With increasing tuition and accountability compounded by decreased funding, institutions face pressure to demonstrate higher graduation rates while decreasing time to degree. This study employs a mixed methods approach to determine factors affecting time to degree from the student perspective. Using a grounded theory approach, factors influencing time to degree were examined: curriculum length, academic planning and choice, student accountability, personal experience and preference, finance, facilitators, and procedures and scheduling.

1. Presenters:
Pat Estes, Assessment Analyst, PEstes@edgewood.edu
Liang Hou, Research Intern, LHou@edgewood.edu
Edgewood College
Office of Institutional Assessment and Research

2. This research was conducted under the
supervision of Dr. Yang Zhang, previous
Director of Institutional Research at
Edgewood College.
She can be contacted at:
Dr. Yang Zhang
Director of Institutional Research
Manoa Institutional Research Office
Office of the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
University of Hawaii at Manoa
yz6@hawaii.edu
2

3. Overview
1. Background
2. Literature review
3. Purpose of study
4. Methodology
5. Data analysis and results
6. Recommendations and conclusions
7. Discussion
3

4. Background – Edgewood College
 Founded in 1881 by the Dominican Sisters of Sinsinawa
 Located in Madison, WI
 Total enrollment is around 2,700, with 2,000
undergraduates and 700 master and Ed.D. students
 Majors: Liberal Arts and Professional degree programs
(i.e., Education, business, nursing)
 Edgewood College is accredited by Higher Learning
Commission since 1958
4

5. 10 Year Average Edgewood
College (EC) Graduation Rates
 4-year graduation rate – 29%
 2012: 36%
 5-year graduation rate – 48%
 2012: 53%
 6-year graduation rate – 51%
 2012: 53%
5

6. 100.0%
EC vs. HLC Peers = 4 Yr Grad
90.0%
80.0%
2010 4-year Graduation rate
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Retrieved from College Results Online
6

7. Recommended Goals
 4-year graduation rate – 50% (+21%)
 5-year graduation rate – 62% (+14%)
 6-year graduation rate – 66% (+15%)
7

8. Problem Statement
 College tuition
 Federal and state funding
 Accountability
 Pressure to improve graduation rates/time to
degree
8

9. Importance of Graduation Rates
and Time to Degree
 Living out our mission & our promise
 Graduation rate – common measure of success
 Less time = less debt + more income
 Happy alumni!
9

10. Literature Review
Student Characteristics Institutional Characteristics
Academic factors (e.g., academic Institutional effectiveness (i.e.,
performance, Choice of major/field of supportive academic and social
study, changing majors, taking environments)
remedial courses, study abroad)
Pre-college factors (e.g., student scores Institutional type (e.g., 4-year, non-
on college-admission tests SAT and profit, religious)
ACT, HSGPA, AP credits)
Family background (e.g., low SES, first Percentage of low-income students on
generation) campus
Personal life (e.g., working, living off- Institutional size and college selectivity
campus, marriage)
Demographics (e.g., gender and race) Financial aid and cost of tuition
For an extensive literature review, refer to Desjardins, Kim, & Rzonca (2003); Knight (1994, 2002, 2004); Burns
(2010), & Kuh, Kinzie, & Buckley (2006) 10

11. So What Is the Solution?
11

12. Purpose of Current Research
 Studies that examine factors impacting college
students’ time to degree from the students’ perspective
are limited
 Typically relied on quantitative methodology
 Our study deploys quantitative AND qualitative
methodologies
12

13. Research Questions
1. Do students graduate within a timeframe they are
satisfied with?
2. What factors help or hinder timely graduation?
3. What steps can be taken to decrease time to degree?
13

14. Methodology
 Data collected Spring 2012
 Small mid-west liberal arts college
 Online survey distributed via Qualtrics
 All senior students expecting to graduate in Spring or
Summer 2012
 62% response rate (162 / 263 students)
14

15. When you began at Edgewood, within what timeframe did
you expect to graduate?
“Within 1 year” through “More than 6 years”
How long did it actually take you to graduate from Edgewood
College since you began here?
“Within 1 year” through “More than 6 years”
How satisfied are you with the length of time it took you to
complete your degree?
“Very Satisfied” through “Very Dissatisfied” (5-point Likert
scale)
Please comment on those factors that helped you to graduate
on time and/or the barriers you experienced to a timely
graduation.
Open-ended
15

16. Quantitative Analysis - Gap Analysis
 8% graduated one or two years earlier than expected
 72% graduated within expected time frame
 15% took one year longer than expected
 4% took two years longer than expected
 Only 1% graduated in three years or longer than expected
16

17. Quantitative Analysis -Satisfaction
 All Respondents
 83% combined satisfaction rate
 46% “very satisfied” and 37% “satisfied”
 Mean = 4.22 (on 5-point scale)
 Started at Edgewood
 M = 4.26
 Transfer
 M = 4.18
 Compared to 80% of students who graduated in their expected
time frame, a higher satisfaction rate of 83% was found in
students’ responses.
17

18. Gap * Satisfaction Crosstabulation
Satisfaction
Very Very
Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Total
% of
-2 Total 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1%
% of
-1 Total 6% 1% 0% 0% 0% 7%
% of
0 Total 41% 26% 5% 1% 0% 72%
Gap % of
1 Total 0% 9% 5% 2% 0% 15%
% of
2 Total 0% 1% 1% 2% 1% 4%
% of
3 Total 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1%
% of
Total Total 46% 37% 10% 5% 1% 100%
18

19. Qualitative Analysis Procedure
 Grounded theory
 Generate or discover a theory
(Glaser and Strauss, 1967)
 Grounded theory defined as:
 The discovery of theory from data systematically
obtained from social research’
(Glaser and Strauss 1967: 2)
19

20. Data Coding Procedures
1. Preview all responses and record emerging indicators.
Continued to add new indicators, until eventually the
indicators become saturated and no new ones could be
formed.
2. Compared indicators. Consistent and similar ones were
combined into themes. Similar themes were used to form
factors. Themes that could not be combined with other
themes were considered independent factors.
3. Built a coding book that includes indicators, themes, and
factors. Assigned a code to each indicator.
20

21. Data Coding and Factor Generating Cont’
4. Used the coding book to code short narrative responses
into the SPSS data file.
Note: A response may include multiple indicators. In this way,
qualitative data of students’ short narrative responses are
converted into quantitative data and are ready for quantitative
analysis.
5. Re-read and recoded responses to make sure no new
indicators emerged.
6. Used SPSS to generate frequencies of the indicators,
themes, and factors mentioned by survey respondents.
21

22. Qualitative Results
 Using this grounded theory approach, seven factors
that influence students’ time to degree were generated
from respondents’ narrative responses.
22

23. Factors Influencing Time to Degree
1. Curriculum Length
2. Academic Planning and Choice
3. Student Accountability
4. Personal Experience and Preference
5. Finance
6. Facilitators
7. Procedures and Scheduling
23

24. Factors Defined
1. Curriculum Length: Student choices that extended program
length, such as adding a second major, or the actual requirements of
certain programs.
2. Academic Planning and Choice: Changing or deciding on
programs and majors, as well as planning out courses and
requirements towards graduation.
3. Student Accountability: Course load, student motivation, student
accountability, choosing to take courses elsewhere.
4. Personal Experience and Preference: Individual or situational
differences of students, such as depression or health-related issues.
5. Finance: Aspects relating to funding education, such as having to
work during school to pay for their education.
6. Facilitators: Advisors, staff, and faculty.
7. Procedures and Scheduling: Class scheduling and availability,
graduation and program requirements, other administrative-type
issues.
24

25. #1 Curriculum Length
Definition: Student choices that extended program length, such
as adding a second major, or the actual requirements of certain
programs.
Verbatim Quote: “Though I graduated a year later than I
originally expected, I was able to spend a semester in the
Czech Republic, a semester in Italy, a month in China, AND
add a second major before graduating. Even though student
debt is going to suck, I'd say the extra year was worth it!”
Coding Procedures:
 Study abroad  Curriculum Length
 Add second major  Curriculum Length
25

26. #2 Academic Planning & Choice
Changing or deciding on programs and majors, as well as
planning out courses and requirements towards
graduation.
“Changed my major from art education to just an art major”
 Deciding major  Academic Planning & Choice
26

27. #3 Student Accountability
Course load, student motivation, student accountability,
choosing to take courses elsewhere.
“I worked hard in order to graduate early from my program.”
 Student accountability  Student Accountability
27

28. #4 Personal Experience & Preference
Individual or situational differences of students, such as
depression or health-related issues.
“I was forced to take a semester off due to a medical illness,
and was poorly advised on classes I should take pretty much
the entire time I've been here.”
 Health issues  Personal Experience & Preference
 Advisor  Facilitator
28

29. #5 Finance
Aspects relating to funding education, such as having to
work during school to pay for their education.
“Working full time allowed me to only go to school part time,
otherwise I would have finished sooner.”
 Work  Finance
29

30. #6 Facilitators
Advisors, staff, and faculty.
“The liberal arts and sciences advisors told me the wrong
classes to take my first semester for my major, but the math
department helped me to figure out a solution so I could
graduate on time.”
 Advisor  Facilitator
 Faculty  Facilitator
30

