Measuring and Improving Online Student Retention

© 2011 The Advisory Board Company 1

THE EDUCATION ADVISORY BOARD

WASHINGTON, D.C.

I. Research Methodology II. Executive Overview

III. Deriving Online Retention Rates: Timeline for Comparing Enrollments

IV. Factors Affecting Online Retention Rates V. Strategies for Improving Online Retention

Rates

VI. Comparing Retention Rates and Setting Goals

T

ABLE OF CONTENTS

R

ESEARCH

A

SSOCIATE Katie Sue Zellner

R

ESEARCH

M

ANAGER

Sarah Moore

Measuring and Improving Online

Student Retention

Custom Research Brief



June 21, 2011

I.

R

ESEARCH

M

ETHODOLOGY

© 2011 The Advisory Board Company 2

Project Challenge

A member institution approached the Council with the following questions:

Sources

Education Advisory Board’s internal and online research libraries (www.educationadvisoryboard.com) National Center for Education Statistics (http://nces.ed.gov/)

Metrics for Measuring Retention: How do other institutions measure retention for online programs, accounting for varying lengths of online programs? What criteria and over what timeframe do other intuitions consider to determine whether students are in good standing?

Timeline for Measuring Retention: Against what calendars do other institutions measure completion of online programs? At what point in course progress do other institutions measure the baseline enrollment of a course?

Comparison across Student Populations: How do other institutions compare retention rates of online-only programs against retention rates of face-to-face courses and programs? Do other institutions compare retention rates for students in continuing and professional education programs with retention rates for students in undergraduate programs?

Retention Standards and Goals: How do other institutions determine long-term goals for enrollment and retention rates in online programs? Are these processes different than the processes for setting retention standards and retention goals for face-to-face programs?

Improving Retention Rates: What factors beyond the quality of course (e.g., student services) affect improved retention in online programs at other institutions? Do other institutions consider the factors that drive students to select online courses in evaluating retention and in developing improved student services?

I.

R

ESEARCH

M

ETHODOLOGY

© 2011 The Advisory Board Company 3

Research Parameters

The Council interviewed institutions small, private institutions offering online programs:

A Guide to Institutions Profiled in this Brief

Institution

Geographic

Location

Carnegie

Classification

Approximate

Total

Enrollment

Type

University A

South

Master's Colleges and

Universities (medium

programs)

2,900

Private

College B

Northeast

Baccalaureate

Colleges – Diverse

Fields

2,900

Private

University C

Midwest

Master's Colleges and

Universities (larger

programs)

2,600

Private

University D

Midwest

Master's Colleges and

Universities (larger

programs)

15,300

Private

Online Offerings at Institutions Profiled in this Brief

Institution

Online Degree Programs

University A

Business (AS), Management (BS), Business Administration (BS), Health Administration (BS), Master of Business Administration, Master of Health

Administration, Master of Public Administration, Master of Science in Leadership, Master of Sports Administration, State Teacher Certification

College B

Accounting (AS & BS), Business Management (AS & BS), Paralegal Studies (BS), Professional Studies (AS & BS, Computer and Information Systems

(BS), Computer Forensics & Digital Investigations (BS), Management Information Systems (BS), Network Security and Administration (BS), Software Development (AS & BS), Web Design and Development (BS),

Health Informatics (AS & BS), Healthcare Management (BS)

University C

Exclusively online: Masters of Business Administration Blended: Ministry Leadership (BS), Masters of Education, Masters of Ministry Leadership, Masters of Arts for TESOL (Teachers of English to

Speakers of Other Languages)

University D

Fourteen certificates and 37 degrees offered at all levels (AS, BS, Masters, Doctorates) in education, business, communication, computer, leadership,

II.

E

XECUTIVE

O

VERVIEW

© 2011 The Advisory Board Company 4

Key Observations:



To derive online retention rates, some institutions follow a traditional, calendar-year timeline and measure enrollment annually in the fall. Other institutions measure retention according to the enrollment changes within the cohort with which an individual begins an online program. In lieu of retention, one contact intuition tracks the graduation rate within cohorts rather than monitoring the graduation rate of individual students two, three, four, five, and six years from the start of a program. Contacts measure 1) the number of students within a given cohort that graduate on time with their cohort and 2) the number of students within a given cohort that graduate overall.



