Results of the Withdrawal Pilot
Study: Using the Results of
the Benchmarking Project
Presented to the Learning Council
August 9, 2005
Terri Manning
Brad Bostian
Different Definitions
Withdrawal rates based on registration would
look at the total number withdraws based on
the total number of grades given
(A,B,C,D,F,I,W).
Withdrawal rates based on headcount would
look at the number of students who withdraw
from all their courses and completely exit the
college.
Issues with Student Withdrawals
Community College’s Withdrawal Policies






Usually more liberal than the university and can impact
transfer success
Facilitates an A,B,C, I, W culture (we had this grading
scale until Fall 1990 – no Ds or Fs)
Students don’t commit early – a “wait and see”
philosophy
Impacts retention rates, graduation rates and impacted
by “cheap” tuition
Impacted by systemic change (quarters to semesters,
etc.)
Is impacted by the culture (faculty, advisor and student
attitudes and behaviors)
CPCC Transfer Students at UNCC
in 2000 (N=3,446)
Grades
at CPCC
at UNCC
A
3,708 (26.4%)
13,936 (22.8%)
B
2,573 (18.3%)
16,000 (26.2%)
C
1,435 (10.2%)
11,920 (19.5%)
percent A-C
54.9%
68.5%
_______________________________________________
D
340 (2.4%)
4,797 (7.9%)
F
686 (4.9%)
6,722 (11.0%)
Withdraw
4,357 (31%)
6,117 (10%)
Do Withdrawals Really Impact
Transfer Students?
“..if 20% or more of all grades received (by
community college students) were
withdrawals and repeats, the probability of
transfer decreases by 38.7%.”
Sources: Moving Into Town and Moving On: The
Community College in the Lives of Traditional-age
Students, U.S. Department of Education, 2005, p. 85.
Then Along Came the NCCBP
We decided to look at withdrawal rates as a
percentage of:



The grades in all college-level courses
The grades in remedial courses
The grades in certain college level courses (English
Comp I & II, Speech and College Algebra)
We all submitted our data and guess where
CPCC was in the mix???
Data from the NCCBP Pilot Year –Grade
Distribution for College Level Courses
A
B
C
D
F
Min.
26%
18%
6%
1%
2%
Med.
33.4%
23.3%
13.9%
4%
4.9%
Max.
45%
27%
17%
8%
15%
CPCC
26.1%
21.1%
12.7%
3.5%
6.7%
W
1%
16.2%
29.9%
29.9%
Definitions were slightly changed the next year.
Response of the College
We were appalled
We decided to study the subject and
Do a pilot intervention project
The English, Reading and Humanities
Division volunteered to facilitate the project
within their courses with their fulltime
instructors
Brad Bostian volunteered to lead the
initiative The group began meeting in Fall 2004
The Intervention
In the Spring of 2005
11 courses were selected by faculty
participating in the study
11 control sections were carefully matched
based on time of day, location and course
title
Faculty volunteers discussed elements of
the intervention and agreed upon the
following standards
The Intervention
Students must sign a release form
Students in the selected sections would have
“holds” put on their records - not allowing them
to withdraw from pilot courses during Spring 05
without instructor permission
If a student wanted to withdraw, the faculty
attempted to work with them to keep them in the
class as long as possible (offering assistance
and additional help)
Faculty agreed to do the following as part of
regular classroom activities:
The Intervention
First Day Strategies:

Provide a class orientation on the first day of class
Student Info Sheets




Documents, resources to assist with their success (writing
center, tutors, librarians, etc.)
A realistic discussion of the value of the skills to be
learned in the course
A syllabus with assignments and policies discussed
A positive statement of your teaching philosophy and
you belief in the student’s ultimate success in the
course
The Intervention
Mini-communities

Groups of 3-5 students who trade contact information,
contact each other when someone is absent. Use
these groups for peer-editing and group assignments
and activities.
Conferences

Conference with each student in your office at least
twice per term to discuss needs and progress. In
between - provided continuous feedback about their
progress.
Contacting missing students

Contact those who miss two consecutive class
periods (besides the mini-communities)
The Intervention


Welcome back and reintegrate students who have
been absent
Treat tardies and early departures as absences –
have an attendance policy
Positive teaching


Try to involve every student every week
Structure assignments to ensure continual student
success (quizzes to make them keep up, rewrite until
it is excellent, etc.)
Active Authentic Assignments

Assignments where they learn by doing, work that
reflects the real world
Did it Impact All Their Classes?
The Control
Group
The
Intervention
Group
Withdrawals from all their
classes
1-A
6
0.40%
5
0.40%
2-B
4
0.30%
13
0.90%
3-C
5
0.30%
7
0.50%
4-D
1
0.10%
1
0.10%
5-F
3
0.20%
6
0.40%
7-W
232
15.40%
154
11.00%
8 - Blank
950
63.00%
947
67.60%
9 - Drop
307
20.40%
268
19.10%
Total
1508
1401
Once Grades Were In…..
Control Group
Intervention Group
English, Reading and
Humanities
Classes
A
66
25.9%
58
24.4%
B
73
28.6%
78
32.8%
C
31
12.2%
32
13.4%
D
2
0.8%
5
2.1%
F
17
6.7%
31
13.0%
I
3
1.2%
0
0%
W
63
24.7%
34
14.3%
F, I, W
83
32.6%
65
27.3%
Unsuccessful
Completions
There were 4.3% fewer W’s, I’s and F’s in the Intervention Group when
compared to the Control Group
Lessons Learned
The Intervention strategies worked.
If we could decrease W’s, I’s and F’s by
4.3% across the College, there would be
approximately 2,000 additional successful
completions per term.
We need to study and address “walkaways.”
Recommendations
Policies
Support
Instruction
Policies



Earlier withdrawal deadlines
Instructor permission required
-orSet two W-methods, one early date for most W’s, with
later withdrawals requiring instructor permission
Recommendations (continued)
Support





Make support more systematic
Advisement for all students, not just those in
programs
Interventions for perpetual W, F’s & Drops
Better training and technology for faculty
advisors
If necessary hire more staff
One Instructor’s Learning Curve
90%
80%
Successful
Completions
70%
60%
84.0%
65.7%
65.1%
60.3%
56.9%
49.0%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Spring
2002
Fall
2002
Spring
2003
Successful Completions = A-C Grades
Fall
2003
Spring
2004
Fall
2004
Patterns of Drops and Withdrawals – 2002-04
English,
Reading &
Humanities
Best
Worst
Range
Withdrawals
11%
3%
76%
29%
12%
45%
18%
9%
31%
Campus
Success
Rates
69%
(Cato)
61%
(West)
Course
Success
Rates
77%
47%
(REL 212)
(HUM 160)
Drops
Instructor
Success
Rates
49%
8%
(Virtual)
30%
20%
Recommendations (continued)
Instruction

Change faculty/administrative culture
Understand need for educating all students
See the successes that exist
Use aggregate AND individual instructor and
student data to measure outcomes
Train faculty to teach differently
Keep our instructors learning
Different Instruction
Engage students on the first day

Meaningful, interesting, active work
Use mostly active learning

Let students seek and discover
Force success

Guide them through the steps like a coach
Create a classroom community

Collaborative learning, conferences, positive
communication, involving every student
For A Copy of This Presentation:
http://www.cpcc.edu/planning
Click on studies and reports
Withdrawal pilot presentation