Rethinking Grade Transfer Shock: Examining Its Importance In The Community College Transfer Process

(Article published In The Journal Of Applied Research In The Community College Vol. 14, No. 1, Fall 2006, p. 19-33).

Presented By:Ron Pennington, Director Of Institutional Research

(rpennington@stchas.edu)

6th Annual Conference Of The Institute For The Study Of Transfer StudentsJanuary 23-25, 2008

Dallas, Texas

Introduction

2

3

What is Grade Transfer Shock (GTS)?

A decrease in a student’s grade point average during their first semester at a four-year institution when compared to their cumulative GPA at a community college (CC).

4

Why Is GTS A Problem?

Native student studies: CC transfers have lower graduation rates even with SES and academic ability controls

GTS could be an intervening variable adversely affecting four-year student success

Academic integration first/social integration later

Native four-year students will not experience GTS

CC TransferExperience

Level of GTSExperienced

Eventual 4-yearSuccess

5

Research Shows GTS Is A Persistent Problem

Review of the literature suggests students lose about1/3 of a grade point

e.g. 3.0 down to 2.70

2.5 down to 2.20

Studies consistent over time

Hills (1965)Richardson & Doucette (1980)Diaz (1992)Carlan & Byxbe (2000)

6

Why Might CC Transfers Experience GTS? Poor academic prep at the CC level (Dougherty,

2000)

Within an institution – academic in-process measures

Between institutions

Poor transfer prep (Nolan & Hall, 1978; Holahan & Kelley, 1978; Land, 1996; Laanan, 1996; Lee & Hoey, 1996; Rhine, 2000, Debard, 1996)

Poor cognitive maps (Lovitts, 2001)

Attribution Theory (Heidner, 1958; Weiner, 1974)

Potential Interventions To Reduce GTS Change the emphasis from traditional transfer

counseling strategies like: Where to transfer Meeting the prerequisites of four-year schools

To:

More proactive strategies designed to reduce GTS Workshops on the new four-year academic culture Student mentoring programs at the four-year school

(Laanen, 1996; Rhine et al., 2000)

7

8

Research Questions

Is GTS related to four-year student success?

Does GTS occur when student demographic and institutional process variables are controlled?

Do traditional two-year and four-year transfer counseling practices reduce GTS levels?

Methodology

9

10

Measuring GTS Is Problematical Gain score:

(4-year term GPA) – (2-year cumulative GPA)

Problem: The two GPA measures are different

Based on two schools’ grading system

4-year term GPA is less reliable than the CC cumulative GPA

Less course taking Shorter time period

Regression to a lower 4-year GPA scale

11

Two Basic Solutions Using a lower level of measurement:

A dichotomous variable

An ordinal variable

Regress the CC cumulative GPA on the 4-year term GPA

-.25 0

GTS No GTS

+.25

-.25 +.25

Negative Grade Change (GTS)

No Grade Change Positive Grade Change

0

12

Data Collection Methods

Telephone survey of MO community college transfer students – Summer 1999

Student data came from community colleges Demographic Academic in-process measures

Student outcome data (MO EMSAS file)

Study’s Sample Initial list of 7,055 CC transfer students completed 24

credit hours from 1995 to 1998

2,656 were surveyed using several call back attempts (response rate = 38%)

Many outdated telephone numbers

Additional criteria used to eliminate cases

Senior transfers (>96 credits) Pooling of 5 urban community colleges First-time transfers prior to fall 1998 semester

Usable cases = 686

13

Findings

15

Is GTS Related To Four-Year Student Success?

Modest relationship between GTS and CC transfer success at four-year schools.

Grade measure of GTS better predictor of transfer success than survey measure

16

Nearly three times as many students actually experienced GTS than reported it in the survey

17

Regression Findings

Does GTS occur when student demographic and institutional process variables are controlled?

Do transfer two-year and four-year traditional counseling practices reduce GTS levels?

