 

.l 5.
1a.? h . x...-
qﬁiﬁ .. 15 p

‘1 A d‘ l ca
E : Luv
133.; .. _ 2
v, £993.11 . 3.. z;
‘ but... .
p z :2 a. a. x 8.21.
: 4!.¥..¥t.( «.1 ‘

. 41.15.}. ‘0
1 .1 .. ‘ ~
53...?»
c! $205.... in,
13.: 11..
2 u.

:2».
B. :2...
I

I 5.}.
1;... I
x13...

 

. . 3;...
Luke? a.

van .

fir: « ....
«Huh: a...— a
3..“ﬁnﬁwp

.-
.

rear“:

.93.... ”Want 3a
. .. .9.
2.:..i,..z.u$...u...r;.‘..

I
. 3.
51A .1
‘ I!!!

ﬁt}.
unmwnnv

. 91.“
ihwl. an“. 9L :2
. 3
8.. c» A 5..-
na. .

.5‘. :5: .1

H.531 .4. L).

1. 1.1.0 .lw
n I; .. h"?

. ~. w?-
13'»

3
Ni
('1

E“

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled
A RETROSPECTIVE VIEW
OF ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE
AMONG FIRST YEAR STUDENTS
AT LAKE SUPERIOR STATE UNIVERSITY
WHO SELECTED
MICHIGAN ’S DUAL ENROLLMENT PROGRAM
AS THEIR POSTSECONDARY PREPARATORY
STRATEGY IN HIGH SCHOOL (1996-2003)

presented by

MaryAnne Pietraniec Shannon

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

PhD. Educational Administration

 

 

9W

Dr. James S. Fairweather
11/7/03

Date

 

MSU is an Afﬁnnative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

. m-A-A--A

._.—,-...

----.-.--.-.-.--- -‘-:-na—---..

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 p:/ClRC/DateDue.indd-p.1

A RETROSPECTIVE VIEW OF ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE AMONG
F IRST-YEAR STUDENTS AT LAKE SUPERIOR STATE UNIVERSITY
WHO SELECTED MICHIGAN’S DUAL ENROLLMENT PROGRAM AS THEIR
POSTSECONDARY PREPARATORY STRATEGY IN HIGH SCHOOL (1996-2003)

By

MaryAnne Pietraniec Shannon

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Educational Administration:
Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education

2005

ABSTRACT
A RETROSPECTIVE VIEW OF ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE AMONG
FIRST-YEAR STUDENTS AT LAKE SUPERIOR STATE UNIVERSITY
WHO SELECTED MICHIGAN’S DUAL ENROLLMENT PROGRAM AS THEIR
POSTSECONDARY PREPARATORY STRATEGY IN HIGH SCHOOL
(1996-2003) .
By

MaryAnne Pietraniec Shannon

Michigan’s Public Act 160 provides incentive to secondary students for part-time
. participation in Dual Enrollment (DE) as a postsecondary preparatory strategy. Under the
framework of anticipatory socialization, this Act allows eligible students in Michigan to
earn postsecondary credit hours while simultaneously earning a high school diploma.
Although this strategy has been utilized in Michigan since 1996, it has yet to be formally
evaluated, creating a void of understanding between educational policy and practice.

To investigate the impact of dual enrollment participation on academic
performance after high school, a 7-year retrospective case study was conducted at Lake
Superior State University, a small, rural, public, baccalaureate-focused Michigan
university that has fully participated in PA 160 Since 1996. Records in the University’s
computerized Student Information System were reviewed for the population of 180 Dual
Enrollment participants admitted to LSSU from fall 1996 through fall 2002. First-year
academic and graduation data for dual enrollees were compared to others who entered
LSSU at the same time; a population group of 38 Advanced Placement participants and a
randomly selected control group of 227 ﬁrst-year students who entered LSSU without

postsecondary academic credits.

Key ﬁndings revealed postsecondary preparatory program students demonstrated
signiﬁcant positive differences on the following measures when compared to the control
group of students: 1) High School GPA; 2) High School Percentile Class Rank; 3) ACT
Composite Score; 4) First-Semester LSSU Credit Hours Earned; 5) First-Semester LSSU
GPA; and 6) Second-Semester LSSU GPA. In the short term, participation in
postsecondary preparatory programming was found to be a signiﬁcantly positive
predictor for ﬁrst-semester LSSU GPA (p 5 .05), but not for second-semester LSSU
GPA. In the long term, postsecondary preparatory students earned their LSSU bachelor’s
degree at signiﬁcantly higher ﬁve-year graduation rates (p 5 .05). Dual enrollees earned
that credential in signiﬁcantly less time when compared to all other groups (p _<_ .05),
providing policy implications for the study site, the State of Michigan, and similar types

of institutions nationwide.

This dissertation is dedicated to my family —
to my husband Dr. Patrick M. Shannon
and my sons, Tom and Jim

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am grateful for all the support and guidance I have received from staff and
faculty at Lake Superior State University and at Michigan State University during the
course of this study. A special thanks goes to Dr. Susan Ratwik at LSSU, who is a
champion of “putting students ﬁrst,” and to Dr. James Fairweather at MSU, who served

as both my teacher and advisor.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................... ix
. LIST OF FIGURES .................................... . .............................................................. xiii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem ................................................................................. 4
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................ 5
Research Questions ................................. . ........................................................ 6
Need for the Study ........................................................................................... 8
Proﬁle of the Case Study: Lake Superior State University as an
Institution of Higher Education in Michigan ................................................... 9
Academic Proﬁle of the Institution .............................................................. 10
Administration and Faculty Proﬁle at LSS U (1996-2003) ......................... 13
Student Selectivity at LSS U ......................................................................... 14
Demographic Profile of LSS U ’s Student Population (1996-2003) ............ 15
F irst-Year LSS U Student Enrollment Trends (1996-2003) ................ 17
Academic Programming Proﬁle for F irst- Year LSS U Students
(1 996-2003) ............................................................................................. 1 8
Specific Institutional Policies and Practices that Supported
F irst- Year Academic Success at LSS U (1996-2003) .................................. 21
LSS U ’s Involvement with Dual Enrollment Programming (1996-2003) 22
Limitations ....................................................................................................... 23
Deﬁnition of Terms .......................................................................................... 24
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................... 30
The Rationale for Supporting Seamless Educational Transitions from
High School to Postsecondary Academics .............................................. 31
An Historical National Perspective: Advanced Placement and Dual
Enrollment Programs as Postsecondary Academic Preparatory
Strategies for High School Students ....................................................... 33
Michigan’s Dual Enrollment Program ............................................................. 37
Anticipatory Socialization: A Conceptual Framework in Support
of Dual Enrollment Educational Programming ..................................... 41
Rationale Supporting High School Student Participation In DE
Educational Programming ...................................................................... 44
Rationale against High School Student Participation in DE Programming...... 47
Measuring the Impact: Studying Traditional First-Year, Postsecondary
Academic Student Success Measures ..................................................... 51
Summary .......................................................................................................... 55

vi

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

Page

................................................................................................. 59

Characteristics of the Conceptual Framework and Study Variables ............... 60
Research Design ............................................................................................... 64
Selection of Study Participants ........................................................................ 64
Data Collection Techniques ............................................................................. 67
Arrangements for Data Collection ................................................................... 67
Rationale for Using Secondary Data Analysis in this Study ........................... 68
Method of Analysis by Research Question ...................................................... 68

Question 1:

Question 2:

Does the pre-university student profile (Sex, Race, Region

of Michigan Residence, High School GPA, High School

Class Rank, ACT Composite Score) of first-year LSS U

students who selected one of two postsecondary academic
preparatory strategies while a high school student

(DE or AP) differ from first-year LSS U students who did

not select a postsecondary academic preparatory strategy

while a high school student? ................................................. 68

Does the ﬁrst-year academic university student profile (first
semester LSS U GPA, Second Semester LSS U GPA, number

of enrolled credit hours ﬁrst semester, number of enrolled
credit hours earned ﬁrst semester, and number of degree

major changes) for LSS U students who selected one of

two postsecondary academic preparatory strategies

while a high school student (DE or AP) differ from the
first-year academic university student profile for LSS U

students who did not select a postsecondary academic
preparatory strategy while a high school student? ............... 70

Question 3: Does participation in DE and AP programming, High

Question 4:

School GPA, Sex, Race, and Region of Michigan
Residence, individually or additively combine to predict
academic performance for students in the first year of
bachelor ’s degree focused postsecondary education

at LSSU? .............................................................................. 72

Does the LSS U graduation profile for first-time, full-time

LSS U students who selected one of two postsecondary
academic preparatory strategies while a high school

student (DE or AP) differ from the LSS U graduation

proﬁle for first-time full-time LSS U students who did

not select a postsecondary academic preparatory

strategy while a high school student? ................................... 75

vii

Page

Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 77
CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 78
Data Analysis by Research Question
Question I ............................................................................................... 79
Question 2 ............................................................................................... 95
Question 3 ............................................................................................... 107
Question 4 ............................................................................................... 114
Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 120
CHAPTERS
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................ 122
Summary Listing of Key Findings from Each Section in Chapter 4 ............... 122
Question 1: Study Findings — Pre- University Student
Profile Factors .................................................................................. 122
Question 2: Study Findings —- F irst- Year LSS U Student
Academic Behaviors ......................................................................... 127
Question 3: Study Findings: Predictors of First-Year Student
Performance at LSSU ....................................................................... 132
Question 4: Study Findings: LSSU Student Persistence and the
Graduation Proﬁle ............................................................................. 136
Educational Policy Implications ...................................................................... 139
For Lake Superior State University ........................................................ 139
For Other State Universities in Michigan ............................................... 140
For the Michigan State Board of Education ............................................ 141
For State Boards of Education Outside Michigan ................................... 142
Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 142
Reconunendaﬁons ............................................................................................ 144
APPENDIX
Public Act. No. 160. H.B. No. 4643. Education — Postsecondary
Enrollment Options Acts - Creations. ............................................................... 147
BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................... 155

viii

lab

13':

TI‘

la

la

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Table 6.

Table 7.

Table 8.

Table 9.

Table 10.
Table 11.
Table 12.
Table 13.
Table 14.

Table 15.

Table 16.

Table 17.

LIST OF TABLES

Student Population by Academic Program Area .................................... 11
Number of Bachelor’s Degrees Awarded by LSSU

by Academic Year ................................................................................... 13
National ACT Student Selectivity Level Guide ...................................... 14

Percentage of Student Population by Year Reﬂecting Demographic
Variables of Sex, Race, and Student’s Home Residence ........................ 16

LSSU Total Undergraduate and First-Year Student Headcounts During
Each Year of the Study ........................................................................... 17

F irst-Year Student Population by Academic Program Area ................... 18
First-Year Student Population by Year and Total Number of

Credit Hours Taken in their First Semester of Academic

Programming at LSSU ............................................................................ 19

Percentage of LSSU F irst-Year, F ull-Time Student Cohorts
Awarded a Bachelor’s Degree Based on Number of Years of

Academic Study at LSSU ...................................................................... 20
Student Population Groups by Year Reflecting LSSU’s Involvement

with DB Programming ............................................................................ 23
Frequencies by Group: All Groups by Year (1996-2003) ..................... 81
Frequencies by Group: Sex: All Groups All Years .............................. 81
Chi-Square: Sex: Across All Groups ..................................................... 82
Frequencies by Group: Race: All Groups All Years ............................ 83
Chi-Square: Race: Across All Groups ................................................... 84
Frequencies: Region of Michigan Residence (UP or LP) by Group:

All Groups All Years ............................................................................... 85
Chi-Square: Region of Michigan Residence: Across All Groups .......... 85
Mean: HS GPA by Group: All Groups All Years ................................... 86

ix

Table 18.

Table 19.

Table 20.

Table 21.

Table 22.

Table 23.

Table 24.

Table 25.

Table 26.

Table 27.

Table 28.

Table 29.

Table 30.

Table 31.

Table 32.

Table 33.

Table 34.

One-Way ANOVA: HS GPA: All Groups All Years ............................. 87

Post hoc (Dunnett’s T3) for One-Way ANOVA: HS GPA by
Group: All Groups All Years ................................................................. 88

Mean: HS Percentile Class Rank by Group: All Groups All Years ........ 89
One-Way ANOVA: HS Percentile Class Rank: All Groups All Years... 90

Post hoc (Dunnett’s T3) for One-Way ANOVA: HS Class Rank by

Group: All Groups All Years ................................................................. 91
Mean: ACT Composite Scores by Group: All Groups All Years .......... 92
One-Way ANOVA: ACT Composite Score: All Groups All Years ...... 94

Post hoc (Dunnett’s T3) for One-Way ANOVA: ACT Composite Score:
All Groups All Years .............................................................................. 95

Means and Variances: First Semester LSSU GPA by Group: All
Groups All .Years ................................................................................... 96

One-Way ANOVA: First Semester LSSU GPA: All Groups
All Years ......................................................................... . ....................... 97

Post hoc (Dunnett’s T3) for One-Way ANOVA: First Semester LSSU
GPA: All Groups All Years ................................................................... 98

Mean: Second Semester LSSU GPA by Group: All Groups All Years .. 98

One-Way ANOVA: Second Semester LSSU GPA: All Groups All
Years ....................................................................................................... 99

Post hoc (Dunnett’s T3) for One-Way ANOVA: Second Semester
LSSU GPA: All Groups All Years ......................................................... 100

Mean: Number of First Semester LSSU Credit Hours Enrolled by
Group: All Groups All Years .................................................................. 101

One-Way ANOVA: Number of First Semester LSSU Credit Hours
Enrolled: All Groups All Years .............................................................. 101

Mean: Number of First Semester LSSU Credit Hours Earned by Group:
All Groups All Years .............................................................................. 102

Table 35.

Table 36.

Table 37.

Table 38.

Table 39.

Table 40.

Table 41.

Table 42.

Table 43.

Table 44.

Table 45.

ANOVA: Number Of First Semester LSSU Credit Hours Earned:

All Groups All Years .............................................................................. 103
Post hoc (Dunnett’s T3) for One-Way ANOVA: Number of First
Semester LSSU Credit Hours Earned by Group: All Groups

All Years .................................................................................................. 104
Mean: Number of Degree Major Changes in the First Year at LSSU
By Group: All Groups All Years ........................................................... 105
One-Way ANOVA: Number of Degree Major Changes in the First Year

At LSSU: All Groups All Years ............................................................. 106

Multiple Linear Regression: Postsecondary Preparatory Programs

(DE participation, AP participation), HS GPA, Sex, Race and

Region of Michigan Residence as Predictors of First Semester

LSSU GPA .............................................................................................. 108
ANOVA for Regression Variables (DE participation, AP participation,
HS GPA, Sex, Race, and Region of Michigan Residence) as

Predictors of First Semester LSSU GPA ............. V ................................... 109
Coefﬁcient Analysis for Multiple Linear Regression: Postsecondary
Preparatory Programs (DE participation, AP participation), HS GPA,
Sex, Race and Region of Michigan Residence as Predictors of First
Semester LSSU GPA .............................................................................. 1 10
Multiple Linear Regression: Postsecondary Preparatory Programs

(DE participation, AP participation), HS GPA, Sex, Race and Region
of Michigan Residence as Predictors of Second Semester

LSSU GPA .............................................................................................. 111
ANOVA for Regression Variables (DE participation, AP participation),
HS GPA, Sex, Race and Region of Michigan Residence as Predictors
of Second Semester LSSU GPA ............................................................. 111
Coefﬁcient Analysis for Multiple Linear Regression: Postsecondary
Preparatory Programs (DE participation, AP participation), HS GPA,
Sex, Race and Region of Michigan Residence as Predictors of Second
Semester LSSU GPA .............................................................................. 112
Multiple Linear Regression: Postsecondary Preparatory Programs

(DE participation, AP participation), HS GPA, Sex, Race and Region

of Michigan Residence as Predictors for Total Number of First Semester

Credits Earned at LSSU .......................................................................... 113

xi

Table 46.

Table 47.

Table 48.

Table 49.

Table 50.

Table 51.

Table 52.

Table 53.

ANOVA for Regression Variables (DE participation, AP participation),
HS GPA, Sex, Race and Region of Michigan Residence as Predictors

of Total Number of First Semester Credits Earned at LSSU .................. 113

Coefﬁcient Analysis for Multiple Linear Regression: Postsecondary
Preparatory Programs (DE participation, AP participation), HS GPA,

Sex, Race and Region of Michigan Residence as Predictors of

Total Number of First Semester Credits Earned at LSSU ...................... 114

Cross-Tabulation: Degree Earned Status for All Groups Started FT
Coursework before Fall 2001 ................................................................... 115

One-Way ANOVA: Degree Earned Status: All Groups:
Set-Point Fall 2001 .................................................................................. 116

Post hoc (Dunnett’s T3) for One-Way ANOVA: Degree Earned Status
All Groups: Set-Point Fall 2001 ............................................................. 117

Descriptives: Student Persistence (Years of Attendance) for Earned
Bachelor’s Degree: All Groups: Set-Point, Fall 2001 ........................... 118

One-Way ANOVA: Years of Attendance for Earned Bachelor’s Degree:
All Groups: Set-Point, Fall 2001 ............................................................ 118

Post hoc (Bonferroni’s) for One-Way ANOVA: Years of Attendance

Prior to Earning a Bachelor’s Degree at LSSU by Group: All Groups
F all 1996 up to Fall 2001 ......................................................................... 120

xii

figt

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

LIST OF FIGURES

Conceptual Model for Academic Success Among High School

Students who Utilized DE as their Academic Postsecondary

Preparatory Strategy while a High School Student (adapted

From Terenzini & Associates, 1995) ....................................................... 63

Bar Chart: ACT Composite Scores: By Group for All Groups
All Years .................................................................................................. 93

xiii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

In 1996, the Michigan Legislatureenacted the Postsecondary Enrollment Options
Program (Public Act 160). Also known as the Dual/Concurrent Enrollment Program, this
educational option enables eligible high school junior and senior level students to enroll
in college courses “thereby exposing them to the academic and social demands of
postsecondary education while still in high school” (Education Commission of the States,
2004). In Michigan, PA 160 permits the high school student to decide if the course
credits accrued under the program will be earned as college credits only (dual enrollment)
or earned as both high school and college credits simultaneously (concurrent enrollment).
According to the Education Commission of the States (ECS), all states have
dual/concurrent enrollment statutes, which allow such programs to be run by the state,
district, or by educational institutions. In'most cases, the K-12 school districts pay for the
postsecondary courses eligible high school students elect to take under this program
(Community College Research Center, 2003).

This Michigan part-time, school-of-choice Option is different from the nationally-
based Advanced Placement (AP) Program already established in many high schools
across the country in that the Dual Enrollment (DE) Program: 1) broadens high school
student eligibility for postsecondary educational enhancement; 2) is provided within the
context of existing college classes on a college campus; and 3) requires postsecondary

academic counseling for the participating student.

Dual enrollment programs provide a “real-life” guided university experience for
eligible high school students. Viewed under a model of anticipatory socialization,
participation in this program provides pre-university students an early introduction to the
roles and expectations of postsecondary academics prior to full emersion after high
school graduation. Although this educational option has been utilized across Michigan
for the last nine years, the academic impact of participation in this program has yet to be
formally evaluated at either the state or local level.

Unfortunately, Michigan is not alone in its lack of a comprehensive evaluation
plan for dual enrollment. The ECS (2004) noted that although all states have policies to
provide for postsecondary enrollment programming, most still do not have a
comprehensive plan in place for evaluating it. Additionally, research on how students
have beneﬁted from this high school curriculum enhancement has been limited (Bailey,
Hughes, & Karp, 2002; Boswell, 2001; Clark, 2001; National Center for Educational
Statistics, 2001). The National Center for Educational Statistics (N CES) recently sent out
its ﬁrst survey to identify college/university participation in postsecondary programming
nationwide, expecting dissemination of ﬁndings to begin in December, 2005.

Although Michigan has not been a national leader in the dual enrollment
education movement in the past, present political and ﬁscal climates support an
evaluation study about its impact on postsecondary education in the state. As in most US
states, the ﬁscal climate for education in Michigan is a challenging one for both state-
ﬁnanced K-12 and postsecondary institutions. Following national trends calling for
increased postsecondary accountability (Fleming, 2004); educational administrators must

insure all programs they offer demonstrate an academic beneﬁt in relation to academic

cost. For example, although Lake Superior State University (which is the location for
this analytical study) receives a revenue gain from additional part-time tuition fees as a
provider for the state’s non-mandated DE program, it does so at the cost of providing
non-reimbursable ancillary services associated with ﬁlll program participation.
Additionally, one must also consider the indirect costs that the university incurs when it
fully accepts dual enrollment transfer credits earned from a variety of educational
institutions around the state.

Although K-12 and postsecondary educational institutions in Michigan share a
commitment for educational success for all students in the state, some K-12 institutions
participate in dual enrollment programming at a higher cost in relation to their state
foundation grant awards. Since 1996, a signiﬁcant amount of state education dollars in
Michigan has been shifted from K-.12 public school budgets to participating institutions
of higher education to accommodate for DE as outlined in the state statute. In rural areas
of Michigan, where smaller student numbers translate into smaller state foundation
grants, K-12 school districts work hard to retain all district students within their
educational institution for as much of the school day as possible. Considering the context
of Michigan’s present ﬁscal climate, one can reasonably assume that some Michigan
K-12 school administrators and policy makers may not look as favorably upon
participation in dual enrollment programming when compared to other “less costly”
postsecondary academic preparatory options (e. g., AP) that retain high school students

full-time (and the state funds that follow them) in K-12 educational settings.

Statement Of the Problem

Initially viewed in the Shadow of AP programming, DE programming was ﬁrst
identiﬁed as an educational acceleration option intended primarily for academically
“giﬁed” high school students (McCarthy, 1999; Putnam, 2002). As more state statutes
and state policies for dual enrollment were developing, educational leaders began to
consider the potential beneﬁts that dual enrollment programming could bring for
educationally disadvantaged and other at-risk high school students, especially in relation
to postsecondary access and educational support (Andrews, 2001; Bailey & Karp, 2003;
Catron, 2001 ; Kleiman, 2001).

In 1996, Michigan legislators looked on dual enrollment educational
programming as a mechanism to equalize postsecondary access for all eligible high
school students in a state with many distinct rural constituent populations across two
peninsulas. In addition to addressing the access issue in PA 160, Michigan legislators
built on the value for academic support of this secondary to postsecondary academic
bridging strategy by requiring a postsecondary counseling component in the Michigan’s
statute, a caveat not found in other dual enrollment state statues in 1996. It was hoped
that this requirement would build partnerships between the many secondary and
postsecondary educational institutions within the state.

Lake Superior State University (LSSU) is one of three state universities in
Michigan with the two-pronged mission to function as a four-year state university and as
a regional community college (LSSU Self-Study, 2000). LSSU’S active and long term
participation in Michigan’s Dual Enrollment Program coincides well with its K-16

philosophy of service. However, as state appropriations for higher education continue to

decrease in today’s ﬁscal climate, LSSU and other colleges and universities in Michigan
are beginning to re-think their secondary/postsecondary partnerships centered on non-
mandated educational programming, putting academic programs like dual enrollment at
risk.

It was only recently that all 50 states in the US have come “on boar ” with
statutes that provide for state-sponsored dual enrollment programming for high school
students (ECS, 2004). The national literature base on dual enrollment programming is
thin, with available data focusing primarily on ﬁndings reported from individual program
efforts conducted in a few educationally progressive states across the US. Unfortunately,
Michigan has not taken a lead role in studying this educational option and to date, no
formal state, regional or individual studies have been conducted to assess either the short
or long term impact of dual enrollment participation in Michigan (Michigan Department
of Education, 2003). This lack of formal evaluation has created a void of understanding

between educational policy and practice in Michigan that needs to be resolved.

Purpose of the Study
The primary purpose Of this research was to conduct an institutional policy study
for postsecondary dual enrollment participation in Michigan. This was accomplished
through a retrospective analysis, looking at how those ﬁrst-year university students, who
participated in Michigan’s DE program while in high school, performed academically in
their ﬁrst year of university study at LSSU. Traditional student performance indicators
related to academic success and persistence in the ﬁrst year of university study were

examined. This was accomplished by using university student records for those who

entered Lake Superior State University in the seven-year period after Michigan’s DE
program was implemented under the Postsecondary Enrollment Options Act (PA 160) in
April, 1996. In addition, this study examined the relative importance of various student
factors as potential predictors for academic success in the ﬁrst year of full-time
postsecondary study at LSSU, persisting toward bachelor’s degree attainment.

Data collected from this study were intended to: 1) identify trends in the use of
dual enrollment as a postsecondary academic preparatory strategy of choice for ﬁrst-year
students at LSSU; 2) provide a demographic proﬁle for those who attended LSSU aﬁer
. high school participation in dual enrollment programming over the ﬁrst seven years of
the program; 3) compare ﬁrst-year academic outcomes for the dual enrollee cohort with
ﬁrst-year academic outcomes for LSSU students who did not participate in dual
enrollment while in high school; 4) look at the impact of high school dual enrollment
participation on LSSU graduation rates; and 5) provide evidence-based data for
educators to consider as they make policy decisions about participation in Michigan’s

Dual Enrollment Program.

Research Questions
The following questions were considered during the research portion of this study:
Question 1
Does the pre-university academic student proﬁle (Sex, Race, Region of Michigan
Residence, High School GPA, High School Class Rank, ACT Composite Score) of ﬁrst-
year LSSU students, who selected one of two postsecondary academic preparatory

strategies while a high school student (Dual Enrollment or Advanced Placement), differ

from ﬁrst-year LSSU students who did not select a postsecondary academic preparatory
strategy while a high school student?
Question 2
Does the ﬁrst-year academic university student proﬁle (F irst-Semester LSSU

GPA, Second-Semester LSSU GPA, Number of Enrolled Credit Hours First Semester,
Number of Earned Credit Hours First Semester, and Number of Degree Major Changes in
the ﬁrst year of study) for LSSU students, who selected one Of two postsecondary
academic preparatory strategies while a high school student (Dual Enrollment or
Advanced Placement), differ from the ﬁrst-year academic university student proﬁle for
LSSU students who did not select a postsecondary academic preparatory strategy while a
high school student?
Question 3

Does participation in DE and AP programs, high school GPA, race, sex, and
region of Michigan residence, individually or additively combine to predict academic
performance for students in the ﬁrst year of bachelor’s degree-focused postsecondary
education at LSSU?
Question 4

Does the LSSU graduation proﬁle for ﬁrst-time, full-time LSSU students who
selected one of two postsecondary academic preparatory strategies while a high school
student (Dual Enrollment or Advanced Placement) differ from the LSSU graduation
proﬁle for ﬁrst-time full-time LSSU students who did not select a postsecondary

academic preparatory strategy while a high school student?

Need for the Study

The Michigan legislatUre enacted the Dual Enrollment Statute in 1996 to provide
ﬁnancial incentives for qualiﬁed students to enroll in academic college or university
course work while still in high school. Although the statute requires all state-supported
high schools in Michigan to participate in this academic enhancement school-of-choice
option, the statute does not require state-supported institutions of higher education in
Michigan to participate.

Since the statute went into effect, the Michigan Department of Education has not
evaluated the’aCademic impact of this postsecondary educational preparatory strategy on
the students, high schools, colleges, or universities participating in the program.
Likewise, participating and non-participating institutions of higher education in the state
continue to accept or deny postsecondary educational credits earned by dual enrollment
high'school students without solid evidence to support or refute their practices.

This study can serve as an important educational service in several ways: I) it
will assistin promoting a state data base related to the academic impact of Michigan’s
Dual Enrollment initiative; 2) as a case study, it will provide seven-year snapshots of
academic progress, Student retention, and bachelor’s degree attainment for those LSSU
students who selected dual enrollment programming while in high school; 3) as an
evaluative study, it will serve as a model and a credible data base for other higher
educational institutions in the state as they consider future studies on the topic; and 4) it
will provide data to assist in fact-based discussions for academic policy development
related to participation in dual enrollment as a postsecondary preparatory educational

Option for eligible high school students.

Proﬁle of the Case Study: Lake Superior State University as an
Institution of Higher Education in Michigan

Lake Superior State University is the smallest of the 15 public universities in
Michigan, located in a county of about 18,000 people. It was initially established in 1946
as the Sault Branch of the Michigan College of Mining and Technology (now known as
Michigan Technological University). In 1969, it became the Sault Branch of Michigan
Technological University and eventually evolved to the status of a free-standing four-
year degree granting institution known as Lake Superior State College. A comprehensive
review of the institution in 1971 resulted in a ten-year North Central Association
accreditation at the baccalaureate level. University status was granted in 1987 when the
institution was renamed Lake Superior State University (LSSU).

Located in Michigan’s rural Eastern Upper Peninsula, LSSU sits on the border of
northern Ontario in Canada, meeting postsecondary programming needs for some
Canadian students. It is one of three public postsecondary educational institutions in
Michigan (along with Northern Michigan University and Ferris State University) with a
state mandate to serve as both a state university and a regional community college (LSSU
Self-Study, 2000). To meet its dual mission, LSSU offers its students the opportunity to
meet the necessary requirements to earn a Specialty Certiﬁcate, Associate Degree,
Bachelor of Arts Degree, and/or a Bachelor of Science Degree. In addition, the
university has established articulation agreements with American and Canadian colleges
and universities, community colleges, and high schools to assist regional students seeking
smooth transitions for meeting their postsecondary educational needs.

To complement the educational programming offered at its main campus in Sault

Ste. Marie, LSSU also operates administrative and academic services at two regional

community college outreach locations. Its Upper Peninsula Regional Center is located at
'Bay De Noc Community College, which is 175 miles west of the main campus in
Escanaba, Michigan. The second outreach campus is in Petoskey, Michigan at North
Central Michigan Community College which is located in Michigan’s Lower Peninsula,
94 miles southwest of the university’s main campus. 1

Academic Profile of the Institution (1996-2003)

Lake Superior State University is a non-research based educatiOnal institution
primarily focused on providing bachelor’s degree awards to eligible students (LSSU Self-
Study, 2000). As a public university, it has been fully accredited by the North Central
Association of Colleges and Schools continually since 1971. In addition, the university
has specialized programs in nursing, engineering, clinical lab science, and ﬁre science
that have earned national and international program accreditations. LSSU offers a variety
of educational programs in the sciences and arts from which students select a degree
major.

