analysis of retention and graduation rates for 2012-2019€¦ · 3 vusc ir report, 2019 fall . 2)...

1

VUSC IR report, 2019 Fall

Analysis of Retention and Graduation Rates for 2012-2019

Executive Summary

• The purpose of this report is to 1) review and map trends in retention and graduation rates over the

past seven years (2012- 2019), 2) identify “at-risk” student groups and significant factors affecting

retention and graduation, and 3) evaluate and support effective intervention programs for

retention/graduation.

• Overall retention rate has increased by 1% from 81.6% last year to 82.6% this year. Hispanic

retention increased by 1.5% this year while the White retention remains same, thus the gap

between the two groups decreased from 3.8% to 2.8%.

• Commuter retention also increased this year (81.9%). First-year retention rate of the transfer-in

cohort kept increasing for the past three years (see p.11).

• It was observed that Hispanic Sophomore retention decreased by 6.4% while White Sophomore

retention increased by 5.8% this year (see p. 15).

• Six-year graduation rate of the 2013 entering cohort is 59% this year 2019, which is 5% lower than

that of the 2012 entering cohort (64%) last year. The lower graduation rate of the 2013 cohort may

be due to the lower first-year retention rate (75.3%) of the cohort compared to other cohorts (see

pp. 10, 17).

• Hispanic graduation rate is 14% lower than the White graduation rate for the 2013 cohort and it is

13% lower than that of the 2012 Hispanic cohort. The lower graduation rate of the 2013 Hispanic

entering cohort may be due to their low first-year retention rate (70.9%).

• Relational factors (caring for students, sense of welcoming, and quality of interaction) could be key

factors to student retention in Vanguard campus. It was cross-validated by multiple satisfaction

survey results aggregated in 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2019 (see pp. 22-23)

http://www.vanguard.edu/

2


I. Retention Rates

This retention report is for the traditional undergraduate (TUG) students only. Retention rate was

calculated for each school year from the Fall 15th day to the 15th day of the following Fall semester. It

should be noted that the following students were excluded from the retention pool: 1) Students who

graduated or were accepted for commencement in the Fall semester of the previous year and the

Spring semester or Summer of the following year, and 2) Student-at-large with non-degree. National

reporting standards for retention can be found at the following URL:

http://www.airweb.org/EducationAndEvents/IPEDSTraining/Tutorials/Pages/default.aspx).

1) Overall Retention

- Overall retention rate has increased by 1% from 81.6% last year to 82.6% this year.

- Overall retention has remained stable at around 82-83% since 2013 when it significantly

increased from 78.4% (2011-2012) to 83.5%.

School Year Retention Pool Returned Retention %

2011-2012 1099 862 78.4%

2012-2013 1167 975 83.5%

2013-2014 1220 1011 82.9%

2014-2015 1128 940 83.3%

2015-2016 1097 897 81.8%

2016-2017 1118 917 82.0%

2017-2018 1176 960 81.6%

2018-2019 1250 1032 82.6%

78.4%

83.5%82.9%

83.3%

81.8%82.0% 81.6%

82.6%

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

Retention Rate (Overall)

http://www.airweb.org/EducationAndEvents/IPEDSTraining/Tutorials/Pages/default.aspx

3


2) Gender

- Female and male retention rates have increased by 1% and 0.8%, respectively, this year.

- Female retention is slightly higher than male retention (about 2%) but with no statistically

significant difference.

