Eb I43 80tAUTHORTITLEINSTITUTIONNPUB DATENOTEEDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORSIDE - PDF document

1 Eb I43 §80.t/AUTHOR'TITLEINSTITUTIONNPUB
Eb I43 §80.t/AUTHOR'TITLEINSTITUTIONNPUB DATE.NOTEEDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORSIDENTIFIERSABSTRACTDOCUMENT EESUNIS'JC 770 404Larkin, Paul G.kHow Many Students' Are We Losing? Attrition and. Inefficiency in Instructional Operations Re-Examined.Report No. 77-11.VPrince George's Community Coll., Largo, Md. OfficeofInstitutional Research.0Mar 77i30p....MP -$0.83 HC -$2. 06 Plus PoStage.Academic Failure; Community Colleges; DropoutRate;*Dropout Research;. *Dropouts; Institutional Research;.*Junior Colleges; *Junior College Students; Pass FailGrading; School1Holding Power; *Withdrawal*Course WithdrawalIn this study bf student attrition rates atRrinceGeorge's Community College, three indicatorswere analyzed:(I)term-to-term attrition,(2)within-term attrition, and(3)course"inefficiency" (failure).Data from 1972 -73' Through 1976-77 Indicatedthat fall to spring attrition (term-to-term)was approximatelV34%.Spring to fall averaged 47%, with graduation, successfultransferS,.and returns of stopouts-tending to reduce thisto 20%. Within-termwithdrawals averaged 8% from 1971 t6h,1976, wi40,28%reporting workconflict as their withdratal reason in 1276. Althbligh coursewithdraials decreased whennon - punitive grading practices were_established in 1974, highs reported in 1976 included26% xt-chemistry, 18%, in physics, and ,17% eacOn in engineering,political.vience

2 , and psychology,-compared witha college
, and psychology,-compared witha college -wide. average of 12%.Students not passing the couese (course inefficiency)averaged 27%with higher failure rates in developmental studies,English,Science-math, social sciences, and businesstechnology. Early warningnotices in fall 1976, did not change retentionrates. Recommendationsincluded allowing students,to drdp courses and petitionfor full or( partial credit, basedon course objectives being met; developing astudent contr4ct system; using continuing educatioh units;and0training faculty to identify student objectives. Attritionand grade.data and a summary analysis of the springsemester 1977, areappended.******************,***********************************************ic******Documents acquired by ERIC include'lany informal unpublished* materials not available' from other sources. ERIC makes everyeffort ** to obtain the best 'copy available.'NeveAheless, items ofmarginal** reproducibility are' often encountered and this affects,thequality*S* of the microfiche and hrdcopy reproductionsERIC makes available** via the ERIC'Dactient ReprOductiOICS4fyicEDIS). EDRS is not_* responsible for .the quality 6f the original document: Reproductions** supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from theoriginal.**************#*****/***********4!****.*15************4************)*******4. U S DEPARTMENT OF

3 NEALT14.EDUCATION WELFARENATIONAL INSTI
NEALT14.EDUCATION WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEDUCATIONTHIS OCCVMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCE° EXACTLY AS RECEIVEQRROMTHE PERSON tioR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED 00 NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEDUCATION POSITION OR POLICYPERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY'PattiG. EarkinTO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESPRINCE GEORGE'S COMMUNITY COLLEGEINFORMATION CEN-TER4NDTHE ERIC SYSTEM CONTRACTORSReport No. 77-11:How Many Students Are We Losing?Attrition and Inefficiency in InstructionalOperations Re-Examinedte1Introduction-.peN1l-4'A recent study in California raisedquestions concerning criteria1-4for evaluating student aWition (roughthe Open Door, February,1:5.1976).The study assumed that fewstudents (probably less thanU./10 percent) would get the A.A. degree.Going on this assumption.as a framework, reasons were sought forcourse ineffidjency (asdefined by lowcourse completion rates).Some of the reasons werelisted as follows (Summary,pp. ii-iii):4,1.Students may not have expected credit,since they didnot-tav4 credit as their ajettive;-2. Studerits may have achieved their objectiveSbefore, the end_of-the semester; but-they hadno way to show their achieve-,ment.besides final exams;3.Students may have registered but had theirplans-changeafter the Dfficial "third week of class"and