Between‘1996 and 2003, two degree major classiﬁcations were changed at LSSU.
The ﬁrst change occurred in the fall of 1997 and continued until the fall of 1999 when
bachelor’s degree business majors were merged with mathematics and engineering
majors. Also, in the second year of this retrospective study (1997-1998), Health and
Human Services and the Science and Natural Resources classiﬁcations were merged to
create a single degree major titled “Natural and Health Sciences,” that continues today.

A shifting of university faculty resources from Health and Human Services to the Arts,
Letters and Social Science Programs at LSSU during the 1996-1997 school year resulted

in a doubling of Arts, Letters and Social Science major declarations in 1997-1998, and a

10

stabilization of the number of Natural and Health Sciences majors over the last six years
of this study.

The number of full-time LSSU undergraduate students in each of seven general
degree majors over the seven-year period under review is shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Student Population by Academic Program Area *

 

 

Academic Arts, Business Business Math & Hlth & Natural Science
Year Letters Math & English Hum. & Hlth &
& Social English Serv Sci. Natural
Science Res.
1996-1997 395 287 290 831 438
1997 -l998 803 573 766
1998-1999 891 570 750
1999 -2000 857 212 344 664
2000 -2001 861 226 315 579
2001 -2002 905 227 350 587
2002 -2003 935 215 337 615

 

* Obtained from LSSU’S Institutional Annual Research Reports generated by the LSSU
Registrar’s Ofﬁce (1996 — 2003).

Successful completion of an academic program that results in degree attainment
and graduation from LSSU is the ultimate success indicator for postsecondary students
and their families. As a key outcome measure, graduation rates have traditionally been
used at the federal and state level as a means of evaluating a university’s success in
meeting its obligations in educational programming (LSSU Self-Study, 2000). A

student’s length of attendance at LSSU is determined by the requirements of the selected

11

academic major(s), as well as the life situation of the student seeking the postsecondary
credential.

Table 2 (on next page) provides the number of bachelor’s degrees awarded by
LSSU over the seven-year period of thisstudy. During this time, the number of degrees
ranged from a low of 464 awarded in 2002-2003 to a high of 566 awarded in 1999-2000.
As shown on the table, the number of Bachelor of Science (8.8.) degrees awarded by
LSSU outweighs the number of Bachelor of Arts (BA) degrees awarded over the same
period. This is directly attributed to the type and number of academic programs available
at LSSU at various stages of this study (e.g., there were 26 8.8. program options and six
B.A. program options among the 1996-1997 graduates, compared to 40 BS. program
options and six B.A. program options among the 2002-2003 graduation group). The
dominant B.S. programming provided-at LSSU can also be attributed to the original
academic legacy of the institution when it began as a branch institution of the Michigan

Technological University in 1946.

12

Table 2.
Number of Bachelor 's Degrees Awarded by LSS U by Academic Year*

 

 

Academic Year Number of BAs Number of BS’ Total No.
Awarded By LSSU Awarded By LSSU Bachelor’s Awarded
1996 -1997 30 455 ' 435
1997 -1998 25 498 523
1998 -1999 14' 434 548
1999 -2000 28 538 566
2000 -2001 25 487 512
2001 -2002 25 490 515
2002 -2003 23 441 464

 

* Obtained from LSSU’S Institutional Annual Research Reports generated by the LSSU
Registrar’s Ofﬁce (1996 through 2003).

Administration and Faculty Proﬁle at LSS U (1996-2003)

During the seven years of this analysis (Fall, 1996 through Spring, 2003), LSSU
was under the leadership of only one university president, Dr. Robert Arbuckle. All
LSSU student data were collected by the same university administrative staff in the same
way each October and reported in that year’s “LSSU Institutional Annual Research
Report” produced by the Ofﬁce of the Registrar.

Viewed as an educational facility where the primary mission is to teach
undergraduate educational programs (LSSU Self Study, 2000), faculty members at Lake
Superior State University are responsible for all facets of academic support for university
students. These include all classroom teaching, lab instruction, student advising, student

scheduling, as well as other student activities. The 2000 LSSU Self-Study noted that

13

during the fall semester that year, 66% of the 122 faculty members held a Doctorate
credential with all other faculty members holding earned Master’s Degrees. On average,
faculty-student ratios at LSSU have consistently ranged from 1:17 to 1:19 over the seven-
year period of this study, which supports the University slogan used during this same
time period of time, “Lake Superior State University: Personal, Natural and Superior.”
Student Selectivity at LSS U (1996-2003)

According to American College Testing (ACT) classiﬁcations, Lake Superior
State University has always been an “open” admissions institution for students who
reside in Michigan’s Eastern Upper Peninsula, and a “liberal” admissions institution for
all other applicants (LSSU Retention Plan, 2004-2005). Guidelines for the “liberal”
admissions category focus on applicants from outside the region who have: 1) an ACT
score of 18 or better and a minimum high school grade point average (HSGPA) of 2.4; 2)
an ACT score of 19 or better and a minimum HSGPA of 2.2; or 3) all applicants with a
HSGPA of 3.0 or better regardless of their ACT score. Table 3 provides national context
of admissions selectivity based on the distribution of ACT Composite Scores.

Table 3.
National A CT Student Selectivity Level Guide *

 

 

Selectivity Level ACT Composite Scoring
Range
Highly Selective 27-31
Selective 22-27
Traditional 20-23
Liberal 18-21
Open 17-20

 

"‘ Obtained from LSSU’s 2003 Student Retention Report.

14

, Demographic Proﬁle of LSS U ’s Student Population (1996-2003)

Table 4 reﬂects data obtained from LSSU’s Institutional Annual Research Reports
(1996 through 2003) depicting few changes in the LSSU student proﬁle in relation to
. Sex, Race, and Region of Student’s Home Residence. Although the percentage of males
and females attending LSSU remained fairly equal over the 7-year time period of this
study, a slight increase was reported for those who identiﬁed themselves as being either
of White or Native American descent.

Through the course of this study, most students on the campus of LSSU classiﬁed
their race as “White” (75%. to 78%), while the majority non-white classiﬁcation was
reported in those who identiﬁed themselves as Native American (6% to 8%). Although
the LSSU Admissions Ofﬁce reported speciﬁc statistics for each of these two racial
groups, those students who classiﬁed their race as “Other” or elected not to respond to
this optional question were grouped together, representing 14% to 19% of the student
population at LSSU during the 7-year period of this study. In addition, Table 4 shows
that during these seven years, LSSU experienced a gradual but steady increase in the
percentage of students who reported their permanent home residence as “Michigan’s
Upper Peninsula”, with a corresponding decrease for the percentage of students who

reported their home residence to be outside of Michigan.

15

Table 4.
Percentage of Student Population by Year Reﬂecting Demographic Variables of Sex,

Race, and Student’s Home Residence *

 

 

Academic Sex Race Student’s Home Residence
Year
M F W NA O/NR MI-UP Ml-LP NOT
Ml

 

1996 -1997 50% 50% 76% 6% 18% 36% 44% 20%
1997 -1998 50% 50% 75% 6% 19% 37% 42% 21%
1998 -1999 48% 52% 77% 6% 17% 38% 43% 19%
1999 -2000 47% 53% 77% 7% 16% 41% 41% 18%
2000 -2001 47% 53% 77% 8% 15% 41% 41 % 18%
2001 -2002 48% 52% 77% 8% 15% 40% 42% 18%

2002 -2003 47% 53% 78% 8% 14% 42% 42% 16%

 

M=male W=White MI-UP= Upper Peninsula of Michigan
F=female NA== Native American Ml-LP= Lower Peninsula of Michigan
O/NR=other/no response NOT-M1=Not a Michigan resident

* Obtained from LSSU’s Institutional Annual Research Reports generated by the LSSU
Registrar’s Ofﬁce (1996 through 2003).

During the 7-year study, reports from LSSU’S Office of Financial Aid (1996
through 2003) consistently indicated that approximately 75% of full-time students at
LSSU received ﬁnancial assistance to cover the costs of educational programming. When
compared with other state universities, the cost of attending LSSU remained somewhat in
the middle of the ﬁfteen-state university listing over this same period of time (LSSU’s

Institutional Annual Research Reports, 1996 through 2003).

16

F irst- Year LSS U Student Enrollment Trends (1996-2003)

During the 7-year study. enrollment numbers remained fairly stable for ﬁrll-time
undergraduate students at LSSU. First-year student numbers ranged from a high of 795
students during 1998-1999 to a low of 715 students in 1997-1998. First-year student
numbers remained fairly steady when the LSSU’S undergraduate head count dipped to its
lowest level in the 2000-2001 school year as noted in Table 5.

Table 5.
LSS U Total Undergraduate and F irst-year Student Headcounts During
Each Year of the Study“

 

 

Academic Year Total Full-time Total First-year

Undergraduate LSSU Full-time Student
Student Head Count Head Count

1996 -1997 2,581 763

1997 -1998 2,469 715

1998 -1999 2,574 795

1999 -2000 2,440 749

2000 -2001 2,378 747

2001 -2002 2,445 754

2002 -2003 2,477 760

 

* Obtained from LSSU’s Institutional Annual Research Reports generated by
the LSSU’s Registrar’s Ofﬁce (1996 through 2003).

17

Academic. Programming Proﬁle for F irst-year LSS U Students (1996-2003)

Upon application to LSSU, all students are asked to declare a degree major (ﬁeld of
study) to assist administration in the assignment of academic advisors. Over the 7-year
period of this study, there was a low of 28% of ﬁrst-year, full-time students who did not
report a major upon admission in the ﬁrst year of this study (1996-1997) and a high of
43% unreported majors for students in 2000-2001, which is the same year total
undergraduates at LSSU was at its lowest. Table 6 shows the distribution of admitted
ﬁrst-year, full-time students who provided information about their selected ﬁeld of study
at LSSU.

Table 6.
F irst- Year Student Population by Academic Program Area *

 

Arts, Business Business Math Health Natural Science No

 

Academic Letters Math & & & & & Admiss.
‘ Year & Eng. Eng. Human Health Natural Major
‘ Social Services Science Res.
Science
1996-97 98 84 83 l 84 145 169
1997-98 202 152 183 178
1998-99 241 l 64 l 94 I96
l999-00 229 55 101 175 189
2000-01 23 1 53 80 1 5 8 225
2001-02 250 64 30 I68 192
2002-03 246 56 79 l 74 205

 

* Obtained ﬁom LSSU’s Institutional Annual Research Reports generated by the LSSU
Registrar’s Ofﬁce (1996 through 2003).

When considering the average number of credit hours ﬁrst-year students enrolled
to take their ﬁrst semester at LSSU, students were consistent over the years of this study

ranging from an average of 14.6 to 14.8 credit hours per student as noted in Table 7. This

18

reported average is above the standard 12 full-time credit load recognized by the
university, but lower than the l6-credit hour average semester load reported for all full-
time LSSU students in the LSSU College Catalog (2002, p.10). Over the seven-year
period of this study, LSSU students paid the same full-time tuition fee when they took
from 12 to 20 credit hours per semester. One credit hour equals ﬁﬁeen hours of
classroom instruction in lecture/recitation courses while lab classes, ﬁeld work, or other
non-lecture credits meet for more than one hour a week per credit hour.

Table 7.
F irst-year Student Population by Year and Total Number of Credit Hours Taken in their

First Semester of A cademic Programming at LSS U *

 

 

Academic Year Total F irst-year Total No. of 1“ Average No. of 1“

Student Semester-Enrolled Semester-Enrolled

Head Count Credit Hours for Credit Hours per

Freshpersons Student

1996-1997 763 11,242 14.7
1997-1998 715 10,613 14.8
1998-1999 795 11,725 14.7
1999 -2000 749 10,956 14.6
2000 ~2001 747 11,061 14.8
2001 -2002 754 11,132 14.7
2002 -2003 760 1 1,300 14.8

 

* Obtained from LSSU’s Institutional Annual Research Reports generated by the LSSU’s
Registrar’s Ofﬁce (1996 through 2003).

To gain a sense. of how all ﬁrst-year, ﬁlll-time students did in relation to earning
an LSSU bachelor’s degree, it is important to look at how each annual cohort persisted

over time. Though all data are not available for every cohort at this time, there is value in

19

looking at early trends from the data that are available. Table 8 reports the percentage for
each annual cohort for all LSSU ﬁrst—time full-time students utilizing four-, ﬁve-, and
six-year graduation interval markers. When one considers the ﬁrst three years of this
study where complete data sets. areavailable (four-, ﬁve- and six-year graduation
percentages for fall cohorts in 1996, 1997 and 1998), in total 37% to 41% of this
subgroup received a b from LSSU for the total period. During these years, the greatest
percentage of ﬁrst-year, full-time students received their bachelor’s degree aﬁer ﬁve
years of academic study (16% to 18%) running closely ahead of the percentages for those
who achieved the degree after four years (15% to 17%).

Table 8.
Percentage of LSSU F irst- Year, F ull- Time Student Cohorts Awarded A Bachelor ’3
Degree Based on Number of Years of Academic Study at LSS U *

 

No. of Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall
Yeas of 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
LSSU Cohort Cohort Cohort Cohort Cohort Cohort Cohort

My

 

4 l 5% 17% 1 5% 1 7% 1 6%
5 l 8% 1 8% l 6% 16%
6 4% 6% ' 6%

TOTAL 37% 41% 3 7%

 

* Obtained from LSSU’s Institutional Annual Research Reports generated by the LSSU
Registrar’s Ofﬁce (1996 through 2003).

20

Specific Institutional Policies and Practices that Supported F irst-Year
Academic Success at LSS U (1996-2003)

Over the study’s 7-year period, LSSU’s administrators, faculty, and staff
developed and. maintained many formal and informal practices and policies that
demonstrated support for ﬁrst-year student persistence and achievement. Prior to
attending classes for the ﬁrst time at LSSU, all prospective students were required to
attend a formal orientation program on the campus of LSSU. At orientation, incoming
students and their parents heard about university policies in LSSU student housing where
all ﬁrst—year students were required to reside. Housing assignments were made by full-
time university housing staff based on a “clustering system” where a student’s academic
major and interests were matched to determine sex-speciﬁc housing placements for all
ﬁrst-year students. In these settings, students were supported academically and
emotionally with in-dorm computer labs, study group activities, and regular group and
individual contacts made by trained student affairs’ staff members who resided in the
same setting.

To accommodate the university’s open admission policy, LSSU administration
supported an on-campus “University Learning Center” and a “University Services
Program” (USP) during the seven years of this study. Though student participation in
this programming was voluntary, these services did allow participating students to be
academically tested, counseled, and tracked. All necessary course work in these
programs was provided on-campus, in most cases by the same university faculty and staff
that provided non-USP academic services on campus. To support faculty and staff

participation in these programming efforts, LSSU administration provided free annual

21

educational workshops over the 7-year period, aimed at successful interaction with
students as they learned to transition to student role expectations associated with
postsecondary academics.

LSSU not only supported ﬁrst-year students who needed academic remediation by
providing USP services, but also supported those ﬁrst-year students who prepared for
postsecondary study while in high school, accepting all transfer credits earned through
AP and DE participation. In addition, LSSU has served as a regional provider for
postsecondary academic credits earned by qualiﬁed high school students under PA 160.
By choosing to participate actively in this non-mandated state program, LSSU has
demonstrated its commitment to expanding postsecondary educational opportunities in
the region, accepting its role of assisting qualiﬁed high school students to optimize their
academic capital (Berger, 2004).

LSS U ’s Involvement with Dual Enrollment Programming (1996-2003)

As a postsecondary educational institution that has consistently demonstrated its
support for those programs that ease academic transitioning for students in the region, it
is of no surprise that LSSU has been a full and active participant in dual enrollment
programming since its implementation in 1996. For earned credit hours to be accepted as
transfer credit hours at LSSU, the eligible high school student must have taken the
course(s) at an accredited postsecondary educational institution and earned a ﬁnal grade
of C- or better in the course(s) taken. All qualifying transfer credits are accepted as non-
graded credit hours so there is no alteration in the student’s university grade point
average.

Table 9 depicts the actual number of regionally qualiﬁed high school students

who participated in DE programs offered by LSSU under Michigan Statute (PA 160), as

22

well as the number of ﬁrst-year, full-time LSSU students who transferred postsecondary

academic credit hours to LSSU that were earned elsewhere during the same period.

Table 9.

Student Population Groups by Year Reﬂecting LSS U ’s Involvement with DE

Programming*

Academic Year No. of Regional High School No. of 1" Year LSSU Students

1996 -I997
1997 -1998
1998 -1999
1999 -2000
2000 -2001
2001 —2002

2002 -2003

 

Students Who Received DE Who Transferred in DE
Postsecondary Academic Postsecondary Academic Credits
Credits from LSSU Earned While in High School
57 37
61 27
59 31
99 38
61 34
44 40
41 27

 

"‘ Obtained from LSSU’s Institutional Annual Research Reports generated by the LSSU
Registrar’s Ofﬁce (1996 through 2003).

Limitations

Limitations of this study include:

1.

The students in the study may not represent all DE participants, or
ﬁrst-year postsecondary students, in Michigan or the nation, limiting
potential generalizations of the results of this study.

Some of the study participants may be integrated into the culture of
higher education in ways not reﬂected in the university data sets

used for this study. For example, academic summer camp

23

experiences and other enrichment programs offered elsewhere are
not identiﬁed in the LSSU data set.

3. The quantitative academic measures utilized in this study do not take into
account qualitative influences related to academic success for ﬁrst-year
postsecondary students.

4. Although the use of LSSU Institutional student data is strength of this policy
study, full understanding of the data may be limited based on how LSSU

reported some of its annual data sets (e.g., racial groupings).

Deﬁnition of Terms

For consistency of interpretation the following terms have been deﬁned:
Academic Acceleration.

Completion of an academic undergraduate program in less than the conventional
time designed for program completion without suffering in academic work or time to
receive degree (Pressey, 1949, p. 27). This type of educational approach is also known in
the literature as “academic front-loading.”

Academic Capital.

Also identiﬁed in the literature as a component of “culture capital” or “capital
resources,” these are symbolic and cumulative educationally associated assets earned
from educational experience(s). Adapted from Bourdieu’s Theory of Social Reproduction
as a type of commodity (Berger, 2004), these resources are value determined by the
individual who earns them and who can use them to persist and succeed in postsecondary

education and beyond.

24

Academic Performance.

As an outcome measure, aCademic performance is based on educational
functioning determined after the ﬁrst year of postsecondary study at LSSU. In this study,
three outcome measures used to assess academic performance were First Semester LSSU
GPA, Second Semester LSSU GPA, and the Total Number of Credit Hours earned after
the ﬁrst semester of full-time study at LSSU.

Academic Success.

Scholastic status based on academic performance in full-time study at LSSU.
Positive grth toward this goal is reﬂected in the student’s ability to articulate, persist,
achieve, and continually progress forward toward meeting academic graduation
requirements for a bachelor’s degree credential.

Anticipatory Socialization.

The sociological concept used to describe the process by which an individual
undergoes socialization in anticipation of ﬁlling a future role. The strength of the effect
is dependent on the condition of the exposure and the expectations it brings with it
(McCormick, 1997).

Articulation.

Associated with educational programming, this is the process of a student’s
progression from one academic level to the next more complex academic level. In this
study, articulation refers speciﬁcally to the transition of students from high school

academics to university academics.

25

insti

mus

Completers.

Completers are those LSSU students who completed a minimum of 12 academic
credit hours for each of the two consecutive semesters in their ﬁrst year of full-time study
at LSSU.

Dual Enrollment.

Also identiﬁed in the literature as “dual-credit programming,” this credit-eaming,
school-of-choice option is administered under state statute by each public school district.
Dual enrollment allows eligible junior and senior high school students to enroll in a
private or public college or university in the state and take classes at those institutions,
earning high school credit, college/university credit or both, upon successful completion
of the postsecondary academic course(s) (ECS, 2004). In Michigan, DE programming is
provided under an amendment to the State School Aid Act of 1979. Identiﬁed as the
1996 Postsecondary Enrollment Options Act (PA. 160), guidelines for implementation of
Michigan’s DE programming are noted in M.C.L.A. Chapter 388, sections 388.511
through 388.524 (Appendix A).

Eligible High School Student.

A public high school student in Michigan who successfully passes the MEAP
(Michigan Education Assessment Program) test in the subject areas related to the
postsecondary course(s) for which dual enrollment is desired (Appendix A).

Eligible Postsecondary Course.

An academic or career preparation course offered by a postsecondary educational

institution not otherwise available as a part of the high school curriculum. Course credits

must apply toward satisfaction of college degree requirements and cannot be classiﬁed as

26

a course in physical education, theology, divinity, religious education, or a hobby/craft.
Questions regarding classiﬁcation of courses as academic or activity are left to the
discretion of K-12 public school administration taking into account the interests and

ambitions of the eligible student. Eligible college courses must be offered during the K-
12 public school district’s regular academic year (Appendix A).

K-16 Educational View.

The philosophical view that supports smooth educational transitioning from
kindergarten through completion of a four-year bachelor’s degree. This perspective is
consistent with the belief that quality educational programming is a shared responsibility
at all levels of educational preparation (Basinger, 2000).

MEAP Test.

The standardized achievement test used by the Michigan State Department of
Education as both a formative evaluation tool (to compare school buildings and districts
at the elementary level), as well as a summative test for all 10'“, 1 l‘h,and 12th grade public
school students across the state. At this time, the State Department of Education in
Michigan provides high school students ﬁnancial incentives to pass the MEAP Test.
Students pass the test at a 1, 2, or 3 point level (based on a 4 point scaling system).
Partnership.

A collaboration that involves mutuality and equality among its participants. It can
deﬁne either a relationship or a type of program based on that kind of relationship.
Postsecondary Academic Preparatory Approaches.

Also referred to as “accelerated academic programs” or “credit-transfer transition

programs” in the literature, these approaches assist in the transition of students from high

27

school into the postsecondary academic environment. These approaches are formal
academic programs that assist high school students to obtain college transfer credits prior
to obtaining a high school diploma. In Michigan, eligible high school students have a
variety of options for enhancing their high school course work (Michigan Department of
Education, 2003). LSSU recognizes two of these postsecondary academic preparatory
strategies for transfer credit earned by high school students: 1) College Board Advanced
Placement (AP) Program where the student earns a ﬁnal AP exam score of 3 to 5 points
(ﬁnal exam scale is 0 to 5), and 2) Michigan’s Dual Enrollment (DE) Program where the
student earns a ﬁnal course grade of “C-” or better (ﬁnal course grade is scaled A to F).
Other postsecondary educational strategies not addressed in this study include: The
Virtual AP Academy, The Virtual University, The Middle College High School Program,
The Tech Prep 2+2 Program, The International Baccalaureate Program (IBP) and The
College Level Examination Programs (CLEP).

Postsecondary F irst-year Academic Student Profile.

The following are intrinsic and extrinsic factors that describe the ﬁrst-year, full-
time postsecondary student. Proﬁle factors in this study include Sex, Race, Region of
Michigan Residence, Student Experience with High School, Postsecondary Academic
Preparatory Programming (AP or DE), Number of Major Degree Changes in the First-
Year of F ull-Time Study at LSSU, and Number of Credit Hours for First Semester of
Study at LSSU. These factors work individually or in combination with other factors in
the pre-university academic student proﬁle to influence postsecondary academic

experiences.

28

Postsecondary Student Graduation Proﬁle.

Degree status as well as the number of years needed for a ﬁrst-year, full-time
postsecondary student to earn a bachelor’s degree credential from LSSU.
Pre- University Academic Student Proﬁle.

Background characteristics (demographics: Sex, Race, Region of Michigan
Residence) and academic experiences (High School GPA, High School Class Ranking,
ACT Composite Score, participation in postsecondary preparatory programming: AP or
DE) that prepare students, in varying degrees, for full-time postsecondary academics.
These factors work individually or in combination with others to inﬂuence academic

decisions and behaviors associated with postsecondary academics.

29

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

The economic value for continuing education beyond the high school diploma is
well documented in the literature (Kleiman, 2001; NCES, 2001). Postsecondary
educational demand is partially the result of a more complex technology-dependent
economy in the US that requires workers to have higher academic skills (Viadero, 2001).
Today’s youth and their parents hear economically-based slogans like “if you want to
earn, better learn” and “more Ed, more brea ”, encouraging all high school students to
plan ahead in preparing for their postsecondary education (Bailey, Hughes, & Karp,
2002; Grubb, 1999).

But even highly ambitious US teenagers report that they have no clear life plans
for achieving their academic goals (Schneider & Stevenson, 1999). A 2004 report from
the Education Commission of the States declared college enrollment in the US at an “all-
time high.” However, nearly one-third of all ﬁrst-year college freshmen arrive on
campus unprepared for the postsecondary academic challenges ahead (Kleiman, 2001;
Meeder, 2004). Although a wide variety of public educational systems are available in
the US today, research statistics report that many high school graduates, who desire a
postsecondary degree, never realize their dreams (NCES, 2001).

The retention literature provides many reasons why degree attainment is often not
realized for qualiﬁed high school graduates today. A recurrent theme focuses on the
apparent “disconnect” between America’s secondary and postsecondary educational

systems (Bailey & Karp, 2003; Creech, 2001; Orr, 2002; Venezia, Kirst, & Antonio,

30

2003). In the last 10 years, this disconnect has gained the attention of educators, policy
makers, and politicians who have been working, often collaboratively, to strengthen these

connections with a K-16 view of educational service (Basinger, 2000; England, 2001).

The Rationale for Supporting Seamless Educational Transitions
from High School to Postsecondary Academics

For educational administrators, one of the greatest challenges is to determine how
to support efforts that build a strong educational foundation for student success. In the
US today, too many cast doubt that secondary schools are adequately preparing students
for success beyond high school (Kirst, 2000; National Commission of the High School
Senior Year, 2001; US Educational Commission on the Senior Year of High School,
2002). This is not a new criticism. More than 20 years ago, Ernest Boyer concluded that
the last two years of high school and the ﬁrst two years of college represented an
“eclectic academic muddle” that worked to the disservice of the learner and society
(Boyer, 1981). An NCES longitudinal review of postsecondary education transcripts of
students, who graduated between 1992 and 2000, conﬁrmed this concern by reporting
that although 70% of high school graduates in the US enroll in college right after high
school, 29% of these require costly remedial education as ﬁrst-year college students
(N CES, 2001).

In addition to the ﬁnancial costs associated with remedial education, new costs at
the other end of the academic spectrum have surfaced. Many students meeting minimum
academic standards for high school graduation prior to the end of their senior year are not

taking full advantage of strategies that would keep them continuously engaged and

31

academically challenged throughout their high school years (Kirst, 2000; US Educational
Commission on the Senior Year of High School, 2002). Reports reﬂect that those high
school students who are prepared for the academic challenges of postsecondary education
are too oﬁen denied the opportunity to meet them, resulting in far too many students
being caught in an “academic slump” (Andrews, 2001; Creech, 2001; Crist, Jacquart, &
Schupe, 2002; Crossland, 1996; Orlowsky-Yuskis, 2000; Paige, 2002; Puyear, Thor, &
Mills, 2001). The indirect cOSts associated with such “academic slumps” are not fully
addressed in the literature and cannot be easily quantiﬁed, but theyare costs nonetheless.
Since these costs are incurred from the actions and/or inactions related to educational
programming and participation, educational administrators must be held accountable to
facilitate the changes necessary to slow this critical drain of resources.

Key to meeting present and future needs for an educated workforce in American
society is greater cooperation between K-12 and postsecondary institutions. Such a
cooperative approach would improve academic transitioning for high school students as
they prepare to move into the world of higher education (Kleiman, 2001). One way to
achieve dual-institutional cooperation is to support state-wide seamless K-l6 educational
programs (ECS, 2000). This approach would promote an educational ﬂow between
secondary and postsecondary systems, and support academic success for all students
(Boswell, 2001). In its 2000 report on educational transition programming across the US,
ECS noted that some of the more progressive state-wide Departments of Education have
already demonstrated that a K-16 programming approach successfully reduces “critical

disconnects” between the secondary and postsecondary educational systems.

32

Unfortunately, states continue to remain slow in their resolve to develop workable
strategies for improving disjointed educational systems (Kirst & Venezia, 2004).

Since 2000, reports published by federal, state, and other educational entities have
called for more research and reporting on innovative approaches that facilitate access to
postsecondary educational programming for high school students (American Association
of State Colleges and Universities, 2002; ECS, 2000; Meeder, 2004; National
Commission on the High School Senior Year, 2001; US Department of Education: Ofﬁce
of Vocational and Adult Education, 2003). . These reports state that such research efforts
would strengthen the literature base and the knowledge of postsecondary academic
articulation in the US. Equally important is an examination of “front-loaded” academic
programs and the context in which they serve to encourage postsecondary development.
Two postsecondary academic preparatory strategies that will be more fully examined in

this study are Advanced Placement (AP) and Dual Enrollment (DE).

An Historical National Perspective: Advanced Placement and Dual Enrollment
Programs as Postsecondary Academic Preparatory Strategies
for High School Students
Historically, American postsecondary education has not always been open to
students who requested early academic articulation from high school to college (Rendon,
1990). The ﬁrst efforts for accelerating student transition to college occurred in the 18603
when the Missouri school system broke with traditional age-graded classes and began
providing accelerated instruction to younger students determined to be academically

qualiﬁed for the educational experience (Kulik & Kulik, 1984). Front-loaded, or

33

accelerated, educational programming options remained inconsistent, informal, and
isolated across the US until almost a century later. In 1951, the Ford Foundation
sponsored two research studies to assess the status of the perceived gap between the
nation’s high schools and colleges. These studies concluded that some high school
students could succeed in college-level academic courses while still in high school
(Crist, Jacquart, & Schupe, 2002; Gehring, 2001a), suggesting educators had an
obligation to direct efforts to ﬁll the “gap” between high school and college
(Bailey, Hughes, & Karp, 2002; Boswell, 2001; Brown & Amsler, 1992).

