Title: ROI in higher education
Author Name: Aliyah
Introduction
To measure accountability against student attrition is to measure accountability within student retention. As a university, an institution is only as successful as its students. The vital components to ensuring student retention exist through campus engagement with faculty, staff, peers, campus partnership, and mentorship. Due to the uniqueness of all incoming freshmen, both traditional and non traditional, it is most paramount to acclimate into their new environment. Thus, “…academic and social integration are the most important factors in predicting successful incorporation with the institution and persistence from the first year to the second (Cabrera, Nora, & Castaneda, 1993; Ishitani, 2003)”. Investing in interdisciplinary campus collaborations to increase student retention, inadvertently benefits as a campus Return of investment. The cost of replacing a lost student surpasses the cost of maintaining enrollment. In this chapter, we will learn more on how and why.
Overview of the Case
There are two prominent acclimation services provided to incoming students, pre term orientation and a first year seminary. These two initiatives are individual efforts to retain students and provide opportunities to enhance the student experience, motivate success, and exercise soft skills. The purpose of this research is to examine the data collected from these interdisciplinary experiences to adapt to the student turnover rate, collected data will distinguish key factors that increase the rate of retention, thereby expanding the income of the institution.
Interdisciplinary is defined as “involving two or more academic, scientific, or artistic disciplines” (Merriam, 2020). With this flexibility, freshman seminars can focus on the learners and build courses around the experience and needs of each classroom. The lack of constraints also promotes growth with the influence of real world experiences, current trends, and assimilating contemporary issues “(e.g., diversity, critical thinking, service-learning, technology)” (Cueso).
When designing curriculum to address today’s learner we prioritize as the teacher/instructor planning to develop learning situations to maximize student acquisition of information and skills and inculcation of the attitudes and values needed to be a member of a community of practices and society as a whole. This includes assessing the needs and current position of the learner, outlining objectives and goals of instruction, and crafting learning scenarios/environments that inspire and guide students to meet their personal and educational goals. Preparing for these three steps looks like “backward instructional design”. BID is summarized as designing instructional materials where the instructor or designer begins the design process with a focus on the desired results (i.e., the outcome) of instruction” (B.D 2017). Going from last to first and determining results of the experiences created, identifying what learners should be able to accomplish as a result, and pinpointing what evidence showcases their growth. Within this research, BID allows the instructor to reassess current curriculum and apply authentic learning objectives to intertwine institutional goals of retention as they progress each year.
While designing a student experience, we maintain several aspects of attention. The main factor being student engagement. To determine the best way to get students involved you can assess their learning style and apply it to the classroom. Varying forms of learning/teaching styles include but are not limited to active learning, cooperative learning, problem based learning, team based learning, collaborative learning, and peer assisted learning. This initial collection of information can begin with pre orientation through games, anonymous questionnaires, or team building activities. This pre course information pinpoints the foundational entry levels of comprehension for the freshmen seminar.
To design for application and impact is to ensure retention and successful comprehension. With that being said, “colleges and universities concerned with student retention would benefit from concentrated programs designed to provide individualized student services that address immediate student needs.” (Webster, 2011)
Solutions Implemented
In order to confidently relay whether a solution has been applied and successfully accepted, there are three questions used to guide results.
“RQ1: Is there a significant difference in retention rates of institutions that have Pre-Term Orien-tation and the retention rates of institutions that do not have Pre-Term Orientation?
RQ2: Is there a significant difference in retention rates of institutions that have Assessment of the First Year Program and the retention rates of institutions that do not have Assessment of the First Year Program?
RQ3: Is there a significant difference in retention rates of institutions that have Targeted Seminars and the retention rates of institutions that do not have Targeted Seminars”
(Howard, 2015)
According to Dr.Howards study based in the southern board of regents, six institutions agreed to provide data from the aforementioned interdisciplinary studies, pre orientation and freshmen seminaries. He shares the opinion in upholding the value of pre orientation assessments. Not only does it act as an opportunity to welcome students and influence their gauge of understanding of expectations, but it provides essential information on how to approach targeted seminars (freshman seminar curriculum). Attached below are brief reviews of the collected data answering the research questions above.