The pace of degree completion varies among online students, as many students manage family or professional responsibilities and opt to periodically stop out (i.e., interrupt their academic sequence to take time off). Students who choose to stop out of a semester-based program may re-enter when the necessary course is next offered. Under the cohort model, each person who remains in the original cohort will complete the program at the same pace, and students who stop out of a program may resume only when there is an opportunity to join a new cohort.



Across contact institutions, most courses are between six and eight weeks in length, although the date at which baseline enrollment is measured varies. Two institutions measure enrollment during the end of the semester, when students are enrolled in the last course of the semester. Other intuitions measure enrollment when at the beginning of a semester, or at the beginning of a program if tracking graduation rate.



At some intuitions, students are automatically withdrawn from a program after not enrolling for several consecutive semesters. Other institutions allow students to return after a stop-out period of any length. All institutions maintain grade point average (GPA) minimums which students must meet in order to remain in good standing.



When considering how to improve retention rates, contacts stress offering student services that are personal and supportive to address the isolation online students sometimes feel. Contacts at one institution that successfully increased online retention over the past two years began offering after-hours technical support, trained faculty members to better support to students, and instituted a call center charged with contacting students mid-semester and assessing their needs.



Contacts recommend expanding academic and advising support services in order to increase retention. Online tutoring, remedial instruction, and improved access to online instructors may help to improve retention rates. Additionally, contacts recommend dedicated student service personnel who guide students through registration, course selection, and financial aid.



At some contact institutions, retention in online programs is lower than retention in face-to-face programs; however, at two contact institutions, retention in online and face-to-face programs is comparable. University C was able to increase its online student from between 80 and 85 percent to between 90 and 95 percent; the retention rate in the university’s face-to-face program is also between 90 and 95 percent.



When setting retention goals, contacts identify programs with the poorest retention rates and focus energies on improving retention within these programs.

III.

D

ERIVING

O

NLINE

R

ETENTION

R

ATES

:

T

IMELINE FOR

C

OMPARING

E

NROLLMENTS

© 2011 The Advisory Board Company 5

“In the fall, we compare enrollment to the previous fall. Of the students not enrolled the previous fall, we ask, „who is a new student, who graduated, who formally withdrew, and who elected not to attend without giving any formal notice?‟”

-- Council Interview

1

Online learners are often adult students who maintain responsibilities and jobs while simultaneously pursuing their education; they may also easily enroll in another institution’s program if dissatisfied with an online experience. These factors may result in frequent stop-outs and transitions, presenting a challenge to effectively measuring online student retention. Additionally, reliably retaining students, even if after a stop-out period of several terms, prevents revenue loss. To measure retention of online students, some institutions follow a traditional, calendar-year timeline and measure enrollment annually in the fall; other institutions measure enrollment according to the cohort with which an individual begins an online program.

Comparing Annual Fall Enrollments

Institutions that measure retention based on annual fall enrollment consider either 1) individual progress through a program sequence or 2) a cohort’s progress through a program sequence. Contacts note that online students are mobile (i.e., they can easily choose to enroll in another institution’s program), making the market for online students an especially competitive one. Contacts aim to capture students who re-enroll after a stop-out period in their retention data.

Retention Based on Individual Students’ Progress through Program Sequence

At University A and College B, administrators

capture enrollment for each of term, but, for the purposes of measuring retention, fall term enrollment is compared to the previous fall term enrollment. Contacts opt to measure retention based on fall enrollment because they want to capture both students who remain enrolled in a seamless course sequence and students who

remain enrolled with some stop-outs. Because adult students frequently choose to stop out of a program, contacts expect online enrollment from term to term to reflect such circumstances. In fact, some contacts equate measuring retention of adult learners with measuring ―net withdrawals.‖

Timeline for Capturing Enrollment at University A and College B

September

Fall 2010

Retention is calculated by comparing enrollment in fall 2010 to enrollment in fall

of the previous year. Enrollment Captured August Summer 2010 Enrollment Captured Spring 2010 Enrollment Captured

Rationale for Measuring Retention Based on Fall Enrollment

Consistency: Contacts at College B explain that measuring retention annually mirrors the schedule for the college’s traditional (mostly undergraduate) students.

