The Triple Jump: The Challenges of
Enrolment Planning, Success &
Throughput at Unisa
Presented at the
Assessment Project Colloquium
Kloofzicht 29 September 2008
Associate Professor George Subotzky
Executive Director: Information and Strategic Analysis
Background
• The Assessment Project forms part of Unisa’s larger
project to achieve the strategic objectives of:
– Enhancing the student experience
– Responsibly managing open access & enrolments, and
simultaneously to
– Improving success & throughput
– Increasing the quality, relevant and effectiveness of Unisa’s
graduates in the African context
• The main purpose of this presentation is to place the
Assessment Project in this larger perspective and to
provide an informational and analytic backdrop to key
institutional strategic initiatives currently being
undertaken to achieve the strategic objectives
mentioned above
Background
• In particular, the presentation focuses on the current
challenges faced by the University in relation to:
– Enrolment planning
– Success and throughput modelling and intended interventions
• The presentation draws on insights from:
– Analyses of recent enrolment output trends and projections
patient to the ministerial targets
– A recent national workshop convened by DISA entitled
Conceptually Modelling Success & Throughput at Unisa
– My recent study tour of several UK universities and attendance
of a conference on Institutional Research in Southampton
– The first cohort-based throughput case studies conducted at
Unisa, and an analysis of the exam results of students with 1
module outstanding who were identified to receive
interventions
– Initial steps in modelling success & throughput
Background
• The presentation updates and substantially
revises the previous presentation at the
Assessment Project Symposium in July, entitled
Building the Temple: The Assessment Project as
part of the bigger picture
• Last night, the Principal sketched the bigger
picture in relation to policy trends and
institutional issues & challenges in a broad
strategic overview
• This presentation examines the bigger picture of
enrolment, success & throughput in terms of
recent relevant information & analyses
Another metaphor
• Many current metaphors in current change &
transformation discourse:
– Minding the gap
– Closing the gap
– Bridging distance
• The triple jump: progression through the student walk
envisaged as successful leaps and bridging gaps
between the key milestones of:
– Entry: access/enrolment
– Success/throughput
– Effective engagement in society
• More accurately, perhaps: a quadruple jump, as
progressing from success to throughput constitutes
another step
Entry:
Choice/
Inquiry/
Enrolment
Learning
activities/
interactions
1. Socio-Economic
Circumstances:
• Background/
Schooling
• Current
Success
Persistence
Retention
2. Individual
Factors/Attributes:
• Ability
• Skills
• Attitudes & Interests
Throughput/
Graduation
Employment/
Citizenship
3. Institutional
Factors:
• Quality
• Relevance
• Effectiveness
TRACKING:
Individual-level progress through HE process aggregated by profile elements
PROFILING/MODELLING/PREDICTION:
- Snapshot/trends - Views: Course/Qualification; Dept/School/College/Institution
Key premises
• Indications from considerable number of
research findings, as well as throughput cohort
studies: non-academic factors play a significant
role in impeding success & throughput –
ontological/sociological construct at the heart of
the throughput model
• Graduateness: ontological versus epistemological
foundation: not so much what to students need to
know, but who do they need to be in order to be
effective in society as critical citizens and the
market place as flexible innovators
The Challenges of Enrolment
Planning in relation to
Trends & Targets
HEMIS Enrolment Trends,
2004-7
• Total HEMIS HCs
300,000
– Increased from
206 178 in 2004 to
254 136 in 2007
– 2006/5: 9,43% up
– 2007/6: 11,69% up
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
• Active HCs
50,000
-
HC
% Change
% Active
2004
(Total)
2005
(Total)
2006
(Total)
2007
(Total)
2007
(Active)
2010
MOE
Target
206,178
207,931
227,539
254,136
239,581
258,023
0.85%
9.43%
11.69%
5.3%
94.3%
– 2007: 239 581 (94,3%
active rate) – 5,4%
increase on 2006
– Approaching 2010
ministerial target of
258 023
2008 Enrolment Projection
350,000
• Provisional HC Enrl
300,000
– Current:
286 335
– 2008 projected: 285 619
250,000
200,000
• HEMIS HC Enrl
150,000
100,000
50,000
-
Provisional
Enrolments
(To date)
Provisional
Enrolments
(Entire year)
HEMIS Total
(Excl cancel.)