In Table 6, you see that 4 of 6 institutions practiced individualized curricula while 2 have not. Yet Table 6 highlights that all institutions found the value in pre-term orientation. Distinguishable differences like this will set apart the fiscal advantages of one university over the other.
To foster a more impactful freshmen experience that promotes student retention, pre orientation and seminaries will be built through the Backward Design Model. This process encompassses three steps:
Identifying Desired Outcome: Increase First to Second year retention rates, graduate rates, and degrees conferred by 20%
Identity Acceptable Evidence: Documentation of entry freshmen from 2021 through degree completion of 2025, student attrition rates, and post/pre assessment of seminaries covering soft skill achievements (questionnaire)
Plan Learning Experiences and Instruction: Building curricula to attract sense of belonging, campus visibility, community engagement, and college navigation
Outcomes
Risk factors of this model include placing heavy focus on results which may lead to lack of attention in detail of curricula or other student needs. In addition to deciding what is truly acceptable evidence, selecting the wrong data to collect may result in loss of research study, and too broad of a desired outcome may present difficulties in accuracy to test. With all of this in mind, we still maintain outcomes that are not only impactful to the student experience but to the overall health and advantage of the university. By redesigning student curriculum, one cannot obtain the institutional goals listed throughout the study, without successfully connecting to the students through personal approach. We began this chapter with saying “To measure accountability against student attrition is to measure accountability within student retention. As a university, an institution is only as successful as its students”. Now we are able to highlight the significance of the student experience and consider their enrollment not only a gauge of university partnership but as a form of investment toward tomorrow’s growth.
Implications
“An interesting test of the fiscal significance of first-year programming was once conductedby Seton Hall University. The cost/benefit ratio of its freshman studies program was evaluated by means of two statistical techniques that are commonly used in business to evaluate the economic benefits of alternative courses of action: “break-even analysis’ (Larimore, 1974), and “elasticity coefficient” (Hoffman, 1986). Two faculty from the university’s department of economics used these procedures to assess whether the total revenue generated by its freshman studies program equaled or exceeded the total costs incurred by the program. They found that the financial break-even point for an entering class of approximately 1,000 students who participated in Seton Hall’s freshman studies program was 21 students, which represented an increased retention rate of only about two percent. This means that if implementation of the program leads to the retention of 21 additional students who would otherwise have withdrawn from the college, the program will have paid for itself. The architects of this campus-specific study concluded that Seton Hall’s freshman studies program was “cost efficient [and] will more than pay for itself in economic terms alone without taking into account the quality benefits that accrue to the university and the retained students” (Ketkar & Bennet, 1989, p. 43).These findings are consistent with early cost-effectiveness research on the first-year seminar (University 101) conducted at the University of South Carolina, whose Office of Finance reported that for every $1.00 used to support its seminar, the program generated $5.36 in return (Gardner, 1981).” (Cuerso)
References
Backward Design. (2017, September 16). Retrieved December 07, 2020, from https://www.learning-theories.com/backward-design.html
Cuerso, J. (n.d.). Fiscal Benefits of Student Retention and First-Year Retention Initiatives. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.626.2988&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Cueso, J. (n.d.). HEEMPIRICAL CASE FOR THE POSITIVE IMPACT OF THE FIRST-YEAR SEMINAR RESEARCH ON STUDENT OUTCOMES. Retrieved from https://bluegrass.kctcs.edu/current-students/media/pdf/empirical_case_positive_impact_on_first_year.pdf
Howard, J., Dr. (n.d.). A Comparison of Student Retention and First Year Programs Among Liberal Arts Colleges in the Mountain South. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1141939.pdf
Interdisciplinary. (n.d.). Retrieved December 06, 2020, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/interdisciplinary
Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2018). Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology. Boston: Pearson.
Webster, A., & Showers, V. (n.d.). Measuring Predictors of Student Retention Rates. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/25739282.pdf