Accuracy: Contacts at University A explain that students are more likely to stop out during the spring and summer terms, but the fall term is popular among online students. Consequently, measuring enrollment during the fall most accurately captures the portion of students returning to the university to enroll in additional courses.

III.

D

ERIVING

O

NLINE

R

ETENTION

R

ATES

:

T

IMELINE FOR

C

OMPARING

E

NROLLMENTS

© 2011 The Advisory Board Company 6

College B enrolls about 700 adult students in total, of which 600 enroll in at least

one online course.

2

Tracking the Progress of Forty-One New Students at College B

The table below demonstrates how College B staff track the progress of 41 students who enroll in an undergraduate program in the fall of 2007. The highlighted cells indicate the number of student enrolled each fall and the percentage of students retained from the initial fall enrollment. Of the 41

originally enrolled students, the table also shows how many and what percentage 1) graduate, 2) elect not to attend in a subsequent semester, 3) formally withdraw, or 4) re-enroll after formally withdrawing.

Retention Based on a Cohort’s Progress through a Program Sequence

At University C, students begin a program with a cohort of 16 to 18 other students. Rather than measure the retention of individual students, contacts measure thenet withdrawal from a cohort each quarter. This allows university administrators to account for those students who stop out but return to the program and assume the sequence again. Contacts at University C explain that students enrolled in the online programs and blended programs are considered together in a single category for evaluating retention. (Blended programs frequently include online courses with face-to-face practical training through a field placement, for example.)

START Status Enrolled 41 30 73% 11 27% 24 59% 19 46% 10 24% 16 39% 15 37% 8 20% 10 24% 10 24% Graduated 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 2% 2 5% 2 5% 5 12% 8 20% 10 24% Non-attend 11 27% 30 73% 17 41% 12 29% 13 32% 6 15% 6 15% 7 17% 2 5% 0 0% Withdrawn 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 10 24% 17 41% 17 41% 18 44% 21 51% 20 49% 20 49% Re-enrolled 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 2% 1 2% Total 41 41 100% 41 100% 41 100% 41 100% 41 100% 41 100% 41 100% 41 100% 41 100% 41 100%

Retention and Attrition of New, Degree-Seeking Students beginning in Fall 2007

2011SU

2009SU 2009FA 2010SP 2010SU 2010FA 2011SP

2007FA _{2007FA 2008SP 2008SU 2008FA 2009SP}

First Year 2007-08 Second Year 2008-09 Third Year 2009-10 Fourth Year 2010-11

Note: A student is considered "withdrawn" in the third consecutive semester of non-attendance in the fall or spring (non-attendance in summer session is not counted). A student is considered "re-enrolled" if he or she returns after having been counted as withdrawn.

Quarter 1 Quarter 2 September August Quarter 4 Withdrawals measured Quarter 3 Withdrawals measured Withdrawals measured Withdrawals measured

Retention is calculated by comparing the number of withdrawals (and conversely the number of students enrolled) in a cohort in one quarter to the same quarter in the previous year.

III.

D

ERIVING

O

NLINE

R

ETENTION

R

ATES

:

T

IMELINE FOR

C

OMPARING

E

NROLLMENTS

© 2011 The Advisory Board Company 7

University D enrolls about 12,000 adult students in

total, of which nearly 6,000 enroll in online

courses.

Comparing Enrollment at Program Start to Enrollment at Program Finish

At University D, online students also enter a program with cohort of 12

to 15 students. Administrators at University D track the graduation rate within these cohorts two, three, four, five, and six years from their program start rather than monitoring the graduation rate of individual students. Contacts emphasize that they rarely consider individual course enrollment when calculating retention and do not consider program enrollment along a traditional semester timeline.

Contacts focus on the following metrics:

How many students within a given cohort graduate on time with their cohort? How many students within a given cohort graduate overall, regardless of pace?

These two metrics account for some of the inconsistencies associated with online students’ schedules. Contacts explain that most online students are working adults, frequently stopping out because they move to a new city, change jobs, marry or divorce spouses, or need to care for young children or sick parents.

IV.

F

ACTORS

A

FFECTING

O

NLINE

R

ETENTION

R

ATES

© 2011 The Advisory Board Company 8

Measuring Baseline Enrollment

Adjusting for Varying Course Duration

Across contact institutions, most online courses are between six and eight weeks in length, making it difficult to determine at what point during the traditional semester to measure baseline enrollment; students may opt to take only one eight-week course in the latter half of a semester, for example. For institutions operating under a cohort model, cohorts may start at any week during the year, complicating the timeline for measuring a baseline enrollment. The table below summarizes each contact institution’s approach to most accurately capturing enrollment:

Course Duration and Corresponding Date at which Baseline Enrollment is Captured

Institution Academic

Calendar Course Duration

Date for Measuring Baseline Enrollment

University A Quarters 8 weeks

The last course completed in a semester (measured at the end of the

semester)

College B Semesters 7 weeks

The third week in each semester (spring, summer, and fall), which is two weeks after the drop/add period

University C Quarters

6, 7, or 8 weeks, depending on

program

The last course completed during the quarter

University D

Program duration varies by program

cohort

Varies by program Program start date (when registration expires)

Accounting for Stop-outs and Varying Completion Pacing

Without Cohorts: Contacts at College B report that a survey of 50 adult students revealed few trends across degree completion rates, but instead variation among students. Students who choose to stop out of a program may re-enter when the next required eight-week course is next offered.

With Cohorts: Students who choose to stop out of a program at University D or University C

must wait to resume the program when he or she can join a new cohort for the same academic sequence. Under the cohort model, each person who remains in the original cohort will complete the program at the same pace, although program cohorts can start at any time throughout the academic year and are not necessarily consistent with a quarter- or semester-system calendar.

Reconciling Non-traditional Course Duration with a Semester-based Calendar

At College B, if new students only enroll in a course in the last eight weeks of a current semester, the retention administrator retroactively adds these new students to the enrollment count for that semester.

IV.

F

ACTORS

A

FFECTING

O

NLINE

R

ETENTION

R

ATES

© 2011 The Advisory Board Company 9

Determining Good Standing

Across contact institutions, students must maintain a minimum Grade Point Average (GPA) in order to remain in good standing. At University D, this minimum varies by program; at University A, a C or lower in a Master’s program results in academic probation.

Repercussions for Poor Course Attendance:

Automatic Course Drop: Students who miss two class meetings at University A and University C

are dropped from the course. In online courses, students are typically counted in attendance if they post in a discussion forum or complete a quiz.

Grade Reduction: Contacts at College B explain that they formerly enforced consequences for poor attendance, but the attendance record now affects only a student’s grade in the course according to an instructor’s guidelines, rather than automatically voiding enrollment.

Repercussions for a Period of Consecutive Non-enrollment:

Automatic Withdrawal from Program: At University C, after the second consecutive course missed in a sequence, students must reapply for admission. Similarly, at College B, after three consecutive semesters of non-attendances (barring summer terms), a student is considered withdrawn and must reapply.

No Negative Consequences: At University D, students can resume their academic sequence by enrolling with a new cohort after any stop-out period. Contacts admit that this policy is somewhat difficult to maintain as program curricula change and students re-enroll after many years of non-attendance.

Consecutive Enrollment

Course Attendance

Advantages

Builds a sense of community: Contacts at University D emphasize that students within a cohort build a strong sense of community, becoming familiar with the details of each other’s lives and investing in each other’s success. Cohort members may also contribute to each other’s spiritual growth, especially because spirituality is a critical component of the institutional culture of University D.

Improves retention tracking: Contacts at University C also recommend the cohort model because it allows for easier and clearer retention tracking.

Drawbacks

Inconveniences students re-starting a program: Contacts at University D acknowledge that the cohort model can sometimes inconvenience students who cannot re-enroll until a new cohort begins the program sequence. To remedy this inconvenience, the university aims to regularly and consistently schedule new cohorts to start.

