What is our current pattern of retention and graduation rates by department, college and student subgroups and what are our institutional practices to respond to this pattern?
What are our current common barriers to graduation with particular attention to high failure rate courses, the Graduation Writing Assessment Requirement and advising?
Prior to the 1990s, CSULB’s location in an economically and demographically booming region and its low tuition costs produced very high enrollment demand. In that environment, the campus gave little attention to student retention. When the early 1990s brought a severe budget crisis, the campus, which had little experience in enrollment management, was unable to provide needed classes. Students stayed away in large numbers, and the campus gained an unfortunate reputation as “student unfriendly.” Six years later the 1991 freshman cohort graduated at the lowest rate in CSULB history. This experience served as a wake-up call, and the second half of the 1990s was a period of rebuilding.
From 2000 to the present, CSULB has sought to become increasingly student-centered. Freshman programs such as orientation, mandatory advising, and a freshman seminar were created or revamped. The campus began to develop important expertise at managing enrollments and class schedules to better align course offerings with student needs. CSULB now guarantees freshmen a full schedule of appropriate classes and has eliminated almost all curricular bottlenecks.
CSULB’s freshman graduation rate has risen dramatically and the 2002 cohort is setting a new six-year record, reaching 54%. This exceeds the goal set by the campus for this cohort (50%) and approaches a goal set for two years in the future (55%). This also represents more than doubling in a decade, a remarkable achievement of which the campus can be proud.
CSULB’s record gain in graduation rate is paralleled by a gain in numbers. In 2007-08 CSULB awarded a record number of degrees, nearly 8,000 baccalaureate and graduate degrees and over 1,200 credentials, an increase of about 25% over five years. These numbers place CSULB among the major providers of baccalaureate and graduate degrees in the state and nation.
These improvements occurred at the same time that the campus experienced very rapid enrollment growth (14% from fall 2001 to 2008) and state budget cuts in the 2002-04. It has been a challenge to improve student success at the same time that budgets have been trimmed and enrollments have skyrocketed.
CSULB also set a goal “…to raise already-improving graduation rates to a leading position among comparable universities in California and in the nation.” To measure progress toward this goal, the Education Trust “College Results Online” database affords the following comparisons, based on older 2001 data available in October 2008. CSULB was about 2% below the average and 177th of 304 “Master’s Large Universities” in the database. However, CSULB was about 4% above average and 8th of 20 in a more specific comparison (Master’s Large, >10,000 undergraduates, $6,000-$9,000 per student expenditures, and >30% Pell).
CSULB’s latest higher graduation rate will not be included in the Education Trust database until next year. If comparison groups remain unchanged, CSULB will rise to about 119th of 304 “Master’s Large” universities, and to 2nd of 20 in the more specific comparison, just behind private Touro College and CUNY Baruch, both at 57%.
Of 1,195 universities of all types in the Education Trust database reporting graduation rate increases from 1997 to 2006, CSULB’s 19% increase was 51st largest. With the additional increase associated with the 54% rate, CSULB may rank about 22nd of 1,195 institutions next year in the magnitude of improvement.
Unfortunately, further gains and CSULB’s 55% goal for the 2004 cohort may be threatened by looming budget reductions.
In past years, several groups have focused on graduation issues. A previous Provost sponsored an ad hoc Task Force on Graduation Rates. A grass-roots “First Year Experience Committee” met and discussed student issues for several years. Currently, two permanent all-university groups provide regular forums for discussion of student success issues: the Advising Council and the Student Success Committee. The CSU Chancellor’s Office added impetus to campus activities with a 2005 “Facilitating Graduation” initiative that asked each campus to help students make more rapid progress to degrees.
Campus awareness of and commitment to student success continues to increase. An appendix3 lists over 40 new or revamped student success efforts. Below are described some efforts and programs that we have undertaken to build our capacity to assist students to be successful.
CSULB tracks retention and graduation rates by gender and ethnicity. In the past decade, the six-year graduation rate for the campus as a whole has risen about 22%4. The increase for African-American students was about 34%; for Latinos 19%; for Caucasians, 18%; for Asian and Pacific Islanders (including Southeast Asians and Filipinos), 19%; for Native Americans, (based on small numbers, about 20), 23%. The rate for international students rose about 15% and for “Undetermined Ethnicity,” about 28%. Over the most recent half-decade, the rate for women increased about 12% and for men about 10%.
However, despite gains, achievement gaps persist. For example, women graduate at a rate about 10% greater than men. Current differences in rates among ethnic groups range from about 2% to 14%. Based on concern about achievement gaps, CSULB has developed several programs.
CSULB is currently implementing its first Hispanic Serving Institution grant. This funding has supported a new program of peer mentors, “Promotores,” who provide role models and mentoring for at-risk Latino students. Funds also supported a campus conference on undocumented students from California high schools attending college (“AB540 students”). The conference resulted in a resource guide, a scholarship fund and a new student organization.