81.0%

84.2%83.3%

83.1%

82.2%

83.6%

82.2%83.2%

74.0%

82.3% 82.0%

83.7%

81.0%

79.3%80.5%

81.3%

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

Retention Rate by GenderFemale Male

School Year Gender Retention Pool Returned Retention %

2011-2012 Female 691 560 81.0%

Male 408 302 74.0%

2012-2013 Female 771 649 84.2%

Male 396 326 82.3%

2013-2014 Female 803 669 83.3%

Male 417 342 82.0%

2014-2015 Female 723 601 83.1%

Male 405 339 83.7%

2015-2016 Female 696 572 82.2%

Male 401 325 81.0%

2016-2017 Female 703 588 83.6%

Male 415 329 79.3%

2017-2018 Female 770 633 82.2%

Male 406 327 80.5%

2018-2019 Female 855 711 83.2%

Male 395 321 81.3%

4


3) Ethnicity (White and Hispanic)

- Hispanic retention increased by 1.5% from 80.2% to 81.7% this year.

- The gap between the White and Hispanic groups has slightly decreased from 3.8% to 2.8%

this year and it is not statistically significant.

School Year Ethnicity (2) Retention Pool Returned Retention %

2011-2012 White 591 470 79.5%

Hispanic 307 227 73.9%

2012-2013 White 596 499 83.7%

Hispanic 341 283 83.0%

2013-2014 White 559 467 83.5%

Hispanic 446 367 82.3%

2014-2015 White 515 427 82.9%

Hispanic 423 357 84.4%

2015-2016 White 504 431 85.5%

Hispanic 417 331 79.4%

2016-2017 White 470 390 83.0%

Hispanic 432 359 83.1%

2017-2018 White 432 363 84.0%

Hispanic 506 406 80.2%

2018-2019 White 419 354 84.5%

Hispanic 579 473 81.7%

79.5%

83.7% 83.5%

82.9%

85.5%

83.0%

84.0% 84.5%

73.9%

83.0%82.3%

84.4%

79.4%

83.1%

80.2%81.7%

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

Retention Rate by Ethnicity (2)White Hispanic

5


4) Ethnicity (Hispanic and White) x Gender

- Hispanic female retention increased by 2.1% while Hispanic male retention decreased

slightly by 1.4%. There is no significant difference in retention for the four groups.

5) Ethnicity (African American, Asian, Hispanic, and White)

- The retention rate for African Americans has increased for the past three years from 67.2% to

80.3%.

- There is no significant difference anymore in retention rate for the four ethnic groups.

74.4%

83.4%

81.6%

83.4% 86.3%

81.4%

82.4%

82.1%

82.6%

83.9% 84.6%

82.6%

85.0%83.8%

84.9%85.7%

76.5%

83.5%83.2%

83.9%

79.9%

85.6%

79.9%

83.0%

69.2%

81.7% 80.4%

85.3%

78.4% 78.9%80.9%

78.5%

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

Retention Rate by Ethnicity (2) x GenderWhite Male White Female Hispanic Female Hispanic Male

82.5%

92.1% 93.3%

88.0%

91.3%

82.4%

86.2% 86.8%

79.5%

83.7%

83.5%

82.9%

85.5% 84.0% 84.5%

73.9%

83.0%

82.3% 84.4%79.4%

83.1%

80.2% 81.7%

79.2%

84.3%

82.1%

83.3%

67.2% 69.9%77.9%

80.3%

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

Retention Rate by Ethnicity (4)Asian White Hispanic African American

6


School Year Ethnicity Retention Pool Returned Retention %

2011-2012 Asian 40 33 82.50%

White 591 470 79.50%

Hispanic 307 227 73.90%

African American 48 38 79.20%

2012-2013 Asian 38 35 92.10%

White 596 499 83.70%

Hispanic 341 283 83.00%


2013-2014 Asian 30 28 93.30%

White 559 467 83.50%

Hispanic 446 367 82.30%


2014-2015 Asian 25 22 88.00%

White 515 427 82.90%

Hispanic 423 357 84.40%


2015-2016 Asian 23 21 91.30%

White 504 431 85.50%

Hispanic 417 331 79.40%


2016-2017

Asian 34 28 82.35%

White 470 390 82.98%

Hispanic 432 359 83.10%


2017-2018 Asian 29 25 86.21%

White 432 363 84.03%

Hispanic 506 406 80.24%


2018-2019 Asian 38 33 86.80%

White 419 354 84.50%

Hispanic 579 473 81.70%


7


6) Resident Status

- Resident students historically showed higher retention rates than commuter students

- Commuter retention increased by 2.9% this year (81.9%) while the resident retention

remained same at 83%, thus decreasing the gap between the two groups substantially.

