Download Persistence in College: A Longitudinal Study on the Influence of

Persistence in College:
A Longitudinal Study on the Influence
of Concurrent Enrollment and
Advanced Placement Programs
Presented by:
Bill Duffy
University of Tennessee at Martin
National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment
Partnerships (NACEP)
October 11, 2004
AGENDA
(Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle)

Pose question
 Literature Review: AP, CEP & Persistence
 Purpose of study
 Research questions
 Methodology
 Future research
 Suggestions
 Repose question
2
PERSISTENCE IN COLLEGE
(Audience briefly shares experiences, and
considers question during presentation)

What does your institution’s concurrent
enrollment program do to enhance the
following areas for high school students?:
– Commitment to a college
– Commitment to graduate from college
– Social integration in college (student-to-student
and student-to-faculty interactions)
3
LITERATURE REVIEW

Advanced Placement
 Concurrent Enrollment Programs
 Persistence
4
ADVANCED PLACEMENT (AP)

Established in 1955 (1229 AP exams; 25 colleges)
 2002: 1.5 million AP exams; 937,000 students; over
14,000 schools worldwide; 80 countries
 90 percent of US colleges/universities have AP policies
 In 2001, 11% increase, and 6th straight year of doubledigit growth
 Has become a criteria for success in evaluating high
schools (Newsweek)
 Performance and retention exceed college norms
5
CONCURRENT ENROLLMENT (CEP)




Education Commission of the States – All states have
policies pertaining to CEPs with varying restrictions
and guidelines
Most programs are local/regional partnerships, and
established by colleges to:
– Enhance learning opportunities/challenges for HS
students (senioritis)
– Increase access to higher education
– Reduce college costs
– Reduce time to graduate
– Increase college enrollments and revenue
NACEP established national standards
Performance and retention exceed college norms
6
AP/CEP ISSUES
(Association of American Colleges and Universities)

Credibility: Is the learning in these
programs truly college level given the
enormous range of academic standards in
higher education?
 Turf: Who determines the standards for
college credit, and to what degree are the
answers corrupted by self-interest?
7
AP CREDIBILITY AND TURF
ISSUES

Many AP course content decisions determined at
HS level:
– Harvard only accepts AP Exams of “5”
– National Research Council criticized Math & Science
AP courses – memorization versus problem solving and
discussion

Tremendous loss of college revenue: AP student
receiving credit for 10 college courses at Stanford
saves $25K (and only paid $1000 for the AP
exams)
 Financial aid for AP exams
 Access into college and scheduling of AP exams
8
CEP CREDIBILTY AND TURF
ISSUES

NACEP accreditation standards address the following
– Lack of national standards
– Academic quality
– Faculty credentials and qualifications (note: not an “on-
campus” issue for AP program)





Transferability of grades
Course experience for students
Student maturity
State funding for HS and College (double-dipping)
Impact on students’ subsequent academic and social
performance in college
9
PERSISTENCE

Tinto’s theory of student departure: most mature
research in higher education, and possibly the
most studied in social science:
– Students enter with pre-entry attributes: family
background, skills and attributes, pre-college
achievements and educational experiences
– Pre-entry attributes influence commitment to an
institution and commitment to graduate from
college
– Upon arrival at college, academic and social
experiences influence initial commitments, and
influence an individual’s decision to remain in
college
– Academic and social integration are core constructs
10
of Tinto’s theory.
PERSISTENCE (cont.)


31-45 percent student departure rate
Influencing factors: Student intentions, institution type,
voluntary versus involuntary
 Two major empirical studies on persistence (ie.
research on the existing body of research):
– Pantages and Creeden (1978)
– Braxton, Sullivan, & Johnson (2000)
 Braxton, Sullivan & Johnson:
– Strong empirical support for the influence of both
student entry characteristics and social integration
on student persistence
– Modest empirical support for academic integration
on student persistence
 Lack of persistence research in the classroom, and on
students “before” entering college (most research prior
to college pertains to “college choice”)
11
PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY

Determine impact, if any, CEP/AP have on
“initial” commitments to the institution and
to graduating from college
 Determine relationships, if any, between
CEP/AP students and persistence after entry
into college (commitments and integration)
12
RESEARCH QUESTIONS

What relationship, if any, exists between CEP/AP
students and persistence in college?
 What relationship, if any, exists between CEP/AP
students commitment to graduating from college?
 What relationship, if any, exists between CEP/AP
students and commitment to an institution?
 What relationship, if any, exists between CEP/AP
students and social integration in college?
13
METHODOLOGY

Only survey NACEP Accredited CEPs (ensures
standards for institutions offering CEPs)
 Pre-post survey
– Fall 2005: newly enrolled “senior” CEP and AP
English Composition student
– Spring 2007: after completing one year of college
Validated “persistence” survey instrument
 Path Analysis statistical study

14
PERSISTENCE VARIABLES





Commitment to Institution
Commitment to graduating from college
Social Integration: peer-to-peer interactions and
peer-to-faculty interactions
Institution type: 4-yr, 2-yr; public, private, urban,
rural, HBC
Pre-entry characteristics: ACT/SAT, GPA, class
rank, SES, parents education level, family support,
gender, race
15
FUTURE RESEARCH

Based on existing research and theory accepted by the
Academy: Astin, Bean, Chickering, Hossler, Pascarella,
Tinto, etc.
 Peer-reviewed publications
 Validated survey instruments
 Persistence:
– By college types
– By academic discipline
– Nationally, regionally or statewide
– Gender, race, socio-economic (SES), parents
education
– Instructor type: HS faculty and “on-campus”
faculty teaching in high schools
 College Choice
16
 Subsequent academic performance in college
CONSIDERATIONS

NACEP fund scholarships in support of
NACEP member research on CEPs
 NACEP CEP definition include “oncampus” faculty teaching CEPs at high
schools given likely impact on college
social/academic integration
17
PERSISTENCE IN COLLEGE

What “CAN” your institution’s concurrent
enrollment program do to enhance the
following areas for high school students?:
– Commitment to a college
– Commitment to graduate from college
– Social integration in college (student-to-student
and student-to-faculty interactions)
18
CONTACT INF0RMATION

Bill Duffy
– Director, Office of Extended Campus &
Continuing Education; UT Martin
– Phone: 731-425-9277
– Email: [email protected]
19