Counting Chickens before They are Hatched: An Examination of Student Retention,Graduation,Attrition,and Dropout Measurement Validity in An Online Master's Environment
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online February, 2013
Counting Chickens before They are Hatched: An Examination of Student Retention,Graduation,Attrition,and Dropout Measurement Validity in An Online Master's Environment
This article examines definitions, rationales, and calculations associated with higher education performance measures: persistence, retention rate, attrition rate, drop-out rate, and graduation rate. Strengths and limitations of these measures are scrutinized relative to online master's programs. Outcomes of a sample of students (N = 96) enrolled in multi-university online master's programs sponsored by Great Plains IDEA are tracked over six years. The students' unique characteristics and degree completion patterns suggest modifying performance metrics and increasing the tracking time. The study empirically proves that existing graduation and retention metrics used to compare online to face-to-face programs underreport successful outcomes for online master's students by at least one-third. Such comparisons should be made with caution, using consistent terminology and recognizing the limitations of existing metrics. Standard methods for measuring student persistence in master's degree programs should be universally established at the policy level.
AshbyA. (2004). Monitoring student retention in the open university: Definition, measurement, interpretation and action. Open Learning, 19(1), 65–77.
3.
AstinA. (2005). Making sense out of degree completion rates. Journal of College Student Retention, 7(1–2), 5–17.
4.
AstinA. & OsegueraL. (2005). Degree attainment rates at American colleges and universities (Rev. ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, University of California, Los Angeles.
5.
BairdL. (1993). Studying graduate student retention and degree attainment: Resources for researchers. New Directions for Institutional Research, 80, 81–90.
6.
BoundJ.LovenheimM. & TurnerS. (2009). Why have college completion rates declined? An analysis of changing student preparation and collegiate resources. (NBER Working Paper 15566). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w15566.pdf.
HagedornL. (2006). How to define retention: A new look at an old problem. Evaluative report, Transfer and Retention of Urban Community College Students Project (TRUCCS), Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED493674.pdf.
9.
HowellS.LawsD. & LindsayN. (2004). Reevaluating course completion in distance education. Avoiding the comparison between apples and oranges. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 5(4), 243–252.
10.
IsaacP. (1993). Measuring graduate student retention. New Directions for Institutional Research, 80, 13–25.
11.
LovittsB. (1996, April). Who is responsible for graduate student attrition—The individual or the institution? Toward an explanation of the high and persistent rate of attrition. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, New York, NY. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED399878.pdf.
MoxleyV. & MaesS. (2003). The Great Plains Interactive Distance Education Alliance. Continuing Higher Education Review, 67, 141–154.
14.
MoxleyV.MaesS. & AndersonD. (2010). Great Plains Interactive Distance Education Alliance (Great Plains IDEA). In GearhartD. (Ed.), Cases on distance delivery and learning outcomes: Emerging trends and programs (pp. 110–130). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi: 10.4018/978-1-60566-870-3.
15.
National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). The integrated postsecondary education data system (IPEDS) [Glossary]. Retrieved September 10, 2010, from http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/glossary/.
16.
National Center on Secondary Education and Transition, Institute on Community Integration, University of Minnesota. (2004). Essential tools—Increasing rates of school completion: Moving from policy and research to practice, A manual for policymakers, administrators, and educators. Retrieved from http://www.ncset.org/publications/essentialtools/dropout/dropout.pdf.
17.
NicholsM. (2010). Student perceptions of support services and the influence of targeted interventions on retention in distance education. Distance Education, 31(1), 93–113.
18.
NitschW. (2003, December). Examination of factors leading to student retention in online graduate education. A paper presented for ED 7212 Administration and Leadership of Distance Education Programs. Retrieved from http://www.decadeconsulting.com/decade/papers/StudentRetention.pdf.
19.
OttM. & MarkewichT. (1985, April). Logit analysis of graduate student retention and graduation. Paper presented at the Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Portland, OR. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED312932.pdf.
ParkC.BomanJ.CareDean W.EdwardsM. & PerryB. (2008). Persistence and attrition: What is being measured?Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory, and Practice Issue, 10(2), 223–233.
