The Triple Jump: The Challenges of Enrolment Planning, Success & Throughput at Unisa Presented at...
-
Upload
jonathan-perry -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of The Triple Jump: The Challenges of Enrolment Planning, Success & Throughput at Unisa Presented at...
The Triple Jump: The Challenges of Enrolment Planning, Success
& Throughput at Unisa
Presented at the Assessment Project Colloquium
Kloofzicht 29 September 2008
Associate Professor George SubotzkyExecutive Director: Information and Strategic Analysis
Background• The Assessment Project forms part of Unisa’s larger
project to achieve the strategic objectives of:– Enhancing the student experience– Responsibly managing open access & enrolments, and
simultaneously to– Improving success & throughput– Increasing the quality, relevant and effectiveness of
Unisa’s graduates in the African context
• The main purpose of this presentation is to place the Assessment Project in this larger perspective and to provide an informational and analytic backdrop to key institutional strategic initiatives currently being undertaken to achieve the strategic objectives mentioned above
Background
• In particular, the presentation focuses on the current challenges faced by the University in relation to:– Enrolment planning– Success and throughput modelling and intended interventions
• The presentation draws on insights from:– Analyses of recent enrolment output trends and projections
patient to the ministerial targets– A recent national workshop convened by DISA entitled
Conceptually Modelling Success & Throughput at Unisa– My recent study tour of several UK universities and attendance
of a conference on Institutional Research in Southampton– The first cohort-based throughput case studies conducted at
Unisa, and an analysis of the exam results of students with 1 module outstanding who were identified to receive interventions
– Initial steps in modelling success & throughput
Background
• The presentation updates and substantially revises the previous presentation at the Assessment Project Symposium in July, entitled Building the Temple: The Assessment Project as part of the bigger picture
• Last night, the Principal sketched the bigger picture in relation to policy trends and institutional issues & challenges in a broad strategic overview
• This presentation examines the bigger picture of enrolment, success & throughput in terms of recent relevant information & analyses
Another metaphor
• Many current metaphors in current change & transformation discourse:– Minding the gap– Closing the gap– Bridging distance
• The triple jump: progression through the student walk envisaged as successful leaps and bridging gaps between the key milestones of:– Entry: access/enrolment– Success/throughput– Effective engagement in society
• More accurately, perhaps: a quadruple jump, as progressing from success to throughput constitutes another step
Employ-ment/
Citizenship
Through-put/
Graduation
PersistenceRetentionSuccess
Learning activities/
interactions
Entry:Choice/Inquiry/
Enrolment
PROFILING/MODELLING/PREDICTION: - Snapshot/trends - Views: Course/Qualification; Dept/School/College/Institution
1. Socio-Economic Circumstances:
• Background/ Schooling
• Current
2. Individual Factors/Attributes:
• Ability• Skills• Attitudes & Interests
3. Institutional Factors:
• Quality• Relevance• Effectiveness
TRACKING: Individual-level progress through HE process aggregated by profile elements
Key premises
• Indications from considerable number of research findings, as well as throughput cohort studies: non-academic factors play a significant role in impeding success & throughput – ontological/sociological construct at the heart of the throughput model
• Graduateness: ontological versus epistemological foundation: not so much what to students need to know, but who do they need to be in order to be effective in society as critical citizens and the market place as flexible innovators
• Total HEMIS HCs– Increased from
206 178 in 2004 to 254 136 in 2007
– 2006/5: 9,43% up– 2007/6: 11,69% up
• Active HCs – 2007: 239 581
(94,3% active rate) – 5,4% increase on 2006
– Approaching 2010 ministerial target of 258 023
HEMIS Enrolment Trends, 2004-7
2004 (To-tal)
2005 (To-tal)
2006 (To-tal)
2007 (To-tal)
2007 (Ac-tive)
2010 MOE Tar-get
2004 (To-tal)
2005 (To-tal)
2006 (To-tal)
2007 (To-tal)
2007 (Ac-tive)
2010 MOE Tar-get
HC
206178
207931
227539
254136
239581
258023
% Change
NaN 0.00850236203668676
0.0943005131509972
0.11688985184957
3
0.0529227956526134
NaN
% Active
NaN NaN NaN NaN 0.94272751597569
8
NaN
25,000
75,000
125,000
175,000
225,000
275,000
• Provisional HC Enrl –Current: 286
335– 2008 projected: 285
619
• HEMIS HC Enrl– 2007 actual: 239
581– 2008 Total proj: 273
128– 2008 Active proj: 257
485 – Just below ministerial
target: 258 336
2008 Enrolment Projection
Provisional Enrolments (To date)
Provisional Enrolments (Entire year)
HEMIS Total (Excl cancel.)
