Towards a Conceptual Model of Retention and Success at Unisa

Presented at ODL Management Committee14 September 2009

Prof George Subotzky, ED: Information & Strategic Analysis

Overview

• Brief background and context (GS)• Towards a (unique?) Conceptual Model for

Distance Education Retention and Success– Overview of literature review (PP)– Key constructs (PP)– Outline of model and underlying

propositions (GS)– Exposure at/to two international

conferences (GS)• Critical engagement

Background• Retention and Success a major focus of concern

in HE system and, in particular, at Unisa• Strong external imperative to improve retention

and success rates from government outcomes-based funding framework

• Focal area in all key institutional policy and planning documents– 2015 Strategic Plan– Recent Institutional Operational Plan Reviews– Recent QA Audit Reports: 3 cohort case studies

conducted

The UNISA Throughput Forum• Co-ordinated and integrated effort to improve

retention and success• Approach adopted: to achieve the comprehensive

understanding of all factors shaping retention and success through modeling initiative

• Purpose of modeling initiative: to provide a systematic, evidence-based, contextually-relevant foundation to inform and guide initiatives to improve retention and success

• This work undertaken by modeling Task Team

2-fold Framework for Enhancing Retention & Success

1. Comprehensive modelling initiative– Literature review (conducted by Dr Paul Prinsloo)– Drawing from this, the conceptual/hypothetical modelling of

the positive and risk factors shaping the student experience, retention & success in the ODL context of Unisa (Modelling Task Team)

– Together, the literature review and conceptual model released as a Strategic Discussion Forum discussion document during April for comprehensive engagement & feedback and then to STLSC & Senate

– Regarding the model, determining what variables are knowable, measurable, (is/may be) available and actionable

– Utilising model to shape student tracking system, to gather relevant and available quantitative and comprehensive complementary qualitative data (myUnisa)

– Statistical and analytic modelling to determine factors shaping success and to predict and address risk and readjusting the model as necessary

A 2-fold framework for enhancing throughput & success

2. Transforming institutional identity, attributes & practices

– Utilising consolidated findings (as actionable intelligence) to inform and guide existing and new Learner Support Framework and initiatives and academic practices and operational improvements in order to improve success, throughput and the student experience;

– Monitoring and evaluating these initiatives over time as part of continuous reflection and improvement and ongoing QA

MANAGEMENT OF STUDENT EXPERIENCE, RETENTION, SUCCESS & GRADUATENESS Shaped by modeling process

Conceptual Modeling M & E

Statistical & Analytic

Modelling producing Actionable Intelligence

Tracking System

(In-depth qualitative & quantitative information)

Identifying what is

relevant, measurable, available & actionable

Learner Support

Interventions and other

academic & administrative

changes

Processes:• Informed responsibility & ‘choice’• Ontological/epistemological dev.• Managing risks/opportunities/

uncertainty: Integration, adaptation, socialisation & negotiation

Domains:• Intra-personal• Inter-personal

Modalities:• Attribution• Locus of

control• Self-

efficacy

Processes:• Informed responsibility &

choice• Managing

risks/opportunities: Transformation, change management, org. learning, integration & adaptation

Modalities:•

Attribution

• Locus of control

• Self-efficacy

Domains:• Academic• Operational• Social

TRANSFORMED INSTITUTIONAL IDENTITY & ATTRIBUTES:

STUDENTIDENTITY & ATTRIBUTES:

• Situated agent: SES, demographics• Capital: cultural, intellectual, emotional,

attitudinal• Habitus: perceptions, dispositions,

discourse, expectations

Success

INSTITUTIONALIDENTITY & ATTRIBUTES:

• Situated organisation: history, location, strategic identity, culture, demographics• Capital: cultural, intellectual, attitudinal• Habitus: perceptions, dispositions,

discourse, expectations

SHAPING CONDITIONS: (predictable as well as uncertain)• Social structure, macro & meso shifts: globalisation, political economy, policy; National/local culture & climate

• Personal /biographical micro shifts

SHAPING CONDITIONS: (predictable as well as he uncertain)• Social structure, macro & meso shifts: globalisation, internationalisation, political economy, technology, social demand