HEMIS Final
(Active only)
2007 (actual)
262,900
265,759
254,136
239,581
2008 (projected)
286,335
285,619
273,128
257,485
8.91%
7.47%
% Change
2010
Ministerial
2010 Target
(Active only)
258,336
–
–
–
–
2007 actual:
239 581
2008 Total proj: 273 128
2008 Active proj: 257 485
Just below ministerial
target:
258 336
Actual & projected enrolment
& output performance against
targets
Focus
Overall enrolments:
Fields of study:
Qualification
levels:
SET
Bus/Man:
Humanities:
Education
UG diplomas:
UG degrees:
PG < Masters:
PG M & D:
Unweighted FTEs:
Success rate:
Throughput rate:
%
Graduates
Teaching Input
Units:
Weighted
teaching input
units
Actual
Actual
Actual
Projected
Projected
Projected
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
(7,5%)
2009
(7%)
2010
(7%)
Approved
Targets
207 931
227 539
239 581
257 485
275 509
25 771
26 085
26 639
27 039
27 579
85 639
95 605
104 047
112 371
72 880
80 336
82 992
23 641
25 513
57 673
294 794
258 023
28 131
(10%)
13%
121 360
131 069
(44%)
50%
90 461
97 698
105 514
(36%)
37%
25 903
27 457
29 105
30 851
(10%)
12%
61 675
65 401
69 979
74 878
80 119
(27%)
28%
117 757
127 694
133 508
142 854
152 853
163 553
(55%)
62%
15 506
17 469
18 472
20 689
23 378
26 417
(9%)
7%
6 871
6 408
5 183
5 235
5 287
5 340
(2%)
3%
100 875
109 707
116 531
125 239
134 006
143 386
128 840
53,60%
50,80%
54,30%
55,00%
55,50%
56%
56%
7,17%
6,50%
6,45%
6,26%
6,24%
6,19%
8.37%
14 185
13 855
14 364
15 000
16 000
17 000
20 231
83 558
90 803
95 887
103 053
110 266
117 985
102 100
The Key Strategic
Decision
• Continued Open access in line with DoE
requirements for widened participation, market
demand
vs
• New ‘Responsible’ open admission & enrolment in
line with renegotiated DOE enrolment targets,
emphasis on success & throughput, operational
considerations
Policy Tension in
Enrolment Planning
At the heart of Unisa’s enrolment planning lies such a
policy tension namely:
• Expansion & and open admissions, driven by:
– National policy framework emphasising widening participation,
driven, in turn, by both equity and development needs
– Unisa’s social mandate to provide affordable, flexible access to
higher education for non-traditional, disadvantaged students
through quality distance education
– Increasing and unabating market demand for distance education
– Unisa’s emerging role in addressing urgent National and
continental HRD needs, in particular teacher education and the
impact of HIV/AIDS
Policy Tension in
Enrolment Planning
• Controlled growth & responsibly managed
admissions, driven by:
– Concern for systemic and institutional quality,
efficiency & improved success/throughput
– Treasury’s policy of fiscal constraint
– Unisa's concerns for maintaining quality,
operational efficiency & service delivery
Current situation
• Letter has been drafted forwarded to the Ministry. This
requests
– Renegotiating the overall enrolment target (our size) either
upwards or onwards and addressing the subsidy implications of
this
– Reviewing the internal distribution of our enrolments by field of
study and qualification level (our shape)
– Reviewing throughput and success norms appropriately for an
ODL institution;
– Confirming the definition of the active student as a key
determinant of the teaching input grant
– Alternatively, in the light of the DE policy process underway, a
reprieve on our enrolment planning targets, and the issues
raised above considered either as part of the DE policy process,
or subsequent to the policy being finalised
• 2009-10 IOP includes new objectives around enrolment
planning: task team
Responsibly managed
open access
• Not exclusionary, but realistically supportive in
the light of changing student profile
• Key premise: access & success inextricably linked
• Identifies
– Academic readiness as well as:
– Socio-economic readiness through rigorous preregistration engagement to:
• Ensure conducive & supportive life conditions
• Ensure right programme & subject choice and realistic study
loads
• Identify appropriate tutorial & Pastoral support and
channelling
A visual metaphor ...
• Key success factor: adequate time for study
• Key risk factor: unrealistic course load
• Consequence: no progression!