4 bef6re the.final week-;and4._ Students m
bef6re the.final week-;and4._ Students may have encountered schedule conflictsas timeprogressed.Questions about attritiolead to further questiOns about studentgoals and values.Whatan a college do to increase retention bychanges inpolicy, pro.affiS, or services?Does this question'assume that persiste ce is:good," and non-continuationis "bad"?The California research'inaicated thatassumptions like these needto be tested, in the light of availableevidence.A recent research reporton student progression (Report No. 77-2)generated similar inquiries about studentattrition.- The ExtensionCenters Office asked how we could reduce-attritiomtoimproveeffective servide.Someone. -in Admissions asked ifwe could increase.credit hours by reducing-course-completioninefficiencies.Oneficu.lty-. Member asked ,aboutlow pass rateS,, whatwere their causesarid' which divisionsand,departmenere the mast inefficient?Thepresent report addresses broad questionsof student attrition,.updating-previous reports on'thissame topic, and attempting togather the facts-that we know soas to clarify what we do'not know.0 Defining the ProblemSeveral years ago, a report entitled "College Holding Power"(Report No. 74-31) defined the problem as follows:Measures of enrol,lment attrition are needed to determine the#'degre of disruption in student flow from one semester to,the.next.It

5 is tempting to use thetconcept "dropout,
is tempting to use thetconcept "dropout," but thissuggests social disapproval,Since, however, the college.student is attending becauie he or she chooses to, there isno disgrace if the individual, does not achieve a degree.Onthe contrary,-enrollmentlattrition may be paritally accountedfor by the achievement of student goals besides the.degfsee,such as the landing of a-good job ona full time basis.Thedropout concept is therefore inappropriate at.the communitycollege.Attrition ia more abstract concept, and.relatesto the gathering of facts and the solving of problems connectedwith College service.There is suggested a respect for thestudent, and a wondering as to how to help the student achievemany different goals.Enrollment' attrition, therefore, and not,College dropouts,:iS the Subject matter of. this report.Vtrious indicators were deieloped for- assessing attrition:1.Term-to-tirm,attrition calculateeby dividing non-return's=,from the previous term-by the total Amber.who-could havereturned:,2:Within-term attrition, measured either. by formal studentwithdrawals from,the College, or by course drops .before\the -final week of class.'3.Course inefficiency rates, defined by the number of studentsnot passing the coursefor whatever reason) divided bythe initial number of persons Signing up for, the course.These types of attrition and,ineffictenc

6 y'willbe discussed'inthes= dons which fo
y'willbe discussed'inthes= dons which follow..-Between-Terr Attrition6The attrition factor most clearly affedting credit hours is t erate of studedts not returning from the ffrevious term..Term-term attrition means the percentage of Students not-returningAs shown in Table 1, Fail-to-Spring attritionhas tended to bapproximately 34 percent for the pastfive years.Spring-to-Fallattrition has been closer to 47 perdent on the, average.This may -.be due to the long summer disruption and successful job placements'as well as graduations. 'Steps to make continuity easier and reducedisruption through changes in su4er'school,polity could facilitatepursuit of academic goals for some students.. The extent.of facilita-,tion would depend op the degree to.whichIummer sessions would be re-prograrhmed to. make continuing study,a smooth-flowing-process.'3 A practical understanding _of lbetween-tems attrition requires thatyou consider readmits on'the-One-h-and, and graduations or 'transferson the other.. These sources of variation can counterbalance eachother from the point of view' Of net attrition.In Fall 1974, forexample, there were 997 readmits.There were 807 graduates inJune., The net effect of graduations and returns of stop-outs wason the positive side.Within-Term College and Course Withdrawals-The rate of within;:term withdrawals fram.the College h

7 as not changedmuch since Fall 1971, as m
as not changedmuch since Fall 1971, as measured by the formal process of withdrawalfrom the College..This should not be confused with course withdrawal.A student withdrawing from the College would usually be droppingseveral courses at once.The College withdrawal rate in this sensewas 9 percent ip Fall 1971 and 8 percent in Fall -1976.Caution is heeded in interpreting formal withdrawal.College with-drawal is lithjted to those students who formally "sign outfrom theCollege.Many students stop-attending without ever reporting in..,_hey-often_sholos up as "failtres" on the instructor's grade book,indistirguishabie from persons who failed the final test.Thestudent who leaves apd just never comes back, without a word, isthetype of dropout generating the most uncertainty as to whatto do about it.Students .who undergo the formal withdrawal procedure are asked toparticipate in an exit interview.They are asked their reasonsfor leaving the College.As shown in Table 3, work conflict representsthe chief reason given that the College could do anything aboutadministratively.There could be, for example, charges-in courseschedules where trouble spots were found.Course withdrawals within -term can also...be calculated.If thestudent "drops" between the third and final week of class, thisstaken to be a course withdrawal.Changing grading practicet itheSeven

