The bottom line
Effective teaching practices (as defined by the Center for Postecondary Research at Indiana University) have a moderate impact on retention at ISU. However, when these practices are combined with frequent in-class student interactions and quality relationships with faculty (the Big 3), the impact on retention becomes significantly greater.
Variable selection in analytical retention models
When we talk about student success and retention, we often focus on things like advising and support services. But what about what happens in the curriculum? Classroom experiences matter *a lot.* Three key factors make a big difference:
✅ Effective teaching practices
✅ Interactions with faculty
✅ In-class collaborations with other students
Despite their impact, most retention models rely on proxy indicators like course load, momentum, demographics, card swipes, LMS log-ins, DFW rates, or GPA, which is always statistically significant. And probably more a signal of belonging than anything else.
Interestingly, the “big 3” are already part of every assessment and evaluation plan. Faculty talk about teaching, learning, and curriculum all the time. Unlike proxies, these factors are aligned with what faculty actually do. Even better, they’re evaluated, not just measured as a metric or KPI. So they’re actionable.
Effective teaching practices, by themselves, have a moderately positive impact on retention
NSSE asks first-year students nine questions about the frequency of effective teaching practices. Using factor analysis,* I found that effective teaching practices have a moderate impact on retention (more about this later). Specifically, students most strongly associate effective teaching with:
- Clearly explaning assignment criteria
- Organized instruction
- Prompt feedback
This probably isn’t too surprising. However, the Effective Teaching Practices construct does not include quality of interactions with faculty or collaborations with other students. When effective teaching practices are combined with frequent and quality interactions with faculty and other students in the classroom, the impact on learning and retention is substantial.
So, what to do? Here are three easy things:
1. Explain grading criteria and assignment expectations clearly and early. I feel like I do this as an instructor anyway, but then I remember my communication style and perferences may be very different from today’s students.
2. Provide a lot of feedback. I view feedback as a tool for learning and for connection and growth. Individualized feedback is ideal.
3. Build interaction into the course. Collaborative learning was a significant factor in our retention model. This is a simple and effective way to positively impact learning and retention. When I think of student interaction, I think of this quote from a first-year student from the NSSE survey: “Please increase interactive group work to increase the likelihood of friendship making. Sitting alone every day is not a good freshman experience.” To me, it’s unreasonable to think that students can check their emotions at the classroom door. Most of us know that. Facilitating student interactions is good pedagogy.
The lollipop chart below shows which factor loadings most strongly defined the Effective Teaching Practices construct.
*About Factor Analysis
Factor analysis is a process of condensing survey variables into a set of smaller underlying groups. In surveys, that means identifying questions that are highly correlated with each other (correlated as in co-related). Survey questions highly correlated with each other form “factors” or groups. The goal is to find latent or hidden factors in the data that weren’t obvious in the survey design or questions. Another goal is to reduce the number of variables for further analysis.
For the retention analysis, I reduced the number of NSSE factors from over 70 questions to a set of factors relevant to ISU (see the figure below). Interactions and collaborations have a huge impact on retention. For time engagement, co-curriculars, community service, and working on campus have a huge impact on retention; working long hours off campus is negative.
So, the profile of a first-year student who is not retained is:
- One who doesn’t see college as relevant to their lives.
- One who misses important markers of momentum (continuous enrollment, withdrawals, putting off gen ed courses, etc.).
- One who gets signals from the environment they don’t belong. Maybe it’s a low GPA. Maybe they can’t find a space where they can be themselves or feel like a part of a community. So they move on.
- One who has to work a lot of hours at an off-campus job. First-year students who leave work just as hard as students who are retained. They are over-extended and simply run out of time.
In this analysis, the Effective Teaching Practices construct was derived from eight NSSE survey questions. The factor loadings in the lollipop chart indicate how strongly each item contributes to that overall construct. Generally, anything over .600 is a good fit for a factor loading. The fact that all of the factor loadings were above .600 suggests strong alignment with the construct of effective teaching.
The factor loadings in the chart in the are not predictors or retention on their own. Effective teaching practices, as a construct in this study, is made up of eight survey questions. The factor loadings show which items most strongly define that construct.
See Can I do it? Do I belong? Should I do it?* Analyzing Retention at ISU using the National Survey of Student Engagement for the original retention analysis. Here are the results of the retention model:
