Preview of: Arnold, K. D., Brown, P. G., Gismondi, A. N., Pesce, J. R., and Stanfield, D. A. (2012, November). Capturing the elusive: Accounting for study attrition and complex trajectories in a longitudinal study of low-income high school graduates. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Las Vegas, NV. Please do not cite without permission.

1. G
IN E
R V
TU
PE USI
ATH L
C E Collecting
Post-Graduation
Data from Low-Income
High School Students
Karen D. Arnold, Katherine Lynk Wartman,
Paul G. Brown, Adam N. Gismondi,
Jessica R. Pesce, and David A. Stanfield

2. THE PROBLEM

3. Although U.S. college
enrollment rates are rising,
gaps in college enrollment by
family income are particularly
pronounced and remain
stubbornly resistant to change
(Bailey & Dynarski, 2011)

4. college enrollment and success
rates of economically and
educationally challenged youth
occur within a complex ecology of
overlapping educational and out-
of-school environments
(Perna, 2006; 2007; Thomas & Perna, 2005; Tierney & Venegas, 2007; 2009; Walpole, 2007)

6. low-income students without a
family history of higher education
frequently have life experiences
that make them difficult to contact
and unresponsive to requests to
complete surveys or participate in
interviews
(Weitzman, Guttmacher, Weinberg, & Kapadia, 2003)

7. In-depth, longitudinal information
about the characteristics and
educational experiences of these
students is necessary both for
evaluation of innovative
educational models and for basic
research about the conditions that
perpetuate the socioeconomic
achievement gap.

8. Research on drop-outs from longitudinal
studies shows that attrition is not random.
Participants in a longitudinal study are more
likely to drop out if they are geographically
mobile, mistrustful of institutional authority,
or experiencing difficulties in their lives.
(Arzi, 1989; Cotter, Burke, Loeber, & Navratil, 2002; Fitzgerald, Gottschalk, & Moffitt, 1998)
(Van Beijsterveldt et al., 2002; Young, Powers, & Bell, 2006; Weitzman et al., 2003).!

9. THE QUESTION

10. Are there more effective
methods for collecting
representative longitudinal
data regarding the post-high
school and higher education
experiences of low income
students?

11. THE CONTEXT

12. Longitudinal study following
the graduating classes of
2006-2011
3 Data Collection Points:
• Transition Student Survey
• Advisor Survey
• First Fall Update Survey

13. Transition Survey
Declining
95% response
rates
But who is responding?
First Fall Survey
33% All Alumni Survey
4%

14. OUR SOLUTION

15. CONNECTORS

16. Our example...
15 schools from 2008 and 2009 classes
21 Connectors identified (usually advisors)
~30 minute phone interviews
• Sensitive to connector’s time
• Went through list of
students 1-by-1
• Many connectors relied
on memory, notes, and
Facebook

17. Our example...
Semi-structured interview questions:
- Is the student following their post graduation plan?
- Is the student working? in college full time? part time?
- Is the student experiencing any difficulty?
Recorded and coded data:
Examples: work status, education status, type of institution, college performance,
why struggling, future plans, parental status, community involvement, student
happiness, judgments of both researcher and connector
Analyzed using statistical software and
identified exceptional stories

18. Connectors were able to
provide information on
96%
n=544
of students

19. Transition Connector
95% 95%
First Fall
33% All Alumni
4%

20. G
IN E
R V
TU
PE USI
ATH L
C E
Karen D. Arnold - karen.arnold@bc.edu
Katherine Lynk Wartman - lynkwartman@gmail.com
Paul G. Brown - paulgordonbrown@gmail.com
Adam N. Gismondi - adamgismondi@gmail.com
Jessica R. Pesce - jessica.pesce@gmail.com
David A. Stanfield - davestanfield@gmail.com