8 ties, when'non-punitive grading was expe
ties, when'non-punitive grading was experiemented with, //affected course withdrawal rates.(See Table 2.1When coursesWithdrawal rates were compared in terms of Technical And/Career versus Arts and Sciences, both reflected the collAge average(of 12 percent.But departmental rates varied from no withdrawalto 26 percent withdrawal.Within Arts and §ciences, Chemistry had.the:highestvfall 1976 withdrawal rate at 26'percent./Other withdrawalrates over the 12 percent College average were Physiti (18 percent).,Engineering (17 percent), Political Science (17 pertent); andPsychology (17 percent).Among Technical and Career courses, Secrertarial Science and Medical Lab offerings both had/high course74withdrawal rates, both at about 16 percent, compared with the overall.College norm of -12 percent.4jd. Inefficiency Determined by Final Grades-Pass rates were reviewed to see-if they contributed'insightsinto-course inefficiency.Final grade distribution was found to berelatively stable for the past severalyears (see Table 5).On the-basis of final grade distribution, itwas possible to calculatea measure of course inefficiency.In this context, inefficiencymeans the rate of students not-passing the course.Inefficiencyin this sense was found to have been relatively stablesince 1968(see' Table 6),The recent College pass rate of 73 percent comparednot unfavor

9 ablywith a 76 percent pass rate ( and ac
ablywith a 76 percent pass rate ( and accompanying 24 percent inefficiencyrate) for ,California community collegecourses, as reported in-the1976 study(Through the Open Door, p. 46).Part of the 24 percentinefficiency rate in California was explained by student withdrawals'.(14 percent), and the rest by.course failures combined with otherreasons.The Prince George's observables and the California observ-ables were therefore somewhat similar.When current inefficiency comparisons were made by academic areat,it was found that the following disciplinary categories had greaterinefficiency rates than the College average of- 27 percent:1.Developmental Studies (34 percent),2.English Studies (31 percent),3.Science-Math (29 percent),4.Social Sciences (29 percent),'and5.'Business Technology (29 percent).-Inefficiency rates for these same areas between fall 1973 and fall1976 were also compared.It was'found:that Developmental Studiesand Science-Math were increasing their course efficiency, whileEnglish Studies and Social Science were decreasing in efficiency.(See Table 7.);In the Technical and Careerarea, Business Technology remained at anabove - average level of inefficiency between1973 and 1976, at 29.percent, ;SOentificfand Service Technologieswere below averagefn inefficigircy rate, but increasingin this measure,of inefficiency.Nursing an6Allied H

10 ealth had the lowestinefficiencyrate, at
ealth had the lowestinefficiencyrate, at 9percents atspdiateat least in part with the commitment and personal,attention enjoyed by students and facultyalike in this prograth area._f.-'414 1An Experiment .with Early Warning..-.'.-.),..In fall 1976, the College sent early warning notices to student4,identified by instructors as not.attending classyIf.some studentswere to*respond, retention would besmarginally increased.Grade.point average performance,wastheorized to be crucial.Studentswith grades below C do not anticipate being permitted to graduate.They therefore tend to drop out beforehandUstin, 1975).Meremail notice to absentees was not found to chano-rfetention rates.To impact on retention, intervention would have totemore personalor more thorough.._A 1974 study describing why students quit community service coursesat two community colleges in California indicated that faculty,members usually did not know why students were quitting.MostdrOpouts, did not consult a teacheror counselor.(one in five whotried_ were unsuccessful).... Work conflicf'Was the main reasongiven for Course drops (Brightman, 1974):This study raises questionsas to how well the instructor should be kept informed about studentcourse goals; and be eovided with student mailirM addresses soas to be able to correspond More individually and personally withabsentees.Discus

11 sion of the FindingsBetween -term and wi
sion of the FindingsBetween -term and withimIterm.attrition firldings need to be relatedto each other, and to course inefficiencies as well.Spring-to-Fall, attrition would be 33 percent rather than 47 percent, forexample, if you subtracted the influence of graduations.The re-admission factor takes "real between-term attrition down.anotherfive or ten percentage points.Attrition thus approaChes the 25.percent level.If successful transfers are taken into.accokt,."real" attrition is.still lower, in,the'of. 20 percent.This information provides badground_forre- evaluating cburuinefficiency.-rates.Given a "non-past" rate on the order Of127percent,what factors-are known?.Withdrawals from the Collegeaverage 8 percent of the student body within v.semester.This.accounts fOr nearly-one-third.of the inefficiency.Many studentsiiho-withdraw intend to come back, perhaps four out of fivq who-,observe the formal procedure.Course drops between the third andfinal week of class,'representing approximately 12'percent of theinitial course enrollments, overlap with Coltwithdrawals.(Thereis noway.of 'knowing the interSectionofthe two.sets.Butwe do know that-44 percent of course inefficiency is suffibientlyconscious.anedeliberate,to resylt in a course "drop.")We thereforeknow tOmethiftg-abbUt.the level of-consciduiness And awareness pith.,/.which.withdrawal tak