Grade Point Average

IV.

F

ACTORS

A

FFECTING

O

NLINE

R

ETENTION

R

ATES

© 2011 The Advisory Board Company 10

Positioning Students for Academic Success

… by Minimizing Course-level Withdrawal

Contacts at College B explain that they are first minimizing students’ withdrawing or failing out of individual courses, and, after improving course completion, will focus on improving retention in programs overall. Contacts at University A describe a similar approach, noting that administrators closely monitor course drop-out rates (or the percentage students who finish a course), which can sometimes indicate a need for course redesign.

… by Exploring Competency-based Curricula

Contacts at University D express interest in competency-based curricula. Because the university operates under an open-enrollment admissions policy, students enter academic sequences with a range of abilities and preparedness. Contacts explain that allowing prepared students to test out of courses early in a sequence can create a more individualized course experience for students struggling with lower-level degree requirements.

… by Tracking Academic Performance

To further assist busy adult students, College B uses a software program called Angel

to track students’ academic performance. A quality assurance coordinator proactively contacts students who are underperforming and discusses steps to get back on track.

V.

S

TRATEGIES FOR

I

MPROVING

O

NLINE

R

ETENTION

R

ATES

© 2011 The Advisory Board Company 11

Across contact institutions, administrators in continuing, professional, and online programs recommend adapting student services to be more personal and individualized. Ensuring that online students feel supported is especially important, as this population sometimes feels isolated and disconnected from the university while primarily learning via online media. Therefore, contacts emphasize that online students especially must have access to effective services when navigating basic university functions such as financial aid, student accounting, course registration, career planning, and online platforms or other technical requirements.

A New, Personal Approach to Student Services at

University C

Contacts at University C explain that since early 2010, the retention of online students at the university has increased, recently reaching between 90 and 95 percent. As of 2008, online student retention fluctuated between 80 and 85 percent, at which point contacts examined student and alumni surveys and implemented a series of student service improvements:

*Source: University C, ―University C Online: Orientation‖

Improved

Student

Orientation

A general online orientation offers students critical information early in their tenure: mission, academic policies (e.g., attendance and academic integrity), options for financing tuition, course materials, and technology requirements. Program-specific orientations further explain specific academic sequences.*

After-hours

Technical

Support

This service allows students to troubleshoot computer or online software problems outside of normal business hours, when most online students dedicate time to their studies.

Outreach via a

Dedicated Call

Center

Staff members at a call center operated by a third-party enrollment management organization contact students after their first quarter to inquire about satisfaction and intake questions. The call center then forwards students’ questions to university advisers.

Improved

Accounting

Services

The university replaced accounting services personnel and charged the unit with improving customer service. Contacts note that students often require assistance determining how to pay for courses; in the face of unfriendly and unhelpful service, they often assume they cannot afford tuition and drop out.

Instructor

Training

Required training for all online instructors familiarizes faculty members with methods for engaging students via online media. The trainings are an opportunity to warn faculty that online students may feel isolated and to encourage them to reach out to students who lapse in participation.

V.

S

TRATEGIES FOR

I

MPROVING

O

NLINE

R

ETENTION

R

ATES

© 2011 The Advisory Board Company 12

Creating Additional Student Services Staff Positions at

College B

Contacts at College B explain that adult, online students previously sought out services such as financial aid and academic advising through the offices designed to serve traditional undergraduate students enrolled in in-person courses. As it became apparent that adult students were not being adequately served, the Division of Continuing and Professional Studies repurposed an admissions position, dedicating one staff member to serving adult students, and eventually added a second identical position. Each of these two student services staff members in the Division of Continuing and Professional Studies serves 350 students, and providing both academic and counseling services to adult students. Contacts highlight the following topics that a student services staff member might discuss with a student:

Degree completion and course sequencing to accommodate a student’s desired pace and commitments

Advice regarding dropping courses and the associated advantages and disadvantages

Advice regarding stopping out (and options for re-enrolling) when familial and professional obligations consume more of a student’s time than expected

Time management, based on both course load and commitments outside of the classroom

Registration and navigating course scheduling

Contacts report that anecdotal evidence shows these dedicated positions and the attention thereby provided to adult students has improved student satisfaction, and likely retention.