HEMIS Final (Active only)
Ministerial 2010 Target (Active only)
2007 (ac-tual)
262900 265759 254136 239581 NaN
2008 (pro-jected)
286335 285619.1625
273127.576041075
257484.881305666
NaN
% Change
0.0891403575503995
0.0747299715155462
NaN NaN NaN
2010 NaN NaN NaN NaN 258336
25,000
75,000
125,000
175,000
225,000
275,000
325,000
Focus
Actual Actual Actual Projected Projected Projected 2010
Approve
d Targets
2005 2006 2007 2008 (7,5%)
2009 (7%)
2010(7%)
Overall enrolments: 207 931 227 539 239 581 257 485 275 509
294 794 258 023
Fields of study:
SET
25 771 26 085 26 639 27 039
27 579
28 131 (10%)
13%
Bus/Man:
85 639 95 605 104 047 112 371
121 360
131 069 (44%)
50%
Humanities:
72 880 80 336 82 992 90 461
97 698
105 514 (36%)
37%
Education
23 641 25 513 25 903 27 457
29 105
30 851 (10%)
12%
Qualification
levels:
UG diplomas: 57 673 61 675 65 401 69 979
74 878
80 119 (27%)
28%
UG degrees: 117 757 127 694 133 508 142 854
152 853
163 553 (55%)
62%
PG < Masters: 15 506 17 469 18 472 20 689
23 378
26 417 (9%)
7%
PG M & D: 6 871 6 408 5 183 5 235
5 287
5 340 (2%)
3%
Unweighted FTEs: 100 875 109 707116
531 125 239
134 006
143 386 128 840
Success rate: 53,60% 50,80% 54,30% 55,00% 55,50% 56% 56%
Throughput
rate: % 7,17% 6,50% 6,45% 6,26% 6,24% 6,19% 8.37%
Graduates 14 185 13 855 14 364 15 000 16 000 17 000 20 231
Teaching Input
Units: Weighted teaching input units 83 558 90 803 95 887
103 053
110 266
117 985 102 100
Actual & projected enrolment & output performance against
targets
The Key Strategic Decision
• Continued Open access in line with DoE requirements for widened participation, market demand
vs
• New ‘Responsible’ open admission & enrolment in line with renegotiated DOE enrolment targets, emphasis on success & throughput, operational considerations
At the heart of Unisa’s enrolment planning lies such a policy tension namely:• Expansion & and open admissions, driven by:
– National policy framework emphasising widening participation, driven, in turn, by both equity and development needs
– Unisa’s social mandate to provide affordable, flexible access to higher education for non-traditional, disadvantaged students through quality distance education
– Increasing and unabating market demand for distance education
– Unisa’s emerging role in addressing urgent National and continental HRD needs, in particular teacher education and the impact of HIV/AIDS
Policy Tension in Enrolment Planning
• Controlled growth & responsibly managed admissions, driven by:– Concern for systemic and institutional
quality, efficiency & improved success/throughput
– Treasury’s policy of fiscal constraint– Unisa's concerns for maintaining quality,
operational efficiency & service delivery
Policy Tension in Enrolment Planning
Current situation• Letter has been drafted forwarded to the Ministry. This
requests– Renegotiating the overall enrolment target (our size) either
upwards or onwards and addressing the subsidy implications of this
– Reviewing the internal distribution of our enrolments by field of study and qualification level (our shape)
– Reviewing throughput and success norms appropriately for an ODL institution;
– Confirming the definition of the active student as a key determinant of the teaching input grant
– Alternatively, in the light of the DE policy process underway, a reprieve on our enrolment planning targets, and the issues raised above considered either as part of the DE policy process, or subsequent to the policy being finalised
• 2009-10 IOP includes new objectives around enrolment planning: task team
Responsibly managed open access
• Not exclusionary, but realistically supportive in the light of changing student profile
• Key premise: access & success inextricably linked
• Identifies – Academic readiness as well as:– Socio-economic readiness through rigorous pre-
registration engagement to: • Ensure conducive & supportive life conditions• Ensure right programme & subject choice and realistic
study loads • Identify appropriate tutorial & Pastoral support and
channelling
A visual metaphor ...