The Ford Foundation established an educational task group that took the lead in
developing curricula, academic standards, and exams to meet this need. Eventually, these
efforts led to the implementation of an AP Program in the US around 1955 (The College
Board, 2000). The AP program was marketed as a standardized, accelerated, educational
option for academically gifted high school students who needed more challenging course
work than what was available in their mainstream high school curriculum. Soon
afterward, the College Board ofﬁcially took over the helm of the AP program, renamed it
the College Board Advanced Placement Program, and managed all 11 of its initial subject
areas.

A year after Harvard President James Conant publicly praised the College Board
Advanced Placement Program in 1961, New York became the ﬁrst state to begin
contributing resources to this educational option. Since that time, the AP program has
grown, meeting the academic acceleration needs for many high school students. In 1998,
over one million end-of-course AP exams were administered to high school students in

the US (The College Board, 2000). This academic postsecondary educational

34

preparatory strategy appeared to work well for qualiﬁed high school students in districts
that could afford to offer it as a part of their high school curriculum

Today, the AP program continues to strive to meet its goal for excellence in
education, helping high school students prepare for the transition to postsecondary
academics. However, the AP experience is offered within the conﬁnes of the high school
claserom, utilizes the high school academic calendar, is taught by the high school
teacher, and is attended only by other secondary students. This approach has perpetuated
the view that high school academics and university academics remain distinct and
sequential educational entities (Midcap, 2003).

To ease this perception, national parameters were put in place so that earned AP
credits based on the level of student performance on one ﬁnal AP test were to be
universally accepted at postsecondary educational institutions across the nation. Over
time, however, these universal transfer credit practices have eroded because some
postsecondary educational institutions decided it was best to make their own
determinations once the ﬁnal grade on the AP test was earned (Flores, 2002).

Twenty years after the inception of AP programs in the mid-19505, the Dual
Enrollment Program option emerged as another postsecondary academic preparatory
strategy for high school students seeking to make an early transition to postsecondary
academics. Since DE participation qualiﬁers were more broadly based compared with
what was used in AP programming, more high school students were eligible for this
state-supported educational enhancement option. The national and state climate in the
19703 supported state educational reform and with its focus on state authorization, DE ﬁt

well within this climate of change. (Bailey & Karp, 2003; Grubb, 1999). Unfortunately,

35

DE programming efforts in the 19705 were only offered in a limited number of states, and
nationwide popularity did not gain broader appeal until the mid-19805.

Although there is consensus about the purpose of DE as an educational
enhancement tool for qualiﬁed high school students, policies that govern each state’s
implementation plan vary (Community College Research Center (CCRC), 2003; Puyear,
1998). Unlike the national postsecondary academic strategy of AP programming, DE
programming evolved more slowly on a state-by-state basis. States such as Alabama,
Hawaii, and Virginia only began their program implementation in 2001. In sharp
contrast, lead states have had fully implemented programs for more than ten years (e. g.,
New York State’s “College Now Program” and Washington State’s “Running Start
Program”). Today, all 50 states have either “comprehensive” or “limited” dual/concurrent
state-directed educational programs. This distinction is best understood by using the
criteria outlined by the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (2002):

Comprehensive state DE programs meet two or more of the following
parameters: 1) students pay little or no tuition or fees to the participating
college/university institution for postsecondary education courses; 2) both
secondary and postsecondary academic credits can be earned; and 3)
postsecondary courses are taken with few course restrictions. Such
programs are found in California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,
Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon,
Utah, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

Limited state DE programs meet one or more of the following parameters:
1) students pay postsecondary class costs; 2) more academic credit
restrictions are in place; and 3) criteria for postsecondary course selection
are more stringent. Such programs are found in Alabama, Alaska,
Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maryland, Montana, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont,
Virginia, and Wyoming. (p. 2)

36

credi
the p

been

cons
thee
lﬁcl

acad

scht
lﬁc
(P:\
tip
115'
ﬁle

Dq

the

[far

Sma

AP and DE programs are the only two high school earned postsecondary transfer-
credit strategies accepted by Lake Superior State University for ﬁrst-year students under
the present transfer-credit policy. Nationally accepted AP transfer credits have always
been accepted for the few AP ﬁrst-year students who chose to attend LSSU. So when DE
transfer credits started to appear for ﬁrst-year students in the fall of 1996, LSSU made the
conscious decision to fully accept these credits from various accredited institutions across
the state. To understand better the rationale for this decision, one needs to understand
Michigan’s Dual Enrollment Program Option and its meaning for the K-16 focused

academic community at LSSU.

Michigan’s Dual Enrollment Program

In 1996, the Michigan legislature formally opened the doors for qualiﬁed high
school students to take college-level coursework at state colleges and universities across
Michigan with the passage of Michigan’s Postsecondary Enrollment Options Act
(PA 160). This bill, which provides for dual enrollment programming, modiﬁed and
expanded the provisions in Section 21b of the Michigan State School Aid Act of 1979.
As with DE history in many other states, Michigan has no written legislative record on
ﬁle that reﬂects legislative intent during the gestation of this statute (Michigan
Department of Education, 2003).

Michigan’s former State Senator George McManus from Traverse City (one of
the original bill sponsors for PAI60) reported that in 1995 many rural legislators in the
state started talking about the need for additional educational options for educating,
training, and retaining high school graduates in all districts of Michigan. Since many

smaller rural school districts were not able to ﬁnance enhancement programming for their

37

eligible students, legislators investigated state-supported programming options. Looking
at the DE educational models from more progressive states, he worked in committee for
ﬁve months, preparing legislation which called for the implementation of state-wide DE
programming the following year. He noted that, at that time, all 15 public institutions of
higher education in the state demonstrated trends in declining enrollment. These declines
were of concern since they occurred at the same time that state businesses were calling
for a more educated and trained workforce.

Michigan’s DE program was officially established by state statute and became
effective on April 8, 1996. Initially, all I 1th and 12th grade high school students were
possible candidates for this postsecondary educational option, if they qualiﬁed by
meeting criteria outlined in the state statute that required the student 1) be enrolled in at
least one high school course at the time DE courses were taken, and 2) successfully
complete requirements for state endorsement in all subject areas under the Michigan
Education Assessment Program (MEAP) Test. A 12th grade student who did not meet
state endorsement in all subjects would need to meet requirements for a state-endorsed
high school diploma in the subject area for which the postsecondary course was desired
(M.C.L.A. 388.513 section 3 part f in Appendix A).

An eligible course for this program was deﬁned in the statute as one that is: 1) not
offered to high school students by the K-12 school district; 2) offered by the K-12 school
district, but not available to the students because of a scheduling conﬂict; 3) normally
applied toward satisfaction of degree requirement at that postsecondary educational

institution; 4) offered during the school district’s regular calendar period; and/or 5)

38

01‘

211

p8

C0

ed

offered in the area of computers, ﬁne arts or foreign language as permitted by the public
school district (M.C.L.A. 388.513 section 3 part f in Appendix A).

Charges to school districts under this statute (M.C.L.A. 388.519 section 9 in
Appendix A) require that districts provide: 1) annual postsecondary option information in
a letter signed by the principal and disseminated by March ISt of each year to
parents/guardians of all students in 8th grade and higher; 2) postsecondary academic
counseling for involved students to facilitate the process; and 3) funds to pay for
postsecondary classes taken at any participating public or private degree-granting higher
educational institutions in the state. Under the comprehensive state statute, K-12 public
school districts must pay tuition and mandatory course fees, including technology,
material, registration, and any late fees charged by the postsecondary institution.
However, K-12 school districts are not required to pay transportation, parking, books, or
activity fees associated with postsecondary educational programming. Additionally, the
statute provides the district with the option to accept students who do not qualify under
the statue, but who, in the K-12 district’s view could best be served under the program
(M.C.L.A. 388.513 section 3 part f in Appendix A).

The state statute mandated public secondary educational institutions to function in
full compliance with PA 160 as a postsecondary school-of-choice educational option. In
contrast, postsecondary public educational institutions in Michigan were not mandated to
participate in the program under the statute. Accordingly, DE programming has been
viewed differently by various postsecondary educational institutions across the state.
Some postsecondary public institutions have never participated in PA 160, others have

limited their participation, and the remaining fully participated in PA 160 from the start.

39

According to administrators at Michigan’s State Board of Education, there have been no
formal evaluation studies conducted in Michigan on postsecondary institutional
participation beyond summaries of annual head counts and billing notations (Michigan
Department of Education, 2003).

The Michigan legislature passed additional amendments to the original Dual
Enrollment Act (PA 160) over the subsequent four years since it was introduced in 1996.
The original bill was tie-barred to PA 159 and PA 161, effective July 1, 1996. This
change required additional notiﬁcation of DE programming options by school boards to
8th grade students and their parents within the public school district. It also permitted
10th grade students to take the qualifying MEAP Test should they wish to participate in
DE programming earlier in their high school career. In 2000, another amendment to the
original act expanded eligible courses to include virtual educational programming courses
as well as courses in career, vocational and technical education (PA 258).

The national debate on the costs and beneﬁts of non-traditional educational
programming, such as DE, has found its way into state and local politics. Presently,
Michigan funding for K-12 public education is based on a student capitation system
without regard for costs of associated services not linked directly to student numbers
(e.g., technology utilization costs). As Michigan’s public school districts report a decline
in student numbers, there is a corresponding reduction in the state’s overall ﬁnancial
support for participating K-I2 school districts. This pattern is complicated by state
statutes that limit the school district’s ability to seek other revenue sources for meeting
educational ﬁnancial shortfalls (Michigan’s Proposal A, 1994). Finally, unlike the

ﬁnancial incentives provided to eligible high school students for their participation in

40

35

con
c011}
impt
Pt’flb

Merit

Michigan’s DUal Enrollment Program, there is no ﬁnancial incentive offered to
educational institutions for their support of this program at this time. For these reasons,
school-of-choice options, like DE, are attractive to students and their parents, but may be
perceived adversely as a ﬁnancial .drain by K-12 school district personnel and/or
postsecondary administrators.

Ironically, these educational concerns come at a time when states, such as
Michigan, are also trying to comply with the federal “No Child Left Behind” initiative
(20 USCA s 6301), which mandates increased accountability, a K-16 view for student
performance, and greater academic choice for students and their parents (Meeder, 2004).
In this educational context, it is imperative that educational resources be appropriately
placed in state educational programs that have documented beneﬁts. Michigan’s DE
initiative evolved from a state statute in 1996 and has yet to be evaluated for its beneﬁts
as a tax-supported postsecondary academic preparatory option. The time is right to begin

a serious evaluation of this educational program so its beneﬁts can be fully realized.

Anticipatory Socialization: A Conceptual Framework in
Support of Dual Enrollment Educational Programming
In 1968, Robert Merton reported that “anticipatory socialization” is a necessary
component for successful educational preparation of professional students. He
contended that an individual’s socialization to a higher educational status was as
important as the cognitive'and psychomotor skills needed by that individual in the
performance of tasks associated with such a role. As a research sociologist, much of

Merton’s initial work focused on the socialization of medical students and their success

41

inadjusting to their future role as physicians. He examined how medical students were
able to draw on cues about the implications of their present training activities for their
future status as physicians, and how they would adopt orientations consistent with that
perception.

Other research studies on the concept of anticipatory socialization have helped to
broaden the basic understanding of role adoption for individuals in a variety of other
disciplines, including higher education (Bess, 1978; Clark & Corcoran, 1986). Although
educational studies have primarily focused on professional identity and career
development, the potential for applying this frame to other socialization situations in
higher education is appealing. Anticipatory socialization may serve as a valuable
framework from which to explore strategies that assist high school students as they
socialize, via dual enrollment programming, into the postsecondary academic student
role.

In Michigan, DE programs bring eligible high school students into participating
postsecondary institutions with full access to postsecondary academic resources,
optimizing academic capital. Under this program, requirements and expectations for the
participating high‘school student in the eligible postsecondary course(s) are equal to
those for all full-time postsecondary students enrolled in that course. As guaranteed by
state statute, all eligible college-level courses are to be taken at certiﬁed postsecondary
institutions, offered according to the university calendar, taught by postsecondary
faculty, and taken with other university/college students (Appendix A).

For these reasons, DE programming ﬁts well within the model of anticipatory

socialization. It attempts to ease academic transitions for the high school student who

42

has one foot solidly placed in the world of high school, while the other is gaining a
foothold in the world of postsecondary education. Since Michigan’s state mandate for
DE requires that high school participants receive postsecondary educational counseling
as a part of their program, these students are guided through their initial exposure to
Michigan’s postsecondary education system. This guidance may increase student
conﬁdence for navigating the transition from high school to postsecondary academics
(Astin, 1993; Bailey, Hughes, & Karp, 2002; Catron, 2001).

In sharp contrast, as a postsecondary academic preparatory strategy the Advanced
Placement Program does not ﬁt as well within the model of anticipatory socialization.
Although AP does prOvide exposure to college—level academics prior to full emersion
into the academic role of ﬁrst-year, full-time postsecondary student, this strategy is
packaged in a different way by the high school district (that may or may not be a
certiﬁed institution), offered according to the high school calendar, taught by high school
teachers (who may or may not be certiﬁed to teach AP classes), and taught only to
selected secondary public school students. Unlike DE programming, earned college
transfer credit for AP courses is based on a single score from a single test paid for by the
student once all course content is completed. Additionally, unlike DE programming in
Michigan, participation in AP programming does not require a supportive postsecondary
academic counseling component to assist the student in the transition from high school to
postsecondary academics.

A study of postsecondary educational expectations by McCormick (1997)

reported that the strength of the anticipatory socialization effect for students moving into

new academic roles after high school is directly related to the location of that student’s

43

6X1
ml

511’.

stuc
(Kc
V131
scht
Stats
acad
l€S€£
prOg

Olin

lei-51
COUTSt
aSSUra

likelih

experience. Because DE programming occurs on the site of a postsecondary institution
with all its resources readily available, it does more than other postsecondary academic
strategies that do not provide this same context for learning. As Michigan’s DE Program
requires postsecondary guidance for all high school participants, the role of “college
student” evolves in a different way when compared with other postsecondary credit based

initiatives, providing for a more authentic college-level experience (CCRC, 2003).

Rationale Supporting High School Student Participation in
DE Educational Programming

If the senior year of high school has underutilized its potential for improving
student preparation to enter and succeed in postsecondary academics as some claim
(Kellogg, 2001; Kirst, 2000; National Committee on the High School Senior Year, 2001;
Viadero, 2001), then it is important to identify cost-effective strategies that can help high
school students optimize their academic capital. Dual enrollment programming is one
state-endorsed venue for high school students to consider when exploring postsecondary
academic preparatory options in high school. Although there have not been extensive
research studies reported in the literature to address the impact of participation in DE
programming for high school students, small isolated studies have reported some beneﬁts
of involvement (Windham, 1997).

An accredited educational establishment is required to function at all times at a
level that meets or exceeds a minimal set of academic standards (ECS, 2004). Since DE
courses are taught at accredited postsecondary educational institutions, there is an
assurance that such courses are taught at a college-level. This would increase the

likelihood credit hours earned through DE programming would be readily accepted as

44

CZ

CC

CO]
PO:
D1;

col

3C0

Pan
Iuili.
N01 <

P0813

postsecondary transfer credits elsewhere (with less concern for testing standards), when
compared to those postsecondary academic preparatory strategies where such assurances
cannot be made (Ganeshananthan, 2000; Windham, 1997).

Under the theory of anticipatory socialization, students exposed to a life situation
in a realistic context prior to full immersion into that life situation gain a greater
conﬁdence in their abilities over time, and function more effectively when full immersion
into that environment is realized (McCormick, 1997). Being directly involved in
contextual learning can help to demystify the postsecondary academic experience for
students, providing tools that can help ease the stress associated with exiting the familiar
and secure environment of high school academics (Amenkhienan, 2000).

According to advocates, the high school student, his/her parents, and those in the
participating educational institutions all beneﬁt from sharing academic expectations
communicated during the high school student’s DE programming experience.
Postsecondary courses are provided in a postsecondary semester context, which exposes
DE students to a similar academic experience they will have as ﬁrst-year, full-time
college students. The part-time DE postsecondary context also offers parents the
adjustment time needed to help prepare them for changes in their parental role that
accompanies a teenage child’s transitioning into postsecondary academics.

DE participants expand their culture capital and accrue ﬁscal beneﬁts from
participation in this academic programming option. Under Michigan State Statute,
tuition costs for this program are the responsibility of the student’s K-1 2 school district.
Not only does the student and his/her family save educational costs early in

postsecondary educational programming through DE, but there is also the potential for

45

addit

anah

expa
bene
edue
hgh
the;
schn
rent

Yea

Pall]

EXP,-
16161

cOns

additional savings if this early postsecondary academic start results in a shortened time to
attain a degree (Marshall & Andrews, 2002).

In similar fashion, high school student participation in DE programming serves to
expand the high school curriculum without expanding the high school budget. This
beneﬁt is especially appealing to 'K-12 school districts with limited resources for
educational enhancement services, or when only a small number of the district’s eligible
high school students are involved (ECS, 2004). With DE participants taking classes on
the postsecondary campus, some high school classes may decrease in size, affording high
school teachers more time to work directly with “academically needier” students who
remain in the high school classroom (National Commission on the High School Senior
Year, 2001).

DE programming has the potential to increase teacher resource sharing as
partnerships form between secondary and postsecondary educational institutions who
share eligible high school students (Brown and Amsler, 1992). Through these
partnerships, teachers from secondary and postsecondary settings would become better
acquainted with the K-16 academic model, increasing the possibilities of bridging
transitional gaps with articulating policies and practices (Gomez, 2001). Unique to
Michigan’s DE Program, mandated postsecondary educational counseling works in
tandem with secondary counseling efforts to support eligible high school students in their
transition from high school to postsecondary academics. A positive transitional
experience can increase student motivation and provide support that encourages student
retention (Tinto, 1993), especially for those students who might not have otherwise

considered postsecondary academics as an option after high school.

46

tha
edu
edu:
focu

2003

DE programming also has the potential to act as a catalyst for the development of
a healthy competition between high schools and postsecondary institutions in the state.
At a time when state administrators are looking to increase the number of college
graduates in Michigan (Cherry, 2004), a positively competitive academic environment
could result in more rigorous academic coursework at both secondary and postsecondary
levels. This potential beneﬁt is important since there is evidence to suggest that the rigor
of a student’s high school curriculum is a strong positive predictor for postsecondary

graduation (Adelman, 1999).

Rationale against High School Student Participation
in DE Programming

When a 2003 law in Florida allowed high school seniors to forego their last year
of high school and receive the high school diploma after the 11th grade, many educators
responded with frustration. Under this option, high school students in Florida can
graduate with fewer high school credit hours if they “double-up” on English and foreign
language credits in their junior year of high school. Proponents of this strategy believe
that educational compacting is good for student learning because students reach
educational outcomes more quickly. Opponents who view DE as another type of
educational compacting are concerned that the essence of learning can be lost once the
focus shifts from educational quality to how quickly students graduate (Evening News,
2003)

Some colleges and universities do not automatically accept college transfer credits

earned by high school students, even when the law provides for it (Putnam, 2002).

47

11‘

CE

by
903
fear
inad

1tell

Because many DE state‘statutes do not mandate postsecondary institutional participation,
some colleges and universities provide greater scrutiny before deciding to accept these
transfer credits.- Many have voiced concern that high school DE participants are “double-
dipping” the educational system by counting an eligible postsecondary class twice
(earning credit hours for. both high school and college credit) without performing twice
the work. These critics believe that such a practice inadvertently sends the wrong
message to students early in their postsecondary career (Jones, 2002).

The quality of educational credits earned by high school students under DE is
crucial when it comes to the decision of whether or not to accept these as college transfer
Credits. Many high school students who qualify for DE programming appropriately select
introductory ﬁrst-year postsecondary courses only to ﬁnd that'these courses are required
for all college students on campus. Accordingly, introductory classes on college
campuses tend to be much larger in size and assigned to adjunct faculty, or teaching
assistant staff, instead of seasoned university faculty (Reisberg, 1998). Additional
questions related to the quality of DE courses focus on states outside of Michigan where
this program can be taught in the high school setting (as well as in other off-campus
locations) by non-postsecondary faculty. This variability in delivery raises doubts in
some minds as to how a course taught this way would compare to the same course taught
by college/university faculty members with full access to the academic resources on the
postsecondary campus. Still others question the quality of DE courses more broadly,
fearing that the presence of high school students in college-level courses may
inadvertently work to compromise the rigor of the college-level course for the teacher as

well as for other college students enrolled in that course (Clark, 2001; ECS, 2004).

48

alh
car
C13:

the!

stud
educ
can 1
Ol-clt
undut

Place

Schml

Aside from concerns about course quality, opponents of high school DE
programming have also expressed concerns about high school students being
developmentally unprepared to take on college-level work (Amenkhienan, 2000; Clark,
2001). Those who focus on the developmental needs for high school students are quick
to assert that there are many reasons that the AP Program for postsecondary educational
enhancement is a better and more suitable choice when compared with DE programming.
First and foremost, AP programs were created to meet postsecondary academic
enhancement needs within a developmental context designed for high school students
(The College Board, 2003). By providing familiar boundaries. for high school students, it
allows them to focus more on postsecondary academics and less on other postsecondary
campus distractions. Additionally, when participants purchase the ﬁnal exam for AP
classes, some believe students may be more vested in their efforts with these courses and,
therefore, more likely to be motivated toward achieving academic success.

Other opponents point to the additional stresses that participation in DE programs
can bring to the cognitively adequate, but developmentally less mature high school
student (Kirst, 2000). Since most high school DE participants attend postsecondary
educational programming on a part-time basis, acclimation to postsecondary expectations
can be problematic. Additional day-to-day concerns for transportation, scheduling out-
of-class requirements, and functioning under two distinct academic calendars can cause
undue stress for the high school student, especially if adequate support systems are not in
place during this important period of academic transition.

Participation in DE programming brings with it additional concerns for high

school and postsecondary educational institutions alike. Because both types of

49

institutions can be equipped to provide postsecondary academic enhancement services to
the same eligible high school student, they may focus more on competing against one
another instead of maintaining a collaborative view which should be focused on what is
best for the qualiﬁed student. If such a negative competitive climate is established, future
collaborative efforts on other educational projects may be placed at risk. Additionally,
high school students of minor age create new and different liability concerns when they
attend educational programming on the college campus. Beyond new concerns for the
institution, there is also the concern for the minor-aged student as well as the taxpayer
who ultimately pays the costs for their additional liability coverage on the college campus
(Bell, 2004).

In effort to increase accessibility to DE programming, many state statutes provide
for state-tax dollars to subsidize the costs associated with program participation (ECS,
2004). Some opponents point to the fact that such subsidies create an “academic
entitlement” environment, which can work against the high school student’s motivation
to persist with DE enhancement programming. Likewise, if high school students are ill-
prepared academically but still manage to obtain a low but passing score on the test for
DE eligibility, there is an added potential risk for student dropout or failure in DE
programming. Such comments raise concerns that limited state tax dollars continue to be
mobilized for DE programming which has yet to demonstrate its beneﬁts through

research study (Orr, 2002).

50

sir.
det

like

plot
mee‘

Posts

 

Measuring the Impact: Studying Traditional First-Year Postsecondary
Academic Student Success Measures

Prior to student admission into full-time postsecondary educational programming,
members of the admissions department at competitive institutions of higher education
evaluate a variety of factors that, in their view, reﬂect the applicant’s potential for success
in postsecondary education (Beecher & Fischer, 1999; Sedlacek, 2004; Tam & Sukhatrne,
2004). This evaluation is conducted to select students best suited for the academic rigors
required to earn a degree from that institution. Although a variety of student data sets are
utilized during this process, the ultimate decision generally rests on how successful the
applicant was in high school and how well that student performed academically on a set
of traditional measures.

College administration teams tend to view postsecondary student success in
similar terms to students and the general public by focusing on the long-range view of
degree attainment (Miller, 2005; Hossler & Anderson, 2005). But outcome measures,
like degree achievement rates, do not provide the full picture needed to accurately assess
student achievement in the short-term. Looking at process measures provides a direct
reﬂection of how students are achieving academically at various points in their academic
programs, mirroring an indirect measure of how the institution’s degree programs are
meeting their obligations to facilitate that achievement. For this reason, it is essential that
postsecondary institutions have an effective formative evaluation plan with set
benchmarks in place to assess the educational programs they provide (Astin, 1991;

Miller, 2005).

51

There is strong evidence that the student and the educational institution both
beneﬁt when a student’s baseline academic data are compared with data obtained after
the ﬁrst year of postsecondary educational programming (Astin, 1993; Bailey & Karp,
2003). Administrators in. higher education have shown a renewed emphasis on the ﬁrst
year of college for a variety of reasons, such as declining high school enrollments,
intensiﬁcation of recruitment of prospective freshman, and additional efforts made by
universities to curb attrition rates (Hossler & Anderson, 2005). The freshman year
literature consistently reports that the student’s ﬁrst year in postsecondary education is
the most valuable one for predicting long-term success (Adelman, 1999; Crissman Ishler
& Upcraft, 2005; Gerken, Volkwein & F redericks, 2000; Noel, Levitz, & Saluri, 1985;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Upcraft, Gardner, & Associates, 1989), a fact supported in
the retention research literature as well (Brawer, 1996; Cambiano, Denny, & DeVore,
2000; Noel, Levitz, & Saluri I985; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Tinto, 1993).

It has been said that valid and reliable tools used to assess student success in
college should be easily retrievable with commonly accepted benchmarks that gauge
persistence, progression, and retention in the course of pursuing a postsecondary degree
(Atwell & McLeod, 1994). Today, some postsecondary researchers are exploring new
venues for expanding the toolbox used for postsecondary student assessment, especially
as it relates to student success in the ﬁrst year of college; Their hopes are centered on
ﬁnding new valid and reliable non—cognitive measures that can more accurately assess the
diverse populations commonplace in our US educational system today (Sedlacek, 2004).
These researchers seek to establish a credible data base that effectively challenges

primary dependence on traditional performance indicators, such as student grade point

52

pn
He

IQ‘

con
ﬁrst
pets
cont
stud

subs-

cOmr

Selec

 

average (Astin, 1993; McKenzie & Schweitzer, 2001; Peng, 2003) and standardized test
scores (Astin, 1993; Ting, 1997).

But, as an interval measure, a student’s grade point average (GPA) in high school
and college continues to be considered the “lingua franca” (Pascarella & Terenzini,
2005), or the “gold-standard”, for measuring achievement in the world of education. The
literature review has shown that over the years, student GPA has been effectively utilized
as a benchmark in different ways, both as a traditional outcome measure and as a
predictor of degree attainment (Adelman, I999; Astin, 1993; Atwell & McLeod, 1994;
Henderson & Masten, 1959; Kanoy, Wester, & Latta 2002; Pascarella & Terenzini,
1991). Additionally, the GPA has served as an effective formative measure with value as
both an individual score and as an overall cumulative average, gauging student progress
in retention throughout the course of academic programming (Noel, Levitz, & Saluri,
1985; Peng, 2003; University of Arizona, 1999).

In a similar way, pre-college standardized test scores (e.g., SAT and ACT)
continue to be accepted at many universities as valid and reliable measures for predicting
ﬁrst-semester postsecondary GPA (Gehring, 2001b) and a student’s postsecondary
persistence (House & Keeley, 1997). Though repeated measures across populations
continue to support these standardized test scores as statistically signiﬁcant, increasing
student diversity across culture, sex, and socioeconomic status raises questions as to the
substantive signiﬁcance of these scores for today’s student (Hossler & Anderson, 2005).

Other indicators that reﬂect the student’s goal orientation, motivation, and
commitment to postsecondary academics focus on a variety of issues related to student

selection of an academic major(Bouffard, Boisvert, Vezeau, & Larouche, I995;

53

Crissman Ishler & Upcraft, 2005). In and of itself, the actual selection of an academic
ﬁeld of study in college “exerts a contextual inﬂuence” on a student’s academic
motivation and engagement behaviors (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Academic
adVising and‘other individual and group activities associated with declaring a degree
major in postsecondary education serve as catalysts for student integration in academics
(Guerrero, 2001; Ting, 1997), strengthening academic identity and promoting student
retention.(Kanoy, Wester, & Latta, 2002; Kuh & Love, 2004; Osborne, 1997; Tinto,
1993).

While some researchers have investigated assessing postsecondary academic
major decision-making for its role as a predictor for career and economic achievement
(Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005), others have looked at the negative impact frequent degree
major changes create for the student focused on earning an academic credential (Mitchell,
Goldman, & Smith, 1999; Osborne, 1997). A 1995 study by Bouffard, Boisvert, Vezeau,
- and Larouche reported that postsecondary students who made frequent declaration of
major changes, had matriculation difficulties and were the least likely to persist in
meeting their established academic goals. This idea adds to an earlier study by
Meulemann (1992) who reported that the risk of a student changing a major course of
study is highest in the second semester of the ﬁrst year of academic study; a time when
change can threaten student conﬁdence and persistence in the education process.
Although some research has addressed degree major decision making in the context of
speciﬁc types of postsecondary courses and learning opportunities selected by students in

their ﬁrst year of college (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005), others have looked more closely

54

at the number of course selections students make while progressing towards a bdchelor’s

degree credential (Astin, 1993).

Summary

Historically, dual enrollment as a postsecondary academic preparatory strategy for
high school students emerged in the US in the 19705. As a postsecondary preparatory
academic strategy, it has served as an important vehicle for increasing secondary student
access to postsecondary academics. Over the years, various states developed their own
dual enrollment statutes to provide guidelines for DE program participation. It was not
until 2003 that all 50 states had statutes for this postsecondary preparatory academic
option (ECS, 2004). Although there is variability among state statutes, each one is rooted
in the belief that all high school students need to remain academically engaged and
Working to their full-potential during the ﬁnal years of high school. This is important
since the intensity and quality of a student’s high school curriculum is commonly
recognized as a strong positive predictor for bachelor’s degree attainment (Adelman,
1999).

Dual enrollment is a postsecondary preparatory strategy focused on academically
enhancing high school curricula and creating a smooth transition into the academic
culture of the university. Viewed within the framework of anticipatory socialization,

DE offers eligible postsecondary-bound high school students a preview experience of
academic expectations that will confront them after high school. Since it is often
postsecondary educational programming that ultimately helps the student realize their full

economic potential as a citizen and taxpayer, it is important that all eligible high school

55

students be provided access and an early guided exposure to the cultural expectations that
await them in postsecondary academics.

To help foster this realization, educational institutions at all levels need to work
together to reduce the “disconnect” between secondary and postsecondary educational
institutions (Basinger, 2000; Creech, 2001). Federal reports on the status of secondary
education in the US today identify a common series of recurrent disruptions in the ﬂow
of educational transition, adversely affecting student achievement (National Commission
on the High School Senior Year, 2001; US Education Commission on the Senior Year of
High School, 2002). These reports recommend that disjointed transitions be overcome
' through greater collaboration promoted by a K- I 6 educational model. Such a view
establishes a collaborative educational environment where all academic transition
programs that demonstrate effectiveness would be welcomed.

Unfortunately, “disconnects” can also result from simple wording in a state statute
intended to create educational opportunity and cooperation. As an example, the
language in Michigan’s 1996 Dual Enrollment Statute (PA 160) mandates secondary
state educational institutions to participate in such programming but does not require
postsecondary state educational institutions to do the same. State educational funding
based on a capitation formula (which is the primary revenue source for both K-12 and
postsecondary educational programming in Michigan) has been steadily decreasing over
the last seven years. With this steady decline in funding there has been greater scrutiny
of all educational programming services in the state. Coupled with the greater demands
from state and federal agencies for program accountability, many postsecondary

educational institutions now question the logistics of continuing support for non-

56

mandated, unevaluat'ed educational efforts which put programs like dual enrollment at
risk.

Because the national literature base on the impact of dual enrollment participation
is relatively new and thin, ﬁrst-level descriptive and correlation studies are needed to help
develop an understanding about the _role such educational transition programming plays
for students after matriculation to the university. As with other states, Michigan’s
Department of Education has yet to develop a comprehensive plan for evaluating the
impact of participation in Michigan’s Dual Enrollment Program. An initial study of
~ postsecondary academic measures obtained from a small student group that participated
in this program while in high school, would help broaden the understanding about how
such participation translates to ﬁrst-year postsecondary academic success.

This study helps to deﬁne ﬁrst-year postsecondary students who participated in
dual enrollment while in high school using the single case of Lake Superior State
University. It explores how these students performed on a set of traditional institutional
measures that reﬂect academic progression toward bachelor’s degree attainment.
Additionally, this study compares ﬁrst-year LSSU dual enrollment program participants
with a randomly selected sample of ﬁrst-year postsecondary LSSU students who did not
elect to participate in a postsecondary academic preparatory program while in high
school. In efforts to see the impact of participation in dual enrollment programs within a
broader academic context, the ﬁnal step in this study reports how a small population of
ﬁrst-year, postsecondary LSSU students who selected Advanced Placement as their
postsecondary preparatory strategy while in high school, performed on the same

measures .

57

It is important for academic policy purposes, that educational administrators at all
levels have their eyes open to those academic opportunities that may facilitate student
success in the early years of postsecondary education. This case study will produce a
series of academic snapshots from the ﬁrst seven-year period of dual enrollment
programming in Michigan as demonstrated at Lake Superior State University. These
snapshots will expand the present view of dual enrollment as a state-supported
postsecondary preparatory strategy by exploring its impact on ﬁrst-year academic

performance at LSSU to the beneﬁt of students, the university, and the State of Michigan.

58

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

In 1996, legislators in the State of Michigan approved a dual enrollment state
statute (PA 160) that increased access to colleges and universities for eligible high school
students around the, state. This part-time school-of—choice option differed from the
nationally-based Advanced Placement Program already established in many Michigan
high school settings in three ways related to academic programming: I) it broadened high
school student eligibility for postsecondary educational enhancement; 2) it was provided
within the context of existing college classes on college campuses; and 3) it required a
postsecondary academic counseling component for the participating student.

Dual enrollment provides a “real~life” guided university experience to eligible
high school students. As a state-supported program, it is intended to help ease the
academic transition for students as they move from high school to university. Viewed
under a model of anticipatory socialization, participation in this program provides pre-
university students an early introduction to the roles and expectations of postsecondary
academics prior to full emersion after high school graduation. Although this educational
option has been utilized across Michigan (and at Lake Superior State University) for the
past nine years, the impact of participation in this program has yet to be formally
evaluated at either the state or local level.

Case study research is a type of exploratory research. It can be used to identify
complex relationships between different experiences and multiple outcome measures for

a given condition (Burns & Grove, 1999). Though not directly applicable to other

59

settings where the same Condition occurs, a case study provides basic insights that can be
used to “set the stage” for future research, strengthening the literature base while
providing information to assist in decision making and policy development. In an effort
to understand DE and its inﬂuence on academic performance for those ﬁrst-year LSSU
students who participated in such programming in high school, a case study design was
selected. This chapter reviews the methodology used in the study and includes discussion
about the conceptual framework and study variables, the research questions, the study
participants, data collection techniques, rationale for secondary data analysis, and speciﬁc

methods of analysis for each question under review.

Characteristics of the Conceptual Framework and Study Variables

The framework for this study assumes that students come to Lake Superior State
University with the intent to learn and progress toward achieving an academic credential.
It is also assumed that postsecondary student learning develops from the meanings made
in the context of experiences that begin when students ﬁrst enter the postsecondary
setting. The pre-university student comes into the university setting with an array of
unique characteristics that include demographic variables (e.g., Sex, Race, Region of
Residence), measures that reﬂect secondary level academic ability (e.g., High School
GPA, High School Class Rank and ACT Composite Score), and high school
postsecondary academic preparatory experiences (e.g., DE or AP programming), which
combine to inﬂuence academic motivation in ﬁrst-year, full-time university study (e. g.,
ﬁrst-year retentibn) and academic achievement (e.g., LSSU GPA and number of credits

hours earned which demonstrate progression toward earning a bachelor’s degree

60

credential). Each step in the process inﬂuences the continuing development of the
student’s academic identity beyond the pre-university proﬁle.

The institutional context of the university affects how students choose to engage
in academic activities while in the university setting (e.g., enrolled number of credit hours
taken the ﬁrst semester of study and declaring a major ﬁeld of study). To foster success
inall its ﬁrst-time students, most universities require students to attend a formal group
orientation session on the university campus prior to the start of their ﬁrst full-time
academic semester. This is done in part because universities recognize that individuals
perform more to an expected student norm when they are formally “oriented” to it.

Michigan’s DE Program takes this orientation concept a step further. Through
DE, eligible high school students are provided a part-time semester-long experience in
postsecondary academics on the university campus. This guided participatory
postsecondary experience helps DE students derive meanings about postsecondary
academics ﬁrst-hand before earning their high school diploma. It is assumed that this
form of anticipatory socialization enlightens these high school students to the role they
will eventually play as university students, by providing early exposure to build their
academic conﬁdence and self-direction for the period of time when they become
immersed in ﬁrst-time full-time postsecondary study after high school.

Outcome measures are a mechanism used to help determine whether or not a
student has met a desired level of academic achievement. Student learning is best
assessed formatively with measures that are commonly accepted as valid and reliable
tools for academic evaluation (LSSU GPA and Number of Credit Hours Earned in the

First Semester of Postsecondary Academics). In this study, all participants started their

61

ﬁrst year of full-time postsecondary academics at LSSU the same year they graduated
from high school. In addition, they all completed their ﬁrst two consecutive full-time
semesters of postsecondary academics at LSSU. These factors may work individually or
in combination to predict academic performance (LSSU GPA and the Number of Credit
Hours Earned) in the student’s ﬁrst year of university study.

Figure 1 provides a conceptual model that summarizes the literature. Though not
a path analysis, it identiﬁes the variables under study in relation to a high school student’s
participation in dual enrollment. As a program intended to optimize a student’s academic
capital (Berger, 2004), DE provides a multi-phase, variable, participant observer
approach within the dynamic institutional context of postsecondary academics. Although
DE programming in Michigan provides the eligible high school student with many
' participation options (e.g., one class vs. multiple classes, one experience vs. multiple
experiences); this study is focused on the impact of participation in DE on a student’s

ﬁrst-year academic performance at LSSU.

62

3.3 N 623382... we EVEEQ Scimeianc» Ewhéh 393m. «RE 3 333 4925.5 ABSBREK
Axumtcumeuok umsmncuw +35 3 MQ Eats 9%: Steve” 323% {ME wreEV 3.893% cgseuuw BKEmo: 3536209 ._ oSwE

 

 

EcE:o.:>:m .2523sz Emucooomumom

 

   

 

        
         

      

2:0:
:85.
«£0 3mm..-
3.3me
08850
o_Eoumo<
50> LEE

 

«3:25an wan—oéoeuao uca
nun—u...— .a_:o_.:=u 3352.5

1

44

ml-DDIIJZI- _lu.l<¢Z-Z(D

moocOtonw
$30.5

moocmtoaxm

mum—0.3.50

Em<z-20

///

 

l

 

 

 

 

 

|

LE 4mm: OK-m2P<P-Oz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

63

Research Design

As an eXploratory method that usually includes the element of time, case study
analysis is dependent on the thorough and detailed examination of a variety of factors that
may affect the condition under study (Burns & Grove, 1999). Well-designed case studies
can serve as good sources of descriptive information that can be used as evidence to
support or refute theories about a given condition. Because case study analysis is
dependent on the circumstances of the particular case under review, it requires precise
speciﬁcations of situational characteristics. As a method, case study has the potential to
generate information that can inﬂuence policy directives, developing new hypotheses to

facilitate future research study.

Selection of Study Participants

Participants in this study included all students from the state of Michigan who
attended their ﬁrst year of full-time postsecondary academics at Lake Superior State
University the same year as their Michigan high school graduation (between fall
semester, 1996 through fall semester, 2002). The start year of 1996 coincides with the
implementation of Michigan’s Dual Enrollment Statute. Demographic and academic data
were examined only for students seeking a bachelor’s degree, and only those who
successfully completed the ﬁrst two semesters of their ﬁrst year of full-time study at
LSSU. Initially, a total of 2,031 qualiﬁed students were classiﬁed into four mutually
exclusive groups based on high school postsecondary preparatory status (DE only, AP

only, DE and AP, and neither DE or AP).

64

F irst-year, full-time students who matriculated to LSSU with transfer credit
awards were identiﬁed as having either DE credits (N = 198), AP credits (N = 44), and
both (N = 6). The researcher eliminated the six study subjects who had earned transfer
creditsfrom both DE and AP programs because of the ambiguity that would be
introduced in interpreting the study results. This step left 192 DE students and 38 AP
students inttwo separate postsecondary preparatory strategy groups and 1,801 ﬁrst-year,
full-time LSSU students that did not begin LSSU with transfer credits from participation
in a postsecondary preparatory strategy while in high school.

From this group of 1,801 students, the researcher randomly selected 250 study
subjects who would make up the third group of control participants. At this stage, there
were 480 study subjects in three groups: DE students (N =192), AP students (N=3 8) and
control students who used no postsecondary preparatory strategy while in high school
(N =250). The next step required identifying educational program “completers” who,
according to LSSU guidelines, took a minimum of 12 credit hours for each of the ﬁrst
two semesters in their ﬁrst year of full-time study.

With the assistance of staff in the LSSU’s Registrar’s Ofﬁce, student records were
individually evaluated to determine the standing of the 56 students in the subject pool of
480 that had .00 LSSU GPA’s noted in either the ﬁrst or second semester of their ﬁrst
year of postsecondary study. This was done to distinguish between those who earned
their .00 LSSU GPA academically with “F” grades from study students who were
awarded that GPA by default due to “a full academic drop in the ﬁrst week of the
semester” or “no matriculation to classes that semester”. This analysis showed that

twenty-one of the 56 students had earned their .00 GPAs for the semester under question,

65

so these 21 were retained in the subject pool of ﬁrst-year “completers”. The remaining
35 students who did not earn their .00 LSSU GPA were identiﬁed as “non-completers.”
Since ﬁrst-year persistence was a qualiﬁer for subject group membership, thirty-ﬁve

- subjects were dropped from the subject pool after their status was veriﬁed a second time
through LSSU’s Housing records. This step left a subject pool consisting of 445
“completers” who were either DE participants (N = 180), AP participants (N = 38), or
control participants (N = 227).

All data sets for each of the 445 students were complete except for two of three
areas that represented high school academics. One DE participant did not have an ACT
composite score on the LSSU student admission record. Further investigation revealed
that this student did not take the ACT or any standardized test prior to admission to LSSU
the fall semester following high school graduation. Also, there were eleven other
students (seven control students and four DE students) without high school percentile
class rank data available on their university computer records. Further investigation into
each subject in this subset revealed that all were either home-schooled or from Michigan
school districts that did not rank their high school graduates. After consideration for the
type and amount of missing data, the researcher decided that there was not enough
evidence to warrant further removal of study subjects, so the 445 subjects were retained.

In summary, this study examined 445 students in three mutually exclusive
postsecondary preparation groups: 1) DE student population group (N = 180); 2) AP
student population group (N = 38); and 3) a randomly selected sample of control group

students who did not select a postsecondary preparatory strategy while in high school

(N = 227).

66

Data Collection Techniques

Two different data sets were utilized for this. study using Lake Superior State
University’s computerized Student Information System (SIS): (I) data obtained from
each ﬁrst-year student’s “admission application ﬁle”; and (2) data obtained from each
ﬁrst-year student’s “academic persistence ﬁle.” All data were transcribed from the SIS
Program into an Excel program and eventually transformed by the researcher into SPSS
format for analysis. In addition to describing the ﬁrst-year student cohort at LSSU
demographically, this study provided descriptive snapshots of academic progress for all
students who entered LS SU the same year as their high school graduation, between the
fall of 1996 through the fall of 2002. Once academic snapshot information was evaluated
for the DE student cohort, ﬁndings were compared with the other ﬁrst-year student

groups at LSSU.

Arrangements for Data Collection
Archival data were reviewed for this retrospective study after approval was
received from Lake Superior State University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) and
Michigan State University’s Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects
(UCRIHS). Appropriate safeguards were put into place as directed by both university
institutional research boards to safeguard all the student information obtained for data
analysis in this study. These safeguard remained in place until full completion of the

project.

67

Rationale for Using Secondary Data Analysis in this Study

In any research study, it is important that the researcher select the best data
available based on the researcher’s perception of the quality and relevancy of that data
(Burns, 1999). Because the goal of the study was to describe and compare demographic
characteristics and academic performance measures for selected LSSU students, the
logical research approach was to use LSSU’s archival student information data. There
was greater accuracy in both the collection and reporting of LSSU student demographic
and academic performance data since they had been managed the same way, using the
same format, by the same persons, in the same university ofﬁce over the duration of the
seven-year study (1996 through 2003). Additionally, most of the raw data used in this
study were retrieved through admission and persistence data sets from LSSU’s
computerized Student Information System (SIS). SIS data was available for all ﬁrst-year
students who graduated from a Michigan high school the same year they enrolled for

their ﬁrst year of full-time postsecondary study at Lake Superior State University.

Method of Analysis by Research Question
Question 1
Does the pre-university student proﬁle (Sex, Race, Region of Michigan Residence,
High School GPA, High School Class Rank, ACT Composite Score) of first-year LSS U
students who selected one of two postsecondary academic preparatory strategies while a
high school student (Dual Enrollment or Advanced Placement) diﬂer from ﬁrst-year
LSSU students who did not select a postsecondary academic preparatory strategy while a

high school student?

68

All pre-university LSSU student demographic data were collected via computer
using information provided in each subject’s original admission application and stored in
the university’s SIS ﬁles. The demographic data sets in the “student admission ﬁle”
included Sex (categorized as Male or Female), Race (categorized as White, Native
American, or Other/No Response), and the Student’s Region of Michigan Residence
(categorized as Upper Peninsula or Lower Peninsula). These data were grouped in
relation to each student’s high school postsecondary preparatory program status (AP, DE,
or neither AP or DE). Other pre-university proﬁle factors of interest included common
measures used by the LSSU admission’s team that indicated the applicant’s academic
potential for success at LSSU (High School GPA, High School Percentile Class Rank
and ACT Composite Score).

An analysis of student demographics began with recoding all categorical variables
into dummy variables. For categorical data analysis, basic descriptive analysis,
frequency tables and chi-square measures were used. Chi-square was selected to
determine whether the proportion of categorical groupings were the same for the three
mutually exclusive groups of students in the subject pool (postsecondary preparatory
participants who utilized DE programming during high school, postsecondary preparatory
participants who utilized AP programming during high school, and participants who did
not use a postsecondary preparatory program during high school).

A one-way ANOVA was conducted to assess the relationship between
postsecondary preparatory status (DE, AP or No Preparatory Program) and student
entering characteristics in more detail. Interval level admission data (High School GPA,

ACT Composite Score and High School Class Rank converted by the LSSU Institutional

69

Research Ofﬁce into a percentile ranking score) were analyzed using one-way analysis of
variance with postsecondary preparatory status as the between-groups independent
variable.

Question 2

Does the ﬁrst-year academic university student profile (First Semester LSS U
GPA, Second Semester LSS U GPA, Number of Enrolled Credit Hours First Semester,
Number of Earned Credit Hours First Semester, and Number of Degree Major Changes
in the First Year) for LSS U students who selected one of two postsecondary academic
preparatory strategies while a high school student (Dual Enrollment or Advanced
Placement) diﬂer from the ﬁrst-year academic university student profile for LSS U
students who did not select a postsecondary academic preparatory strategy while a high
school student?

All ﬁrst-year student academic university data were collected via computer using
information provided directly from each subject’s LSSU “student persistence ﬁle”. Three
different academic data sets were utilized to investigate the question under study. The
ﬁrst variables of interest were the student’s First Semester and Second Semester LSSU
GPA (interval level data scaled from .00 to 4.00). These measures were used as outcome
criteria for this question since GPA continues to be viewed as the “gold standar ” for
assessing academic success by both external and internal stakeholders at LSSU. To gain
the most from the LSSU GPA variable, the researcher opted against using cumulative
ﬁrst-year LSSU GPA as a single outcome measure in this study, and instead looked at

First Semester and Second Semester LSSU GPA as two separate outcome measures.

70

The next two variables of interest focused on the academic choices students made
early in their‘postsecondary academic career (Number of Credit Hours First Semester and
Number of Degree Major Changes Made in the First Year of F ulI-Time Study at LSSU).
These variables reﬂect student identity, motivation, and engagement with postsecondary
academics (BOuffard, Boisvert, Vezeau, & Larouche, 1995). By investigatingthe
number of ﬁrst-semester, full-time credit hours the student elected to take at LSSU
(interval level data from 12 to 20), information was gained regarding the student’s
academic focus at the start of the university experience. Since the students in this study
were all full-time LSSU students, each student had a minimum of 12 credit hours on
record. However, LSSU allows students to select up to 20 credit hours per semester at no
additional cost. When one considers that DE and AP are both considered high school
academic “jump start” programs, the interest here is whether or not students with prior
postsecondary experience maintained the earlier momentum when it came to decisions
about credit hour enrollment in the early phase of ﬁrst-year full-time postsecondary study
at LSSU.

The ﬁrst-year student’s decision about a major course of study was the second
academic identity, motivation, and engagement factor investigated in this study. Upon
admission to LSSU, all students were asked to identify their degree major from a listing
that included an “undecided” option. Studies have reported that postsecondary student
persistence is related to the student’s declaration of a major course of study (Mitchell,
Goldman, & Smith, 1999; Osborne, 1997) as well as the number of changes a student
makes in his or her degree major in the ﬁrst year of postsecondary academics (Bouffard,

Boisvert, Vezeau, and Larouche, 1995).

71

These factors were analyzed for the three mutually exclusive groups in this study
(DE group, AP group and control group) using one-way ANOVAs. In post hoc testing,
F tests were calculated to identify speciﬁc group differences when a signiﬁcant main
effect existed. In effort to adjust for statistical error, the Dunnett’s T3 measure was
applied whenever the Levene Statistic indicated an unequal variance between subject
groups. When the Levene Statistic indicated equal variance, the Bonferroni measure was
used for post hoc analysis.
Question 3

Does participation in Dual Enrollment and Advanced Placement programming,
High School GPA, Sex, Race, and Region of Michigan Residence, individually or
additively combine to predict academic performance for students in the first year of
bachelor ’s degree focused postsecondary education at LSS U?

This analysis focused on multivariate analysis to identify possible predictors
of student success in the short-term, as measured by the student’s academic performance.
in the ﬁrst year of full-time study at LSSU. To answer this question, data were obtained
from both the “student admissions” and “academic persistence” ﬁles at LSSU for the
groups under study. Dummy coded categorical variables (Sex, Race, Region of Michigan
Residence, DE participation and AP participation) were included with an interval level
variable (HS GPA) in efforts to determine a possible relationship to the outcome
measures under study (First Semester LSSU GPA, Second Semester LSSU GPA and
Number of Credit Hours Earned First Semester at LSSU) for all study subjects. After

viewing scatter plots and evaluating a bivariate correlation matrix of independent

72

variables, three multiple linear regressions were conducted to examine the relationship(s)
between predictor and outcome variables.

Choosing Prediction Variables for Question 3. Pre-university student proﬁle
factors focused on demographics and high school academic indicators as short-term
predictor variables in this phase of the study. In considering the demographics, I decided
to include Sex to account for the possibility that male students attending LSSU might not
select postsecondary preparatory options while in high school at the same rate that female
students did. The categorical variables were re-coded (“0” for Female students and “1”
for Male students) prior to Sex being entered as a predictor variable in the multiple
regression models.

Race was selected as a second demographic factor selected for answering
Question 3. Although there is very little racial diversity on the campus of Lake Superior
State University, overall LSSU continues to have the greatest proportion of Native
American students when compared with other public postsecondary institutions in
Michigan. First-year academic performance for this group has special interest for LSSU
as both a state and regional institution. This categorical data was re-coded (“0” for White
students, “1” for Native American students and “2” for Other/No Response students)
prior to Race being entered as a predictor variable in the multiple regression models.

The Region of Michigan Residence was selected as the third demographic factor
in the multiple regression models. Region of Michigan Residence is relevant because
LSSU has both state university and regional community college missions. In the seven
years of this study, considerable resources had been allocated to the LSSU Admissions

Ofﬁce for activities focused on recruiting high school students who reside in Michigan’s

73

Lower Peninsula (sometimes at the cost of doing less regionally with Upper Peninsula
students). By including Region of Michigan Residence in this study, a closer look
between DE and institutional policy could be examined. Prior to entering Region of
Michigan Residence in the regression models, permanent addresses from the LSSU

661'”

student admission’s ﬁle were numerically coded ( to denote an Upper Peninsula
residence and “0” to denote a Lower Peninsula residence).

To account for pre-university academic preparation, High School GPA, High
School Percentile Class Rank and ACT Composite Score were included. Because these
measures were highly interrelated, their combined use in the regression model for
Question 3 would be problematic. Based on the fact that two of the three outcome
measures used in the regression models for this question were LSSU GPA, coupled with
the fact that the literature supports that HS GPA has long been recognized as the
strongest predictor of postsecondary academic achievement (Adelman, 1999; Astin,
1993; Atwell & McLeod, 1994; Henderson & Masten, 1959; Kanoy, Wester, & Latta
'2002; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991), I decided to select High School GPA alone for use
as a predictor in the regression analyses for Question 3.

It must be noted, however, that a total of ﬁve study subjects representing all three
groups (AP, DE and control groups) presented with HS GPAs above the standardized 4.0
level (4.39, 4.14, 4.07, 4.04 and 4.01). Further investigation of these ﬁve individual
cases revealed that one, two or three courses taken as a part of each subject’s high school
curriculum were weighted more heavily into the HS GPA by each student’s differing

K-12 school district. Considering the small number of courses that were weighted

differently in relation to each student’s total high school record, the distribution of the

74

scores across the three groups in the studyand the small number of students involved, I
decided to retain all ﬁve students as subjects in this study.

Since the primary concern for this study focused on postsecondary preparatory
strategies utilized while in high school, the two other pre-university academic preparation
factors included in the regression models for this study were participation in DE

66199

programming (numerically coded as “0” for no participation and as for participation)

and participation in AP programming (numerically coded as “0” for no participation and

661,,

as for participation). Once the six regression predictors were selected (Sex, Race,
Region of Michigan Residence, High School GPA, DE high school participation status
and AP high school participation status) and the three outcome variables determined
(First Semester LSSU GPA, Second Semester LSSU GPA, and Total Number of Credit
Hours Earned in the First Semester of Study at LSSU), the assumptions for using
multiple linear regression were reviewed. Afterward, three separate multiple linear
regression analyses were conducted (one for each outcome measure) to determine the
signiﬁcance of each predictor in the outcome models.
Question 4

Does the LSS U graduation profile for first-time, full-time LSS U students who
selected one of two postsecondary academic preparatory strategies while a high school
student (Dual Enrollment or Advanced Placement) diﬂerﬁom the LSS U graduation
profile for first-time full-time LSS U students who did not select a postsecondary
academic preparatory strategy while a high school student?

To determine the long-term impact of high school student participation in one of

two postsecondary academic preparatory programs (DE or AP) on postsecondary

75

academics, this study examined each subject’s “student graduation proﬁle.” This proﬁle
included graduation status (deﬁned as whether or not a bachelor’s degree credential was
earned from LSSU) and for those with an earned bachelor’s degree from LSSU, the
number of years of attendance at LSSU before that bachelor’s degree credential was
earned.

By design, the academic semester of entry was the same for each student in the
study (fall semester of the same year that the subject earned a high school diploma) with
the year of entry ranging from 1996 to 2002. To look at ﬁve-year graduation rates for all
students since the implementation of PA 160 in Michigan in 1996, a set point of fall 2001
was established. Every subject in the study admitted to LSSU prior to fall 2001 was
evaluated on academic persistence toward earning a LSSU bachelor’s degree. This
graduation rate applies only to 314 students in the study who could have graduated within
the period of time covered by the set point. Categorical data for graduation status were
re-coded into dummy variables (“0” for no earned LSSU bachelor’s degree under the
established set point and “I ” for those who earned a bachelor’s degree under the
established set point). A one-way ANOVA was conducted to determine whether the
groups under study differed on the variable of “Degree Status”.

As a second step, the 133 students who earned a LSSU bachelor’s degree within
the established set point were evaluated on the time it took to earn that degree. As an
interval measure, the “Years of Attendance” variable was created by subtracting each
subject’s First Semester Attendance variable from their corresponding Last Semester

Attendance variable, taking semester attendance into account. A one-way ANOVA

76

determined whether or not the means for each group differed in the amount of time taken

fOr earning a LSSU bachelor’s degree credential.

Conclusion
This .chapter presented the methodology for studying ﬁrst-year academic

performance as well as long-term academic persistence toward earning a bachelor’s
degree at LSSU. Three groups of ﬁrst-year, full-time LSSU students who started at
LSSU from fall of 1996 through the fall of 2002 were examined in this study (DE high
school participants, AP high school participants and control high school participants
students who had no postsecondary preparatory programming while in high school). In
the chapters that follow, I present the ﬁndings from my data analysis, a discussion of

these ﬁndings and my recommendations for future research on this topic.

77

CHAPTER 4

DATA ANALYSIS

This chapter presents the results of the statistical analyses for this study, which are
provided in context of the four research questions and the hypotheses generated from
each (as described in Chapter 3). As a case study analysis, descriptive analyses are
followed by univariate, multivariate, and linear regression analysis.

Many of the variables in this study were categorical in nature. These included
Sex, Race, Region of Michigan Residence, and Participation in Postsecondary
Preparatory Programming While in High School (Dual Enrollment or Advanced
Placement). One variable in the pre-university student proﬁle was considered ordinal in
nature (Student High School Percentile Class Rank). The High School GPA, ACT
Composite Score, and measures that reﬂected the subject’s academic decision-making in
the initial phases of postsecondary programming (Enrolled and Earned F irst-Semester
Credit Hours, and Number of Degree Maj or Changes the Student Made in the First Year
of Postsecondary Academics), were continuous interval measures.

The three dependent variables reﬂecting academic achievement in the short-term
phase of this research project were all continuous interval measures: First Semester LSSU
GPA, Second Semester LSSU GPA, and Total Number of Credit Hours Earned in the
First-Semester of Full-Time Study at LSSU. The two dependent variables that reﬂected
academic achievement in the long-terrn phase of this research project, focused on
bachelor’s degree attainment. The ﬁrst variable noted whether or not the study subject

earned a bachelor’s degree using a set point of fall 2001. Categorical in nature, this

78

variable was re-coded as a numerical dummy variable for statistical purposes. The
second dependent variable in the long—term phase of this analysis was a continuous
interval measure that looked more closely at the “Number of Years” it took for the subset
of study subjects to earn a bachelor’s degree from LSSU.

The secondary data for this study were obtained from Lake Superior State
University’s Ofﬁce oflnstitutional Research, speciﬁcally found in “student admission”
and “student persistence” ﬁles. Data for this study were analyzed using Microsoﬁ Excel

98 and SPSS 12.0 for Windows computer software programs.

Data Analysis by Research Question

Question 1
Does the pre-university student profile (Sex, Race, Region of Michigan Residence,

High School GPA, High School Percentile Class Rank. ACT Composite Score) for ﬁrst-

year LSS U students who selected one of two postsecondary academic preparatory

strategies while a high school student (Dual Enrollment or Advanced Placement) differ

from the pre-university profile for first-year full-time LSS U students who did not select a

postsecondary academic preparatory strategy while in high school?

H011: There is no Sex difference for ﬁrst-year LSSU students who participated in a
postsecondary academic preparatory program (DE or AP) while in high school
when compared with non-participants.

H012: There is no Racial difference for ﬁrst-year LSSU students who participated in a
p08tsecondary academic preparatory program (DE or AP) while in high school
when compared with non-participants.

H013: There is no Region of Michigan Residence difference for ﬁrst-year LSSU

students who participated in a postsecondary academic preparatory program (DE
or AP) while in high school when compared with non-participants.

79

H014: There is no High School GPA difference for ﬁrst-year LSSU students who
participated in a postsecondary academic preparatory program (DE or AP) while
in high school, when compared with non-participants.

