50.00% 100.00%

WH White, Non-Hispanic 43.18% 49.69% -6.51% 56.10% 56.83%

NFN CCN Difference UT CCTF Female 45.93% 51.63% -5.71% 55.47% 62.43%

M Male 39.92% 47.28% -7.36% 52.71% 46.89%


Cohort Fall 2001 (NFN/CCN/Difference) Graduation Rates by Gender up to S2007

Cohort Fall 2001 (NFN/CCN/Difference) Graduation Rates by Gender up to S2007



Cohort Fall 2001 (NFN/CCN/Difference) GPA by Gender up to S2007

Cohort Fall 2001 (NFN/CCN/Difference) Graduation GPA by Gender up to S2007


17

Conclusion

TAIR 2008 Conference, 2/6/08

•One justification for comparing New Transfers to Credit-Comparable Natives, rather than Freshman New Natives is that this improves the authenticity of the comparison based on greater underlying similarities between these groups

• However, in this case, the CCNs were NOT much more similar to the New Transfer s except in its representation of older students

•With regard to graduation rate outcomes of New Transfers compared to Credit Comparable Natives, the CCN population did provide a closer comparison than New Freshman Natives.

18

Conclusion

TAIR 2008 Conference, 2/6/08

HOWEVER, regarding GPA outcomes…

• The CCN population was found to have lower GPAs than the NFNs overall, with statistical significance between genders

• There was also statistically significant difference between CNN and NFN population GPAs among Asian, Black and White students .

• Among both males and females , the GPAs of CCNs are less comparable to New Transfers

• Among Whites, the GPAs of the CCNs were less comparable to New Transfers

• Among Asians, the GPAs of CCNs were more comparable to University Transfer Students

• Among Blacks, GPAs of CCNs were more comparable to Community College Transfers.

An Alternate Approach to Studying Transfer Student Outcomes Suresh Gangireddy, GRA Lakshmi Kokatla,...

Documents

Transcript of An Alternate Approach to Studying Transfer Student Outcomes Suresh Gangireddy, GRA Lakshmi Kokatla,...