• Key success factor: adequate time for study
• Key risk factor: unrealistic course load
• Consequence: no progression!
Improving success
• Unisa’s course success rate is not bad• 2007: 54,8% vs ministerial target of 56%• Regarded as an achievable target• However, as Principal mentioned last night,
success is not just about exams• Unisa loses many potential successful students as
a result of risk areas: around 10%• Also, the ‘killer module’ syndrome is being
addresseds• Disaggregated 2007 figures and analysis currently
being prepared for presentation at next EMC
Success
Gross Enrolments
Exam Admission
Writing
Results
Course Attrition Rate= (CA + NA + Abs)/Gross Enrolments
Course Success Rate= Passed/Nett
Enrolments
Exam Pass Rate= Passed/Wrote
Exam Results Metrics
Exam Process Model
3 Key Indicators
Key Counts
Drop Out/Stop Out
Re-registration(Repeaters)
Qualified Readmission
Stuck
7 Risk Areas
Sup.Admission
Sup.Writing
Sup.Results
AdmittedAbsent
Fail Write
Pass
Fail
Absent
Not Admitted
Not Admitted
Admitted
Write
Pass
Canc.+ Non-Active
NettEnrolments
Modelling and Improving Success &
ThroughputCONCEPTUAL MODELLING:
• Explaining success and throughput by systematically identifying all factors and their interrelationships
MEASUREMENT: • Profiling/tracking by means of available/obtainable data &
information
STATISTICAL MODELLING: • Reliably establishing cause & effect• Identifying & predicting risk• Confirming/refining conceptual model
IMPROVING THROUGHPUT & SUCCESS:• Identification & implementation of interventions • Monitoring & evaluation of impact• Further improvements
BACKGROUND
• Socio-Economic
• Schooling• Culture
Individual Attributes
PREPAREDNESS
• Academic• Socio-
Economic
INDIVIDUAL FACTORS• Epistemological &
Ontological Development
• Academic Performance• Goal Commitment• Institutional
CommitmentPERSISTENC
E
• Academic integration
• Social integration
INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS
• Learner Support• Academic & Operational
Systems
SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS
• Conducive Conditions & Support: Finance, time, health & wellness
SUCCESS THROUGHPU
T&
GRADUATE-NESS
ROAP: Pre-registration
engagement & counselling: socio-economic readiness, qualification and course choice & load Bridging interactions across distances
Profiling, tracking & predicting individual, academic & socio-economic risk
Quality, relevance , service excellence, efficiency, effectiveness
Towards a model
Acknowledgements to Professor Chris Swanepoel, Dr Paul Prinsloo (members of modelling task team) and Dr At van
Schoor
Socio-economic & educational background
•
• Socio-economic status• Family income, employment & educational background• Location (OU proxy measure!)
• Educational background & outcomes• Quality of teaching • Quality of learning environment• Preparedness for higher learning
Literacy and numeracy: basic, ICT and academic Language skills Conceptual framework and vocabulary
• Social dimensions of schooling, domestic and individual life: • Attitudes to life issues of identity formation, sex, alcohol,
drugs, etc• Role models, support, expectations and encouragement:
family and peers
Individual attributes and qualities
•
•Academic merit: actual and potential•Motivation, focus, expectations, energy and persistence
•Learning style, reading patterns, self-discipline, time management and other study habits & skills
•Confidence and self-construction in relation to academic life and success
•Successful integration into and mastery of academic life: independence, self-management, self-regulation, etc.
Current socio-economic
circumstances
•
•Employment status, conditions and responsibilities•Domestic status, conditions and responsibilities•Financial status, conditions and responsibilities•Access to study materials, library and information sources•Access to other students and the community of scholarship•Access to adequate study space and time•Changing attitudes to social life, social issues and ongoing identity formation• Individual health, safety and wellbeing.