Ho] 5: There is no High School Percentile class ranking difference for ﬁrst-year LSSU
students who participated in a postsecondary academic preparatory program (DE
or AP) while in high school when compared with non-participants.

H016: There is no ACT Composite Score difference for ﬁrst-year LSSU students, who
participated in a postsecondary academic preparatory program (DE or AP) while
in high school when compared with non-participants.

Descriptive methods were used to evaluate Question I. In addition to comparing
the frequency tables for the variables under study, chi-squared measures were used as
non-parametric tests of statistical signiﬁcance for Sex, Race, and Region of Michigan
Residence. Analysis of variance measures were utilized to compare the three groups
(DE population group, AP population group, and the randomly selected control group) on
the percentile measure of High School Class Rank, as well as the interval measures of
High School GPA and ACT Composite Score.

To help in deﬁning this DE student cohort, the researcher ﬁrst considered the
distribution of the three student groups over the seven-years of the study, as provided in
Table 10. Three to ﬁve percent of ﬁrst-year, full-time students from Michigan entered
LSSU (fall 1996 through fall 2002) with postsecondary transfer credits earned while in
high school. Of these 218 students, most selected Michigan’s DE programming option as

their postsecondary preparatory strategy of choice (82.5%), with the remainder selecting

AP programming.

80

Table 10.
Frequencies by Group: All Groups by Year (1996-2003) *s N = 445 .

 

 

 

 

First Academic Group Preparation Total

Year at LSSU None Dual Only AP Only
1996 - 97 30 21 15‘ 66
1997 - 98 24 20 6 50
1998 - 99 43 14 16 73
1999 - 00 25 36 0 61
2000 - 01 33 32 0 _ 64
2001 - 02 39 35 0 75
2002 - 03 33 22 I 56

Total 227 180 38 445

 

* Obtained from LSSU’s Institutional Annual Research Reports generated by the LSSU. Registrar’s
Ofﬁce (1996 through 2003).

Cross tabulation for sex found a slightly higher percentage of female students in
both the DE and AP programming groups when compared with the control study group as

veriﬁed in Table 11.

 

 

 

 

 

Table 11.
Frequencies by Group: Sex, All Groups, All Years *.' N = 445
Group Preparation Total
None Dual AP only
Only
Sex Female Count 123 105 22 250
% within grp prep 54.2% 58.3% 57.9% 56.2%
Male Count 104 75 I6 I95
% within grp prep 45.8% 41.7% 42.1% 43.8%
Total Count 227 180 3 8 445

‘Vwithin gm Prep 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

* Obtained from LSSU’s Institutional Annual Research Reports generated by the LSSU. Registrar’s Office
(1996 through 2003).

 

81

However, a chi-square test to determine whether the proportion for Sex for each group
was not signiﬁcant, x2 (2, N = 445) = .751, p = .687 as noted in Table 12.
Accordingly, the null hypothesis for Sex (H011) was accepted in this model.

Table 12.
Chi-Square: Sex, Across All Groups: N = 445

 

 

Value df Asymptomatic
Signiﬁcance
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .751(a) 2 .687
Likelihood Ratio .752 2 .687
N of Valid Cases 445

 

(a) 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 16.65.

Race was the second demographic variable under study for the student groups.
Most racial diversity at LSSU comes from the Native American population, since the
university is closely located to two federally recognized Indian communities. LSSU has
consistently demonstrated a greater proportion of Native Americans among its student
population, when compared with the other 14 public universities in Michigan (LSSU Self
Report, 2000). Native American student numbers at LSSU averaged about 7% for each
year during the seven-year period of this study. During the same period of time, an
average of 76.7% of the student population at LSSU declared their Race as White, and
the remaining 16.3% of the student body declared themselves as Other when it came to

Race (or they chose not to declare their racial background on the application form).

82

A cross tabulation for Race conﬁrmed a dominant percentage of White students
across all groups with few Native American students participating in either the DE or AP
programming as is noted in Table 13.

Table 13.
Frequencies by Group: Race. All Groups, All Years *.‘ N = 445

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group Preparation Total
Dual
None Only AP only
Ethnic Native A Count 12 7 2 21
Group '
o . .
“mm“ 5.3% 3.9% 5.3% 4.7%
gm prep
NR/Other Count 4 0 0 4
o . .
/°“’“h“‘ 1.8% .0% .0% .9%
grp prep
White Count 21 1 1 73 36 420
o . .
A’w‘m‘“ 93.0% 96.1% 94.7% 94.4%
grp prep
Total Count 227 1 80 38 445

 

* Obtained from LSSU’s Institutional Annual Research Reports generated by the LSSU. Registrar’s
Ofﬁce (1996 through 2003).

A chi-square test was conducted to determine the proportion for Race for each
group in the study. Table 14 indicates that the relationship between Race and
Postsecondary Preparation status was not signiﬁcant, x2 (4, N = 445) = 4.390, p = .356.

Accordingly, the null hypothesis for Race (Holz) was accepted for this model.

83

Table 14.
Chi-Square: Race, Across All Groups: N = 445

 

 

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 4.390(a) 4 .356
Likelihood Ratio 5.943 4 .203
Linear-by-Linear
. . 1.464 1 .226
Assocrat1on
N of Valid Cases 445

 

(a) 4 cells (44.4%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .34.

To determine where ﬁrst-year LSSU students obtained their high school
postsecondary academic programming opportunities, a further look into the Region of
Michigan Residence was conducted. For this study, students were identiﬁed by the
permanent address they provided on their LSSU application form and by that, were
assigned to either the Upper Peninsula or Lower Peninsula of the Michigan group. Over
this 7-year study period at LSSU, an average of 39.2% of the students were members of
Michigan’s Upper Peninsula group, 42.1% reported their residence in Michigan’s Lower
Peninsula, and the remaining 18.7% were out-of-state or international students (LSSU
Admissions Report, 2003). Table 15 notes that during this same seven-year period 84.7%
of the ﬁrst-time, full-time students in this study came to LSSU from schools located in
Michigan’s Lower Peninsula. Since both the AP and DE groups were population groups,
it is obvious from Table 15 that LSSU’s ﬁrst-year full-time students were more likely to
have high school experiences in DE or AP programming if they came from high schools

located in Michigan’s Lower Peninsula.

84

Table 15.
Frequencies: Region of Michigan Residence (UP or LP) by Group: All Groups A 11
Years“: N = 445

 

Region of Group Preparation Total
Michigan
Residence

 

None Dual Only AP only

 

 

UP Count 50 14 4 68
% within grp prep 22.0% 7.8% 10.5% 15.3%
LP Count 177 I66 34 377

% within grp prep 78.0% 92.2% 89.5% 84.7%

 

Total Count 227 180 38 445

* Obtained from LSSU’s Institutional Annual Research Reports generated by the LSSU. Registrar’s
Ofﬁce (1996 through 2003).

 

Table 16 shows the ﬁndings of a chi-square test that indicated that the relationship
between Region of Michigan Residence and Postsecondary Preparatory status was
signiﬁcant, A} (2, N = 445) = 16.470, p < .000. Accordingly, the null hypothesis for
Region of Michigan Residence (H013) was rejected for this model.

Table I6.
Chi-Square: Region of Michigan Residence: Across All Groups: N = 445

 

 

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 16.470(a) 2 .000
Likelihood Ratio 17.188 2 .000
N of Valid Cases 445

 

(a) 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.81

85

To broaden the pre-university student proﬁle picture for ﬁrst-year LSSU students,
it was important to move beyond demographics and include an analysis of some pre-
university academic measures. High school grade point average (HS GPA) is an interval
level variable used as an academic predictor by many university admission teams
(Astin, 1993; McKenzie & Schweitzer, 2001; Peng, 2003). Based on a 0.0 to 4.0 interval
scale, High School GPA measures academic performance over time. Table 17 depicts
mean GPA for the three LSSU student groups in this study (1996 to 2003).

Table 17.
Mean: HS GPA by Group: All Groups All Years *: N = 445

 

Group preparation: Mean N ‘ Std. Range
=selected controls, Deviation
1=dual only, 3 =AP only

 

 

None 3.05 227 .533 2
Dual Only 3 .41 1 80 .466 2
AP only 3.67 38 .408 2
Total 3.25 445 .540 3

 

"' Obtained from LSSU’s Institutional Annual Research Reports generated by the LSSU Registrar’s
Ofﬁce (1996 through 2003).

Table 18 shows the results of a one-way ANOVA where the three subject groups
differed signiﬁcantly, F (2, 442) = 41.077, p < .000, eta2=.157. The eta-squared measure
tells us that 15.7% of the Variance in the total scores is due to membership in one of the
three groups. With this ﬁnding, the null hypothesis was rejected for High School GPA

(H014) in this model.

86

Table 18.
One-Way ANOVA: HS GPA. All Groups All Years: N = 445

 

 

High School GPA Sum of (If Mean F Sig.
Squares Square

* Group Between Groups 20.303 2 10.151 41.077 .000

preparation

(0=selected
controls, 1=dual
only, 3=AP only)

Within Groups 109.231 442 .247

 

Total 129.534 444

 

*eza’=.157

To further assess and compare means of results for HS GPA among the groups, a
Levene’s Test was conducted to determine the equality of variance between the groups.
Since the results of this test showed that the variances were not equal (1. = 5.080,

p < .007), the Dunnett’s T3 post hoc test was applied to conduct a pair—wise comparison
based on the Studentized Maximum Modulus. The results of these ﬁnding are noted in

Table 19 below.

87

Table 19.
Post hoc (Dunnett ’s T3) for One- Way ANO VA: HS GPA by Group: All Groups All Years:
N = 445

 

 

 

 

 

(I) Group (J) Group
preparation preparation
(0=selected (0=selected
controls, controls, Mean
1=dual only, 1=dual only, Difference Std. 95% Conﬁdence
3=AP only) 3=AP only) _ (I-J) Error Sig. Interval
Lower Upper
Bound Bound
None Dual Only -.36l(*) .050 .000 -.48 -.24
AP only -.616(*) .075 .000 -.80 -.43
Dual Only None .361(*) .050 .000 .24 .48
AP only -.255(*) .075 .003 -.44 -.07
AP only None .616(*) .075 .000 .43 .80
Dual Only .255(*) .075 .003 .07 .44

 

* The mean difference is signiﬁcant at the .05 level.

The mean High School GPA for both the DE and the AP groups were
signiﬁcantly higher when compared with the High School GPA for the control group
students. As expected, students in the AP group (often referred to as the “honors” group
in many high schools) had the highest mean High School GPA when compared with the
other study groups.

Class rank helps one look at high school academic performance within an
academic programming context. Table 20 depicts High School Class Ranking for the
groups under study reported in percentile rankings. As was discussed earlier, eleven

students did not have a HS class rank noted in their LSSU student admission ﬁles

88

(7 control students and 4 Dual Enrollee students) as they were either home-schooled or
from K-12 districts in Michigan that did not rank their high school graduates.

Table 20.
Mean: HS Percentile Class Rank by Group: All Groups All Years *: N = 434

 

N Mean Std. Std. 95% Conﬁdence Min. Max.
Deviation Error Interval for Mean

 

Lower Upper
Bound Bound

 

 

None 220 60.58 23.577 1.590 57.45 63.71 4 99
Dual ' 176 75.10 19.906 ‘ 1.500 72.14 78.06 12 99
Only

AP only 38 85.84 18.356 2.978 79.81 91.88 19 100
Total 434 68.68 23.367 1.122 66.48 70.89 4 100

 

* Obtained from LSSU’s Institutional Annual Research Reports generated by the LSSU
Registrar’s Ofﬁce (1996 through 2003).

To analyze these data in more detail, one needs to consider the level of
measurement that High School Class Rank holds in the context of these data. Because
the original class ranking data were not ordered from one reference pool, HS class rank
was converted by the LSSU Admission Team into percentile ranking. By treating this
transformed variable as interval data, a one-way ANOVA was the appropriate statistical
procedure to use for further analysis.

Table 21 reports a one-way ANOVA for High School Percentile Class Rank. The
three subject groups differed signiﬁcantly on this measure, F (2, N = 431) = 34.809,

p < .000, eta2=.l39. The eta-squared measure in this model tells us that 13.9% of the
variance in the total scores is a result of membership in one of the three groups. With

these results, the null hypothesis for high school rank (H015) was rejected in this model.

89

Table 21.
One- Way ANO VA: HS Percentile class rank: All Groups All Years: N = 434

 

High School Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Class Rank ' Squares Square

 

*Group Between. 32879.381 2 16439.690 34.809 .000
preparation Groups

(0=selected

controls,

l=dual only,

3=AP only)

Within 203554.739 431 472.285
Groups

Total 236434.120 433

 

 

*eta 2 = .139

Table 22 shows the post hoc evaluation of high school percentile ranking using
Dunnett’s T3 measure for unequal variance among the groups (L = 9.140, p < .000). Of
those with a High School Percentile Class Rank noted in their LSSU student admissions
ﬁle, students in the Dual Enrollment group ranked signiﬁcantly higher (p < .000) than
students in the control group. Students from the Advanced Placement group outranked
both the DE students (p =.006), and control students (p < .000) at an even higher level.
This result is not surprising given the fact that AP students presented with the highest HS
GPA mean score which is a determinant for calculating the student’s High School

Percentile Class Rank.

90

Table 22.

Post hoc (Dunnett ’s T3 ) for ()ne- Way AN() VA .-

HS Class Rank by Group: All Groups All

 

 

 

 

 

Years: N = 433
(I) Group (J) Group
preparation preparation
(0=selected (0=selected
controls, l=dual controls, Mean
only, 3=AP 1=dual only, Difference Std. 95% Conﬁdence
only) 3=AP only) (I-J) Error Sig. Interval
: Lower Upper
Bound Bound
None Dual Only -14.520(*) 2.186 .000 -19.76 -9.28
AP only -25.260(*) 3.375 .000 -33.54 -l6.98
Dual Only None 14.520(*) 2.186 .000 9.28 19.76
AP only -10.740(*) 3.334 .006 -l8.93 -2.55
AP only None 25.260(*) 3.375 .000 16.98 33.54
Dual Only 10.740(*) 3.334 .006 2.55 18.93

 

* The mean difference is signiﬁcant at the .05 level.

The ﬁnal academic pre-university measure in this question was the ACT
Composite Score for each student. All study subjects except one (from the DE group)
had an ACT Composite Score in their LSSU student admission ﬁle. A description of the
mean ACT Composite Score, and the score distributions for all ﬁrst-year full-time
students who entered LSSU between the fall of 1996 and the fall of 2002 are reported in
Table 23 for each group under study. It is interesting to note that the DE group (N =179)
had a range of ACT Composite Secres from 15 to 32. When considering selectivity
based on ACT Composite Scores, the range for the DE subject group dipped below the
lowest “open” selectivity level (ACT score of 17) and soared to the top of the “highly

selective” level (ACT Composite Score of 31). In Table 23, the Dual Enrollees in the

91

seven-year period of study (M = 23.07, SD =3.978) appear to have performed more like
the control group than the Advanced Placement group of study subjects on this measure.

Table 23.
Mean: ACT Composite Scores by Group: All Groups All Years *: N = 444

 

Group preparation
(0=selected controls,
1=dual only, 3=AP only) Mean N Std. Dev. for ACT Composite Scores

Range

 

 

None 21.39 227 3.791 14-34
Dual Only 23.07 179 3 .978 15-32
AP only 27.11 38 2.275 23-32
Total 22.56 444 4.086 14-34

 

* Obtained from LSSU’s Institutional Annual Research Reports generated by the LSSU
Registrar’s Ofﬁce (1996 through 2003).

Figure 2 is a bar chart that plots the distribution of ACT Composite Scores across
the three student groups addressed in this study. This chart supports the ﬁnding that DE
students are more like the control group than the AP group on this measure. For ACT
Composite Score, the ﬁgure reveals a positively skewed curve for the control group
subject scores, a negatively skewed curve for AP group subject scores and a more mid-

range bi-modal curve for the DE group subject scores.

92

Figure 2.

Bar Chart: ACT Composite Scores: By Group for All Groups All Years *.' N = 444

 

 

 

GroupPreparer
25" .None
.DualOnly
:1me
20—
15—
: .1 z ; .
10— E l g .
1 1 e
5-1 1,1
1 l E “"1 ‘ 1
l l : f: t :i E l _3. :7 é:
l '5‘ 1 i ;' if 1 "i
o . , , _ __ _. , _ . 1 It

 

1415181718192021222324252827282930313234
ACT Composite Score

* Obtained from LSSU’s Institutional Annual Research Reports generated by the LSSU
Registrar’s Office (1996 through 2003).

A one-way ANOVA of ACT Composite Scores indicated signiﬁcant differences
in ACT Composite Score among the three subject groups under study, F (2, 441) = 40.2,
p < .000, eta2=.154 as noted in Table 24. The eta-squared measure indicated that 15.4%
of the variance in the total scores was related to membership in one of the three groups.
Since ACT Composite Score statistically differed by group, the null hypothesis for ACT

Composite Score (H016) was rejected in this model.

93

Table 24.
One-Way ANOVA: ACT Composite Score: All Groups All Years: N = 444

 

 

ACT Composite Sum of Mean
Score ‘ Squares df Square F Sig.
* Group preparation Between Groups 1140.712 2 570.356 40.200 .000
(0=selected

controls, 1=dual
only, 3=AP only)

Within Groups 6256.880 441 14.188
Total 7397.592 443

 

 

*eta‘?= .154

A post hoc evaluation of ACT Composite Score means wasi'conducted using
Dunnett’s T3 measure for unequal variance (L = 7.746, p <.000) as presented in
Table 25. All the between-group analyses were statistically signiﬁcant (p < .000)
revealing that the DE students had a somewhat higher mean ACT Composite Score when
compared with the control group in the study (mean difference of 1.675). This statistical
comparison belies the less vigorous comparison in the previous bar chart. On this
measure, the AP students out-preformed both the DE students (mean difference of 4.038)

as well as the control group students (mean difference of 5.713).

94

Table 25.
Post hoc (Dunnett ’5 T3) for One-Way ANO VA: ACT Composite Score: All Groups All
Years: N = 444

 

I) Group prep. (J) Group
(0=selected preparation

 

 

 

 

controls, (0=selected
l=dual only, controls, Mean
3=AP only) 1=dual only, Difference Std.
3=AP onlj) (I-J) Error Sig. 95% Conﬁdence Interval
Lower Upper
Bound Bound
None Dual Only -1.675(*) .390 .000 -2.61 -.74
AP only -5.7l3(*) .447 .000 -6.80 -4.62
Dual Only None 1.675(*) .390 .000 - .74 2.61
AP only -4.038(*) .474 .000 -5.19 -2.89
AP only None 5.713(*) .447 .000 4.62 6.80
Dual Only 4.038(*) .474 .000 2.89 5.19

 

* The mean difference is signiﬁcant at the .05 level.

Question 2

Does the first-year academic university proﬁle (First Semester LSS U GPA,
Second Semester LSS U GPA, Number of Enrolled Credit Hours First Semester, Number
of Earned Credit Hours First Semester and Number of Degree Major Changes in the
First Year of Study) for LSS U students who selected one of two postsecondary academic
preparatory strategies while a high school student (Dual Enrollment or Advanced
- Placement) diﬂer from the ﬁrst-year academic university proﬁle for LSSU students who
did not select a postsecondary academic preparatory strategy while a high school

student?

95

H0212

P1022:

H023:

H0242

P1025!

There is no difference in First Semester LSSU GPA by ﬁrst-year LSSU students
who participated in a postsecondary academic preparatory program while in high
school (DE or AP) when compared with non-participants.

There is no difference in Second Semester LSSU GPA by ﬁrst-year LSSU
students who participated 1n a postsecondary academic preparatory program while

- 1n high school (DE or AP) when compared with non-participants.

There is no difference in the number of enrolled ﬁrst semester postsecondary
credit hours by ﬁrst-year LSSU students who participated in a postsecondary
academic preparatory program while in high school (DE or AP) when compared
with non-participants.

There is no difference in the number of earned ﬁrst semester postsecondary credit
hours by ﬁrst-year LSSU students who participated in a postsecondary academic
preparatory program while in high school (DE or AP) when compared with non-
participants.

There is no difference in the number of student declared degree major changes in
the ﬁrst year of full time academics by ﬁrst-year LSSU students, who participated
in a postsecondary academic preparatory program while in high school (DE or
AP) when compared with non-participants.

Postsecondary GPA’s are based on a scaling system of .00 to 4.0. Table 26

presents means and variances for First Semester LSSU GPA in relation to the three LSSU

student groups under study.

Table 26.

Means and Variances: First Semester LSSU GPA by Group: All Groups All Years *:

 

 

 

N =445
Std. Std. 95% Conﬁdence ‘
N Mean Dev. Error Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum

Lower Upper

Bound Bound
None 227 2.476 .999 .066 2.345 2.607 .00 4.00
Dual Only 180 2.977 .733 .054 2.869 3.084 .62 4.00
AP only 38 3.400 .446 .072 3.253 3.546 2.44 4.00
Total 445 2.757 .915 043 2.672 2.843 .00 4.00

 

* Obtained from LSSU’s Student Persistence File on LSSU’s SIS Program.

96

A one-way between—groups ANOVA in Table 27 indicates a signiﬁcant difference
in First Semester LSSU GPA for the three groups, F (2, 442) = 28.365, p < .000,
eta2=.113. Accordingly, I rejected the null hypothesis for First Semester LSSU GPA
(H021) in this model.

Table 27.
One- Way ANOVA: First Semester LSS U GPA: All Groups All Years 3 N = 445

 

 

First Semester Sum of Mean
LSSU GPA Squares df Square F Sig.
* Group Between
preparation Groups
made?“ 42.285 2 21.142 28.365 .000
controls,
l=dual only,
3=AP only)
W‘th‘“ 329.454 442 .745
Groups

 

Total 371.739 444

 

* eta): .1 13

Because Levene’s Test showed that the variances with the groups differed from
one another (L = 14.956, p < .000), Dunnett’s T3 post hoc test was used to compare the
means for the three groups under study. Table 28 shows that the DE group and the AP
group had a statistically and signiﬁcantly higher First Semester LSSU GPAs when
compared with the control group (p < .000). In addition, the DE group had a signiﬁcantly
lower First Semester LSSU GPA when compared with the AP group in this study

(p < .000).

97

Table 28.
. Post hoc (Dunnett ’s T3) for One— Way ANOVA: First Semester LSS U GPA: All Groups
All Years: N = 445

 

 

 

(I) Group
preparation (J) Group
(0=selected preparation
controls, (0=selected Mean
1=dual only. controls, 1=dual Difference Std. 95% Conﬁdence
‘ 3=AP only) ' only, 3=AP) ’ (I-J) Error Sig. Interval
Lower Upper
Bound Bound
None Dual Only -.500 (*) .085 .000 -.706 -.294
AP only -.923(*) .098 .000 -1.161 -.685
Dual Only None .500(*) .085 .000 .294 .706
AP only -.423(*) .090 -000 -.643 -.202
AP only None .923(*) .098 .000 .685 1.161
Dual Only .423(*) .090 .000 .202 .643

 

* The mean difference is signiﬁcant at the .05 level.
Next, Second Semester LSSU GPA was compared for the three groups under
study. Table 29 reports mean and variance for Second Semester LSSU GPA.

Table 29.
Mean: Second Semester LSSU GPA by Group: All Groups All Years *: N = 445

 

 

 

Group preparation (0=selected Std.

controls, l=dual only, 3=AP only) Mean N Dev Var Min Max
None . 2.317 227 1.037 1 .077 .00 4.00
Dual Only 2.831 180 .758 .576 .00 4.00
AP only 3.132 38 .760 .578 .84 4.00
Total 2.595 445 .956 .915 .00 4.00

 

"‘ Obtained from LSSU’s Student Persistence File on LSSU’s SIS Program.

98

A oneeway ANOVA in Table 30 showed a signiﬁcant difference in Second
Semester LSSU GPA among the three subject groups, F (2, 442) = 23.197, p < .000,
eta2=.094. Accordingly, the null hypothesis was rejected for Second Semester LSSU
GPA (H022) in this model.

Table 30.
One- Way ANOVA: Second Semester LSS U GPA: All Groups All Years: N = 445

 

 

Second Semester Sum of Mean

LSSU GPA Squares df Scmare F Sig.
* Group Between

preparation Groups

(0=selected 38.602 2 19.301 23.197 .000

controls, 1=dual
only, 3=AP only)

Within
Groups
Total 406.369 444

367.767 442 .832

 

 

*eta 2 = .094

The Levene’s Test reported that the variance in the groups under study differed
signiﬁcantly (L = 10.514, p < .000). Therefore, Dunnett’s T3 measure for unequal
variance was used for post hoc evaluation of Second Semester LSSU GPA for the groups
in the study.

Both the DE group and the AP group had a signiﬁcantly higher Second Semester
LSSU GPA when compared with the control group in this study (p < .000) as depicted in
Table 31. Although it appears that the AP students outperformed the DE group on this
measure, the difference between the DE and the AP groups was not statistically
signiﬁcant in this model (p = .089), a change from the ﬁndings for First-Semester LSSU

GPA. Overall, all three groups presented with a lower LSSU GPA the Second Semester

99

of analysis when compared with the First Semester with the DE group demonstrating less
of a decline from ﬁrst to second semester on the measure of LSSU GPA when compared
with both the control group and the AP group. Although this ﬁnding warrants further
investigation, it is beyond the scope of the present study.

Table 31.
Post hoc (Dunnett ’s T 3) for One- Way ANO VA: Second Semester LSS U GPA: All Groups
All Years: N = 445

 

 

 

 

 

(I) Group (1) Group
preparation preparation
(0=selected (0=selected
controls, 1=dual controls, Mean
only, 3=AP 1=dual only, Differen Std.
only) 3=AP only) ce (l-J) Error Sig. 95% Conﬁdence Interval
Lower Upper
Bound Bound
None Dual Only -.514(*) .089 .000 -.728 -.301
AP only -.315(*) .141 .000 .1 . 161 —.469
Dual Only None .514(*) .089 .000 .301 .728
AP only -.300 .135 .089 -.634 .033
AP only None .815(*) .141 .000 .469 1.161
Dual Only .300 . 135 .089 -.033 .634

 

* The mean difference is signiﬁcant at the .05 level.

Two additional variables, Number of Enrolled Credit Hours and Number of
Earned Credit Hours by students in their ﬁrst semester of full-time study at LSSU reﬂect
early academic student engagement and decision making behaviors. Table 32 depicts
very similar ﬁndings when one considers the mean number of credit hours all study

subjects in all groups enrolled to take before the start of their ﬁrst semester of full-time

100

postsecondary study at LSSU (a task usually accomplished in summer session during the
university’s orientation program).

Table 32.
Mean: Number of First Semester LSSU Credit Hours Enrolled by Group: All Groups All
Years“: N = 445

 

Group preparation
(0=selected controls,

 

 

1=dua1 only, 3=AP ow) Mean N Std. Dev Var Min Max
None 15.039 227 1.347 1.817 12.00 18.00
Dual Only 15.1 1 1 180 1.516 2.300 12.00 20.00
AP only 15.368 38 1.441 2.077 13.00 18.00
Total '-' 15.096 445 1.425 2.033 12.00 20.00

 

* Obtained from LSSU’s Student Persistence File on LSSU’s SIS Program

A one-way between-group ANOVA compared First Semester Enrolled LSSU
Credit Hours for the three groups of students. Table 33 revealed no statistically
signiﬁcant difference F (2, 442) = .880, p = .415, eta 2= .063, which resulted in an
acceptance of the null hypothesis for this measure (H023).

Table 33.
One- Way ANOVA: Number of First Semester LSS U Credit Hours Enrolled: All Groups
All Years*: N = 445

 

No. of Enrolled lst

 

Semester LSSU Credit Sum of Mean
Hrs. Squares df Square F Sig.
* Group preparation Between
(0=selected controls, Groups 3.582 2 1.791 .880 .415
1=dual only, 3=AP only)

w'th'" 899.263 442 2.035

Groups

 

Total 902.845 444

 

*em7 = .063

101

Because of my interest in examining variables that reﬂect student engagement
behaviors in the ﬁrst year of postsecondary academics, I took a second look at LSSU
credit hours upon completion of the ﬁrst semester of study for all groups. Table 34
depicts the Number of Earned Credit Hours across groups for the ﬁrst semester of full-
time study at LSSU for all groups.

Table 34.
Mean: Number of First Semester LSS U Credit Hours Earned by Group. All Groups
All Years”: N = 445

 

Group preparation
(0=selected
controls, l=dua1

 

 

Only, 3=AP only) Mean N Std. Dev Var Minimum Maximum
None 12.030 227 4.402 19.384 .00 18.00
Dual Only 13.738 180 2.990 8.943 3.00 20.00
AP only 14.631 38 2.572 6.617 5.00 18.00
Total 12.943 445 3.866 14.950 .00 20.00

 

* Obtained from LSSU’s Student Persistence File on LSSU’s SIS Program

To determine whether or not there were differences in the number of ﬁrst-
semester credit hours earned across the three groups of students, I conducted one-way
betWeen-groups ANOVA. The results presented in Table 35 show a statistically
signiﬁcant difference for ﬁrst-semester credits earned by the groups, F (2, 442) = 14.597,
p < .000, eta2=.062. Accordingly, the null hypothesis for actual Number of Credit Hours

Earned First Semester at LSSU (H024) was rejected in this model.

102

Table 35.

ANOVA: Number of First Semester LSS U Credit Hours Earned: All Groups All Years:

N: 445

 

No. of Earned
First Semester '
LSSU Credit
Hrs. .

* Group
preparation
(0=selected
controls, 1=dua1
only, 3=AP
only)

Between
Groups

Within
Groups

Sum of
Squares

411.241

6226.354

df

442

Mean
Square f Sig.

205.621 14.597 .000

14.087

 

No. of Earned
First Semester
LSSU Credit
Hrs.