The campus has hired a specialist in African-American retention. With his leadership, the campus is implementing retention efforts aimed at African-American students, especially males such as welcome events for new students and an African American leadership conference. He is advising a campus chapter of the “Student African American Brotherhood,” an academic social organization offering support for African-American men. He is also offering the “Scholar-Baller” program aimed at retention and support of African American athletes.
The campus has also launched “Beach Learning Community for at-risk students,” discussed below.
Notwithstanding these gains and efforts, CSULB needs to better understand and address gender and ethnic achievement gaps with programs that can have campus-wide impact.
Data show that about two-thirds of the students not retained from the freshman to sophomore year have unmet remedial needs, especially in math. Other data indicate that ethnic differences in retention are almost absent among students without remedial needs. Thus, some retention differences that appear associated with ethnicity are in fact tied to academic preparation.
In fall 2007, CSULB launched the Beach Learning Community (BLC), a significant new effort to address achievement gaps. BLC is designed to serve 150 students from the most academically at-risk group on campus, the “double pre-baccalaureate” students who enter with needs for remediation in both math and English. This diverse group is comprised of about 55% Latino students. BLC was a truly collaborative effort to bring together a range of services: learning community building, advising, tutoring, supplemental instruction, family involvement, a newsletter, social events, and faculty development. Among the participating offices from three university divisions were two academic colleges, the Pre-Baccalaureate Services program, the Educational Opportunities program, the Advising Center, freshman scheduling (“Beach Beginnings”), Enrollment Services, and the Learning Assistance Center.
Results were very encouraging. In their first semester, 18% more BLC students passed the challenging remedial math course than the previous two years. By the end of the year, 20% more BLC students had completed all remedial requirements. About 12% more BLC group returned for a second year of college. Overall, first-year results were very encouraging and a replication is underway in fall 2008. Unfortunately, due to budget constraints, the BLC will not be expanded beyond 150 new students at this time.
CSULB students use an eponymous phrase, “Brotman Blues” (Brotman Hall is the administrative building) to refer to administrative problems they may encounter, such as registration holds or denial of graduation. At CSULB, as at many large campuses, final graduation degree audits are often not completed until weeks following nominal graduation dates. Thus, students may file to graduate, walk across the stage, and later receive a letter indicating that they have not graduated due to a remaining unmet requirement.
The Graduation Greenlight project started as the personal project of an academic advisor who reached out to students denied graduation to resolve their unmet requirements and achieve graduation. Since its inception, the Graduation Greenlight project has helped hundreds of students resolve problems. The project was expanded in 2006 to reach out to students approaching graduation to resolve problems prospectively. This project also has been highly successful, by one estimate adding 1-2% to the campus graduation rate in each recent year. The project has also proven very valuable at helping the campus to better understand how complex requirements and administrative practices can help or hinder student progress to degree and graduation rates, and to make constructive changes.
The Graduation Rate Project was initiated to engage college faculties in interpreting and using graduation rate data. The following concerns prompted the campus to examine graduation rates: the desire for continued improvement in graduation rates, significant differences in graduation rates among colleges, and lower graduation rates for transfer juniors compared to native juniors. The project was a collaborative effort by one of the Vice Provosts, the Director of the Faculty Center for Professional Development, the Director of Assessment and Program Review, and the Office of Institutional Research. College teams consisting of an Associate Dean and a faculty member from each college were charged with developing college-specific plans for disseminating information about graduate rates, student retention, and student success. Specifically, teams were asked to ascertain retention and graduation rates for their departments and college, present graduation rates to college and departments for discussion, identify best practices and document reasons for notable improvements, and suggest strategies for improving student success to college deans and the Provost.
The Office of Institutional Research provided graduation rate data for this project. College teams examined current patterns of retention and graduation rates by department, college and student subgroups, including transfer/native and ethnicity. Transfer junior graduation rates were consistently lower than native junior rates across all colleges and graduation rates varied somewhat by ethnicity.
Each college team developed a one-hour workshop that presented an overview of the university graduation rate along with college and department-specific graduation rate data. The workshop also included college-specific recommendations for improving student success and graduation rates. Workshops were delivered in colleges at retreats, meetings, or to invited groups (e.g., college faculty advisors, college curriculum committees, college councils). The information campaign resulted in widespread discussion of how graduation rates could be improved without compromising educational quality.5
Data on successful course completion rates can provide a focus for improving student success. The Low-Completion-Rate Course Project sought to identify factors contributing to low completion rates and to identify realizable solutions. The project defined low-completion courses as multi-section, high enrollment courses with A, B, or C grades consistently lower than 75%. The project’s under-lying assumption was that persistently low-completion-rate courses have multiple causes (e.g., lack of prerequisites or student preparation, student motivation, lack of support services, need for updated pedagogy, course scheduling, staffing, etc.).