School Year Resident Status Retention Pool Returned Retention %

2011-2012 Commuter 292 202 69.2%

Resident 807 660 81.8%

2012-2013 Commuter 317 259 81.7%

Resident 850 716 84.2%

2013-2014 Commuter 398 307 77.1%

Resident 822 704 85.6%

2014-2015 Commuter 329 261 79.3%

Resident 799 679 85.0%

2015-2016 Commuter 358 283 79.1%

Resident 739 614 83.1%

2016-2017 Commuter 362 293 80.9%

Resident 756 624 82.5%

2017-2018 Commuter 410 324 79.0%

Resident 766 636 83.0%

2018-2019 Commuter 474 388 81.9%

Resident 776 644 83.0%

81.8%

84.2%85.6%

85.0%83.1% 82.5% 83.0% 83.0%

69.2%

81.7%

77.1%

79.3% 79.1%80.9% 79.0%

81.9%

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

Retention Rate by Resident Status

Resident student Commuter

8


7) Resident Status × Ethnicity (Hispanic and White)

- Hispanic commuter retention increased by 3.2% this year (78.4%) from 75.2% last year.

There is no more statistically significant difference for the four groups.

School Year Ethnicity × Resident Retention Pool Returned Retention %

2011-2012 White-Resident 447 364 81.4%

Hispanic-Resident 210 168 80.0%

White-Commuter 144 106 73.6%

Hispanic-Commuter 97 59 60.8%

2012-2013 White-Resident 446 377 84.5%




2013-2014 White-Resident 386 334 86.5%




2014-2015 White-Resident 389 327 84.1%




81.4%

84.5% 86.5% 84.1% 85.6%83.8%

84.3%

83.2%

80.0%82.6%

84.3%

86.2%

82.4%82.9%

83.8% 84.4%

73.6%

81.3%76.9%

79.4%

85.4%

81.1%

83.6%

87.1%

60.8%

84.0%

78.6%80.7%

74.7%

83.4%

75.2%

78.4%

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

Retention Rate by Resident Status and Ethnicity (2) White-Resident Hispanic-Resident White-Commuter Hispanic-Commuter

9


2015-2016 White-Resident 360 308 85.6%




2016-2017

White-Resident 327 274 %83.8%




2017-2018 White-Resident 292 246 84.3%




2018-2019 White-Resident 280 233 83.2%




8) Entering Cohorts (First-time, Transfer-in)

- First-time: A student who has no prior postsecondary experience attending any institution for

the first time at the undergraduate level. It includes students enrolled in the fall term who

attended college for the first time in the prior summer term, and students who entered with

advanced standing, such as college credits or postsecondary formal award earned before

graduation from high school (IPEDS definition).

- Transfer-in: A student entering for the first time but known to have previously attended a

postsecondary institution at the same level (e.g., undergraduate). This includes new students

enrolled in the fall term who transferred into the institution the prior summer term (IPEDS

definition).

- This analysis included the entering cohort of each year seeking a bachelor’s degree only

following the IPEDS survey definition.

- The two cohorts include both full-time and part-time in this analysis.

- First-year retention of the First-time cohort has increased slightly for the past two years: 73.3%

for the 2016 entering cohort while 75.9% for the 2018 entering cohort, which is 2.6% increase.

- First-year retention of the Transfer-in cohort kept increasing for the past three years:

73.5% for the 2016 entering cohort while 83.7% for the 2018 entering cohort, which is a 10.2%

increase.

- Therefore, the gap between the two cohorts has continued to increase.