Total

6637.596

444

 

*etaé .062

Although the Number of Enrolled Credit Hours First Semester at LSSU did not

differ signiﬁcantly for the groups in this study, the Number of Earned Credit Hours First

Semester did show a signiﬁcant difference. Further analysis was done using a posthoc

test for unequal variance (L = 19.639, p <.000). Table 36 indicates a statistically

signiﬁcant difference among groups for Number of Earned Credit Hours by academic

preparatory programming group. Both DE and AP groups earned more credit hours in

the ﬁrst semester of full-time postsecondary academic programming at LSSU compared

to the control group. However, mean scores between the DE and AP groups did not differ

signiﬁcantly in this model (p = .178).

103

Table 36.

Post 'hoc (Dunnett ’s T 3) for One- Way ANO VA: Number of First Semester LSS U Credit

Hours Earned by Group: All Groups All Years: N = 445

 

 

 

 

 

(I) Group (.1) Group
preparation preparation
(0=selected (0=selected
controls, 1=dua| controls, Mean
only, 3=AP . 1=dual only, Difference 95% Conﬁdence
only) 3=AP only) (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Interval
Lower Upper
Bound Bound
None Dual Only -1.708(*) .367 .000 -2.589 -.826
AP only -2.600(*) .509 .000 -3.842 -1.359
Dual Only None 1.708(*) .367 .000 .8269 2.589
AP only -.892 .473 .178 -2.053 .268
AP only None 2.600(*) .509 .000 1.359 3.842
Dual Only .892 .473 .178 -.268 2.053

 

* The mean difference is signiﬁcant at the .05 level.

On average, the control students in this study dropped about 3.001 credits hours

during the ﬁrst semester of postsecondary study, compared to' a drop of 1.373 credit hours

for the DE group and a drop of .737 credit hours for the AP group during the same

period. Although dropping credit hours in the ﬁrst semester can be viewed as an

indicator of student engagement in postsecondary academics, it also implies a

“disconnect” in relation to the student’s postsecondary academic expectations and

postsecondary academic realities. This type of a “disconnect” has wide-range qualitative

implications for academic persistence and academic retention in the postsecondary

academic journey (Kanoy, Wester, & Latta, 2002; Kuh & Love, 2004; Osborne, 1997;

Tinto, 1993).

104

Successfully identifying a major curriculum for study (also called a degree major)
is another academic indicator that may reﬂect ﬁrst-year student engagement with
postsecondary academics. Frequent changes in this initial selection (especially changes
made in the ﬁrst year of academic programming) have been found to impede student
progression and persistence toward obtaining a postsecondary degree (Bouffard,
Boisvert, Vezeau, & Larouche, 1995). Table 37 identiﬁes the mean number of degree
major changes (ranging from 0 to 4) for each student group in their ﬁrst year of full-time
academics at LSSU (fall 1996 through fall 2002).

Table 37.
Mean: Number of Degree Major Changes in the First Year At LSSU by Group:
All Groups All Years *: N = 445

 

Group preparation
(0=selected controls,

 

 

1=dual only, 3=AP Std.

only) Mean N Dev. Var. Minimum Maximum
None . .511 227 .712 .508 .00 3.00
Dual Only .533 180 .779 .608 .00 3.00
AP only ‘ .657 38 .937 .880 .00 4.00
Total .532 445 .760 .578 .00 4.00

 

* Obtained from LSSU’s Student Persistence File on LSSU’s SIS Program

A one-way ANOVA (Table 38) showed no signiﬁcant differences in the Number
of Degree Major Changes the student made in the ﬁrst year of full-time postsecondary
academics at LSSU by group, F (2, 442) = .606, p = .546 eta2=.087. With this, I accepted

the null hypothesis for number of degree major changes (Ho25) in this model.

105

Table 38.
One- Way .ANO VA: Number of Degree Major Changes in the First Year at LSS U: All
Groups All Years: N = 445

No. of

Degree

Major

Changes in Sum of Mean

1” Yr. . Squares df Square F Sig.

 

* Group Between
preparation Groups

 

 

(0=selected
controls, .702 2 .351 .606 .546
1=dual
only, 3=AP
only)
w'th'" 256.075 442 .579
Groups
Total 256.778 444
*eta2= .087

At LSSU, all ﬁrst-year students with an “undeclared” and/or “undecided” degree
major were administratively assigned to the Arts/Letters and Social Science degree major
classiﬁcation. This step was done to assist with initial academic advising and to have
full-time ﬁrst-year students meet eligibility requirements for ﬁnancial aid. Aﬁer a
review of individual student ﬁles over the seven-year period, only 17.2% of the students
in the DE groups did not specify a major course of study on their LSSU application form
which compares with 25.2% of students in the control group. According to LSSU’s
Admission Department Records, 22% to 30% of all LSSU ﬁrst—year university students
did not declare a major ﬁeld of study on entry to LSSU during the same period of time
(between fall 1996 and fall 2002). The fact that more DE students entered their ﬁrst

semester of full-time postsecondary academics with a declared major may imply

106

academic engagement associated with the DE participant’s early exposure to the

postsecondary academic advising, mandated for DE participants by Michigan statute.

Question 3.

Does participation in Dual Enrollment and Advanced Placement programming,

High School GPA, Race, Sex, and Region of Michigan Residence, individually or.

additively combine to predict academic performance for students in the ﬁrst year of

bachelor 's degree-focused postsecondary education at LSS U?

H031: Four Pre--University Student Proﬁle Factors (Sex, Race, Region of Michigan
Residence and HS GPA) and Participation in Postsecondary Preparatory
Programming While in High School (DE or AP) do not individually or additively
combine to predict successful academic performance (First Semester LSSU GPA)
for students focused on earning a bachelor’s degree credential at LSSU.

H032: Four Pre—University Student Proﬁle Factors (Sex, Race, Region of Michigan
Residence and HS GPA) and Participation in Postsecondary Preparatory
Programming While in High School (DE or AP) do not individually or additively
combine to predict successful academic performance (Second Semester LSSU
GPA) for students focused on earning a bachelor’s degree credential at LSSU.

H033: Four Pre-University Student Proﬁle Factors (Sex, Race, Region of Michigan
Residence and HS GPA) and Participation in Postsecondary Preparatory
Programming While in High School (DE or AP) do not individually or additively

combine to predict the number of earned credits hours in the ﬁrst-semester of full-
time postsecondary academics for students focused on earning a bachelor’s degree

credential at LSSU.

Multiple regression analysis can determine complex relationships between and
among variables. This statistical tool was employed to answer Question 3 of this study
because of the need to evaluate simultaneously the effects of different types of predictors
(continuous as well as categorical factors) on three separate continuous dependent
variables: 1) First Semester LSSU GPA; 2) Second Semester LSSU GPA; and 3) the

Total Number of Credit Hours Earned After the First-Semester of F ull-Time Study at

LSSU.

107

Multiple linear regression was selected as a tool for analysis once it was
determined that the assumptions for this approach were met (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). An
analysis of residuals and scatter plots of residuals vs. predicted residuals resulted in no
detectable abnormalities for either the DE population group or the randomly selected
control group of students. However, box plot analyses revealed outliers and scatter plots
showed visual clumping at the top of the plots (ceiling effect) only for the small AP
subject group (N = 38).

Multiple linear regression analysis on first semester LSS U GPA. Table 39 and
Table 40 provide results from the multiple linear regression performed using one
dependent variable (First-Semester LSSU GPA) and six independent predictor variables
in this model (Sex, Race, Region of Michigan Residence, DE participation status, AP
participation status, and HS GPA).

This model signiﬁcantly predicted ﬁrst semester LSSU GPA, F (6, 438) = 39.347,
p < .000. The adjusted R2 was .341, which means that about 34% of the variation in First
Semester LSSU GPA could be explained by the predictors in this model. Given these
ﬁndings, the researcher rejected the null hypothesis (H031) for this model.

Table 39.
Multiple Linear Regression: Postsecondary Preparatory Programs (DE participation,

AP participation), HS GPA, Sex, Race, and Region of Michigan Residence as Predictors
of F irst-Semester LSS U GPA.

 

Adjusted R Std. Error of the
Model R Square Estimate

 

l .592 .341 .742

 

108

Table 40.
ANOVA for Regression Variables (DE participation, AP participation, HS GPA, Sex,
Race and Region of Michigan Residence) As Predictors of First Semester LSS U GPA.

 

 

 

Sum of Mean
‘ Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 130.193 6 21.699 39.347 .000
Residual 241.545 438 .551
Total 371.739 444

 

Table 41 depicts three of the six variables under study (Sex, Race, and Region of
Michigan Residence) were not statistically signiﬁcant predictors for First Semester LSSU
GPA in this model. However, High School GPA (t = 12.276, p < .000), AP participation
(t = 2.623, p < .009), and DE participation (t = 2.145, p < .032) were all statistically
signiﬁcant and within expectations for each variable. Together these variables account for
34% of the varianCe accounted for in ﬁrst semester GPA in this model. As expected and
supported in the literature, HS GPA (with a beta score of .537) serves as a strong

' predictor for First Semester LSSU GPA in this model.

109

Table 41.

Coefﬁcient Analysis for Multiple Linear Regression: Postsecondary Preparatory

Programs (DE participation, AP participation), HS GPA, Sex, Race and Region of
Michigan Residence as Predictors of First Semester LSS U GPA.

 

Model

Unstandardized

Standardized

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Coefﬁcients Coefﬁcients t Sig.
Std.
B Error Beta

(Constant) -.327 .245 -1.333 .183
aporno: 0=0,1 =0,
2=0_3=1_4=0 .361 .138 .110 2.623 .009
dualomo:1=0_1=1
2=0_3=0_4=O .170 .079 .091 2.145 .032
56’“ Female = 0 Male = 1 .069 .073 .037 .945 .345
ethgroup: White,
N=0_Native, A=1_Other=2 .082 .131 .025 .624 .533
miregioni UP = 1_LP=0 -.062 .102 -.024 -.609 .543
High School. GPA .910 .074 .537 12.276 .000

 

Multiple linear regression analysis on second semester LSS U GPA. Tables 42

and Table 43 repeat the results for the same predictor variables using Second Semester

LSSU GPA as the criterion. The ﬁndings F (6, 438) = 37.521, p < .000 with an adjusted

R2 of .330 reveal that about 33% of the variation in Second Semester LSSU GPA could

be explained by the predictors in this model. The researcher rejected the null hypothesis

(H032) for this model based on the statistical signiﬁcance that was determined with this

analysis.

110

Table 42.

Multiple Linear Regression: Postsecondary Preparatory Programs (DE participation,
AP participation), HS GPA, Sex, Race and Region of Michigan Residence as Predictors
of Second Semester LSS U GPA.

 

Adjusted R Std. Error of

 

 

Model R Square the Estimate
1 .583(a) .330 .782
Table 43.

ANO VA for Regression Variables (DE participation, AP participation, HS GPA,
Sex, Race and Region of Michigan Residence) as Predictors of Second Semester

LSS U GPA.

 

 

 

Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 137.960 6 22.993 37.521 .000
Residual 268.409 43 8 .61 3
Total 406.369 444

 

Table 44 shows that of these six predictor variables, only High School GPA was
statistically signiﬁcant as a predictor for Second Semester LSSU GPA (t = 12.001 ,

p < .000). Region of Michigan Residence (p = .051) as a negative predictor and
participation in DE as a positive predictor were marginally signiﬁcant (p = .072) for
Second Semester LSSU GPA.

There was slightly more variance accounted for with the six variables presented to
predict the First Semester LSSU GPA when compared with the amount of variance for
the same variables on Second Semester LSSU GPA. HS GPA continues to serve as the
strongest positive predictor in the model, with a standardized beta score of .530 on

Second Semester LSSU GPA.

111

Table 44.

Coeﬂicient Analysis for Multiple Linear Regression: Postsecondary Preparatory
Programs (DE participation, AP participation), HS GPA, Sex, Race and Region of
Michigan Residence as Predictors of Second Semester LSS U GPA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unstandardized Standardized
Model Coefﬁcients Coefﬁcients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) -.499 .258 -1.932 .054
apomo:_0=0_1 =0_
2=0_3=1_4=0 .217. .145 .063 1.494 .136
dualomo:_l=0,1=1,
2:0, 3:0,4:0 .151 .084 .078 1.805 .072
Sex Fema1e=0,
_ -.023 .077 -.012 -.299 .765
Male=1
ethgroup: _White,
N=O, Native A=1, .113 .138 . .033 .822 .411
Other = 2
miregion:
- UP=1,LP=0 -.210 .108 -.079 —1.956 .051
High School GPA .938 .078 .530 12.001 .000

 

Multiple linear regression analysis on # of credit hours earned after 1“ semester
of study at LSSU. Because the number of credit hours earned is closely related to LSSU
GPA (and because ﬁrst semester assessment is important to consider in terms of high
school transitioning into postsecondary academics) the number of credit hours earned has
meaning as a short-term outcome variable in this study. Table 45 and Table 46 provide
results using the same six regression predictor variables on the number of ﬁrst semester
credit hours earned at LSSU.

The ﬁndings F (6, 438) = 25.115, p < .000 with an adjusted R2 of .246 reveal that

about 25% of the variation in the total Number of Credit Hours Earned First Semester of

112

postsecondary study at LSSU could be explained by the predictors in this model.
Accordingly, I rejected the null hypothesis (P1033) for this model.

Table 45.

Multiple Linear Regression: Postsecondary Preparatory Programs (DE participation,
AP participation), HS GPA, Sex, Race, and Region of Michigan Residence as Predictors
for Total Number of First Semester Credits Earned at LSS U.

 

Adjusted R Std. Error of

 

 

Model R Square the Estimate
1 .506 .246 3.357
Table 46.

ANOVA for Regression Variables: (DE participation, AP Participation, HS GPA, Sex,
Race, and Region of Michigan Residence as Predictors for Total Number of First
Semester Credits Earned at LSS U.

 

 

 

Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 1699.064 6 283.177 25.1 15 .000
Residual 4938.532 438 1 1.275
Total 663 7.596 444

 

Table 47 shows that, of these six predictor variables, only High School GPA
remained statistically signiﬁcant as a positive predictor for the Total Number of Credit
Hours Earned in the First Semester of study at LSSU (t = 10.047, p < .000) ,with a

standardized beta level of .470.

113

Table 47.

Coeﬂicient Analysis for Multiple Linear Regression: Postsecondary Preparatory
Programs (DE participation, AP participation), HS GPA, Sex, Race, and Region of
Michigan Residence as Predictors of Total Number of First Semester Credits Earned at
LSS U.

 

Unstandardized Standardized

 

 

Model Coefﬁcients Coefﬁcients t Sig.
Std.
B Error Beta
1 (Constant) 1.760 1.109 1.588 .1 13
apomo:0=0,1=0, 2=0,
3=1,4=0 .471 . .623 .034 .757 .450
dualomozl=0,1=1, 2
=0,3=0,4=0 .422 .359 .054 1.175 .240
15"": Fema'e = 0’ Male = .263 .328 .034 .801 .424
ethgroup: White, N=0,
Native A = 1, Other = 2 -.365 .591 -.027 -.618 .537
miregion: UP= 1, LP= 0 -.452 .461 -.042 .980 .327
High School GPA 3.368 .335 .470 10.047 .000

 

Question 4.

Does the LSS U graduation. proﬁle for ﬁrst-time, full-time LSSU students who
selected one of two postsecondary academic preparatory strategies while a high school
student (Dual Enrollment or Advanced Placement) diﬂer from the LSS U graduation
profile for first-time, full-time LSS U students who did not select a postsecondary
academic preparatory strategy while a high school student?

H041: There is no difference in bachelor’s degree earned status for ﬁrst-year LSSU
students who participated in a postsecondary academic preparatory program while

in high school (DE or AP) when compared with non-participants.

H042: There is no difference in the amount of time it takes to earn a bachelor’s degree
credential from LSSU by ﬁrst-year LSSU students who participated in a

114

postsecondary academic preparatory program while in high school (DE or AP)
when compared with non-participants.

Persistence toward bachelor 's degree
attainment at LSS U. Academic performance in the ﬁrst year of study at LSSU
foreshadows the ultimate goal of degree attainment. All study subjects who were
admitted full-time for the ﬁrst time into LSSU before fall semester 2001 were counted
and grouped by degree status. Table 48 reports the minimum ﬁve-year graduation
percentages of study subjects in each of the three groups entering LSSU before fall
semester 2001, who had earned a bachelor’s degree by the end of spring semester 2003.
As expected, more of the AP students received their degrees in this time period (67.6%),
followed next by the DE students (47.5%) and lastly by control students (31.6%) who had
not participated in a postsecondary preparatory program while in high school.

Table 48.
Cross- Tabulation: Degree-Earned Status for All Groups Started FT Coursework Before
Fall 2001: N = 315*.

 

Group preparation (0=selected
controls, 1=dua1 only, 3=AP only) Total

 

 

 

Dual AP
None Only only
Degree No Count 106 64 12 182
Earned Yes
or No
% within Group preparation 68.4% 52.1% 32.4% 57.8%
(0=selected controls,
1=dual only, 3=AP only)
Yes Count 49 59 25 133
% within Group preparation
(0=selected controls, 31.6% 47.9% 67.6% 42.2%
1=dual only, 3=AP only)
Total Count 155 123 37 31 5

 

* Obtained from LSSU’s Student Persistence File on LSSU’s SIS Program

115

Table 49 shows the results of a one-way ANOVA. The three subject groups

differed signiﬁcantly on Earned Bachelor’s Degree Status, F (2, 312) = 9.638, p < .000,

eta‘? = .070. Accordingly, the null hypothesis for degree status (H041) was rejected in this

model.

Table 49.

_ One-Way ANOVA: Degree Earned Status: All Groups: Set-Point Fall 2001: N = 315.

 

 

 

Degree Earned Sum of Mean
Status (Yes) Squares df Scmare F Sig.
* Group Between
preparation Groups
(0=selected 4.466 2 2.233 9.638 .000
controls, 1=dual
only, 3=AP only)
w‘m‘“ 72.044 312 .232
Groups
Total 76.510 314

 

* eta2= .070

To further assess and compare the results for this variable with unequal variances

(L= 8.844, p < .000), the Dunnett’s T3 measure was used to conduct a pair-wise

comparison as reported in Table 50.

116

Table 50.
Post hoc (Dunnett’s T 3) for One- Way ANO VA: Degree Earned Status: All Groups:
Set-Point Fall 2001: N = 315.

 

 

 

 

 

Mean
(1) Group (J) Group Difference 95% Conﬁdence
preparation preparation (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Interval
Lower Upper
Bound Bound
None Dual Only -.159 (*) .058 .022 ' -.301 -.017
AP only -.359(*) .086 .000 -.572 -.146
Dual Only None .159 (*) .058 .022 .018 .300
AP only -.200 . .090 .087 -.421 -.021
AP only None .359 (*) .086 .000 .146 .572
Dual Only .200 .090 .087 .021 .421

 

* The mean difference is signiﬁcant at the .05 level.

As expected, the Earned Bachelor’s Degree Status was highest for the AP group,
followed by the DE group, and ﬁnally by the control group of students. Mean differences
between the control and AP groups, as well as between the control and DE groups were
statistically signiﬁcant at a .05 level. However, there was no statistical signiﬁcance found
when the DE group was compared with the AP group in this model. That is, the AP
group was no more likely to graduate with a bachelor’s degree from LSSU within the
minimal set time of ﬁve years when compared to the DE group, and both were more
likely to graduate in this time period than students in the control group who had no
postsecondary preparatory programming while a high school student.

Table 51 describes more thoroughly by group those who received their bachelor’s degree
from LSSU. As noted, students in the DE group had smaller mean scores and a smaller

standard deviation when the number of years of attendance before degree attainment was

117

compared on the same measure for the control group in this study. In addition, the DE

group also reported the smallest minimum score for years of attendance (3.00 years)

when ranges were considered across all groups.

Table 51.

Descriptives: Student Persistence (Years of Attendance) for Earned Bachelor ’s Degree:
All Groups *: Set-Point Fall 2001: N = 133.

 

 

 

 

Std. Std. 95% Conﬁdence
N Mean Dev. Error Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum

Lower Upper

Bound Bound
None 49 4.668 .759 .1087 4.450 4.886 3.50 7.00
Dual Only 59 4.314 .651 .085 4.143 4.486 3.00 7.00
AP only 25 4.470 .785 .157 4.146 4.794 3.50 6.50
Total 133 4.475 .730 .063 4.349 4.601 3.00 7.00

 

" Obtained from LSSU’s Student Persistence File on LSSU’s SIS Program

Results ﬁ‘om a one-way AN OVA are reported in Table 52. There was a

signiﬁcant difference in “Years of Attendance” for students when one considered the

length of time it took to earn an LSSU bachelor’s degree among the three subject groups,
F (2, 130) = 3.216, p = .043, eza’=.094. With these results, the null hypothesis for Years
of Attendance (H042) was rejected in this model

Table 52.

One- Way ANO VA: Years of Attendance for Earned Bachelor ’3 Degree: All Groups:

Set-Point Fall 2001: N = 133.

 

 

 

Sum of Mean
Years of Attendance Squares df Square F Sig.
"' Group preparation Between
(0=selected controls, Groups 3.324 2 1.662 3.216 .043
1=dual only, 3=AP only)
g’m‘” 66.659 130 .517
oups
Total 69.982 132

 

*eta2= .094

118

The Levene’s Test to assess variance between the groups under study revealed
that the groups did not differ signiﬁcantly on this measure (L = .862, p=.425). Therefore,
a conservative Bonferroni’s measure for equal variance was used in post hoc evaluation
of “Years of Attendance” for the three groups in the study.

Table 53 reports a statistically signiﬁcant difference (p = .03 7) between the DE
group and the control group of degree earned study subjects who started ﬁrst—time, full-

time LSSU course work from fall semester 1996 up to fall semester 2001. Although {

:G‘r-:-. .1 '
I.

there were no statistically signiﬁcant ﬁndings in the analysis for the AP group on this
measure, ﬁndings for'the DE group were remarkable. The results showed that among DE
and control group students who earned an LSSU bachelor’s degree, the DE group spent
signiﬁcantly less time in postsecondary educational programming to earn that bachelor’s
degree when compared to control group students. In this way, high school participation
in Michigan’s DE Program not only provided an academic “jump start” for eligible high
school students transitioning into postsecondary academics, but demonstrated its
sustained value long-term with an accelerated rate for bachelor’s degree achievement for
subjects who completed their ﬁrst year of full-time academic study at LSSU starting the

same year that they earned their high school diploma.

119

Table 53.
Post hoc (Bonferroni ’s) for One- Way ANO VA: Years of A ttendance Prior to Earning a
Bachelor’s Degree At LSS U by Group: All Groups: Fall 1996 to Fall 2001: N = 133.

 

 

 

 

(J) Group
(I) Group preparation
preparation (0=selected
(0=selected controls, 1=dua1 Mean
controls, 1=dual only, 3=AP Difference Std. 95% Conﬁdence
only, 3=AP only) only) (I-J) Error Sig. Interval
Lower Upper
Bound Bound
None Dual Only .3 53(*) .139 .037 .015 .692
AP only .198 .176 .791 -.230 .626
Dual Only None -.353(*) .139 .037 -.692 -.015
AP only 4.155 .171 1.000 -.572 .261
AP only None -.198 .176 .791 -.626 .230
Dual Only .155 .171 ’ 1.000 -.261 .572

 

* The mean difference is signiﬁcant at the .05 level.

Conclusion

This chapter presented the results of the data obtained from the review of a seven-
year case study on academic performance for students who started their ﬁrst year of full-
time university study at Lake Superior State University the same year they received their
high school diploma. Both short- and long-term academic achievement indicators were
examined for three distinct student groups: the small population of LSSU students who
participated in AP coursework while in high school; the population of LSSU students
who participated in DE coursework while in high school; and a randomly selected control
group of students who did not participate in a postsecondary academic preparatory
program while in high school. Statistical analyses were conducted to help deﬁne these

three groups and to begin to examine two things: 1) the impact of high school

120

participation in postsecondary preparatory programming on ﬁrst-year postsecondary
academic performance at LSSU; and 2) the impact of high school participation in
postsecondary preparatory programming on academic persistence toward achieving a
bachelor’s degree from LSSU.

The data in this chapter provided a series of snapshots about academic
performance at LSSU by ﬁrst-year, full-time students. Together these snapshots widened
the lens of understanding about the impact of high school participation in academic
preparatory programs on postsecondary academic achievement at LSSU. In Chapter 5,
the researcher will apply the literature review to frame the ﬁndings presented here,
speciﬁcally in terms of policy issues. In addition, the researcher will use the study’s four
research questions to guide the discussion of these ﬁndings, as well as the

recommendations for future research on the topic.

121

 

CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary Listing of Key Findings Identiﬁed in Chapter 4

A summary listing 'of the key ﬁndings from each section identiﬁed in Chapter 4
frames the presentation for Chapter 5. The summary listing is followed by a discussion

section that focuses on each of the four research questions upon which this study was

5'1

based. Educational policy implications presented in greater depth at the end of this

1."

chapter focus ﬁrst on Lake Superior State University as the institution under study, then
on Michigan colleges and universities with similar concerns about ﬁrst-year “persistence”
and “graduation completion” among its students. In addition, these ﬁndings have policy
implications for Michigan’s State Department of Education, and potentially for other
educational programs in “rust belt” states in the US.

Question 1.

Does the pre-university student proﬁle (Sex, Race, Region of Michigan Residence,
High'School GPA, High School Percentile Class Rank, ACT Composite Score) of ﬁrst-
year LSS U students who selected one of two postsecondary academic preparatory
strategies while a high school student (Dual Enrollment or Advanced Placement) differ
ﬁ'omfirst-year LSS U students who did not select a postsecondary academic preparatory
strategy while a high school student?

Study Findings: Pre- University Student Proﬁle Factors
1. Of the ﬁrst-year, full-time Michigan students who entered LSSU between

the fall of 1996 and the fall of 2002, each year 3 to 5% selected a

122

postsecondary preparatory strategy while in high school. The majority of
students who selected a postsecondary preparatory strategy earned
postsecondary credit hours while high school students under Michigan’s
DE Program (PA 160) selected DE (82.5%).

Demographically, the proportion of male and female students was the
same for the DE population group, the AP population group, and the

' randomly selected control group in this study. This distribution was also
true for race, which indicated that at least in these study groups (AP, DE
or control group) no one group was favored by one sex or one race.
Geographically, “Region of Michigan Residence” differed substantially
across the three groups in this study. For ﬁrst-year, full-time LSSU
students, more than 75% of all three groups (DE, AP and control) came
from Michigan’s Lower Peninsula. For the population of DE ﬁrst-year
students who attended LSSU between 1996 and 2003, 92.2% were from
Michigan’s Lower Peninsula.

All three high school academic measures (High School GPA, ACT
Composite Score and High School Percentile Rank) were signiﬁcantly
related to high school postsecondary preparatory status (AP and DE
Programs), since these measures are closely related to one another. In
support of the belief that grades carry more weight than tests in most cases
(Astin, 1993), high school GPA consistently proved to be the strongest
predictor of these three measures for both ﬁrst-year GPA and bachelor’s

degree achievement at LSSU .

123

' 5. The greatest range of ACT Composite Scores came from the control group
in this study (14 to 34). There was little dispersion for ACT Composite

Scores within the AP group (23 to 32), while the DE group had ACT

Composite Scores similar to the control group (ranging from 15 to 32). In

relation to ACT student selectivity, some members in both the control

group (N = 23) and the DE group (N=10) had an ACT composite scores

below the ACT “open” selectivity level of 17.

Question 1 Discussion

As there had been no state or local studies to help deﬁne the subgroup of
students who selected a postsecondary academic preparatory strategy while in
high school, the intent of this question was to ﬁnd out some basic information
about the DE population at LSSU. The AP and DE ﬁrst-year LSSU populations
in this study successfully completed the ﬁrst year of full-time study at LSSU the
same year they graduated from high school. The control group was comprised of a
randomly selected computer-generated group of students who did not participate
in a postsecondary academic preparatory program while in high school.

Although a relatively small percentage of ﬁrst-year, full-time LSSU
students selected DE programming in high school to prepare them for academics
at LSSU, the lack of research on this topic made it difﬁcult to determine how
these LSSU percentages compared with other Michigan universities. However, it
is possible to look at the nature of LSSU to help explore some reasons that may

have contributed to the small percentage of ﬁrst-year students who entered LSSU

I24

 

with postsecondary transfer credits earned through high school participation in
DE or AP (LSSU Self-Study, 2000): '

o LSSU is Michigan’s smallest non-research state university,
LSSU is located in Michigan’s rural Upper Peninsula,

- LSSU is focused on teaching and primarily on bachelor’s degree
attainment,

o LSSU has a dual mission as a state university and a regional college;

- llerdSU has a wide ACT student selectivity level and is open to the

regional student regardless of ACT score.

For these reasons, LSSU may appeal more to the current traditional high
school graduate than to one who selects part-time postsecondary educational
options while in high school. Many of LSSU’s ﬁrst-year students are graduates
from high schools in rural school districts across Michigan’s Lower Peninsula
(LSSU Admissions Report, 2003). This pattern is especially true for those ﬁrst-
year LSSU students who arrived on campus with AP and DE postsecondary
credits earned while in high school (91% were from the Lower Peninsula).
Philosophical, ﬁnancial, and/or accessibility issues are some reasons given to
explain why fewer AP programs are available in the smaller rural school districts
in the state when compared to larger ones. Without in-house AP Programs, there
are greater numbers of requests for options available through Michigan’s DE
Program (Michigan State Board of Education Report, 2003).

It must be noted that group membership in this study was determined
through a self—selection process, which may have contributed to the lack of

variation in the groups by sex or race. The equal representation of the three

groups based on “preparatory strategy or not” should be qualiﬁed by a very

125

‘11

 

limited number of other minority students in the study samples (less than 1%).
The representation of Native American students in this group, though small, is
encouraging given the fact that Native American ﬁrst-year students do not
traditionally begin full-time postsecondary academic programming the same year
that they receive their high school diploma (LSSU Admission Report, 2003).

The scores on the pre-university academic performance factors used in this
study are closely related to one another. Accordingly, only high school GPA was
selected for the regression model in Question 3. Mean scores for High School
GPA, Percentile Class Rank and ACT Composite Score were highest for those in
the AP group. This ﬁnding was expected considering the nature of AP
programming and its traditional association with “academically gifted and
talented” high school students (The College Board, 2000).-Most high school AP
students have a long history of being provided educational enhancement
opportunities by K-12 educators (Atwell & McLeod, 1994). Their status often
overshadows the potential talents of other students in the district who do not have
an “academic elitist identity” or the opportunities of educational enhancement
associated with that identity.

The extent of variation between and within the three groups was evident in
the range of composite scores for the ACT Test. Students in the randomly
selected control group, who did not participate in a postsecondary academic
preparatory program while in high school, had a mean ACT Composite Score of
21.39 (range of 14 to 34). These scores placed students in a wide range of

selectivity, from below the “open selective” category to above the “highly

126

selective” level. In similar fashion, the DE group had a mean ACT composite
score of 23.07 (range from 15 to 32) which crossed categories from below the
“open selective” category to above the “highly selective” category. In contrast,
the ACT composite scores for the small population of AP students were all tightly
clustered around the “highly selective” mean score of 27.11 (range of 23 to 32).
Question 2
7 Does the first-year academic university profile (First Semester LSS U
' GPA, Second Semester LSS U GPA, Number of Enrolled Credit Hours First
Semester, Number of Earned Credit Hours First Semester and Number of Degree
MajoChanges) for LSS U students who selected one of two postsecondary
academic preparatory strategies while a high school student (Dual Enrollment or
Advanced Placement) differ from the ﬁrst-year academic university profile for
LSSU students who did not select a postsecondary academic preparatory strategy
while a high school student?
Study Findings: F irst-year LSS U Student Academic Behaviors
1. Students who participated in postsecondary preparatory programming as a
high school student performed better on all LSSU academic outcome
measures in this study, when compared to non-participating students
(controls). High School GPA was positively correlated to the ﬁrst-year,
full-time student at LSSU. Both First and SecondSemester LSSU GPA
varied signiﬁcantly by postsecondary preparatory program status with a
marked decrease for all study subjects from ﬁrst to second semester. The

greatest GPA decrease from ﬁrst semester to second semester at LSSU

127

 

was with the AP study subjects (net decrease of .267). However, even
with this decrease, an analysis of rank order for the three groups on all
GPA measures was consistent with the AP group demonstrating the

2 highest mean GPAs, followed by the DE group’s mean GPA and then
lastly by the control group’s GPAs.

The number of “Enrolled” ﬁrst-semester credit hours for the DE group did
not differ greatly by group in this study (15 credit hours) although the Ir
number of “Earned” ﬁrst-semester credit hours did vary by group. In rank
order, AP students earned the most LSSU ﬁrst-semester credit hours at
14.6 followed by the DE group with 13.73. Of the three groups, the
control group earned the least number of credit hours in their ﬁrst semester
at LSSU (12.03 credit hours). The change from enrolled credits to earned
credits for the control group was comparable to dropping on average one
3-credit hour enrolled course per student.

There was no signiﬁcant difference between groups on “Number Degree

. Major Changes” made by students in the ﬁrst year of full-time study at
LSSU. Because this measure is heavily qualitative in its nature, further
research needs to be conducted in an effort to provide meaning to this
variable before it can be effectively used as a predictor or outcome
variable.

When compared with the control group in this study, the DE group
consistently demonstrated substantial positive differences on all three

outcome measures under review: 1) First Semester LSSU GPA; 2) Second

128

Semester LSSU GPA; and 3) the Number of Credit Hours Earned after the

ﬁrst semester of full-time study at LSSU.
Question 2 Discussion

Grade point average continues to serve as the standard for academic
achievement and persistence in the ﬁrst year of postsecondary study (Pascarella &
Terenzini, 2005). It is commonly accepted as a reﬂection of academic success by
internal and external stakeholders alike. As a measure, GPA has been
successfully used as both an outcome tool and as a predictor for achievement in
both high school and postsecondary academics (Adelman, 1999; Astin, 1993;
Atwell & McLeod, 1994; Henderson & Masten, 1959; Kanoy, Wester, & Latta
2002; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991).

As With high school GPA, ﬁrst-semester LSSU GPA and second-semester
LSSU GPA varied signiﬁcantly by group in this study. As expected,
postsecondary GPA for all students decreased from ﬁrst to second semester,
which reﬂected an adjustment period common at the midpoint in the ﬁrst year of
study (McCormick, 1997). Interestingly, the second-semester LSSU GPA for the
DE group showed less of a decline in mean score (-.145) when compared with the
control group (-.169) and the AP group (-.267). This ﬁnding supports the belief
that previous exposure through DE programming may help students view
postsecondary environment more clearly, which would result in less student mid-
semester adj ustments on average when compared to other subject groups in the

study.

129

 

According to Stage and Hossler (2004), judging student success and
persistence in postsecondary educational programming requires more than an
analysis of GPA and student perceptions. It requires an examination of student
behaviors demonstrated early in educational programming that reﬂects the
academic interest for the student involved. Student behaviors serve as a reﬂection
of how the student engages in the culture of postsecondary academics (Astin,
1993). In this study, the researcher examined the number of credit hours a student
enrolled in to take during the ﬁrst semester of educational programming, as well
as the actual number of credit hours the student earned that ﬁrst semester of full-
time postsecondary academic study. The number of times the student changed
his/her degree major in the ﬁrst year of postsecondary academic programming
was alsoexamined the belief that more degree major changes may reﬂect less
student focus and commitment.

Based on the literature, it would appear that the student who frequently
_ changed his/her degree major at LSSU may have more difﬁculty with persistence
as evidenced by the additional time it would take for bachelor’s degree attainment
(Bouffard, Boisvert, Vezeau, & Larouche, 1995). Also, there was an expectation
that more student changes of the academic major would occur in the second
semester of the ﬁrst year of postsecondary study, based on earlier research in this
area by Meulemann (1992). True to Meulemann’s ﬁndings, over the seven years
of this study, about 65% of all the degree major changes that were made in the
ﬁrst year occurred in the second semester of academic programming. Overall,

there was no signiﬁcant'difference between the three groups in this study when

130

 

looking at the “Number of Degree Major Changes” in the ﬁrst year of
postsecondary academics at LSSU. However, it must be noted that fewer DE
students came into academic programming at LSSU (17.2%) with an undeclared.
majorwhen compared with the control group in this study (30.39%). Because
this measure has strong qualitative underpinnings (more changes cannot be
considered better or .worse until the types of changes are considered), this variable
could not be fully explored in this study.

Enrolled and Earned Credit Hours for each student group was another
interesting measure of student academic involvement in postsecondary academics.
This analysis revealed that each of the three student groups enrolled 'for about the
same number of credit hours in anticipation of their ﬁrst semester of full-time
academic study at LSSU (a mean of 15 credit hours). Although “Enrolled Credit
Hours” for ﬁrst-semester study at LSSU did not vary signiﬁcantly across groups,
Credits Earned from F irst-semester study at LSSU did vary signiﬁcantly.

The control group made the academic decision to drop about three of their
enrolled credit hour load (about one 3-hour class) on average over the course of
the ﬁrst-semester. The control group earned, on average, 12.03 credit hours in the
ﬁrst semester of full-time study at LSSU. During this same period of time, the
DE group dropped, on average, about half that number of enrolled credit hours
(1.27 credit hours), ending with a mean total of 13.7 credit hours earned for the
ﬁrst semester of full-time study. The AP student group dropped, on average, .73
credits, bringing them to a mean total of 14.63 credit hours earned in their ﬁrst

semester at LSSU. This ﬁnding supports claims in the literature that post-

131

secondary anticipatory socialization experiences can provide high school students
with a stronger, more realistic set of expectations that will guide them in academic
decision-making when they become fully immersed in the context of post-

secondary academics (McCormick, 1997).

Question 3.

Does participation in Dual Enrollment programming, participation in
Advanced Placement programming, High School GPA, Race, Sex, and Region of
. MichiganResidence, individually or additively combine to predict academic
performance for students in the first year of bachelor ’s degree focused
postsecondary education at LSS U?

Study Findings: Predictors of F irst—year Student Performance at LSS U.

1. Pre-university student proﬁle factors (DE participation, AP participation,
HS GPA, Sex, Race and Region of Michigan Residence) as independent
variables helped to explain about 34% of the variance in the First Semester
LSSU GPA model and about 33% of the variance in the Second Semester
LSSU GPA model.

2. When looking at the Number of Credit Hours Earned First Semester at
LSSU as another outcome measure, the same six predictor variables
accounted for a signiﬁcant variance in the model, but High School GPA
with its positive association was the only statistically signiﬁcant predictor

(p < .05).

132

3. As an individual predictor, high school participation in dual enrollment
programming was found to be signiﬁcantly and positively related toFirst
Semester LSSU GPA (p = .032). It was marginally signiﬁcant in the
regression model for Second Semester LSSU GPA ( p = .072), and not .
signiﬁcant in predicting the Number of Credit Hours Earned in the First
Semester of full-time study at LSSU (p = .240).

Question 3 Discussion
The ﬁrst year of college has become a much higher priority today than it

was in the 19608 when Nevitt Sanford wrote on the importance of challenge and

support for promoting academic success among ﬁrst-year college students

(U pcraﬁ, Gardner, Barefoot, & Associates, 2005). The transition from high

school academics to postsecondary study is not always a smooth road, but one

that can be paved through appropriate utilization of resources that promote a

student’s academic capital (Berger, 2004). Policies regarding educational

programming efforts need to be developed based on solid research so that
educational decisions haVe a strong evidence base. In addition, all evidence does
not hold equal weight. Though academic measures (e.g., LSSU GPA) and
academic achievements (e. g., graduation rates) tell only a limited portion of the
postsecondary student success story (Upcraft, Gardner, Barefoot, & Associates,

2005), the portion that these measures tell ﬁt the policy requirements of many

. internal and external stakeholders interested in promoting educational success.

There were ’six predictor variables selected for study of this question (Sex,

Race,'Region of Michigan Residence, HS GPA, AP participation status, and DE

133

participation status) using three regression models. Overall, high school GPA
served as the best predictor. in all the models used to answer Question 3. This
factor served as a slightly better predictor for the student’s First Semester LSSU
GPA '(beta of .537) when compared to the student’s Second Semester LSSU GPA
(beta of .530). Both semester LSSU GPA models showed that the selected pre-
university proﬁle variables accounted for about 33% to 34% predictability in the
models (adjusted R2 scores were .341 and .330), with most being accounted for by
the HS GPA predictor.

As mentioned earlier, HS GPA has a strong research foundation that
supports its role as a predictor for a student’s ﬁlture academic performance
(Adelman, 1999; Astin, 1993; Atwell & McLeod, 1994; Henderson & Masten,
1959; Kanoy, Wester, & Latta 2002; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). What is not
so well documented in the literature is the role that postsecondary academic
preparatory programming plays in this predictive process. In attempts to
determine if high school participation in either AP or DE programming ranked as
predictors for the three outcome measures, both variables were included as
separate predictor variables in the three regression models.

For First Semester LSSU GPA, AP participation was more signiﬁcant in
the model (p=.009) when compared with the signiﬁcance for DE participation
(p = .032), although the standardized regression coefﬁcients (betas) for both were
comparable in strength (AP accounted for 11% and DE accounted for 9% of the
variability in that model). As postsecondary academic transition programs, it is

not surprising that participation in either of these postsecondary preparatory

134

' programs would impact a student’s ﬁrst semester postsecondary achievement.
Given the nature of AP programming where participants are “selected” and
treated as academic elites in their high school settings, these nurtured and
supported students demonstrate the success they have been groomed for since
high school (and in somecases even earlier), which helps to account for their
stronger show on the LSSU GPA First Semester (Bailey, Hughes, & Karp, 2002).
Of particular interest is that a more open membership academic preparatory
program like DE is as important as AP in predicting First Semester LSSU GPA in
this model, providing hope for those “non-honors” high school students who have
academic potential that has yet to be fully realized.

In looking at these same predictors for Second Semester LSSU GPA,
neither high school postsecondary academic preparatory program was found to be
a statistically signiﬁcant predictor in the model. The DE group did a better job of
holding its ground from ﬁrst semester to second semester of ﬁrst-year, full-time
study at LSSU (the AP signiﬁcance level was reported as p = .136 compared with
the DE signiﬁcance level which was reported as p = .072). This ﬁnding provides
an unexpected snapshot related to the ﬁrst-year experience, and one that should be
considered for future study.

Finally, previous participation in AP (p = .450) or DE (p = .240) was not
found to be signiﬁcantly related to the number of credit hours earned in the ﬁrst
semester of full-time study at LSSU. The strength of HS GPA as a predictor in
this model accounted for less of the variance when compared to previous

regression models used to answer Question 3. This ﬁnding implies that, as an

135

outcome measure, “Number of Earned Credit Hours First Semester” has more
variability then the six predictors used in the model accounted for, encouraging
further study focused on identifying other potential predictors for analysis of this
variable.

Looking for the variables that optimize a student’s academic capital are a
worthy quest, especially if educators and administrators can support and nurture
student participation in those activities that optimize the student’s academic
capital early in postsecondary educational programming. To effectively support
these efforts, we must have a strong literature foundation on which to base our
support and nurturance, and this can only be accomplished by supporting
continuing research efforts that look at both the short-term and long-term impact
associated with nontraditional academic preparatory programming.

Question 4

Does the LSS U graduation proﬁle for ﬁrst—time full-time LSS U students
who selected one of two postsecondary academic preparatory. strategies while a
high school student (Dual Enrollment or Advanced Placement) differ ﬁom the
ﬁrst-year, full-time LSS U students who did not select one of two postsecondary
academic preparatory strategies while a high school student.

Study Findings: LSS U Student Persistence and the Graduation Proﬁle

1. F irst-year students admitted to LSSU beginning the fall of 1996 up to the
fall 2001, who participated in a postsecondary preparatory program while
in high school (AP programming or DE programming), received an LSSU

bachelor’s degree at higher rates than did LSSU ﬁrst-year students

136

 

. admitted during the same period of time, who did not participate in a
postsecondary preparatory academic program while in high school.

2. Of all ﬁrst-year students admitted to LSSU beginning the fall of 1996 up
to the fall of 2001, who received an LSSU bachelor’s degree credential,
the DE group, on average, earned their bachelor’s degree in less time
when compared to both the control group and the AP group in this study.

Question 4 Discussion
The goal of achieving a bachelor’s degree credential occurred at higher

rates for the small population of AP students in this study (67.6%) and for the DE

population group (47.5%), when compared with the control group students

(31.6%) for the same period of time. More impressively, at a time when the state

of Michigan is pushing to graduate more postsecondary students in Michigan

more quickly (Cherry, 2004), the fact that the DE student group earned their
bachelor’s degree sooner than the AP or control groups needs to be acknowledged
and studied further.

Another interesting ﬁnding from Question 4 focused on student retention
in ﬁrst-year, postsecondary study. Although there were only a few AP students in
this institutional case study (N=3 8), all successfully completed their ﬁrst year of
academic study at LSSU. For the 192 students identiﬁed from the records with
DE transfer credit hours, 180 completed their ﬁrst year at LSSU (93.75%
retention rate). In contrast, the randomly selected control sample which begun
with 250 students, had a total of 227 who successfully completed the ﬁrst year at

LSSU (90.8% retention rate). A follow-up review of individual student ﬁles

137

revealed that of the 35 ﬁrst-year non-completers, all twelve DE students requested
an ofﬁcial LSSU transcript be sent to another institution within the ﬁrst full year
of study. This ﬁnding compared with 9 of the 23 non-completers in the control
group who made the same request, leaving the status of the remaining fourteen
control group students in question as to their postsecondary activities in the ﬁrst
full year after high school graduation. The ﬁndings from Question 4 support the
belief that academically guided curricular “front loading” for eligible high school
students through formal academic programming efforts: 1) eases the academic
transition from high school into full-time postsecondary study, 2) supports
academic persistence through the ﬁrst year of postsecondary study, and 3)
positively impacts long-term student achievement aimed at earning a bachelor’s
degree.

Overall, this research study, which was aimed at answering four research
questions about the educational impact of high school participation in dual
enrollment later in the student’s postsecondary educational career at LSSU,
provided educational policy implications at four distinct levels: 1) for LSSU as
the institution where the study was conducted; 2) for other institutions of higher
education in Michigan; 3) for the State of Michigan and its State Board of

Education; and 4) for similar institutions of higher education across the US.

138

Educational Policy Implications
For Lake Superior State University

Research obtained from this case study analysis effectively demonstrated that DE
participation made a signiﬁcantly positive difference for those students who earned a
(bachelor’s degree from LSSU during this 7-year period of study. In the short term, ﬁrst-
year, full-time academic performance at LSSU was found to be stronger for the DE group
when compared with the control group. This leads one to question how DE participation
assisted the ﬁrst-year student in his/her persistence through the ﬁrst year of transition into
full-time postsecondary academics. Long term, these same DE participants graduated at
higher ﬁve-year graduation rates when compared with control group subjects, and took
less time to accomplish that task when compared with both control and AP student
groups. These research ﬁndings support LSSU’s educational policy decision to electively
participate in Michigan’s Dual Enrollment Program to the beneﬁt of its students and the
educational community.

Lake Superior State University was the right place to conduct this primal study
seeking information about the impact that high school participation in dual enrollment
has later in the student’s postsecondary academic career because LSSU: 1) is the smallest
of Michigan’s 15 state institutions of higher education; 2) has two state-mandated
missions to Serve both regional college and state university educational needs operating
under a K—16 philosophy of educational service; 3) has a broad student base that
represents greater level of academic performance (as measured by ACT composite scores
that ranged from 15-32 points in the DE group); 4) has been fully involved in accepting

postsecondary academic credits earned under PA 160 since the start of the program in

139

1996; and 5) has an administrative student data management system that has remained
the same for the entire 7-year period of the study.

Though LSSU policy and practice for accepting earned dual enrollment
postsecondary credit hours from recently graduated Michigan high school students is
justiﬁed with this study, it is recommended that additional research be conducted to
examine LSSU’s educational practices regarding its role as a regional provider for
eligible high school students who wish to earn postsecondary academic credits at LSSU
under PA 160. This second-level study would assist LSSU in examining how it may be
able to use PA 160 to better meet its regional college charge, while gaining a better
understanding for the strength of its local partnerships with regional secondary
educational institutions.

For Other State Universities in Michigan

Based on the ﬁndings presented in this study at LSSU, other state institutions of
higher education in Michigan need to reﬂect on their individual policies and practices
related to dual enrollment participation at their institutions. Since the State of
Michigan’s Lt. Governor’s Commission Report on Higher Education and Economic
Growth in Michigan called for a 10% high school participation rate statewide over the
next few years (Cherry, 2004), all of Michigan’s public institutions of higher education
should be called on to study the impact of PA 160 participation (or lack of participation)
on their student populations since 1996. The data sets obtained from other state colleges
and universities would assist state policy advisors in determining how best to support the
Commission’s recommendations for DE participation statewide. In addition to looking at

the role community colleges may play in these efforts, there may be some state

140

universities best suited to meet high school DE programming needs based on a variety of
institutional factors (e.g., geographic. disparities for access to educational enhancement
services, university performance in student retention and graduation rates, and the like).
For Michigan ’s State Board of Education

As Michigan’s lead agency for K—16 education, it is important that the Michigan
Department of Education have meaningful data available that addresses dual enrollment
participation across the state. Other than student head counts used to shift secondary
foundation grant money to pay postsecondary educational programming associated with
DE participation, there have been no state-sponsored data collection and analysis efforts
to assess the impact of DE participation, since its implementation in 1996. The people
in the State of Michigan (who have supported this program with their tax dollars from the
beginning) deserve to know about the costs and beneﬁts associated with this state-
supported academic postsecondary preparatory strategy. In addition, it is important to
discover where DE participation has demonstrated educational differences, and how these
differences translate into educational improvement in the state.

It is important that all the recommendations in the State of Michigan’s Lt.
Governor’s Commission Report on Higher Education and Economic Growth in Michigan
(Cherry, 2004) calling for an increase in DE participation statewide, be evidence-based.
Once DE practice and outcome data sets become available at the state level, annual
reports to educational administrators in secondary and postsecondary institutions would
foster a shared understanding about dual enrollment programming in Michigan. Findings
could be compared and contrasted over time, and viewed contextually within educational

and ﬁscal frames for Michigan, the region and the nation. InformatiOn obtained at this

141

level would assist Michigan educational policy advisors to determine best strategies to
meet the educational needs for young adults in our state, providing the evidence for
Michigan’s educational policy and practice to evolve as the state’s educational needs
evolve.
For State Boards of Education Outside of Michigan

A commonly accepted fact in the US today is that dual enrollment programming
is'a mechanism that increases student accessibility to postsecondary academic
programming (Davies, Williams, & Webb, 1997). This ﬁnding has implications for all
forms of public education in and out of the state of Michigan. Because all 50 states have
statutes to provide for dual enrollment programming as a postsecondary preparatory
educational option, there has been greater interest in looking at how other states are
working to optimize these educational services for the young adults they serve.

Regionally speaking, the State Departments of Education in the “rust belt” states
of the US share commonalities with Michigan that inﬂuence state-supported educational
services such as dual enrollment. For this reason, state boards of education outside of
Michigan may wish to examine ﬁndings from this research study at LSSU as they look to
develop educational impact studies of their own. In addition, speciﬁc postsecondary
institutions located in other states that are similar in size and scope to LSSU may be
interested in looking at the ﬁndings from this study as they work to improve their own
DE policies and practice directives.

Conclusion
Public outcry for accountability continues to be heard nationally and statewide in

many public areas of service in the US, including education. For well-intended

142

educational programs to continue to survive in the present economic climate, it is
important that internal and external stakeholders share a common understanding of
educational program options that include such things as goals, beneﬁts, costs, and
outcomes. With the enactment of PA 160, Michigan implemented an educational effort
aimed at enhancing academic programming for eligible high school students who wanted
to prepare academically for college prior to achieving their high school diploma. This
tax-supported, “j urnp start,” part-time, school-of-choice option known as Dual
Enrollment, has not been evaluated in Michigan since its start in 1996, leaving a gap that
needs to be ﬁlled on a variety of levels.

The purpose of this particular research was to examine dual enrollment
programming as a case study in efforts to conduct a policy analysis of Dual Enrollment
Programming in Michigan. All ﬁrst-year, full-time LSSU students in this study were
Michigan residents who graduated from high school the same year they started their ﬁrst
year of full-time postsecondary academic study at Lake Superior State University. In
addition, all study participants completed their ﬁrst year at LSSU with two full-time
consecutive semesters and were evaluated academically using their LSSU grade point
averages.

Though these factors told us something about what DE participants at LSSU
shared with other ﬁrst-year, full-time students during the same period of study at LSSU,
we did not know how (or it) this student cohort differed academically, or how high
school participation under PA 160, inﬂuenced their academic performance in their ﬁrst
year of postsecondary academics. What this study did accomplish was to broaden our

_ understanding. of the impact of DE participation on ﬁrst-year, ﬁrll-time postsecondary

143

study at one small rural state institution of higher education in Michigan. Further studies
need to be conducted on different aspects of DE programming so that our knowledge

base can continue to expand beyond the walls of Lake Superior State University.

Recommendations

The current study produced some signiﬁcant ﬁndings for a small group of ﬁrst-
year, full-time postsecondary students at LSSU who participated in Dual Enrollment as
one of two p05tsecondary preparatory strategies used by high school students in
Michigan. Both the short-term and long-term ﬁndings from this isolated case study
suggests that there is merit in encouraging continued local, regional and state research
studies of dual enrollment programming across Michigan. These efforts will strengthen
the recommendation made in the Michigan Lt. Governor’s Commission Report on Higher
Education and Economic Growth (Cherry, 2004 p. 19) which stated that by 2015, 50% of
the state’s high school students will earn college credit as an enhancement to their high
school curriculum.

First, it is essential that Michigan’s Department of Education develop a solid data
base related to dual enrollment programming in Michigan, tracking high school
participants and their postsecondary educational progress over time. A solid research
foundation is required if advisors are expected to develop sound institutional policy and
practice decisions. Once the Department of Education has DE participation outcome data
available, dissemination of this data to secondary and postsecondary educational

administrators across the state will work to establish a common understanding about DE

144

: and its impact on participating students, state educational institutions and Michigan as a
whole.

Secbndly, the state should conduct an extensive legislative content analysis of PA
160 (and its amendments) within the context of the current political, educational and
ﬁscal environments in Michigan. Complementing the content analysis of this public act,
a practice analysis is needed to determine how PA 160 is being implemented across the
. state. Finally, there should be a support analysis conducted to determine whether the
initial eligibility requirements, funding mechanisms and postsecondary counseling
support services are continuing to meet the needs today as they did at the start of PA 160
in 1996.

Another study recommendation focuses on the need to examine ﬁrst-year,
postsecondary “non-completers” more closely at all institutions across Michigan. F irst-
year attrition represents a large part of all institutional departure across the country
(Tinto, 1993). There is value, therefore, in studying full-time and part-time students who
engage in postsecondary academics (by enrolling in postsecondary education
programming and working through the process of their acceptance into the institution
only to leave before ﬁnishing their ﬁrst year of postsecondary study). Anticipatory
socialization, which is a strong component of Michigan’s DE Program, may have an
important role to play in persistence for students who prematurely exit postsecondary
educational programming in our state. Michigan is the only state in the US with a Dual
Enrollment statute that mandates postsecondary counseling for all eligible high school
student participants. Postsecondary counseling and guidance has been recognized as a

valuable student engagement variable in the student persistence literature (Amenkienan,

145

2000; Astin, 1.993; Midcap, 2003; Tinto, 1993), but has yet to be fully assessed in this
context for DE students in Michigan.

Finally, it is suggested that Lake Superior State University continue to actively
. . participate in Michigan’s Dual Enrollment Program, serving as both a provider and
recipient of DE postsecondary transfer credits. As an institution, it is important that
LSSU continue to study the short-term and long-term impact of its DE student
participants, focusing more closely on expanding its efforts as a provider of dual
enrollment postsecondary credits to eligible high school students in the region. In
addition, the University needs to consider DE as a recruitment strategy while it looks to
bolster its regional community college role. This recommendation calls for a greater
cooperation and collaboration among all the educational institutions in the area, focusing
ﬁrst on our common commitment to optimize the academic capital for all the students we

serve.

146

APPENDIX
PUBLIC ACT NO. 160

- H.B. No. 4643
EDUCATION — POSTSECONDARY ENROLLMENT OPTIONS ACTS — CREATION

147

Appendix
_ 1996 Mich. Legis. Serv. PA. 160 (H.B. 4643) (WEST)

MICHIGAN 1996 LEGISLATIVE SERVICE
Eight-Eighth Legislature, Regular Session
Copr. @ West 1996. All rights reserved.

PUBLIC ACT NO. 160
H.B. No. 4643
EDUCATION - POSTSECONDARY ENROLLMENT OPTIONS ACTS - CREATION

AN ACT to establish a postsecondary enrollment options program for certain students enrolled in
Michigan schools” to prescribe certain duties of public schools; to prescribe certain powers and
duties 0f certain state departments, ofﬁcials, and agencies; and to repeal acts and parts of acts.

The People of the State of Michigan enact:

M.C.L.A. § 388.511

Sec. 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the “postsecondary enrollment options
act.” .

M.C.L.A. § 388.512

Sec. 2. The purpose of this act is to provide a wider variety of options to high school pupils
by encouraging and enabling qualiﬁed pupils to enroll in courses or programs in eligible
postsecondary institutions.

M.C.L.A. § 388.513
Sec. 3. As used in this act:

(a) “Community college” means a community college established under the community
college act of 1966, Act No. 331 of the Public Acts of 1966, being sections 389.1 to
389.195 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, or under part 25 of the revised school code,
Act No. 451 of the Public Acts of 1976, being sections 380.1601 to 380.1607 of the
Michigan Compiled Laws, or a federal tribally controlled community college located in
this state that is recognized under the tribally controlled community college assistance
act of 1978, Public Law 95-471, and is determined by the department to meet the
requirements for accreditation by a recognized regional accrediting body.

(b) “Department” means the department of education.

(c) “Eligible charges” means tuition and mandatory course fees, material fees, and
registration fees required by an eligible institution for enrollment in an eligible course.
Eligible charges also include any late fees charged by an eligible postsecondary
institution due to the school district’s failure to make a required payment according to
the timetable prescribed under this act. Eligible charges do not include transportation
or parking costs or activity fees.

(d) “Eligible course” means a course offered by an eligible postsecondary institution that is
not offered by the school district in which the eligible student is enrolled, or that is
offered by the school district but is determined by the board of the school district tonot

148

be available to the eligible student because of a scheduling conﬂict beyond the eligible
student’s control; that is an academic course not ordinarily taken as an activity course;
that is a course that the postsecondary institution normally applies toward satisfaction
of degree requirements; that is not a hobby craft or recreational course; and that is in a
subject area other than physical education, theology, divinity, or religious education.
However, for an eligible student who has not successfully completed the requirements
for a state endorsement in all subject areas under section 1279 of Act No. 451 of the
Public Acts of 1976, being section 380.1279 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, an eligible
course is limited to a course in a subject area for which he or she has successfully

. . completed the requirements for a state endorsement, a course in computer science or

(e)

(f)

(91

(h)

(11)

foreign language not offered by the school district, or a course in ﬁne arts as permitted
by the school district.

Eligible postsecondary institution” means a state university, community college, or
independent nonproﬁt degree-granting college or university that is located in this state
and that chooses to comply with this act.

“Eligible student” means, except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, a student
enrolled in at least 1 high school class in at least grade 11 in a school district in this
state, except a foreign exchange pupil enrolled in a school district under a cultural
exchange program, who has successfully completed the requirements for a state
endorsement in all subject areas under section 1279 of Act No. 451 of the Public Acts
of 1976. However, for a student enrolled in a school district in grade 12 who has not
successfully completed the requirements for a state endorsement in all subject areas
under that section, the students is an eligible student only for the limited purpose of
enrleling in 1 or more eligible courses under this act in a subject area for which he or
she has successfully completed the requirements for a state endorsement, in computer
science or foreign language not offered by the school district, or in ﬁne arts as
permitted by the school district.

“Intermediate school district” means that term as deﬁned in section 4 of Act No. 451 of
the Public Acts of 1976, being section 380.4 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

“School district” means that term as deﬁned in section 6 of Act No. 451 of the Public
Acts of 1976, being section 380.6 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, a local act school
district as deﬁned in section 5 of Act No. 451 of the Public Acts of 1976, being section
380.5 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, or a public school academy organized under
part 6a or 6b of Act No.451 of the Public Acts of 1976, being sections 380.501 to
380.507 and 380.511 to 380.518 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

“State university” means a state institution of higher education described in section 4,
5, or 6 of article VIII of the state constitution of 1963.

M.C.L.A. § 388.514

Sec. 4.

(1)

(2)

(3)

The school district in which an eligible student is enrolled shall provide to the eligible
student a letter signed by the student’s principal indicating the student’s eligibility under
this act.

An eligible student may apply to an eligible postsecondary institution to enroll in 1 or
more eligible courses offered by that eligible postsecondary institution and, if accepted,
may enroll in 1 or more of those courses.

Wlthin a reasonable time after registration, the eligible postsecondary institution shall
send written notice to the eligible student and his or her school district. The notice shall
indicate the course or courses and hours of enrollment of that eligible student. The
eligible postsecondary institution shall notify the eligible student about tuition, fees,
book, materials, and other related charges, as determined by the postsecondary
institution, in the customary manner used by the eligible postsecondary institution, and
shall notify the eligible student of the estimated amount of the eligible charges that will
be billed to the school district under subsection (4).

149

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

Unless otherwise agreed between the eligible postsecondary institution and the school
district, after the expiration of the institution’s drop/add period for the course, an eligible
postsecondary institution shall send a bill to the eligible student’s school district
detailing the eligible charges for each eligible course in which the student is enrolled
under this act.

Upon receiving the bill under subsection (4), the school district shall cause to be paid to
the eligible postsecondary institution on behalf of the eligible student an amount equal
to the lesser of the amount of the eligible charges or the pro-rated percentage of the
state portion of the foundation allowance paid on behalf of that particular eligible
student under section 20 of the state school aid act of 1979, Act No. 94 of the Public
Acts of 1979, being section 388.1620 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, with the
proration based on the proportion of the school year that the eligible student attends
the postsecondary institution. A school district may pay more money to an eligible
postsecondary institution on behalf of an eligible student than is required under this act,
and may use local school operating revenue for that purpose. The eligible student is
responsible for payment of the remainder of the costs associated with his or her
postsecondary enrollment that exceeds the amount the school district is required to
pay under this act and that are not paid by the school district. As used in this
subsection, “local school operating revenue” means that term as deﬁned in section 20
of Act No. 94 of the Public Acts of 1979.

An eligible postsecondary institution shall not charge a late fee to an eligible student or
a school district for a payment that is made in compliance with the timetable prescribed
under this act even if the payment would otherwise be considered late by the
postsecondary institution.

A school district may require an eligible student to provide, on a form supplied by the
school district, reasonable veriﬁcation that the eligible student is regularly attending a
postsecondary course.

If an eligible student enrolled in an eligible course under this act does not complete the
eligible course, and if the school district has paid money for the course on behalf of the
student, the postsecondary institution shall forward to the school district any funds that
are refundable due to non-completion of the course. The school district shall then
fonlvard to the student any refunded money in excess of the amount paid by the school
district for the course on behalf of the student.

A school district shall make available to an eligible student enrolled in the school
district copies of all correspondence in the possession of the school district regarding
the eligible student’s participation in postsecondary enrollment under this act.
Correspondence described in this subsection shall be kept by the school district for at
least 1 year.

If a school district pays for books for an eligible student for a postsecondary course
under this section, the books are the property of the school district and shall be turned
over to the school district after the eligible student completes the course.

This section does not apply to any postsecondary courses in which an eligible student
is enrolled in addition to being enrolled full-time in that eligible student’s school district;
to a postsecondary course an eligible student is retaking after failing to achieve a
satisfactory grade; or to a course contrary to the eligibility provisions of this act. In
determining full-time enrollment in a school district under this act or full-time equated
membership under Act No. 94 of the Public Acts of 1979, being sections 388.1601 to
388.1772 of the Michigan Compiled Laws for pupils enrolled in a postsecondary
institution under this act, the pupil's enrollment in both the school district and the
postsecondary institution shall be counted as enrollment in the school district and a
pupil shall not be considered to be enrolled in a school district less than full-timely
solely because of the effect of the pupil’s postsecondary enrollment, including
necessary travel time, on the number of class hours provided by the school district to
the pupil.

This act does not require a school district to pay or otherwise provide ﬁnancial support
for transportation or parking costs necessary for an eligible student to participate in

150

postsecondary enrollment under this act. A school district is not liable for any injury
incurred by an eligible student that is related to transportation necessary for the eligible
student to participate in postsecondary enrollment under this act.

M.C.L.A. § 388.515

Sec. 5. An eligible student enrolled in a postsecondary institution under. this act shall not
participate in intercollegiate athletics at the postsecondary institution while he or she is
enrolled under this act. An eligible student who violates this subsection forfeits his or her
eligibility under this act. '

M.C.L.A. § 388.516

Sec. 6. An eligible postsecondary institution may give priority to its postsecondary students
when enrolling eligible students in postsecondary courses under this act for high school
credit only. Once an eligible student has been enrolled in a postsecondary course under this
act, the postsecondary institution shall not displace the eligible student with another student.

M.C.L.A. § 388.517

Sec. 7.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

An eligible student may enroll in, and receive payment by the school district under
section 4(5) [F N1] of all or part of eligible charges for, an eligible course under this act
for high school credit or postsecondary credit, or both. At the time an eligible student
enrolls in a postsecondary course under this act, he or she shall designate whether the
course is for high school or postsecondary credit, or both, and shall notify both his or
her high school and the postsecondary institution of that designation. An eligible student
taking more than 1 postsecondary course under this act may make different credit
designations under this subsection for different courses. An eligible student shall not
audit a postsecondary course in which he or she is enrolled under this act.

A school district shall grant academic credit to an eligible student enrolled in an eligible
course for high school credit under this act if he or she successfully completes the
course, as determined by the eligible postsecondary institution. The amount of high
school credit granted by a school district for a postsecondary course cempleted under
this act shall be determined by the school district.

The high school credits granted to an eligible student under this act shall be counted
toward the graduation requirement and subject area requirements of the school district.
Evidence of successful completion of each course and high school credits granted shall
be included in the eligible student's high school record. Subject to section 438 of
subpart 2 of part C of the general education provisions act, title IV of Publid Law 60-
247, 20 U.S.C. 12329, commonly referred to as the family educational rights and
privacy act of 1974, an eligible postsecondary institution shall provide the school district
with a copy of the eligible student’s grade in each course taken for high school credit
under this act. Upon the request of an eligible student, his or her high school record
and transcript shall also include evidence of successful completion and postsecondary
credits granted for a course taken for postsecondary credit under this act. In either
case, the eligible student’s high school record and transcript shall indicate that the
credits were earned at an eligible postsecondary institution and identify the
postsecondary institution.

If a student enrolls in an eligible postsecondary institution after leaving high school, the
eligible postsecondary institution, in accordance with institutional policy, shall award
postsecondary credit for postsecondary courses successfully completed by that student
for high school credit under this act at that eligible postsecondary institution. An eligible

151

. postsecondary institution shall not charge a student for credit awarded under this

subsection.

[FN1] Section 366.514 (5)

M.C.L.A. § 388.518

Sec. 8. This act does not restrict the ability of an eligible student or any other pupil to enroll
in any postsecondary institution without tuition and fee support under this act.

M.C.L.A. § 388.519

Sec. 9.
(1) Each school district shall provide information to all high school students on the

(2)

(3)

postsecondary enrollment options under this act, including enrollment eligibility; the

institutions and types of courses that are eligible for participation; the decision-making

process for granting academic credits; an explanation of eligible charges that will be
paid by the school district and of ﬁnancial arrangements for eligible charges and for
paying costs not paid for by the school district; eligibility for payment of al or part of
eligible charges by the school district under this act; an explanation that, if the student
qualiﬁes for payment of all or part of eligible charges by the school district under this
act, the school district will pay that support directly to the postsecondary institution
upon being billed by the postsecondary institution and that the student is not
responsible for that payment but is responsible for payment of costs not paid for under
this act; available support services; the need to arrange an appropriate schedule;
consequences of falling or not completing a postsecondary course in which the eligible
student enrolls; the effect of enrolling in a postsecondary course on the eligible
student’s ability to complete the required high school graduation requirements; an
explanation of how the parent or legal guardian of a student in at least grade 10 may
request that the student be allowed to take a test or assessment used for a state
endorsement early in order to qualify to be an eligible student; and the academic and
social responsibilities that must be assumed by the eligible student and his or her
parent or guardian.

To the extent possible, a school district shall provide counseling services to an eligible
student and his or her parent or guardian before the eligible student enrolls in
postsecondary courses under this act to ensure that the eligible student and his or her
parent or guardian are fully aware of the beneﬁts, risks, and possible consequences of
enrolling in a postsecondary course. The person providing the counseling shall
encourage the eligible student and his or her parent or guardian to also use available
counseling services at the eligible postsecondary institutions before the quarter or
semester of enrollment to ensure that anticipated plans are appropriate. A school
district may provide the counseling required under this section in a group meeting if
additional personalized counseling is also made available.

Before enrolling in an eligible course at an eligible postsecondary institution under this
act, an eligible student and his or her parent or guardian shall ﬁle with the eligible
postsecondary institution a signed form provided by the eligible student’s school district
stating that the student is an eligible student and has received the information and
counseling speciﬁed in subsections (1 ) and (2) and that the student understands the
responsibilities that must be assumed in enrolling in the course. Upon request, the
department shall provide technical assistance to a school district and to an eligible
postsecondary institution in developing appropriate forms and counseling guidelines for
purposes of this section.

152

M.C.L.A. § 388.520

. Sec. 10. By May 1, 1996, and by MarcM of each succeeding year, a school district shall
provide general information about the postsecondary enrollment options under this act to all
pupils in graced 8 or higher.

M.C.L.A. § 388.521

Sec.11.

(1)

(2)

Each intermediate school district annually shall collect from each of its constituent
school districts and provide to the department at the same time that it submits the
annual comprehensive ﬁnancial report required under section 18 of the state school
aid act of 1979, Act No. 94 of the public Acts of 1979, being section 388.1618 of the
Michigan Compiled Laws, information for the immediately preceding school year on all
of the following:

(a) The amount of money expended by the school district for payments required
under this act.

(b) The number of eligible students who were enrolled in the school district .and the
number of those eligible students who enrolled in 1 or more postsecondary
courses and received payment of all or part of eligible charges under this act, both
in the aggregate and by grade level.

(c) The percentage of the school district’s enrollment represented by the eligible
students described in subdivision (b), both in the aggregate and by grade level.

(d) The total number of postsecondary courses for which the school district made
payment under this act, the number of those courses for which postsecondary
credit was granted, the number of those courses for which high school credit was
granted, and the number of those courses that were not completed by the eligible
student.

Not later than March 1 of each year, the department shall prepare and submit to the
house and senate ﬁscal agencies and the department of management and budget a
summary annual report on the information received under subsection (1 ).

M.C.L.A. § 388.522

Sec. 12

(1).

(2)

The department may promulgate rules it considers necessary to implement this act.
Rules shall be promulgated under the administrative procedures act of 1969, Act No.
306 of the Public Acts of 1969, being sections 24.201 to 24.328 of the Michigan
Compiled Laws.

If the Michigan supreme court rules that sections 45 and 46 of the administrative
procedures act of 1969, Act No. 306 of the Public Acts of 1969, being sections 24.245
and 24.246 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, are unconstitutional and a statute
requiring legislative review of administrative rules is not enacted within 90 days after
the Michigan supreme court ruling, the department may not promulgate rules under
this section.

<< Repealed: MI ST 388.511, 388.512, 388.513, 388, 514, 388.515, 388.516,
388.517, 388.518, 388.519, 388.520, 388.521, 388.522, 388.523, 388.524 >>

153

M.C.L.A. § 388.523

Sec. 13 -

( 1) This act shall take effect April 1, 1996. Payment of all or part of eligible charges under
this act for postsecondary courses shall being in the state ﬁscal year beginning on
October 1, 1996.

(2) This act is repealed effective June 30, 2001.

M.C.L.A. § 388.524
Sec. 14. This act shall not take effect unless all of the following bills of the 88‘” Legislature
are enacted into law:
(a) House Bill No. 4640
(b) House Bill No. 4642.
This act is ordered to take immediate effect.
Approved April 4, 1996.
Filed April 8, 1996.

MI LEGIS 160 (1996)
END OF DOCUMENT

154

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the toolbox: Academic intensity, attendance patterns and
bachelor ’s degree attainment. Washington DC: US Department of Education,
Ofﬁce of Educational Research and Improvement.

Amenkhienan, C. (2000). Perception of the impact of freshman academic involvement
activities, and the use of academic support services on academic performance:
Implications for counseling. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A:
Humanities and Social Sciences, 62(10-A), 3302.

American Association of State Colleges and Universities: A State Policy Brieﬁng (2002,
May). The open door: Assessing the promise and problems of dual enrollment.

Andrews, H. (2001). The dual credit explosion at Illinois’ community colleges.
Community College Journal, 71(3), 12-16.

Astin, A. (1991). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of assessment
and evaluation in higher education. NewYork: Macmillan.

Astin, A. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Atwell, C., & McLeod, M. (1994). Performance of dual-enrollment students at UWF.
Memorandum from the Ofﬁce of the Executive Vice President, Pensacola Junior
College System. Pensacola, FL.

Bailey, T., Hughes, K., & Karp, M. (2002, April). What role can dual enrollment
programs play in easing the transition between high school and postsecondary
education? Paper commissioned for “Preparing America’s Future: The High
School Symposium” by the Ofﬁce of Vocational and Adult Education,
Washington, DC.

Bailey, T. & Karp, M. (2003, November). Promoting college access and success: A
review of credit-based transition programs. Community College Research Center:
CCRC Brief. Paper commissioned by the Ofﬁce of Vocational and Adult
Education, Washington, DC.

Basinger, J. (2000, July). States urged to coordinate public-school and college systems.
The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46, A23.

Beecher, M. & Fischer, L. (1999). High school courses and scores as predictors of
college success. Journal of College Admissions, 163, 4-9.

155

Bell, J. (2004, June). Minors on campuses can pose many liabilities. The Chronicle of
Higher Education: Legal Issues, 50(42), Bl6-l7.

Berger, J. (2004). Optimizing capital, social reproduction and undergraduate persistence.
In J. Braxton (Ed. ) Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 95-124).
Nashville, TN: Vanderbuilt University Press.

Bess, J. (1978). Anticipatory socialization of graduate students. Research in Higher
Education, 8, 289-317.

Boswell, K. (2001). State policy and postsecondary enrollment options: Creating
seamless systems. 'In P. Robertson, B. Chapman, and F. Gaskin (Eds.). Systems
for offering concurrent enrollment at high schools and community colleges. New
Directions for Community Colleges, No. 113. San Francisco: CA: Jossey—Bass.

Bouffard, T., Boisvert, J ., Vezeau, 1C., & Larouche, C. (1995). The impact of goal
orientation on self-regulation and performance among college students.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 317-329.

Boyer, E. (1981). School and universities need each other. Educational leadership, 156.

Brawer, F. (1996). Retention-attrition in the nineties. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service Number ED393510). Los Angeles, CA.

Brown, P. & Amsler, M. (1992). Future direction for school/college collaboration. In
Far West Laboratory for education research: Policy briefs, Number 18.

' Burns, N. & Grove, S. (1999). Understanding nursing research (2"‘1 ed.). Philadelpha:
W.B. Saunders.

Cambiano, R., Denny, G., & DeVore, J. (2000). College student retention at a
rnidwestem university: A six-year study. Journal of College Admission, 166,
22-29.

Catron, R. (2001,Spring). Dual enrollment in Virginia. New Directions for
Community Colleges, 29(1), 51-58.

Cherry, J. (2004, December). The Lt. Governor ’s Commission Report on
Higher Education and Economic Growth in Michigan. Michigan: Michigan
State Department of Education.

Clark, R. (2001). Dual credit: A report of programs and policies that offer high
school students college credit. Executive Summary. Philadelphia: The Pew
Charitable Trusts. Clark, S. & Corcoran, M. (1986). Perspectives on the
professional socialization of women faculty: A case of accumulative
disadvantage? Journal of Higher Education, 5 7(1), 20-43.

156

Cohen, J. & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis
. forthe behavioral sciences (2"d edition). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers.

The College Board (2000). History of AP Programming in the US. New York: Author.
Available:http://www.apcentral/collegeboard.com/abouthistory/indeshtml
[Accessed: 01 May, 2001].

The College Board (2001). 2001 College bound seniors are the largest most diverse group
in history. New York: Author. Available:
http://www/collegeboard.com/gess/seniorO1/0828/01.html. [Accessed: 01
October, 2001].

Community College Research Center (CCRC) (2003). State policies and dual enrollment
program variation. Available:
http://www.ed.gov/about/ofﬁces/list/ovae/pi/cbtrans/spbmdf
[Accessed: 24 May, 2003].

Creech, J. (2001). Reporting on college readiness: Information that connect colleges and
schools. In The US. Department of Education-Southern Regional Education
Board Report. Available http://www.sreb.gg. ED 457757.

 

Crissman Ishler, J. & Upcraft, M. (2005). The keys to ﬁrst-year student persistence. In M.
Upcraft, J. Gardner, B. Barefoot, & Associates Challenging & supporting the
ﬁrst-year, student: A handbook for improving the ﬁrst year of college. San
Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

Crist, C., Jacquart, M., & Schupe, D. (2002). Improving the performance of high
school students: Focusing on transitions and connections taking place in
Minnesota. In The US. Department of Education‘s Opinion Paper on Preparing
America’s Future: The High School Symposium. Available:
http://www.ed.gov/ofﬁces/OVAE/HS/crist.doc. [Accessed: 15 March, 2003].

Crossland, R. (1996). The Running Start Program: Impact and beneﬁts in Washington
Community Colleges. Operations Report. Olympia: Washington State Board of
Community and Technical Colleges.

Davies, P., Williams, J ., & Webb, S. (1997). Access to higher education in the late
twentieth century: Policy, power and discourse. In J. Williams (Ed.), Negotiating
access to higher education: The discourse of selectivity and equity (pp. 1-23).
Buckingham, England: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open
University Press.

Education Commission of the States (ECS) Issue: Dual/Concurrent Enrollment (2004).

Available: www.ecs.org/html/I ssueSection.asp?issueid=1 8 l &s.htm
[Accessed: 02 January, 2005].

157

Education Commission of the States (ECS) Issue: P-16 Collaboration of the States
(2000). Available: www.ecs.org/html/IssueSectionaSJﬂissueid=76&s.htm
[Accessed: 20 June, 2003].

England, J. (2001). Bringing secondary education into the information age: Universal
college preparation. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. Available:
http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/26/54/2654.htm. [Accessed: 11 June, 2003].

' Fleming, B. (2004, July 14). House republicans defend proposals for holding colleges
more accountable. Chronicle of Higher Education, 5 0(49) A22.

Flores, C. (2002). Harvard U. Raises Standards for Advanced Placement Credit.
Chronicle of Higher Education. Available:
http://chronicle.com/djaily/2002/02/2002022202n.htm; [Accessed: 22 February,
2002} .

Florida law allows high school students to forgo senior year. (2003, September 8). The
Evening News, p.5.

Ganeshananthan, V. (2000). Advanced placement program faces new criticism over its
testing standards. Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(45), A45.

Gehring, J. (2001a).Dual-enrollmen1 programs spreading. Education Week. 20(32),17-18.
J. (2001b). SAT said to be a reliable predictor of ﬁrst-year college success.
Education Week, May 9. Available: http://edweek.com/daily/2001/05/09n.htm
[Accessed: 12, May, 2001].

' Gerken, J ., Volkwein, J ., & F redericks, J. (2000, May 21-24).'Pre-college Characteristics
and ﬁeshman year experiences as predictors of 8-year college outcomes. Paper
presented at the AIR Annual Forum Meeting of the Association for Institutional
Research, Cincinnati, OH.

Gomez, G., (2001). Sources and information: Creating effective collaboration between
high schools and community colleges. In P. Robertson, B. Chapman, & F. Gaskin
(Eds.). Systems for offering concurrent enrollment in high schools and community
colleges. New Directions for Community Colleges, No. 113, 81-86. San
Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

Grubb, W. (1999, April). Learning and earning in the middle: The economic beneﬁts of
sub-baccalaureate education. New York: Community College Research Center,
Teachers College, Columbia University.

Guerrero, B. (2001). An analysis of academic, demographic, and non-cognitive factors
that inﬂuence academic performance during the freshman year in college
(Doctoral Dissertation, University of California Berkley, 2001). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 61 (7A), 2591.

158

Henderson, H. & .Masten, S. (1959). Six predictors of college achievement. Journal of
Genetic Psychology, 94, 143-146.

Hossler, D. & Anderson, D. (2005). The enrollment management process. In M. Upcraft,
J. Gardner, B. Barefoot, & Associates. Challenging & supporting the ﬁrst-year
student:A handbook for improving the ﬁrst year of college (pp. 67-85). San
Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

House, J. & Keeley, E. (1997). Predictive validity of college admission test scores for
American Indian Students. Journal of Psychology, 131, 572-574.

Jones, S. (2002, February). Are we making it too easy to get into college? American
Teacher, 86 (5), 4.

Kanoy, K., Wester, J., & Latta, M. (2002). Predicting college success of freshmen
using traditional, cognitive and psychological measures. Journal of Research and
Development in Education, 22(3), 65-70.

Kellogg, A. (2001). Colleges urged to play role in ending “senior slump” at the end of
high school. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 47(3), A31.

Kirst, M. (Fall 2000). The senior slump: Making the most of high school preparation. In
National Crosstalk. National Center for public policy in Higher Education, 8(4).

Kirst, M. & Venezia, A. (Eds.) (2004). From high school to college- Improving
opportunites for success in postsecondary education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kleiman, N. (2001, June). Building a highway to higher education: How collaborative
efforts are changing education in America. New York: Center for an Urban
Future. Available: http://www.nycfuture.org/educartion/buildirghtm.
[Accessed: 10 April, 2002].

Kuh, G. & Love, P. (2004). A culture perspective on student departure. In J. Braxton
(Ed.) Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 196-212). Nashville, TN:
Vanderbuilt University Press.

Kulik, J. & Kulik, C. (1984). Effects of accelerated instruction on students. Review of
Educational Research, 54, 409-425.

LSSU Admissions Report (2003). Lake Superior State University: Ofﬁce of Admissions.
LSSU.

LSSU Institutional Annual Research Reports. (October, 1996-2003). Lake Superior State
University: Ofﬁce of the Registrar. LSSU.

159

LSSU Self-Study Report. (2000). Lake Superior State University: Ofﬁce of the Provost.
LSSU. .

LSSU University Catalog (2002). Lake Superior State University: Graphics Department.
LSSU.

Marshall, R. & Andrews, H. (2002). Dual-credit outcomes: A second visit. Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, 26 (3), 23 7-242.

McCarthy, C. (1999). Dual enrollment programs: Legislation helps high school
students to earn college credits. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, Volume
11(1).

McCormick, A. (1997, November). Changes in educational aspirations after high
school: The role of postsecondary attendance and context. Paper presented at the
22nd annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education,
Alburquerque, NM.

McKenzie, K. & Schweitzner, R. (2001). Who succeeds at university? Predicting

performance in ﬁrst-year Australian university students. Higher Education
Research and Development, 21(1), 21-33.

Meeder, H. (2004). Preparing America’s future: the high school initiative. A presentation
for US Department of Education on the American diploma Project, Washington
DC, February 29, 2004. Available:
http://www.americandiplomaproiect.org/index.htrn. [Accessed: 22 August, 2004].

Merton, R. (1968). Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press.

Meulemann, H. (1992). Success and failure in the university: Starting conditions and
biographical circumstances in the university career of a cohort of German high
school students from1969-1985. International Perspectives on Education and
Society, 2, 109-148.

Michigan Department of Education: Program Report. (2003).

Michigan Proposal A (1994). Amendment to Title IX (Finance and Taxation) of the
Michigan’s State Constitution, Sections 3.5. & 8. Available:
http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/propahtml. [Accessed: 10 October, 2003].

Midcap, R. (2003). Dual enrollment students’ perceptions regarding academic
experiences, social experiences and overall program satisfaction at Chesapeake
College MD. (Doctoral dissertation, Wilmington College, 2003). Dissertation
Abstracts International, AAT 3071344, 154.

160

Miller, T. (2005) Student persistence and degree attainment. In T. Miller, B. Bender,
J. Schuh, & Associates. Promoting reasonable expectations: Aligning student
and institutional views of (the college experience. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mitchell, D., Goldman, B., & Smith, M. (1999). Change factors affecting college
matriculation: A re-analysis. Journal of the F irst-year Experience, 11(2) 75-92.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2001). The Condition of Education
2001. Washington DC: US. Department of Education.

National Commission on the High School Senior Year (2001, October). The lost
opportunity of the senior year. Princeton NJ: The Woodrow Wilson National
Fellowship Foundation. Available: http://www.commissiononthesenioryearorg.

[Accessed: 11 November, 2002].

Noel, L., Levitz, R., & Saluri, D. (Eds.) (1985). Increasing student retention: Eﬂective
programs and practices for reducing the drop-out rate. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Orlowsky-Yuskis, M. (2000). High school courses and other variables affecting
academic success of Arizona public university freshman Dissertation
Abstracts International Section A: Humanities & Social Sciences, 61(2-A), 526.

Orr, M. (2002, January). Dual enrollment: Development, trends and impacts.
Presentation to the Community College Research Center, Teachers College,
Columbia University, New York: NY.

' Osborne, J. (1997). Identiﬁcation with academics and academic success among
community college students. Community College Review, 25, 59-67.

Paige, R. (April 4, 2002) Preparing America 's future. Speech given at the High School
Symposium in Washington DC.

Pascarella, E. & Terenzini, P. (1991). How college aﬂects students: Findings and
insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pascarella, E. & Terenzini, P. (2005). How college aﬂects students: A third decade of
research (Vol. 2). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Peng, Zhen (2003). A comparison of grade point averages and retention rates of dual
enrollment students and non-dual enrollment students in public four-year
universities in the state of Texas. (Doctoral dissertation, Baylor University,
2003). Dissertation Abstracts International, AA T 31082 73, 144.

161

Pressey, S. (1949). Educational acceleration: Appraisal of basic problems. Chapter 6
(Bureau of Educational Research Monographs, No. 31). Columbus: Ohio State
University Press.

Putnam, J. (2002, January 27). Educators duel on dual enrollment. Gazette, Lansing
Bureau. pp. A1, A4.

Puyear, D. (1998). Concurrent and dual enrollment of high school students in Arizona
community colleges: A status report. Phoenix: Arizona State Board of
Community Colleges.

Puyear, D., Thor, L., & Mills. K. (2001). Concurrent enrollment in Arizona: Encouraging
success in high school. In P. Robertson, B. Chapman, & F. Gaskin (Eds.). Systems
for offering concurrent enrollment in high schools and community colleges. New
Directions for Community Colleges, 113, 75-80. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Reisberg, L. (1998). Some professors question programs that allow high-school students
to earn college credits. Chronicle of Higher Education, 44 (42), A39-A40.

Rendon, L. (1990). Professors as ﬁrst-year college students: What can they teach us?
The plenary address of the third Conference on the Freshman Year Experience in
Austin, Texas, April 8-10, 1990.

Sedlacek, W. (2004). Beyond the big test: Noncognitive assessment in higher education.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schneider, B. & Stevenson, D. (1999). The ambitious generation: America 's teenagers,
motivated but directionless. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Stage, F. & Hossler, D. (2004). Where is the student: Linking student behaviors,
college choice and college persistence. In J. Braxton (Ed.) Reworking the
student departure puzzle. Nashville, TN: Vanderbuilt University Press.

Tam, M. & Sukhatme, U. (2004). How to make better college admission decisions:
Considering high school quality and other factors. Journal of College Admission,
183, 12-16.

Terenzini, P. & Associates (1995). Student Learning Models, Penn State University.
Teleconference Resource Packet. Shaping the future: Aspiration, assessment,
action. December 2, 2004. ' From the Policy Center on the ﬁrst year of college and
the National Resource Center for the ﬁrst-year experience and students in
transition. p.29.

Ting, S. (1997). Estimating academic success in the ﬁrst year of college for specially

admitted White students: A model combining cognitive and psychosocial
predictors. Journal of College Student Development, 38(4), 401 -409.

162

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college; Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition
' - ‘ (2“! edition). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

United States Education CommiSsion on the Senior Year of High School (2002).

Available: http://www.uscomonsenioryear/highschool/ushtml. [Accessed: 01
April, 2003].

United States Department of Education: Ofﬁce of Vocational and Adult Education
(2003). Accelerating student success through credit-based transition programs.
Washington DC: Author. Available:

www.cd.gov/about/ofﬁces/1ist/ovae/pi/cclo/crddbase.html.[Accessed: 17
September, 2004].

University of Arizona. (1999). Community college and AP credit: An analysis of the
impact on freshman grades. Tucson, AZ: Author. Available:

www.aer.arizonia.edu/Enrollment/Papers/dualenrmdf. [Accessed: 10 February,
2003]. ‘

Upcraft, M., Gardner, J ., & Associates (1989). Helping students survive and succeed in
college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Venezia, A., Kirst, M., & Antonio, A. (2003). Betraying the college dream: How
disconnected K-12 and postsecondary education systems undermine student
aspirations. Stanford, CA: Stanford’s University’s Bridge Project.

Viadero, D. (2001). Getting serious about high school. Education Week. 20(30), 1-12.

Washingtdn State BOard 'of Education: Community and Technical Colleges. (2001).
Running Start: Annual Progress Report. Olympia: Author.

Windham, P. (1997). High school and community college dual enrollment: Issues of

rigor and transferability.‘ Tallahassee: Florida State Board of Community
Colleges.

163

   

l1111llllljlllljjrlllllllli1