For the initial pilot project, the project identified five courses and asked department chairs and one faculty member to participate in a semester-long focus group. This process uncovered several barriers to improvement. Initially, department chairs and faculty maintained that students are solely responsible for student success. No department in this group fully followed the campus policy (#79-08) regarding oversight of textbook selection for multiple section courses. Chairs tended to rely more on anecdotal evidence than data when attempting to identify bottleneck or low-completion-rate courses. Team participants were unconcerned with low-completion- rates for some courses in their programs (e.g., “this is our weed-out course” or “this course is supposed to be difficult”). Chairs were reluctant to get involved in personnel issues associated with instruction. Participants expressed fear that any monitoring of instruction could result in a “community college-like culture” where instruction is pre-designed or standardized.
Some departments use Math (or other departments) as elimination points for the major with little concern about student-based learning needs that will facilitate their development within the major or program. The campus lacked a system of communicating “best practices” so that departments can share and learn from one another. Despite these challenges, at the conclusion of the project chairs and faculty identified potential solutions. Some departments lowered the class size to allow for more help to struggling students. Others made changes in instructors. Some changed textbooks, and some adopted an online homework program to provide immediate feedback. Project organizers concluded that this strategy for improving success rates for low-completion-rate courses has great potential but requires strong departmental commitment. (Criteria 2.1, 2.2)
More recently the campus sponsored a second iteration of the Low-Completion-Rate Course Project and this round focused on asking three colleges to develop plans to institutionalize the approach. We will analyze results of this activity in the EER. 6
CSULB has a complex, decentralized set of advising resources and processes. General Education advising is primarily provided by the Academic Advising Center and other specia6d advising centers, while major advising is mainly provided in academic departments. Colleges and departments implement major advising differently, including department-based faculty advising, college-based staff advising, and peer advising. In addition, the campus has a variety of special programs in two divisions (Academic Affairs and Student Services) that provide advising, including learning communities, McNair Scholars Program, Student Access to Science Center, Educational Opportunities Program, the Honors Program, and the President’s Scholars program. The result is an advising system in which it is challenging to assign responsibility or ensure consistency. These concerns surfaced in a student survey conducted in preparation for the WASC process that identified advising as a consistent concern. Concerned about the quality and consistency of advising, the campus has recently launched several reforms:
According to results of CSULB’s Annual Language Survey of 2005, new freshmen and transfer students in fall of that year reported speaking nearly 50 primary languages, 47 second languages, and 35 third languages. The 1999 Student Needs and Priorities Survey (SNAPS), administered every five years on all CSU campuses, indicated that more than 40 percent of students reported that they usually spoke a language other than English at home when they were growing up. Of the undergraduates entering CSULB in recent years, about one-quarter have been first generation college students whose parents had never taken a class beyond the high school level. CSULB probably serves one of the largest first generation college student populations in the nation.
This flood of non-native speakers and writers of English into CSU classrooms has added to the challenge of ensuring that all students write competently in English before they graduate. CSULB for years employed a Writing Proficiency Exam (WPE) to certify writing proficiency. While this may have been a cost-effective and appropriate tool for assessing upper-division student writing in the early decades of campus history, it represents a less appropriate assessment tool today, especially for CSULB’s many English Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) writers who face special challenges demonstrating proficiency in a high-stakes, timed-writing assessment. Pass rates on the WPE over the past two years reveal a pattern of above average CSU pass rates for native speakers of English (93%), but more limited success for non-native speakers of English (51%). Pass rates by college reflect a similar trend. The WPE pass rates in colleges with large numbers of non-native English speakers reflect this pattern, as indicated in the lower pass rates for students in the Colleges of Engineering and Business Administration. Each of these two colleges has a large proportion of non-native speakers of English in its population, and some other colleges are not far behind.
Prompted by these concerns, in 2004 the campus made revisions to the CSULB Graduation Writing Assessment Requirement (GWAR) policy. The Academic Senate expanded GWAR policy to include assessments connected with upper-division intensive writing courses as a new option for demonstrating writing proficiency. The campus has created alternate forms of assessment for the GWAR that are more appropriate for CSULB’s linguistically diverse student body. Several courses have been developed to fulfill the GWAR and increasing numbers of students are using these as options. Our current challenge is to monitor these reforms for adequacy and find further ways to strengthen student writing proficiency.8
The university first administered the National Survey of Student Engagement in 2006 and repeated the survey in 2007. Overall, the campus fared well, scoring about at or above comparison institutions on “academic challenge,” “opportunities for enriching experiences beyond the classroom,” and “supportive campus environment.” A particular point of strength that CSULB students reported more opportunities for diversity experiences than comparison institutions.
CSULB seniors did report substantially less opportunity for student-faculty interaction than comparison institutions. This was the largest difference in the survey results and was apparent in findings from both administrations. This finding appeared despite the fact that the campus has a substantial number of programs that foster faculty-student mentoring. The campus has several federally funded programs that support faculty-student research mentoring including McNair Scholars, NIMH CORE, NIH MBRS and others. The campus has a 20-year-old program that supports faculty mentoring for underrepresented students, “Partners for Success.” The sheer size of the campus may be a factor in students’ perception of opportunities for interaction with the faculty. The campus has launched the following modest efforts aimed at this issue:
However, these programs are small in the context of our large campus, and this issue needs more attention.9