12 es place. 9g'I'When we compare what we k
es place. 9g'I'When we compare what we know about subject matter-course droprates and what we know about subject matter inefficiepcyrates,considerable ineffitiencY is 'accounted for."Within4termcourtedrops, as dpbosed to course failures, can be related to th& highestnonrp4s'theasures'aCcording to-sujbect matteras follows:,./,t-InefficiencySubject MatterDrop Rate1RateDevelopmental,a'EnglishScience-MapSocial SciencesBusiness8%12141214',P"'"'.34%31292929.Develmental Studies andEnglish need specific evaluation to determine,determine,non- student sources of inefficiency.In other subject matters,nearly one-half of the inefficiency is associated With'Within-'-process course withdrawals. ,Institupiohal scheduling and studentself-scheduling must be considered as factors.Further inefficiency'may bedue to individual student factors or instructional situations.More-indiVidual instr ciion, greater individual attention and.guidance,,and improved -course sc-ddlillg,arefrequently_mentioned ways torespOnd.But not enough is known about individual student goals"(and goal-modifications as\they interact with course inetficiency),.to,emphasizeone kind of policy rather thah another.We need someway,of knowing student course objectives, perhaps in connection withthe course enrollment process,This would allow insights,as,to whatit means when a -student does' no

13 t tuessfully.pass aiven course..Research
t tuessfully.pass aiven course..Research into course objectives of,st dents is recom ended forK'.\..faculty members and departments curiouabout their individualcourse inefficiencies, as a first ,step t Ward imoved retention..measures-.'-'Implications of Other Research for PolicyThe California study suggested that student.gbals are Changing.Asolder part-tiMe students have enrolled with different objectives foreducational, career and personalgrowth, "education for part timeadult students has be:the-ddminapttfunctionofthe CommunityColleges." .Asa result, effective Wiiige is not adepiptely measuredby traditionaloutcomes ( course 'arid-program:completions).\-1t, 44.S111Institutional Researcreports support this California- perspective.Of 786 off-campustudis recently surveyed, (Report No. 77-5),one out of fourtasnot 4mirg. -at -the A.A. degree:' Anotherrecentreport (77-10) relates adult, developmentand programs bf study to agegrodps.The evidence is that student.program-goalsvary with age....fir every hUndred studentsenrolling in the fall, less than.tenwill ,get the A.A. degree in thespring.This too has implicationsfor goals.Is there SD much-"scr-eening" of theunfit, or so much%.illusion in goal-setting?-One research challenge is to urderstend,the dynamics of student goal- setting.How does this process work?How do incentives, motivations, andg

14 oal-setting interact?How dosymbolic toke
oal-setting interact?How dosymbolic tokens (credits, degrees)act as intermediate steps towardthe achievement ofmore Otimate goals? 'Questions such as these,must be the'subjectof further research.-The California study yieldedcertain recommendations which couldbe 'considered at.PrinceGeorge'5.Examples'are as .follows:o- 4',1.- Students withdrawing frbmcourses could be encouraged toe "challenge" examinations for credit.Considerationcod be given to alloWing studentsto drop courses andpeti 'on for full or partial credit,based on courseobjectes being met.2.The;Recordt-Office could be encouraged to Worktoward atontract system involving students andtheir counselors'ON advisors, to provide for' individualized objectivesandeducational 'plans for achieVing theseobjectives.3.Consideration.could be given to theuse of continuingeducation units (CEU's) for studentsnot attempting credit.'Undkthis proposal,CommunityServices students.would bepermitted to enroll forany class 'that has 'room with CEU'sawarded on the basis of .a contract madethrough the.r Community Services. Office.-fi4..Efforts could be made to involve facultymembers in staffdevelopmentorin- serviceraining that would identify'changing student characteristics andobjectives, anddiscover ways and means to respond appropriately.Recommendations such as these need to beevaluated in the light df