The Challenges of Improving
Success & Throughput
Improving success
Unisa’s course success rate is not bad
2007: 54,8% vs ministerial target of 56%
Regarded as an achievable target
However, as Principal mentioned last night,
success is not just about exams
• Unisa loses many potential successful students
as a result of risk areas: around 10%
• Also, the ‘killer module’ syndrome is being
addresseds
• Disaggregated 2007 figures and analysis
currently being prepared for presentation at next
EMC
•
•
•
•
Exam
Process Model
Gross
Enrolments
Canc.
+ Non-Active
Nett
Enrolments
Not Admitted
Qualified
Readmission
Re-registration
(Repeaters)
Drop Out/
Stop Out
Stuck
Fail
Sup.
Admission
Absent
Admitted
Sup.
Writing
Fail
Write
7 Risk Areas
Admitted
Writing
Not Admitted
Sup.
Results
Key Counts
Exam
Admission
Absent
Pass
Write
Results
Pass
Success
Exam
Results Metrics
3 Key Indicators
Exam Pass Rate
= Passed/Wrote
Course Success Rate
= Passed/Nett
Enrolments
Course Attrition Rate
= (CA + NA + Abs)/
Gross Enrolments
Modelling and Improving
Success & Throughput
CONCEPTUAL MODELLING:
• Explaining success and throughput by systematically identifying all
factors and their interrelationships
MEASUREMENT:
• Profiling/tracking by means of available/obtainable data &
information
STATISTICAL MODELLING:
• Reliably establishing cause & effect
• Identifying & predicting risk
• Confirming/refining conceptual model
IMPROVING THROUGHPUT & SUCCESS:
• Identification & implementation of interventions
• Monitoring & evaluation of impact
• Further improvements
Tinto’s model: point of departure
ROAP:
 Pre-registration
engagement &
counselling: socioeconomic readiness,
qualification and
course choice &
load
Towards a model
•
Individual
Attributes
PREPAREDNESS
•
•
•
INDIVIDUAL FACTORS
Epistemological &
Ontological Development
Academic Performance
Goal Commitment
Institutional Commitment
INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS
• Academic
• SocioEconomic
• Learner Support
• Academic & Operational
Systems
BACKGROUND
SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS
• SocioEconomic
• Schooling
• Culture
• Conducive Conditions &
Support: Finance, time,
health & wellness
PERSISTENCE
• Academic
integration
• Social
integration
Acknowledgements to Professor Chris Swanepoel, Dr Paul Prinsloo
(members of modelling task team) and Dr At van Schoor
Bridging
interactions
across
SUCCESS
distances
THROUGHPUT
 Profiling, tracking &
&
predicting
GRADUATEindividual,
NESS
academic & socioeconomic risk


Quality, relevance ,
service excellence,
efficiency,
effectiveness
•
Socio-economic &
educational background
• Socio-economic status
• Family income, employment & educational background
• Location (OU proxy measure!)
• Educational background & outcomes
• Quality of teaching
• Quality of learning environment
• Preparedness for higher learning
 Literacy and numeracy: basic, ICT and academic
 Language skills
 Conceptual framework and vocabulary
• Social dimensions of schooling, domestic and individual life:
• Attitudes to life issues of identity formation, sex, alcohol, drugs, etc
• Role models, support, expectations and encouragement: family
and peers
•
Individual attributes and
qualities
• Academic merit: actual and potential
• Motivation, focus, expectations, energy and
persistence
• Learning style, reading patterns, self-discipline,
time management and other study habits & skills
• Confidence and self-construction in relation to
academic life and success
• Successful integration into and mastery of
academic life: independence, self-management,
self-regulation, etc.
•
Current socio-economic
circumstances
• Employment status, conditions and responsibilities
• Domestic status, conditions and responsibilities
• Financial status, conditions and responsibilities
• Access to study materials, library and information
sources
• Access to other students and the community of
scholarship
• Access to adequate study space and time
• Changing attitudes to social life, social issues and
ongoing identity formation
• Individual health, safety and wellbeing.
Institutional factors
•
Type of institution
– University, University of Technology,
Comprehensive
– Selective vs. open entry
– Residential vs. DE/ODL
•
•
•
PQM/Fields of Study
Teaching methods
Assessment procedures &
practices
– Appropriateness
– Clarity of expectations
– Etc, etc
•
Teaching standards
– Qualifications & experience of
teaching staff
– Quality, relevance and effectiveness of
study materials
– Student evaluation of teaching quality
– Inspired, motivated academic staff
•
Library/Laboratory and other
facilities
– Student access
•
Student counselling
– Types and extent of counselling and
support
– Ease of access to, and utilisation of
counselling services
•
Support
– Tutor contact hours and student
utilisation
– Pastoral vs. academic support
•
Administrative efficiency & service
delivery
Throughput cohort studies
• Preliminary studies, submitted to HEQC
• Grappled with methodological issues of
measuring & benchmarking throughput
(exceptionalism valid here?)