18

19

Independent Variables- CC Lib Arts Maj (0=N,1=Y)- CC Bus Maj (0=N, 1=Y)+ CC Degree (0=N, 1=Y)+ CC Financial Aid (0=N, 1=Y)+ Cumulative CC Credits- Dev course work

Transfer Experience+ CC Prep (0=not SAT, 1=SAT)

+ CC Acad Adv (0=no, 1=yes)

+ CC Fac Adv (0=no, 1=yes)

+ CC Couns (0=no, 1=yes)

+ Cred Transfer Success (0=no, 1=yes)

+ 4-year Couns (0=no, 1=yes)

+ 4-Year First-Term Credits

+ CCGPA

- 4-Year ACT

CC Academic ChallengeCC1CC2

± CC3CC4CC5

+ Age- Gender (0=F, 1=M)- African American (0=AA,1=Oth)+ Previous College (0=N, 1=Y)

Summary Of Key Regression Findings CC GPA was the strongest predictor variable of 4-year GPA by 4 to 1

4-year and 2-year academic challenge variables were the second strongest set of predictors

Other significant variables were:

Taking developmental CC coursework (indicator of academic readiness?)

Age (indicator of maturation?) CC financial aid (indicator of financial dependency at the CC?) 4-year credits (indicator of clearer transfer goals) Controls on demographic and institutional process variables

actually enhanced GTS Traditional counseling variables were not significant individually or

as a set

20

21

Regression Findings: Results

Significant Not Significant

Variable Exp. Actual BetaCC GPA Pos Pos 0.46 Gender4-Yr. ACT Neg Neg -0.12 African-American

CC4+ — Neg 0.11 Previous collegeAge Pos Pos 0.10 Bus major at CCDev Crs Wk Neg Neg -0.10 Lib Arts major at CCFin Aid Pos Neg -0.09 CC degree4-Yr. Cr Pos Pos 0.08 CC credits

All other transfer experience variables+ All CC academic vars sig as a set (F=4.99)

22

Summary of the Regression Results By Sets and CC GPA Coefficients

Set By Order of Data EntryVariables

In SetChange inCC GPA b R2

R2

Change1. Transfer Shock (CC GPA) 1 .91 .29 .29 255.27 ***2. 4-Year Academic Challenge 1 .93 .30 .01 11.95 **3. CC Academic Challenge 5 .93 .32 .02 3.15 *4. Student Background 4 .85 .33 .01 3.57 *5. CC Experience 6 .80 .35 .02 2.55 *6. 4-Year First Sem Term Experience 1 .79 .36 .01 5.35 *7. Transfer Experience 6 .78 .36 .00 0.86* p<,05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001

Changein F

Implications And Discussion

23

GTS can be measured as a

CC GPA 4-year regression study

Or

As a dummy variable in a regression study

24

Regression study question

Will the relationship between GTS and 4-year outcome success hold up under various controls?

This study shows that the GTS variables should be split at -.25 to -.30 if coded as a dummy variable

25

Other predictor variables should be examined

More academic process variables at the CC level

Like this study’s CC developmental coursework, CC financial aid, and 4-year credit variables

Other examples: school attendance, course scheduling (Karl Boughhan)

Student engagement

Inter-institutional variables like the 4-ACT and set of CC variables

Will be needed for institutional accountability assessments Hierarchical linear modeling could be used to “level out the

playing field”

26

Need to test if new transfer counseling programs should be adopted

Specific program interventions

Better financial aid assistance and information Counseling program (two or four-year) targeted to

increase students’ Cognitive maps (campus visits, student mentoring, etc.)

More systemic strategies and explanations

Attributional Theory vs.

Academic and Social Integration models

27

What is Attributional Theory?

A psychological theory – instead of a sociological theory

An achievement-motivational theory that predicts a person's future motivation to act based on causative explanations for why certain outcomes have occurred in the past

Concepts include: Locus of control Controllability Event stability

28

Many have argued that intervention programs based on attribution theory could improve the academic success of CC transfers (Finley & Cooper, 1983; Pascarella, Edison, Hagedorn, Nora, & Terenzini, 1996; Perry, Hector, Menec, & Weinberg, 1993; St. Clair, 1993; Valla, 1989)

But all future program interventions to improve GTS need to be evaluated Need a program logic for how the intervention is

suppose to work Need to implement an experimental design to see

if it does work

29

30