STUDENT OUTCOMES
FIVE KEY STEPS TOWARD IMPROVEMENT
SUMMARY Improving student outcomes is a top priority for most academic leaders as they define their institutional strategies. Recent research, however, questions institutions’ readiness to provide this value. In a survey of more than 200 higher education leaders from across the country, Eduventures sought to identify the obstacles in their path. The results indicate that the business and educational models for improving outcomes are in need of transformation. Specifically, they pinpoint five internal hurdles that institutions will need to overcome to transform student outcomes:
TECHNOLOGY VOL. 2 ED. 1
Lack of focus on teaching quality Failure to prioritize student relationships Lack of clear ownership and accountability Organizational barriers Investment in and deployment of suitable technology To address these challenges, we recommend that institutions place a greater emphasis on developing student relationships and on improving the implementation of their technology solutions.
BUSINESS AND EDUCATIONAL MODELS REQUIRE TRANSFORMATION Data from Eduventures’ Student Success and Outcomes study shows that most academic leaders believe that higher education is delivering less value than it did ten years ago, even though they believe their own institutions are delivering more value. Figure 1. Value of higher education compared to 10 years ago Higher education in general Respondent’s institution Do not know
Much worse
Somewhat worse
About the same
Much better
Somewhat better
101 FEDERAL STREET, SUITE 1800
|
BOSTON, MA
|
WWW.EDUVENTURES.COM
1
|
617-426-5622
|
[email protected]
|
© EDUVENTURES, INC
In addition, 70% of respondents feel that institutions of higher education need to fundamentally transform both their educational and business models. Together, these data points indicate there is a perception among higher education leaders that despite their intentions, institutions are struggling to actually improve student outcomes and that a paradigm shift is required. To make this shift, institutional stakeholders would have to intentionally overcome five significant challenges, which we explore in detail below.
LACK OF FOCUS ON TEACHING QUALITY Survey data confirms that the primary student outcome priority of the vast majority of higher education leaders is improving retention and graduation rates. The data also reveals a gap between which metrics higher education leaders prioritize and what they perceive their institutions prioritize to achieve these goals. In particular, the leaders surveyed place greater value on less tangible or measureable outcomes than those for which data is readily available and are widely-used in the industry. While 70% of leaders identify attrition/graduation rates as key metrics personally, 83% say that they are key metrics for their institutions. Further, 33% of leaders cite faculty teaching quality as a key metric, while only 11% say that is a key metric more broadly at their institutions. Figure 2. Overall respondent view of key metrics for student success Attrition/graduation rates First-to-second year retention rates Student satisfaction metrics Employment rates and salary data Faculty “teaching quality” metrics Diversity metrics Incoming student “quality” metrics Yield (# of deposits/# admitted) Number of applicants Melt rate (# of starts/# of deposits) Faculty research metrics Other
You personally in your role Your institution
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
FAILING TO PRIORITIZE STUDENT RELATIONSHIPS Another area of misalignment is around tactics for achieving student outcomes. Higher education leaders believe they are closely aligned with their institutions when it comes to the importance of academic strategies such as strengthening academic degree planning and curricular improvement as key tactical efforts. There is a 17-point gap, however, between those who cite mentoring as important (49%) and their perception of the value their institution places on this tactic (32%). Figure 3. Key tactical efforts for student outcomes Strengthen academic degree planning Mentoring (faculty, peer, alumni) Improve curriculum (pedagogy) Predictive analytics Career coaching (professional advising) Tutoring (improve personalized remediation) Active student lifecycle management Improve faculty quality Strengthen industry relationships Strengthen peer communities Micro-credentialing and building skills Other
You personally in your role Your institution
0%
101 FEDERAL STREET, SUITE 1800
|
BOSTON, MA
|
10%
20%
WWW.EDUVENTURES.COM
2
|
617-426-5622
30%
|
40%
[email protected]
50%
|
© EDUVENTURES, INC
Further, the data shows that most respondents feel that some kind of student learning relationship—whether it is with faculty, advisors, other students, or employers—is important for improving student outcomes. Figure 4. Important relationships for student outcomes Important
Faculty Advisors Other students Employers
Neutral
Not important 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
This data suggests that institutions should consider adopting a broader set of tactics for improving student outcomes that includes learning relationships, such as mentoring. Research has shown that rich student relationships improve engagement and outcomes. Additionally, the 2014 Gallup-Purdue Index indicates that having “a mentor who encouraged [their] hopes and dreams,” “professors who cared about [them],” and “at least one professor who made [them] excited about learning” made students far more likely to succeed later in life.
LACK OF CLEAR OWNERSHIP AND ACCOUNTABILITY Previous Eduventures research on student success identified a clear sense of ownership as a key best practice; leaders from several high performing institutions noted that “when everybody owns it, nobody owns it.” The data from this most recent survey indicates that many institutions still fall into this trap, as 43% of respondents state that student outcomes belong to everyone in the organization. When an institutional leader, such as a provost or vice president of enrollment management, was identified as owning these efforts, however, respondents felt that the individual had the necessary influence to effectively impact student outcomes.
READ MORE For more on ownership and accountabilty as a best practice for student success, read Eduventures’ Retention Case Studies report.