• HE/ODL trends, policy• Institutional biography & shifts; Strategy, business model & architecture, culture & climate, politics & power relations

Choice, Admission

Learning activities

Coursesuccess

Gradua-tion

THE STUDENT WALK: Multiple, mutually constitutive

interactions between student, institution & networks

• Managing complexity/ uncertainty/ unpredictability/risks/opportunities• Institutional requirements known &

mastered by student• Student known by institution through

tracking, profiling & prediction

FIT

FIT

FIT

FIT

Employ-ment/

citizenship

TRANSFORMED STUDENT IDENTITY & ATTRIBUTES:

FIT

FIT

FIT

FIT

FIT

FIT

FIT

FIT

Retention/Progression/Positive experience

Proposition 1

Student success is broadly interpreted and indicated by retention, progression through the main phases of the student walk, and ultimately successful graduation and effective entry into the labour market and/or citizenship.

Success also incorporates a positive student experience as a result of student-centred service excellence and efficient operations provided by the institution.

Proposition 2

Student success and positive experience is the outcome of sufficient fit between the identity and attributes of the student and the institution through all phases of student walk.

Proposition 3

Fit arises when elements of the student and institutional identity and attributes (capital and habitus) are optimally aligned at each successive stage of the student walk. Fit at these various points is the outcome of the specific individual student and institutional preconditions.

Proposition 4

In order for fit to arise at each successive stage of the student walk, relevant transformative changes in the identity and attributes of the student and the institution are required.

Student & Institutional Transformation• Processes

– Crucially dependent on relevant mutual actionable knowledge

– This is an essential precondition in the management of risks, uncertainties and opportunities

– Student: understanding institutional expectation & requirements & executing these

– Institution: tracking, profiling, predicting relevant activities, risks & opportunities and adapting practices accordingly

Institutional Transformation• The institution’s obligation is to continually reflect

on its assumptions and practices not only in order to improve delivery but to eradicate hidden socio-economic and cultural barriers to equitable student access & success and thus to achieve the QA criterion of fitness to purpose

• This captures the transformative approach, failing which the institution perpetuates the social reproduction of elites

Proposition 5

The student walk comprises a series of multiple, mutually constitutive interactions between the situated student and the situated institution and between the student and his/her various networks through all points of the walk

(Articulation with ODL model)

Proposition 6

The formation and transformation of student and institutional identity and attributes is continuously shaped by overarching conditions at the macro, meso and micro levels

International conferences• Retention 2009, New Orleans: Educational Policy

Institute– Pre-conference workshops:

a) General conceptual issuesb) Developing an institutional retention

strategy• Annual forum of the Association for Institutional

Research, Atlanta– Pre-conference workshops:

a) Statistical modellingb) Data miningc) Balanced scorecard in HE

International conferences• Strong corroboration of key elements of model:

– Focus on students, institution and interaction– Focus on intensive engagement with a view

to mutual knowledge• Strong interest in:

– Quantitative & qualitative mechanisms for in-depth engagement, prediction & proactive interventions

– Constructs• Key lessons:

– Need for institutional strategy– Need for mixed quantitative methods:

statistical modelling & data mining

1. Unisa: Integrated, comprehensive approach to addressing the imperative of improving success, throughput & student experience – modelling approach

2. Literature Review: Rich field of enquiry, with interesting array of theoretical perspectives

3. International models not appropriate to developing country ODL context and do not recognise imperative for institutional transformation

4. International conference exposure provided strong corroboration5. Unique features of Unisa Model: Key constructs and propositions,

especially the central component of the need for student and institutional transformation on the basis of relevant, mutual knowledge & engagement

6. Evidence suggests that non-cognitive and institutional variables impact equally (if not more) on student retention and success

5. The initial indications from the literature and the conceptual model, as well as the envisiged qualitative and quantitative actionable intelligence should provide the basis of a much more comprehensive understanding of the student experience, retention & success at Unisa.

6. In turn, this should provide an important basis for fulfilling the objectives of the ODL model by helping to bridge the various distances between the student and retention and success, as well as a positive student experience.

Conclusion

Thank you!