15 local experience.. The College hasexperi
local experience.. The College hasexperimented with non-punItivegrading.The decision was made to retainthe previously existing,system,these sanctions (academic grades) beused to "punishthe unfit" and "screen dut the unworthy" frOmgraduate school,regafdless of,student goals?The community college:mission accomo-dates'develpoing adults-aged-25, 35,-oreven 45.How ft failing;.gradeS and studentsuspensions supportthis mission?Would a uviewof academic' standards and regulation§with this 4Uestion in min'abe worthwhile?Policy appears to be worth considerjngwhereby.Cr afailing grades would be removed as a barrier to college continuation.'The rationale for academic dismissals and suspensions dates to atime when classroom space was scarce. ,Students were more abundantthan places.Screening-out made sense.Nowadays many collegesare competing for students.Enrollment declineis a problem.Policies favoring screening -in and keeping-in, rather than rejectingstudents, appear to be worth considering.Certificates-could 4q1iobe promoted for those whose gradepoint average does not meetdegree standards.3/14/77VIau1, Larkin, DirectorInstitutional Research Table 1PRINCE GEORGE'S COMMUNITY COLLEGEFive-Year Between-Term Attrition, Fall 1,972 to Spring 1977072-731973=741974-75,1975 -761976-77.FallSpringFallSpringFallSpringFallSpringFallSpringReturning3,6185,2074,226

16 6,2354,6606,6385,6127,6886,0287,789Rpadm
6,2354,6606,6385,6127,6886,0287,789Rpadmits.6657238608419971-,076-1,1091,1631,2201,357New to PGCC3,6051,6954,172-1,868440682,5424,7092,5934,6672,684TOTAL7,8887,6259,2588,9449,725 10,25611,4301.1,44411,91511,830Non-Returns as a% of Pheviods TermNumber3,4512,6813,399'3,0234,284°:3,6484,6443,7425,4164,126Percent49%34%45%'3'3%48c37%4456,33%47%35%SOURCE:Institutional Research Office, based on Computer,$cience42/17/77.tt10Center printouts.11 Within-Term Student,Withdrawals from PGCC.Number.PercentCourse Withdrawalt.Enrollments(Percent,. Withdrawing.44Tati e 2:..:.PRINCE GEORGE'S COMMUNITY COLLEGEWithin-Term MeaSUres.of Attrition, FAW1971 toFall.College Withdrawals and_ Course Withdrawals"Fall1971Spring : FallSpringFall1972.1972197319731976:.4SpringFallSpring.19741974rFallSpring:Fall-.1975197519761976432753802).9724%7%7%8%I,5143.,1933,2974,18229,78434,39033,487'35,6735%9%9%12%717-578925439667.62957§9%.8%II%5%9%"7%6%,.N.A.N.A. ....4;128`.' 3,2864,305.- 3,481n2,54 .N.A.N.A. 25:02623,587: 28,94326,909, 29,699N.A.16%13% ,-- 14%12%7%*" *Note:In Fal, 1974, course wittictrawd,ls were tabulated as "NC" (no.credit)..,--s4OURCE:7hotitutiOna ResearchOffice,.2/17/77..Ibased on Computer Center printoute: :o-r44.-4I.7;413 ..01a61.TpblePRINCE GEORGE'S COMUNITY COLLEGE'Reiions for Studqpt WithdrawalDirectly subject toCollege action-Fall 1975.Fall 1976No.%,No

17 .Financial-263.495Lack of interest25$344
.Financial-263.495Lack of interest25$344Work conflict27,25628.207Academic difficulty213222Not directly subjectto College action1,Personale1221614316.Transferring294364Armed Services182.,16,2.,Moving Away41551----6-----Health,Miscellaneous'10614123134.Other.1582.119221TOTAL753100%922'100%,4.0SOURCE:Institutional.Research Office, based on Computer Sciencereports.2/17/770-,,k Table 4PRINCE GEORGE'S COMMUNITY COLLEGEAttrition gates by DivisiotIand Departments for Fall 1976:'Third Week to Final'Week4.DIVISIONS ANDThirdDEPARTMENTS4---Week/-1of Class.itFinalNo. ofWeekDropsAttrition)RatesTECHNICAL AND CAREER EDUCATIONBusiness Studies,Secretarial Science.,BusinessScientific & Service TechnologyData Processing..Engineering Technolog9,5495,0338394,1943,458-1,4456648,449.,4,3386983,6403,1041,2455831,100695'141554354.2008112%14%16,1310%1312Recreation Leadership26023129IIFire Science TechnologyLaw Enforcement98991-) 9525\395.3'Nursing and Allied"1,05.8,007.515%.Medical LaboratOrY4941816Respiratory Therapy34:29514Health,70.6468X-Ray Technology,80',7378,Deptat Assiqting8885'33Nursing..57755720- 3Easly.sDhidhood Development67'6611Mental 44ealthf78'Iv 771:.1Medical Records Technology151500ARTS & SCIENCES26,12423,042--3,08212%,Science, Math, Engineering6,4975,58691114%.CheMistry4863,55131.26Physics2982425618Engineering'95781717BiologyL,3221,14917313Mathe

18 matics.3,5753,11346212Physical 'Science7
matics.3,5753,11346212Physical 'Science72164972915, Table 4. cont'd.Attrition Rates by Divisions.& Departments for Fall 1976,, etc.DIVISIONS ANDDEPARTMENTS.ThirdWeek'FinalNo. of0Attrition,----WeekDropi-----RatesARTS & SCIENCES ('cont'd.)English .StudiesSocial Sciences4,3076,7643,7825,901525"863, 12%12%.,Political Science71959212717Psychology.'1,8271,52030716Social Science107921514--Geography281242439'13Economics-1,09897911910Sociology98988410510Anthropology215196198Behavorial Science87825a5History1,441A_1,3141278Humanities4,0913,6973949%muslc,6675438412Philosophy37433044IIArt86978386.9.Speech1,7.62-1'46001629Foreign languages419-401..184c' PhySical Education, Health2,2372,0302079%& RecreationIbt;ysical-;Educa+ion.1,973t,7831909Health264247'176Other',23-2282,0461828%Developmental Math1,1681,05011810Developmental Reading5004475310Developmental English,549504458Education,101-II45N.A.N.A.P4'TOTAL.35,67331,491.4,18212%way'SOURCE:InStitutiongl Research Office, based on Computer Science printouts.2/18/77.16 )-No.A%Fall 1974:6 32021%Spring 1975.-6,69322Fall 19757,08220Spring 1976.7,506:22Fall 19767,548.21Table 5PRINCE GEORGE'S COMMUNITY COLLEGEFinal Grade DistributionB'CDNo.%No.%,No.7,28125%5,59619%1,3717,339.:24-'5,559101,424.8,"329.24v..,6,496182,076../.:8,493256,06518%1,908ir'8,678 -24.5,550,18-..2,094'%:5%5(66 .6.'N.C.'orP-F.No..%No.%8343%

19 ..4,80016%70925,608.187432.,5,1471552924
..4,80016%70925,608.187432.,5,1471552924,77514..-66424,595 v 13SOURCE: :In3titutiongi Research'Office,based on Computer acrien-oe Center Report ST11265.17,VOTHERNo.%3,49711%3,002'115,254154,9891416,2561641P18 Table6PrinceGeorge's Community allegqCOURSE PASS RATES AND COURSE,AfTRITION RATES, 1968-1976,Initi'alEnrollments....SuccesfullyCompletedCourses*CourseAttrition4Fall 197636,39326;844`73%.27%Spring 197634,265.4,1737327,,Fall1975'35,127.25,5807327Spring 197530,33422,)077427Fall197429,699224,06074.-I.-26Spring 1974Fall197327,46629,523.*.20,02121,5837373.':.2727-Spring 197323,94118 6097822Fall197225,5241877327Spring 197222,35516,8757525Fall1971..23,65916,9127129Spring 197119,77914,5887426Fall197021,99715,890,7228Spring 197017,210.12,6887426.,Fall196919,27413,424-7030Spring 196913,09010,08023Fall196815,96911,48172-=2*, A;B,C,D,'Towards Passing, Audit, O'r'Pass.SOURCE:Institutional Research Office, basedon annual reports,from the ComputerScience.Center.2/17/77,1'-a.19%Kr Table 7PRINCE GEORGE'S COMMUNITY COLLEGE4Course Inefficiency Rates by Division, Fall 1973 andFall 1976DivisionARTS & SCIENCESDevelopmentalEnglishScience/Math/EngineeringSocial Sciences.HumanitiesPhysical Education"''Recreation'aTECHNICAL AND.CAREER1Business TechnologyScientific & Service.Technologies,Nursinb:&-Allled HealthFall 1973.,Non-InefficiencyEnrollment'Completion

20 sRateiEnrollment,....23,786,6,59328%26,6
sRateiEnrollment,....23,786,6,59328%26,661.:.11,9464,2974,654"6,9553,7832,151740392,3551,203284,4051,43431'6,5421,95A28.6,945827224,165415192,2495,737.1,347'23%.'4,21,456.720292,405-.51721876110139,732.5,1433,594995Fall 1976'Non-InefficiencyCompletionsRate17,39628i..,..,801341,36531,1,87129,2,018, -.29905.22,436192,45325%1,4989:.---,869,-'%24\.'-.". 869').2 4'r-----,727%,,9,84.92i%TOTAL9,5237,940.36393,..ISOURCE:institutional Research OffiOe baledonComputer Seiene.repart8..,3/1/77. '20421 .SourcesAstin, Alexander, PivventingStudents from Dropping Out, JosseyBass, San Francisco, 1975.BrAhstman, Richard"When and Why StUdents Quit CommuriityService Courses," Office ofInstitutiopl Research Report,CoastCommunity College Disttict, CostaMea,.California, May 1974.California PostsecondaryEducation Commission,, Throughthe OpenDbor, A Study's:if EnrollmentandPerformance Patterns inCalifornia'sCommunity/Colieges,February 1976.-JamesDavid,"Effects of a Mid-SemeStee InterventionProcess onCoUrsPass- Rates and Colirse Attrition Ratesat'Prince George'smunity College, "Practicum Report,,Prince George's Community,...fiege, January 1977.fiL rkin, Paul G., "Analysis of Pass Ratesfor Final Grades, Fall 1974.hroqgh Spring 1976," Report No. 76-2a,Office of InstitutionalResearch, November 15., 1976.,Larkin, 'Paul G., "Retention and Attrition,Academic Year 1974

21 -1975,"Report No'. 75-7, Office of InSti
-1975,"Report No'. 75-7, Office of InStitutionalResearch, March 14, 1975.Lark$0,Paul:G., "College Holding Power, andIndicators of EnrollmentAttr'ition 1971-1974," Report No.74 -31, Office of InstitutionalResearch, October SI, 1974.Larkin,-Paul G., "Student 'Attrition ky/SubjectMatter Areas for.' '-Fall-'eport No_A73-7, .Office Of InstitutionalResearch,Mart5, 1973.'Larkin, Paul G., "An Anlysis of Pass Ratesfor )972 hummer SessionCourses," Report.No.72-21, Office' of Institutfonalgfarch,October `I3; 1972:.:'e-Larkin, Paul G., "SumAry of Final GradesAccording to Pass Rates bySubject Matter-Areas for the Fall Termtof 1970 and 1971," Report11No. 72 -3, Office of Institutional Research, March',1;1972..2 2''1 sgioLarkin, Paul G., "Final Grade,Revit ancrSummaryof Enrollmehts forAll Courses:Fall Term 1970," Report No. 71-7, Officeof InstitutionalResearch, April 23, 1971.3/3/77.A4k r CoAPPENDIX.24.e1 PRINCE GEORGE'S COMMUNITY COLLEGEt. "tReport Nb. 77 -35:Increased Course4Attriran'inSpring 1977IntroductiotiOre definition of efficiency is theratio of energyplied to asystem (inputs) to the Usefulenergy delivered.(outp.An applicationofthis co cept is the ratio of successfulcourseAtriplons tothirdweek:ofss enrollments .as a measure of ,course efTitienct.The-resulting figure'expressedas a Oercentap reOtes coursp successesto potential successes.The mo

22 re the succ00 (meaningpassingthe course
re the succ00 (meaningpassingthe course 'as opposed to not passing),the more ;the effiqiency.Inefficiency in this context wouldbenon successes. as.a percentageof possible, successes, suggesting that'sbmeof the'energyl,that wentinto the course. was "wasted."(There is no implication of "blame"'here. PerfeCt efficiencyl for example,might imply meaninglessstandards.or thoughtless final grades:Tre is an assumption,however, that more students' could achieveoffighstandards. throughmarginal improvements in instruction.)The present repOrt:applies thisconcept of efficiency and ineificiencyto Colleqewide attrfOon-.levels during the springterm of 1977.The term attritiorOs used,as it has been in previpureports (see a;%Previous ReportsEarlier reports have :examined, fall' andspring pass rates' overnumber of years (76-22).They-have assessed attrition and inefficiency.according to a variety ofmeasures (74-31,77-11).The present report..4partially updates these previous studiesthrough the spring term of1977.There is a view toward the question,are we improving ourefficiency?What is happening to attrition.ataa timewhen:studentretention has become a focuS of attentionfor the College's ma'ketingeffort?In preparation for the fall term of-1977,what does theqacultyneed to know about the status of the College'scourse inefficiency?The Data BaseAs shown in Table

23 1, final gradistributions selected at th
1, final gradistributions selected at the'samepoint in time each year represent the data basefor comparisons.Itis assumed that modifications in the database are not changinggreatly afterthg.official.reporting datefrom one year to the next.--.4'2 5_4t'A-, Summary of Passing ,and Non-Passing Grades',-,Course efficiency decreased by.apercentage point in spring 1977,ascompared with the previous four terms...-. (See Table 2.)In-tomparisonwith spring,1976, as indicated in-Table 1, tne,nuMber of grades-recorded increase in Spring 1977 to about 600 more than the prbiousyearBut the,number of passes was- approximately 60 more, while the:number not RassingAcas approximately-1W more.As a result, course'efficiency (as definesd,above) decreased./Long-Term TrendsAs shown in Table 3, the 28 percent attrition ratefor Spring 1977';was -riot the highest in the College's history.But it was relatively-thigh in comparison with recent years.Between 1968 and fall 1971,an attrition level of 28 percent was ordinary for the fall term.Attrition remained below 28 percent between fall 1971 and spring 1977,)a period spanning over five academic years.DiscussionThe present report is descriptive.Reasons for change in attritionor efficiency are beyond its scope.,There is a dearth of relevantinformation available for analytical purposes. °Individual diOsionsand departmen

24 ts might consider explanatibns for'their
ts might consider explanatibns for'their individualincreases in attrition, with enhanced awareness of the implications-of attrition for the student and fothe College.The need to,-facilitate student achievement of itructional,goals without -anydilution of quality or standards may'nt up the increasing desirabilityof individual faculty members knowing the academic goals,of each of.their students, part time as Well as full time.In this way there,could be a 'specific facilitation of goal achievement by the individualstudent, not the least element of which, ould be the student'ssuccessfully pAssing the course.8/08/7726Paul Larkin, DirectorInstitutional Researcht*ke ITable 1PRINCE GEORGE'S dOMMUNITY COLLEGEFinal Grade Distribution0.Fall 1974--.Spring 105Fall 1975Spring 1976Fall.i1976..,'Spring 1977,ANumber---...7BNumber%..,C: Number7.D.;Number%NumberP%37.2222-1-N.C. orFNumber7..6,3206,6937,0827,506'7,548700.-.21%22202221217,281'7,3398,3298,4938,6788,11525%2424252423'5,596-5,559..6,496e 6,0656,5586,49519718.1818-1819o1,3715%1,424'52,07661,90862,0946.1,984-6-834709743529.'664,5 414,8005,6085,1474,7754,5954,54916%.1815141213.-:1ra-,. 4''S,OURCE:InstitudakalResearch Center, based on Computer Science CenterReport STU 265'.7/14/77ks.,.64OTHERNumber7.3,497117.3,002115,254154,98914,-6,256175,8651728a .'Tab2PRINCE GEORGE'S COMMUNITY COLLEGESummaryof P

25 assing and Non-passing FiltalGrades,Fall
assing and Non-passing FiltalGrades,Fall 1974-Spring.1977TOTALGradesFall 197429,699Apsitig_1915._30,3341Fall 197535;127Spring 197634,,265Fall 197636,393Spring 197734,864.q9PASSING*Nditiber%NOT PASSINGNumber7.22,06074%7,63926%22,307748,02727a25,580739,5472725,173739,09227;At26,544739,7492725,233729,6-3a28* A, B, C, D, toward Passing, Audit,or Pas.SOURCE:Institutional Research Center, basedon Computer ScienceCenter Report STU 265.7/14/7744O29 ,tTable 3----7-PRINGE GEORGE a...COMIC:11Y COLLEGE=Course Pass Rates and4ourse Attrition Rates, 1968-1977.Spring 1977Fall 1976.Initial.Credit 1/EnrollmentsSuccessfullyCompleted ''''Courses*Number%.,:bourseAArition1,Percent34,86436,39325,23326,54472%7328727Spring 197634,26525,1737327Fall 1975'35,127,L2p,5807327Spring 197530,334.22,3077427Fall 497429,69922,66017426Spring 197427,46620,0217327Fall 197329,52321,583",.7327..Spring 197323,94118,609,78_22Fall J97225,52418,697'7327Spring 197222,355.16,8757525Fall 197123,65916,91271'29Spring 197119,77914,5887426Fall 197021,99715,8907228Spring).970-17,210112,6887426Fall 196919,2741'13,4247030,Spring 196913,09010,080=772311 196815,969-- 11,4817228* A, B, C, p, towards Passing, Audit, or Pass.460r.-ASOURCO Institutional Research Center, haSe0onannual reports'from,the Computer Sciened-Center,'7/14/77IUNIVERSITY. OF CALIF.LOS ANGELES)ou 719CLEARINGHOUSE FORJUNIOR