Where do they go?

In 2016, UW Tacoma's Office of Institutional Research did a lengthy study of our direct-entry (from high school) student attrition in their lower division experience: Who Leaves and When. Everyone working with our students should read it, for it dispels a number of false narratives about the ~40% of DE students we lost in those vulnerable, lower division years. The surprising news was that we lose excellent students: no academic concerns, students with full ride scholarships, students who we thought were thriving. Seventy eight percent (78%) of these "leavers" were in good academic standing and 27% of them just slipped away during the first summer break.

What Institutional Research was not able to do in their study of who and when was to tell us where these students go. Many of us hoped these good students went to a campus that was a better fit: to UW Seattle, to Eastern or Western, even down the street to the University of Puget Sound. We hoped, but we didn't know. Turns out we could find out.

The National Student Clearinghouse tracks students from higher education institutions, with 90+ percent of schools participating and sending their data. You need to belong, and participate (shares well with others) to be able to tap in and track your "leavers" but it turns out that IR at UW Bothell did just that in 2015. Plus they were curious about how they were doing against us (their closest peer) and the high-achieving students at UW Seattle, so they tracked our students too.

They shared our results, aligning closely as an addendum to Who Leaves and When, So, here's a look at where they went. Slightly different years for the two studies, but same populations: leavers at UW Tacoma (2006-2012, 2007-2013).

The answer? 86% of them just drop out. Some go down the street to TCC, a few do go to UWS. Most just slip away in the summer. Next study? Why did they leave and what can we do to ensure that they are not just walking away with debt and disappointment. Who, when, where, what, why? More to come.

Correlation is not Causation

It is not; we know that - but correlation is a powerful tool for exploring and understanding situational effects. Let's do a for-instance: UW Tacoma and UW Bothell. They were started at the same time (1990), to offer regional options for a UW education...albeit in different parts of the PNW region. UW Bothell is 50 miles to the north of us, set in lovely woods, with new and shiny glass buildings. They are in tech country and are open to many innovative practices that make visiting their Learning Technologies group an adventure.  The group consists of 5 professionals, supporting ZERO online courses. They also have a bevy of students helping them create documentation and videos. Their site is a broad and deep exploration of pedagogy, help aids and ideas.

Contrast this with the UW Tacoma: embedded in history, community, and the story of access for our "new traditional" students. Due to resources always allocated first to "engagement of diverse students" our commitment to Academic Technologies differs from UW Bothell: 1.5 professionals, supporting more than 500 students and 15-20 instructors in fully online courses each quarter. Two students doing tutoring, one (1!) that will begin this quarter to do the kind of work that UWB's eight (8!) current Learning Technologies' student workers are doing.

What happens when culture creates a strong variance in commitment? Well, the only way to measure is with data. Correlation: despite our joined histories, UWB has a much higher 6-year retention rate (73 vs 65%) but that's just loose correlation. How do we know supporting students with technologies that are now used for learning would make a difference? Can we get closer to the source?

How about faculty adoption of the Canvas LMS, which gives students 24/7 access to online syllabi, tools, assignments and readings? Here's what we know since its adoption: UWT started with a higher initial adoption, but UWB's focus on support, training, and innovation quickly moved them forward until the latest numbers show a 16% difference in instructors using Canvas - at all. Not well, not deeply, not to reduce time constraints...just creating online access to course materials.

Correlation is not causation, but it tells a compelling story.

Colleen