31. #7 Procedures & Scheduling
Class scheduling and availability, graduation and program
requirements, other administrative-type issues.
“Being willing to take on challenging course loads was helpful in
completing my degree in 4 years. It was difficult at times because
certain classes were only offered at one time and not every
semester.”
Course load  Student Accountability
Class schedules  Procedures & Scheduling
Student accountability  Student Accountability
31

32. Frequency Analysis of Factors
Factor Name Percent
Facilitators 47.3%
Academic Planning and Choice 43.0%
Student Accountability 25.8%
Registration Processes & Course Scheduling 24.7%
Curriculum Length 23.7%
Finance 7.5%
Personal Experience and Preference 7.5%
32

33. Recommendation #1
 Importance of Advising
 Communicate and reiterate to all stakeholders
 Positive AND negative effects
 Advisor Training and Resources
 Additional or more extensive resources
 Professional development
 Share best practices
33

34. Recommendation #2
 Empowering Student Decision-Making
 Provide options and accurate information
 Allow students to make their own decision
34

35. Recommendation #3
 Student Accountability and Attitudes
 Student motivation and accountability
 It’s an educational process
35

36. Recommendation #4
 Process Improvements
 Procedures and scheduling
 Focus on institutional (directly controllable)
factors
36

37. Recommendation #5
 Review, Explore, and Reflect on Existing
Data
 Review open ended results from Senior Exit
Survey
 Mine other data sources
 Continue research using quantitative and
qualitative methodologies
37

38. Limitations
 In general, the limitations of this study are not any
different than other similar studies
 Question wording made qualitative analysis difficult
 Sample from one institution at one point in time
38

39. Future Considerations/Directions
 Online programs/classes that are flexible
 Summer/winter sessions
 Examine enrollment numbers and courses offered
 Seek institutional buy-in on proposed graduation rate goals
 Future research at Edgewood on time to degree
 Look at that subgroup who graduated early
 Replicate on next years Senior Exit Survey
39

40. Discussion
1. What research have you done related to this topic at your
own institution?
2. Are the findings similar? Different?
3. What has your institution done to decrease time to
degree?
4. What has worked for you in terms of gaining institutional
buy-in with time to degree and graduation rate
initiatives/goals?
40

41. Thank you for your time!
 Questions?
 Comments?
 Suggestions?
41

42. References
Astin, A.W. & Oseguera, L. (2005). Degree Attainment Rates at American Colleges
and Universities. Revised Edition. Los Angeles: Higher Education
Research Institute, UCLA.
Burns, K. (2010). At issue: community college student success variables: a review
of the literature. The Community College Enterprise, 16(2), 33-61.
Center for Business and Economic Research, Miller College of Business, Ball
State University (2011). An exploratory analysis: Educational
attainment in Indiana. Retrieved from
http://cardinalscholar.bsu.edu/bitstream/123456789/194831/1/EdAttainment-
1.pdf.
Desjardins, S.L., Kim, D., & Rzonca, C.S. (2003). A nested analysis of factors
affecting bachelor’s degree completion. Journal of College Student
Retention, 4 (4), 407-435.
Knight, W. E. (1994, May). Why the five-year (or longer) bachelors degree? An
exploratory study of time to degree attainment. In 34th Annual Forum of
the Association for Institutional Research, New Orleans, LA.
Knight, W. E. (2002). Toward a comprehensive model of influences upon time to
bachelor’s degree attainment. AIR Professional File, 85, 1-15.
42

43. References Cont’
Knight, W. E. (2004). Time to bachelor’s degree attainment: An application of
descriptive, bivariate, and multiple regression techniques. IR
Applications: Using Advanced Tools, Techniques, and Methodologies, 2, 1-
15.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2006, July).
What matters to student success: A review of the literature. In
Commissioned Report for the National Symposium on Postsecondary
Student Success: Spearheading a Dialog on Student Success.
Office of Institutional Assessment and Research. (2011). Edgewood College
Retention and Graduation Report. Madison, WI: Edgewood College.
Owens, D., Lacey, K., Glinda, R. & Holbert-Quince, J. (2010). First-generation
African American male college students: Implications for career
counselors. The Career Development Quarterly, 58, 291-300.
Perkins, G., Pitter, G.W., Howat, C., & Whitfield, D. (1999). Relationship of
financial aid, work and college performance. In 39th Annual Forum of the
Association for Institutional Research, Seattle, WA.
Taylor, A.L. & Doane, D.J. (2012). Motivations to graduate in less than four years
and summer session attendance. Summer Academe, 4, 7-30.
43