Part III: Faculty and Student Recruitment: A Fresh Look
Part III: What does the research tell us?
In Part II of this blog series, we considered what the literature reveals regarding:
Enrollment Management Construct
Student Recruitment Practices
Student Persistence Practice
Emotional Intelligence of Prospective and Current College Students
University Roles and Responsibilities
Data, Technology, and Research Support in Enrollment Management
Put in simple and actionable terms, we know:
How the enrollment management division is organized is critical.
The three most important letters in the college search journey are F-I-T.
Connecting with faculty as advisors and mentors does not need to wait until the first day of classes.
Institutions that ignore knowledge gleaned through broader research on student emotional intelligence do so at their own risk.
Enrollment managers who garner the respect of the faculty will benefit immeasurably.
We need to rethink the funnel approach and help our partners across campus better understand conversion, yield, etc. trends.
Does the way in which you lead your enrollment management division reflect these six guiding principles?
Click here to read Part II in its entirety.
My research asked four questions:
Q1. How influential was student engagement with undergraduate faculty during the admission process in students’ decision to enroll at the university for their freshman year, and does that differ between those who enrolled and those who did not?
Q2. What student engagement patterns with undergraduate faculty during the freshman year were most influential on retention to the sophomore year?
Q3. How influential was student engagement with undergraduate faculty during the admission process in students’ decision to return to the university for their sophomore year?
Q4. How influential was student engagement with undergraduate faculty during the admission process (according to demographic or academic profiles) in students’ decision to enroll at the university for their freshman year, and does that differ between those who enrolled and those who did not?
A brief summary of the project:
Employing a summer 2018 survey of 6,771 admitted freshman to the university, quantitative methods were used to capture levels of self-reported importance placed on engagement with faculty during the admission process, and prior to fall matriculation. Data collection involved the researcher in collaboration with the subject university’s Office of Assessment and Institutional Research, using survey technology. Timing for data collection was determined according to industry best practices for gathering the most complete and accurate data during the admission (pre-enrollment) cycle and the freshman year experience.
Further, a spring 2019 qualitative survey was administered to 587 students who, (1) completed the summer 2018 quantitative survey, (2) enrolled at the university in fall 2018, and, (3) remained enrolled in spring 2019. The qualitative survey consisted of six opened-ended questions requiring a narrative response, as well as one question reflecting the student’s intention to return for the sophomore year (fall 2019).
Finally, retention to the sophomore year in fall 2019 from students who, (1) completed the summer 2018 quantitative survey, and (2) enrolled at the university in fall 2018, was captured in May 2019 using completed course registration for the second year of study at the university as a proxy for retention.
The researcher focused on six questions from the summer 2018 survey which captured the importance each student placed on faculty and academic area engagement during the admission (namely via face to face, electronic, telephone, printed materials interactions, and overall engagement). The level of importance assigned by each student to each engagement category produced a score (1 – 3), with the highest scores indicating a ‘very important’ degree of importance – with a cumulative engagement score of 18 indicating the student placed the highest possible level of importance across all standard forms of faculty interaction when making his or her final selection of the college or university to attend in fall 2018.
The summary of participants in this study illustrated a deep reservoir of college bound students who shared significant interest in the university and common college search activities and experiences. The data collected was substantial, with best practice processes for collecting survey feedback (and related appended demographic information) for 1,325 voluntary study participants. The analytical methods described were appropriate to the specific research questions, and capable of being reliably executed in light of available data.
Sample findings for the four research questions (above)…
Q1. Research Question 1 confirmed that students enrolling at the university reported higher faculty engagement importance scores than those enrolling elsewhere. This finding held across all demographic and academic sub-groups studied. Anecdotal prospective student feedback received by admission staff at the subject university in recent cycles suggested the coordinated outreach by faculty (most notably following the offer of admission) was not common among other colleges and universities to which students had applied – and thus the findings presented in this study were relevant to advance this organizational topic.
Additional study is needed concerning faculty outreach by telephone. Enhanced strategies and higher levels of sophistication may provide a more strategic approach and increase the value students see in this kind of engagement.
Findings related to faculty engagement during students’ visits to campus and through responding to students’ individual questions on an ongoing basis support a continued focus on sharpening these programs, and associated metrics has the potential to impact yield rates in the future.
Q2. Findings associated with Research Question 2 spoke primarily to the need to adjust the timing of the qualitative survey of enrolled freshman. The timing (spring 2019) proved too late to realize a high response rate and acquire meaningful input from those planning to return and not return to the university.
Q3. Findings associated with Research Question 3 provided perhaps the most surprising outcomes to the researcher's work. As previously discussed, the thesis regarding the influence of the faculty engagement importance score and eventual sophomore retention held that the retained group would possess a higher faculty engagement importance score mean than those not returning. The data did not support this thesis. There was not a positive relationship between the faculty engagement importance score during the admission process and sophomore retention, holding all other variables constant. As a result, multiple questions were raised – including whether the university has built an expectation among prospective students of faculty engagement that is not reflected in the actual freshman year experience.
Q4. The findings resulting from Research Question 4 were varied and illustrative of planning and research opportunities. There was a lack of a statistically significant difference between females and males for the influence of faculty engagement and yield. The students’ intended academic areas of study can, holding all other variables constant, influence the degree of importance each student places on faculty engagement during the admission process. Strategies related to faculty engagement were neither helped nor hindered by the students’ home location (in-state or out-of-state). As student’s ACT composite scores increased, the importance the student placed on faculty engagement decreased. Likewise, students who were not offered a merit-based scholarship by the university reported a higher faculty engagement importance score mean. As previously suggested, do stronger students (academically) already expect faculty efforts to engage them during the admission process and thus are less influenced by these engagement efforts? Meanwhile, racially diverse students reported a higher faculty engagement importance score overall as compared to non-diverse students. Thus, there exists an opportunity to further grow enrollment from students of diverse racial background by applying this finding to faculty engagement planning.
In the next, and final, post in this series, we’ll boil this down to the practical question - so what? Implications and recommendations for how to move forward will be offered.
To be continued…
(To access the dissertation noted in this blog, including the reference list of citations included above, please visit ProQuest Central’s dissertation data base.)
David Mee, Ed.D. is Vice President for Enrollment Management at Campbell University (NC). His 33-year career has included multiple enrollment leadership positions, as well as consulting projects at more than 60 colleges and universities. Dr. Mee welcomes feedback at dmee@campbell.edu.