10


76.5%

76.6%

75.3%78.0%

75.3%

73.3%74.5%

75.9%

79.6%

73.9%

80.7% 79.5%

73.5%

74.2%

77.7%

83.7%

2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-19

Retention Rate by Entering CohortsFirst-time Transfer-in

School Year Entering Cohort Retention Pool Returned Retention %

2011-2012 First-time 408 312 76.5%

Transfer-in 152 121 79.6%

2012-2013 First-time 435 333 76.6%


2013-2014 First-time 392 295 75.3%


2014-2015 First-time 314 245 78.0%


2015-2016 First-time 373 281 75.3%


2016-2017 First-time 408 299 73.3%


2017-2018 First-time 432 322 74.5%


2018-2019 First-time 460 349 75.9%


11


- 2018 White and Hispanic first-time entering cohorts showed a same first-year retention

(77.0%) as shown in the graph below. The two ethnic group retentions have fluctuated in

opposite directions in the past: when White retention increases the Hispanic retention

decreases and vice versa.

- The 2018 Hispanic transfer-in cohort showed a very high first-year retention (88.6%)

which is 5.3% higher than that of the 2018 White counterpart (83.3%).

77.3% 77.6%80.5%

76.9%

82.7%

73.6%

79.8%77.0%

75.0% 75.3%70.9%

79.8%

71.1%

75.7%

71.3%

77.0%

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

Retention Rate by Ethnicity for First-TimeWhite First-Time Hispanic First-Time

79.7%

68.1%

79.2%

81.7%78.9%

72.7%

81.0%

83.3%

67.9%

90.9%

84.1%

77.1% 71.0%

76.7%

76.5%

88.6%

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

Retention Rate by Ethnicity for Transfer-InWhite Transfer-In Hispanic Transfer-In

12


School Year Entering Cohort Retention Pool Returned %

2011-2012 White First-Time 211 163 77.3%

Hispanic First-Time 132 99 75.0%

White Transfer-In 79 63 79.7%

Hispanic Transfer-In 28 19 67.9%

2012-2013 White First-Time 183 142 77.6%




2013-2014 White First-Time 164 132 80.5%




2014-2015 White First-Time 143 110 76.9%




2015-2016 White First-Time 162 134 82.7%




2016-2017

White First-Time 140 103 73.6%




2017-2018 White First-Time 129 103 79.8%




2018-2019 White First-Time 135 104 77.0%




13


- 2018 male first-time entering cohort showed the higher first-time retention (77.0%) than

their counterparts in the 2016 and 2017 first-time entering cohorts (67.9% and 69.2%,

respectively)

77.1%

76.3%

76.3%

76.9%73.5%

75.9% 76.9%

75.4%75.2%

77.1%

72.9%

80.2% 79.0%

67.9%69.2%

77.0%

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

Retention Rate by Gender for First-time Female Male

School Year Gender (First-time)

Retention Pool Returned Retention %

2011-2012 Female 275 212 77.1%

Male 133 100 75.2%

2012-2013 Female 295 225 76.3%

Male 140 108 77.1%

2013-2014 Female 274 209 76.3%

Male 118 86 72.9%

2014-2015 Female 208 160 76.9%

Male 106 85 80.2%

2015-2016 Female 249 183 73.5%

Male 124 98 79.0%

2016-2017 Female 274 208 75.9%

Male 134 91 67.9%

2017-2018 Female 299 230 76.9%

Male 133 92 69.2%

2018-2019 Female 334 252 75.4%

Male 126 97 77.0%

14


9) Class Level

- Freshman retention has increased for the past two years by a total of 3% from 72% in

2016-17 to 75% in 2018-19.

- On the other hand, Sophomore retention has decreased for the past two years by a total of

4% from 88.3% in 2016-17 to 84.3% in 2018-19.

School Year Class Level Retention Pool Returned Retention %

2011-2012 Freshman 447 333 74.5%

Sophomore 340 267 78.5%

Junior 277 237 85.6%

Senior 35 25 71.4%

2012-2013 Freshman 470 357 76.0%

Sophomore 368 322 87.5%

Junior 279 254 91.0%

Senior 50 42 84.0%

2013-2014 Freshman 428 319 74.5%

Sophomore 408 348 85.3%

Junior 335 308 91.9%

Senior 49 36 73.5%

2014-2015 Freshman 353 273 77.3%

Sophomore 362 300 82.9%

Junior 359 325 90.5%

Senior 54 42 77.8%

85.6%

91.0%91.9%

90.5% 90.7% 90.5% 90.1%92.8%

78.5%

87.5%85.3%

82.9%86.7%

88.3%85.4% 84.3%

71.4%

84.0%

73.5%

77.8%80.0%

77.3% 76.5% 72.3%

74.5%76.0%

74.5%77.3%

73.8%72.0% 73.9% 75.0%

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

Retention Rate by Class Level

Junior Sophomore Senior Freshmen

15


2015-2016 Freshman 484 357 73.8%

Sophomore 279 242 86.7%

Junior 289 262 90.7%

Senior 45 36 80.0%

2016-2017

Freshman 442 318 72.0%

Sophomore 326 288 88.3%

Junior 306 277 90.5%

Senior 44 34 77.3%

2017-2018 Freshman 472 349 73.9%

Sophomore 350 299 85.4%

Junior 303 273 90.1%

Senior 51 39 76.5%

2018-2019 Freshman 480 360 75.0%

Sophomore 389 328 84.3%

Junior 334 310 92.8%

Senior 47 34 72.3%

10) Sophomore by Ethnicity

- It was observed in a further analysis that Hispanic Sophomore retention decreased by

6.4% while White Sophomore retention increased by 6.8% this year

79.5%

87.5%

84.2% 83.4%

89.6%

86.5%

82.5%

89.3%

70.1%

85.8%

88.7%

83.5%

82.9%

90.6%88.9%

82.5%

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

Retention Rate by Ethnicity for SophomoreWhite Hispanic

16


11) PELL Grant

- PELL grant is one of the most widely used indicators of the socio-economic status (SES).

- The retention gap between the PELL and non-PELL slightly increased this year, as

retention of non-Pell slightly increased from 83.2% to 84.7% while Pell remained same.

- However, there is no statistically significant difference between PELL and non-PELL nor

between White and Hispanic within each of the PELL and non-PELL categories.

School Year PELL/Non-PELL Retention Pool Returned Retention %

2011-2012 Non-PELL 646 524 81.1%

PELL 453 338 74.6%

2012-2013 Non-PELL 702 594 84.6%

PELL 465 381 81.9%

2013-2014 Non-PELL 725 611 84.3%

PELL 495 400 80.8%

2014-2015 Non-PELL 672 567 84.4%

PELL 456 373 81.8%

2015-2016 Non-PELL 618 515 83.3%

PELL 479 382 79.7%

2016-2017 Non-PELL 592 502 84.8%

PELL 526 415 78.9%

2017-2018 Non-PELL 631 525 80.0%

PELL 544 435 83.2%

2018-2019 Non-PELL 649 550 84.7%

PELL 601 482 80.2%

81.1%

84.6%84.3% 84.4%

83.3%84.8%

83.2%84.7%

74.6%

81.9% 80.8%81.8%

79.7% 78.9% 80.0% 80.2%

2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-19

Retention Rate by Financial AidNon-PELL PELL

17


II. Graduation Rates

6-year graduation rates were analyzed for the full-time, first-time entering cohorts seeking a

bachelor’s degree only (IPEDS definition).

1) Overall

- Six-year graduation rate of the 2013 entering cohort this year (59%) is 5% lower

than that of the 2012 entering cohort (64%) last year.

- It was speculated that the lower graduation rate of the 2013 cohort was due to their

lower first-year retention rate (75.3%) compared to other cohorts (See the “First-time”

line in the graph p. 10.)

- Therefore, it will be interesting to see the six-year graduation rate of the 2014 cohort

next year whose first-year retention rate (78%) is higher than that of the 2013 cohort.

Entering- Graduating Cohort total Graduated Graduation Rate

2006-2012 390 213 55%

2007-2013 367 192 52%

2008-2014 299 164 55%

2009-2015 261 146 56%

2010-2016 334 186 56%

2011-2017 397 242 61%

2012-2018 435 280 64%

2013-2019 390 229 59%

55%52%

55%56%

56%

61%64%

59%

2006-2012

2007-2013

2008-2014

2009-2015

2010-2016

2011-2017

2012-2018

2013-2019

6-Year Graduation Rate (Overall)

18


2) Gender

- Graduation rates of both genders of 2013 cohort are lower than those of the 2012 cohort

by 4% for female and 9% for male, respectively.

- Also, male graduation rate is 8% lower than the female graduation rate for the 2013

cohort, which may be due to the lower first-year retention of males (72.9%) than that of

females (76.3%) (See “2013-14” in the graph p. 13.)

Entering- Graduating

Gender Cohort total Graduated %

2006-2012 Female 252 145 58%

Male 138 68 49%

2007-2013 Female 232 126 54%

Male 135 66 49%

2008-2014 Female 205 109 53%

Male 94 55 59%

2009-2015 Female 162 101 62%

Male 99 45 45%

2010-2016 Female 234 138 59%

Male 100 48 48%

2011-2017 Female 271 173 64%

Male 126 69 55%

2012-2018 Female 292 191 65%

Male 143 89 62%

2013-2019 Female 273 167 61%

Male 117 62 53%

49% 49%

59%

45%

48%

55%

62%

53%

58%54%

53%

62%

59%

64% 65%61%

2006-2012 2007-2013 2008-2014 2009-2015 2010-2016 2011-2017 2012-2018 2013-2019

6-Year Graduation Rate by GenderMale Female

19


3) Ethnicity (White and Hispanic)

- Hispanic graduation rate is 14% lower than the White graduation rate for the 2013 cohort

and it is 13% lower than that of the 2012 Hispanic cohort.

- It was speculated that the lower graduation rate of the 2013 Hispanic entering cohort was

due to their low first-year retention rate (70.9%) (See the “Hispanic First-time” line in the graph

p. 11.)


Ethnicity (2) Cohort total Graduated %

2006-2012 Hispanic 58 29 50%

White 269 147 55%

2007-2013 Hispanic 55 26 47%

White 256 137 54%

2008-2014 Hispanic 57 26 46%

White 188 118 63%

2009-2015 Hispanic 58 24 41%

White 159 98 62%

2010-2016 Hispanic 101 49 49%

White 165 108 65%

2011-2017 Hispanic 122 69 57%

White 215 132 61%

2012-2018 Hispanic 157 103 66%

White 185 122 66%

2013-2019 Hispanic 172 91 53%

White 162 108 67%

55% 54%63% 62%

65%61%

67%

50% 47% 46%41%

49%

57%

66%

53%

2006-2012 2007-2013 2008-2014 2009-2015 2010-2016 2011-2017 2012-2018 2013-2019

6-Year Graduation Rate by Ethnicity (2)White Hispanic

20


4) Ethnicity (White and Hispanic) x Gender

- White females of the 2013 entering cohort showed a higher graduation rate than their

counterpart in the 2012 entering cohort.

- However, other groups (2013 White/Hispanic males, Hispanic females entering cohort) showed

lower graduation rates than their counterparts in the 2012 entering cohort.