Academic Support across Contact Institutions

Contacts highlight tutoring, remedial services, and faculty guidance as avenues through which online students receive academic support:

Tutoring Services: University A operates a writing lab on its physical campus and is considering a platform for synchronous, online writing tutoring via a conferencing function. Contacts note that they prefer to offer these services internally rather than through a third party vendor because they believe tutoring contributes to the degree the university grants. Contacts further explain that in developing online tutoring, they will include a mechanism that tracks which students use the service.

Remedial Instruction: At University D, students can enroll in online or onsite tutorials that cover basic writing and mathematics skills. These tutorials are not-for-credit and are not covered by financial aid.

Support from Online Instructors: Contacts at University D also explain that faculty members are expected to work over e-mail with online students, dedicating time to answering their questions. Similarly, at University A, online instructors keep online office hours.

V.

S

TRATEGIES FOR

I

MPROVING

O

NLINE

R

ETENTION

R

ATES

© 2011 The Advisory Board Company 13

Role of the Chaplain

Meets cohort and invites students to discuss spiritual formation throughout student experience

Regularly posts messages in cohort discussion forum Is available by phone or e-mail for consultation

Becoming Acquainted with the Chaplain

Online students meet chaplains through the online platform. However, on-site students at University D’s satellite campuses meet chaplains in person at the beginning of the program, when chaplains travel to the satellite campus. Chaplains are assigned to specific regions to best serve on-site students.

Advising and Chaplaincy Programs at

University D

At University D, each cohort is assigned an adviser and a chaplain who guide the cohort through the program sequence. The advisers, who interact with online students over phone or e-mail, discuss workload and time management with students, and—especially if students are considering stopping out of a sequence—explain the process for transferring into a subsequent cohort.

Gathering Student Feedback

Student Surveys

Contacts at University D recommend assessing student satisfaction via anonymous surveys conducted at the beginning and conclusion on each program. The university also surveys alumni and considers this feedback when re-developing programs. Finally, contacts emphasize that administrators make an effort to act upon student feedback and to demonstrate that students’ concerns are considered and valued.

Tracking Enrollment Trends

College B is working to track when and why students stop out or withdraw from a program. Administrators contact students who do not enroll in subsequent courses and inquire about their reasons for stopping out; this information is then entered into a relationship management system. Analysis of the data shows that students most often cite family commitments, a full-time job, or finances when deciding to stop out or withdraw from College B.

Supporting Career Advancement at University D

Contacts at University D note that the prescriptive nature and sequencing of the online curricula suits the needs of adult learners who are looking to quickly advance their careers. Furthermore, contacts note that adult learners appreciate exposure to faculty members who are also practioners.

VI.

C

OMPARING

R

ETENTION

R

ATES AND

S

ETTING

G

OALS

© 2011 The Advisory Board Company 14

Comparing Retention Rates across Student Populations

Contact institutions achieve varying consistency between the retention rates of online and traditional face-to-face student populations: at some institutions, face-face-to-face retention rates exceed those of online programs, while at others they are more comparable; however, all institutions find that undergraduate student retention is rarely comparable to that of graduate students, and admit that comparing retention rates across populations presents a challenge.

Retention in Face-to-Face Programs Surpasses Retention in Online Programs

In general, contacts indicate that retention is lower among online students than among face-to-face students. For example, contacts at University A indicate that generally the retention rates for online programs are lower than the retention rates for blended or face-to-face programs:

Factors Affecting Lower Retention Rates among Online Students at University A

Contacts acknowledge that they consider the likelihood for online students to stop out and progress at a slower pace when comparing retention rates. Contacts suggest the following characteristics may be factors of the stop-out rate among online students:

Online students are mostly adults with professional and family obligations.

Online students do not benefit from the community provided by a physical college campus (e.g., running into friends on the quad or getting to know a roommate).