Institutional factors• Type of institution
– University, University of Technology, Comprehensive
– Selective vs. open entry– Residential vs. DE/ODL
• PQM/Fields of Study• Teaching methods • Assessment procedures &
practices– Appropriateness– Clarity of expectations– Etc, etc
• Teaching standards – Qualifications & experience of
teaching staff– Quality, relevance and
effectiveness of study materials
– Student evaluation of teaching quality
– Inspired, motivated academic staff
• Library/Laboratory and other facilities – Student access
• Student counselling– Types and extent of counselling
and support– Ease of access to, and utilisation
of counselling services
• Support – Tutor contact hours and student
utilisation– Pastoral vs. academic support
• Administrative efficiency & service delivery
Throughput cohort studies
• Preliminary studies, submitted to HEQC• Grappled with methodological issues of
measuring & benchmarking throughput (exceptionalism valid here?)
• Drawing from policy & research documents, a working benchmark throughput rate was derived
• A benchmark time-to-completion rate was based on the principle of expected minimum time, derived from course load
• Three case studies: B Com; B Compt; LLB• Qualifications profiles provided
Key findings• Overall graduation rates are very low and below
working benchmark• Time-to-completion rates below expected minimum
time• Dropout/transfer rates extremely high and well above
benchmark• Incidence of stopouts very high• Main problem is dropout rather then time-to-
completion• This (and other studies) suggests non-academic
reasons for lack of retention is significant• The implication is that the rationale for the tutor
scheme must be interrogated and the possibility of counselling & Pastoral support investigated
Profiling, tracking & predicting
success/riskKey elements of throughput initiative:
• Identification of risks and vulnerable moments: academic & non-academic (ontological/sociological view of agent assumed – situated, and subject to structuration)
• Pre-empting risks and vulnerable moments by proactive engagement: University of Brighton model – Keeping on Track
• Tracking of student academic & socio-economic activities• Exception reporting through automated portal: alerting
academic staff• Gathering of detailed student activity information through
incentivised online surveys on myUnisa• Various other interventions and initiatives identified,
implemented & evaluated
Educational Background
Unisa Destination
StudentSES/
Demographics
• Matric Status (Exempt./Non)• Matric Aggregate• Previous Inst. Type
• Matric Scores
• College• CESM/FOS
• Race• Gender• Age
• Home language• Nationality
• Qual. Category (B Tech etc)• Qual. Type (Degree/Dipl/Cert.)• Qual. Level (UG/PG)
• Employment Status• Location• Marital Status• Economic Status
• Domestic/Financial responsibilities
• Health & Wellness
• Course Type• Course Load
Individual factors
• Socio-psychological metrics (?)• Academic Record• Academic Activities/Behaviours (tracking)
Student Profiling
Course level
Course type
CESM/FOS
• Entry• Exit
• Pre-requisite • Compulsory• Elective
• Humanities & Social Sciences• Law • Business/Commerce• Science, Engineering & Technology
Course history• Enrolment patterns• Success Rate (‘killer Module’?)• Student evaluation
Course Profiling
Staff profiling
• Understanding (but not necessarily condoning) the attitudes & experiences of staff is key to effective change management as a basis for realising strategic goals
• Organisational theory identifies various positions which staff take up within organisations in relation to change initiatives
• What might this look like in current Unisa climate?
Change profile
Self constructions/identity tensions:• Collegialism-managerialism: resistance to
compliance and planned environment• Teaching-Research nexis• Academic-Educator identity• Meaningful identification-alienation :
– Based on alignment of personal, departmental, institutional and social purposes, and shared understandings of institutional vision (King Solomon adage)
• Self-interested minimalists-inspired initiative takers
Key risk factors• High-risk student profile– Underpreparedness– Insufficient time, opportunity, support of
conditions: Mismatch between students’ life circumstances/ expectations/attitudes and realities & demands of HE study in general and DE in particular (especially issue of course load)
• High-risk course profile (‘Killer module’)• High-risk institutional factors
Key mutual asuccess factors
• Student Engagement/Motivation/Persistence– Perceived and experienced external & intrinsic
value (Tinto ‘choice’ – situated action theory)– Combination of individual, socio-economic &
institutional enhancing/supportive factors
• Institutional factors– Combination of high quality, relevant & effective
academic practices & learner support, efficient administrative service delivery, application of relevant technologies
– Negotiated understanding of graduateness, employability (LMJU example) and citizenship