Figure 5. Who is most directly responsible for student outcomes? Everyone Provost Academic departments Student Success VP Other Enrollment Management VP Career services 0%
101 FEDERAL STREET, SUITE 1800
|
10%
BOSTON, MA
20%
|
30%
40%
WWW.EDUVENTURES.COM
3
|
50%
617-426-5622
|
[email protected]
|
© EDUVENTURES, INC
ORGANIZATIONAL BARRIERS In addition to accountability, those responsible for any organizational effort must have the capacity to take the steps required to realize that effort. Our data shows that respondents feel that this capacity is missing. The majority (63%) felt that there are too many organizational initiatives underway to allow them to focus on student outcomes. Other common obstacles to student outcome efforts include budgets, organizational silos, and difficulty with execution. Figure 6. Main obstacles to success Initiative overload Budget Too many silos Execution Technology use/implementation Inadequate technology Internal disagreement Not a strategic priority Attracting the wrong students Other No significant barriers 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
INVESTMENT IN AND DEPLOYMENT OF SUITABLE TECHNOLOGY Finally, higher education leaders feel that improving student outcomes is not the main driver for technology purchases, indicating that there is ample opportunity to expand the deployment of technology and other tools to support this goal. Instead, 56% of respondents considered improving admissions and enrollment to be the main driver for their institutions, compared to only 37% who cited improving student outcomes as the main driver. Figure 7. Drivers for technology purchases Improve admissions and enrollment Improve advisor efficiency Improve student outcomes (e.g., job/graduate school placement) Meet student expectations for personalized learning/support Increase student satisfaction Meet accreditation requirements
101 FEDERAL STREET, SUITE 1800
|
BOSTON, MA
0%
10%
20%
|
WWW.EDUVENTURES.COM
|
4
30%
617-426-5622
|
40%
50%
[email protected]
|
60%
© EDUVENTURES, INC
Most higher educational leaders were undecided about whether CRMs are the right tool for managing student interactions in general. Figure 8. Business-designed CRM systems are appropriate for managing student interactions on a college campus 60% 40% 20% 0% Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
When asked about their suitability for managing learning relationships specifically, however, most higher education leaders (67%) agree or strongly agree that the CRM is in fact unsuitable and that learning relationships require much different technology. Figure 9. Learning relationships may require different technology than traditional CRM provides 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
KEY TAKEAWAYS This data reveals a gap between institutions’ intentions for improving student outcomes and their readiness to actually make a substantive impact. Not only is accountability still widely dispersed across the organization, but this data also raises important questions about whether higher education leaders are focused on the right tactics and have the right tools at their disposal to succeed. While institutions should absolutely take steps to assign accountability and empower leaders to break down institutional silos to overcome organizational obstacles, this data reveals two less understood areas that warrant further insight: Focusing on student relationships. Transformation requires a fundamental change in outlook. Institutions should consider going beyond the equation of “improved student learning equals improved student outcomes” to include non-academic approaches. The majority of responding higher education leaders expressed a desire to transform the business and educational models through both academic and nonacademic metrics and tactics, such as teacher quality and learning relationships. Institutions should consider leveraging these important tactics to improve student outcomes.
101 FEDERAL STREET, SUITE 1800
|
BOSTON, MA
|
WWW.EDUVENTURES.COM
5
|
617-426-5622
|
[email protected]
|
© EDUVENTURES, INC
Improved utilization of technology and other supporting tools. To drive student outcomes at scale, institutions need technology strategies that align with their overall student outcome priorities. For example, leveraging academic and non-academic tactics requires institutions to deploy a student outcome-centered learning relationship management solution that allows students to select goals and corresponding learning/career objectives and engage with their mentors to track progress. One promising solution we have seen is the learning relationship management (LRM) framework. As Eduventures noted in our 2015 report, The Learning Relationship Management Movement, LRM aims to unite “various tools and technologies to achieve the look, feel, and functionality of an LMS. This process combines learning modules and assessment features with other capabilities, namely a constituent relationship management platform, a student success or retention solution… and predictive analytics.” Time will tell if solutions like these will be embraced widely, but they are certainly worth watching.
METHODOLOGY The Eduventures Student Success and Outcomes study was conducted through an online survey of 218 respondents from institutions across the country. We asked respondents to identify their institution’s stance and their personal view in an effort to identify areas of misalignment around the following key questions:
ABOUT
EDUVENTURES
What are priorities for student outcomes at your institution? What do your institution and you personally consider the key tactics for student outcomes? What do your institution and you personally consider the key metrics for student outcomes? How does your institution’s selection and deployment of technology support student outcomes? The range of participating institutions included four-year public colleges and universities, four-year private colleges and universities, and two-year community colleges conferring a range of degrees. The job titles of survey respondents included provost, chief academic officer, president, vice president/director of enrollment management, vice president/director of student success, vice president of academic affairs, associate vice president of academic affairs, dean/director of online education, and chief information/technology officer.
101 FEDERAL STREET, SUITE 1800
|
BOSTON, MA
|
WWW.EDUVENTURES.COM
6
|
617-426-5622
Eduventures for Higher Education Leaders provides data, research, and advice to support decision-making throughout the student lifecycle. Higher education leaders engage with Eduventures to make informed decisions on setting strategy, ensuring the financial sustainability of their institutions, boosting student success, and selecting and implementing technology solutions. Our research, recommendations, and personalized support enable clients to understand the top traits of leaders in critical disciplines and to evaluate new technological opportunities.
More about Eduventures can be found at www.eduventures.com.
|
[email protected]
|
© EDUVENTURES, INC