Online Program Shows Lower Graduation Rates than On-site Counterpart: the Online Masters in Education (M.Ed.) at University D

Online Program: 77 percent retention

On-site Program (classes meet at physical satellite campus): 93 percent retention*

Students in both the on-site and online programs are adult students; contacts note that online students are more likely to transfer into an on-site program than vice versa.

* The 93 percent graduation rate reflects the number of students who register for the on-site M.Ed. program and eventually graduate. The portion of students who register and graduate with their cohort is 87 percent, showing the effect of stop-out periods on the pace of program completion.

Retention in Online Programs Compares to Retention in Face-to-Face Programs

Administrators at University C worked to increase the online student retention rate to a level comparable with the retention rate among students in face-to-face programs over the past few years. Online and blended programs, which are considered in a single category, now retain 90 to 95 percent of students.

Online and Blended Student Retention Increased to Match Traditional Student Retention at University C

Online and Blended Programs: 80 to 85 percent retention in 2008  90 to 95 percent in 2011 Traditional, Face-to-Face Programs: 90-95 percent retention in 2008  90 to 95 percent in 2011

Adult Student Retention Is Comparable to Traditional Student Retention at College B

Adult students (85 percent enroll in online courses): 73 to 75 percent retention to second year Traditional, undergraduate students (nearly all enroll in face-to-face courses): 72 percent to second year

VI.

C

OMPARING

R

ETENTION

R

ATES AND

S

ETTING

G

OALS

© 2011 The Advisory Board Company 15

Undergraduate Retention is Rarely Comparable to Graduate Retention

Contacts at University A indicate that they do not find value in comparing graduate student retention to undergraduate student retention because the populations are vastly different. Contacts at University C

also note that students pursuing the university’s only online, undergraduate degree are mostly adult students working towards degree-completion, typically indicating previous attempts and failures to attain a bachelor’s degree. Graduate students, on the other hand, are typically focused on furthering an already established professional interest.

Comparing Retention Rates across Student Populations Presents Challenges

Characteristics of Online and On-site Students Are Incongruous

Contacts at University D explain that online students are usually more technologically savvy than on-site students, but are also usually burdened by commitments that do not allow them to travel to a central location for courses.

Characteristics of Graduate Students Vary Depending on Program

Several contacts point out that students in certain graduate programs are sometimes more motivated and focused than students in other programs, thereby affecting retention. For example, students working toward a M.Ed. are usually familiar with the field of teaching and program expectations.

Setting Retention Goals

Based on the Lowest Retention Rates among Programs

Most contacts identify the programs with the poorest retention rates and focus their energies on improving retention within that specific program:

Based on University-wide Goals

Contacts at College B describe the college’s development of a strategic plan as the impetus for setting a university-wide retention goal. Administrators at College B are working to achieve 90 percent retention across all programs, including those designed for adult learners and those for traditional students. Similarly, contacts at University C indicate that the goal for online retention was to match the retention rate of the university’s face-to-face programs, which the university has successfully achieved over the last year.

Strategies for Improving an Individual Program’s Retention Rate

Redesign a difficult course that results in program withdrawals Redesign the course sequence

Consider offering new student services

Ensure student success in the first three courses, which contacts maintain is a strong indicator of successful degree completion and graduation

© 2011 The Advisory Board Company 16 The Advisory Board has worked to ensure the accuracy of the information it provides to its members. This project relies on data obtained from many sources, however, and The Advisory Board cannot guarantee the accuracy of the information or its analysis in all cases. Further, The Advisory Board is not engaged in rendering clinical, legal, accounting, or other professional services. Its projects should not be construed as professional advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances. Members are advised to consult with their staff and senior management, or other appropriate professionals, prior to implementing any changes based on this project. Neither The Advisory Board Company nor its programs are responsible for any claims or losses that may arise from any errors or omissions in their projects, whether caused by The Advisory Board Company or its sources.

© 2011 The Advisory Board Company, 2445 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20037.

Any reproduction or retransmission, in whole or in part, is a violation of federal law and is strictly prohibited without the consent of the Advisory Board Company. This prohibition extends to sharing this publication with clients and/or affiliate companies. All rights reserved.