Ethnicity (2) × Gender

Cohort total Graduated %

2006-2012

White Female 167 99 59%

White Male 102 48 47%

Hispanic Female 43 22 51%

Hispanic Male 15 7 47%

2007-2013





2008-2014





59% 54%

62% 68%71%

67%

65%

70%

53%65%

50%

51% 50%

69%

59%

51%

51%

41%

48%

53%

55%

67%

55%

47%

39%

52%

32%

38%

61%

63% 47%

2006-2012 2007-2013 2008-2014 2009-2015 2010-2016 2011-2017 2012-2018 2013-2019

6-Year Graduation Rate by Gender x Ethnicity (2)White Female White Male

21


2009-2015





2010-2016





2011-2017





2012-2018





2013-2019





22


III. Retention and Relational Factors

• Student retention is often attributed to student factors (e.g., GPA, finances) and institutional factors

(e.g., quality of instruction, campus support services). However, we hypothesized that relational

factors (caring for students, sense of welcoming, and quality of interaction) could be a key to

retention. Previous studies support our hypothesis: any community caring for their members will

retain them (Tinto, 1993); “Relentless welcome” is what students need and want throughout their

time in higher education (Felten, 2019); student-faculty interaction has a strong effect on student

satisfaction with the college experience than any other factors (Astin, 1993). Our hypothesis was

tested using data from the 2014 and 2018 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and the

2016 and 2019 Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI). The sample consists of 1158

Vanguard traditional undergraduate students.

• Of all ten NSSE constructs, Quality of Interactions was the only construct that showed a

significant correlation (<.05) with the students’ return intentions, “Do you intend to return to this

institution next year?” Additional NSSE questions focused on students-centeredness (sense of

belonging, feeling comfortable and valued) also had significant correlations (<.001) with the

return intention.

• Analysis of SSI data further supported our hypothesis. Student Centeredness and Campus

Climate categories, as well as Sense of Belonging items, showed the highest positive correlations

with the retention item, “All in all, if you had to do it over again, would you enroll here?” than other

categories (Campus Life, Instructional Effectiveness, Recruitment and Financial Aid, Campus

Support Services, Academic Advising, Registration Effectiveness, Service Excellence,

Responsiveness to Diverse Populations).

• Additionally, the correlations between all the 89 SSI items (2019 spring) and the actual 2018-2019

student retention were examined. First, of all the categories of the items, Student Centeredness

showed the highest positive correlation with the actual retention (<.05) than other categories.

Second, followings are some of the individual items which showed significant correlations (<.05):

#1. Most students feel a sense of belonging here.

#3. Faculty care about me as an individual.

#13. Library staff are helpful and approachable.

#34. I am able to register for classes I need with few conflicts.

#39. I am able to experience intellectual growth here.

#45. Students are made to feel welcome on this campus.

#47. Faculty provide timely feedback about student progress in a course.

#58. The quality of instruction I receive in most of my classes is excellent.

23


#59. This institution shows concern for students as individuals.

#65. Faculty are usually available after class and during office hours.

#69. There is a good variety of courses provided on this campus.

#75. Campus item: My understanding of God is being strengthened by classroom and/or

campus experiences.

#79. Campus item: Given where I am spiritually right now, this campus is a good "fit" for me.

• The results above clearly showed that the relational factors (caring for students, sense of

welcoming, and quality of interaction) are key retention factors for our campus. These findings are

aligned with the core motives framework in which belonging is the key human motivational force

(Fiske, 2019). We need to contextualize these findings within campus culture so faculty and staff

can continue to “create a relentless welcome” (Felten, 2019) through their regular interaction with

students.

Works Cited

Astin, A. W. (1993). The Jossey-Bass higher and adult education series. What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. Jossey-Bass.

Felten, P. (2019, October). Creating a relentless welcome. Teaching Matters Blog, Promoting,

discussing and teaching at the University of Edinburgh. Retrieved from https://www.teaching-matters-blog.ed.ac.uk/creating-a-relentless-welcome/

Fiske, S. (2019). Social beings: A core motives approach to social psychology (4th ed.). New York:

Wiley.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

analysis of retention and graduation rates for 2012-2019€¦ · 3 vusc ir report, 2019 fall . 2)...

Documents