• Drawing from policy & research documents, a
working benchmark throughput rate was derived
• A benchmark time-to-completion rate was based
on the principle of expected minimum time,
derived from course load
• Three case studies: B Com; B Compt; LLB
• Qualifications profiles provided
Key findings
• Overall graduation rates are very low and below
working benchmark
• Time-to-completion rates below expected minimum
time
• Dropout/transfer rates extremely high and well above
benchmark
• Incidence of stopouts very high
• Main problem is dropout rather then time-tocompletion
• This (and other studies) suggests non-academic
reasons for lack of retention is significant
• The implication is that the rationale for the tutor
scheme must be interrogated and the possibility of
counselling & Pastoral support investigated
Profiling, tracking &
predicting success/risk
•
•
•
•
•
•
Key elements of throughput initiative:
Identification of risks and vulnerable moments: academic
& non-academic (ontological/sociological view of agent
assumed – situated, and subject to structuration)
Pre-empting risks and vulnerable moments by proactive
engagement: University of Brighton model – Keeping on
Track
Tracking of student academic & socio-economic activities
Exception reporting through automated portal: alerting
academic staff
Gathering of detailed student activity information through
incentivised online surveys on myUnisa
Various other interventions and initiatives identified,
implemented & evaluated
Student Profiling
Educational
Background
Unisa
Destination
Student
SES/
Demographics
Individual
factors
• Matric Status (Exempt./Non) •Matric Scores
• Matric Aggregate
• Previous Inst. Type
• College
• CESM/FOS
• Race
• Gender
• Age
• Qual. Category (B Tech etc)
• Qual. Type (Degree/Dipl/Cert.)
• Qual. Level (UG/PG)
• Home
language
• Nationality
• Socio-psychological
metrics (?)
• Academic Record
• Employment
Status
• Location
• Marital Status
• Economic Status
• Academic
Activities/Behaviours
(tracking)
• Course Type
• Course Load
• Domestic/
Financial
responsibilities
• Health & Wellness
Course Profiling
Course history
Course level
CESM/FOS
Course type
• Enrolment patterns • Student evaluation
• Success Rate (‘killer
Module’?)
• Entry
• Exit
•
•
•
•
Humanities & Social Sciences
Law
Business/Commerce
Science, Engineering & Technology
• Pre-requisite
• Compulsory
• Elective
Staff profiling
• Understanding (but not necessarily
condoning) the attitudes & experiences of
staff is key to effective change management
as a basis for realising strategic goals
• Organisational theory identifies various
positions which staff take up within
organisations in relation to change initiatives
• What might this look like in current Unisa
climate?
Change profile
Self constructions/identity tensions:
• Collegialism-managerialism: resistance to
compliance and planned environment
• Teaching-Research nexis
• Academic-Educator identity
• Meaningful identification-alienation :
– Based on alignment of personal, departmental,
institutional and social purposes, and shared
understandings of institutional vision (King Solomon
adage)
• Self-interested minimalists-inspired initiative takers
Key risk factors
• High-risk student profile
– Underpreparedness
– Insufficient time, opportunity, support of
conditions: Mismatch between students’ life
circumstances/ expectations/attitudes and
realities & demands of HE study in general and
DE in particular (especially issue of course load)
• High-risk course profile (‘Killer module’)
• High-risk institutional factors
Key mutual asuccess
factors
• Student Engagement/Motivation/Persistence
– Perceived and experienced external & intrinsic value
(Tinto ‘choice’ – situated action theory)
– Combination of individual, socio-economic &
institutional enhancing/supportive factors
• Institutional factors
– Combination of high quality, relevant & effective
academic practices & learner support, efficient
administrative service delivery, application of relevant
technologies
– Negotiated understanding of graduateness,
employability (LMJU example) and citizenship
Criteria, metrics &
benchmarks
• Quality
– Fitness of purpose
– Fitness to purpose
– Equity
• Relevance
– Stakeholder satisfaction: students, employers &
general society (government, civil society &
private sector)
• Success & throughput
– Targets and benchmarks