The Use of Decision Trees to Know the Family Influence in University Drop Out.

Author(s):

Inmaculada Pedraza-Navarro(presenting / submitting)Teresa González-Ramírez

Conference:

ECER 2017

Network:

14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research

Format:

Paper (Copy for Joint Session)

Session Information

14 SES 01 B JS, Higher Education, Family Influence and Dropout

Joint Paper Session NW 14 and NW 22

Time:

2017-08-22

13:15-14:45

Room:

K5.14

Chair:

Loizos Symeou

Contribution

In this paper, we want to answer the following question: How does the family influence on the university drop out of students when facing the presence of social and family related difficulties? It involves a) Identifying the presence of social and family related difficulties in students and b) To know the influence that the family has in the university drop out in the presence of these difficulties.
Nowadays, dropping out of studies is a problematic, relevant and global phenomenon which is of concern to the educational authorities of Higher Education because of multiple socioeconomic consequences (Patrick, Shulenberg and O’Malley, 2016). According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OCDE, 2013) the average university drop out rate is around 30%. Some countries, such as Italy or the USA, reach 55%, and up to 45% in Latin America (Moncada, 2014; Rojas, Betancur and González, 2008). In Spain, the last report by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport in 2014-2015 (MECD, 2015) revealed that 19% of students abandon university during their first year.
It is considered drop out when a student stops enrolling during two consecutive courses in his or her degree of origin. This can be, definitive or temporary. Definitive drop out implies a complete disassociation with university education. Temporary drop out implies that students, after a period of non-enrollment, resume or change their studies (redefining their preferences) (Elías, 2008).
The decision to drop out is influenced by several factors that are closely related to each other. Biological factors such as age, sex and disease in the individual (Castaño, Gallón, Gómez and Vásquez, 2008; Bethencourt, Cabrera, Hernández, Álvarez and González, 2008; Casquero and Navarro, 2010). Social and Cultural factors such as the marital status of the student, the social status of the family, and the educational level (Lehmann, 2007). And family factors such as the size of the family, the type of housing and the economic difficulties presented to them (García and Adrogué, 2015).
These investigations conclude that family involvement is an important aspect to reduce high drop out rates and improve the quality of education systems (Colás-Bravo and Contreras-Rosado, 2013). Consequently, it is necessary to involve families in the life of schools to favor and enrich the educational process of students (Pomerant, Moorman and Litwack, 2007; Hill and Tyson, 2009; Domínguez, 2010; Santos, Lorenzo and Priegue, 2011; Solernou Mesa, 2013). As the families are usually present for the whole life of the individual, family/school interaction must be present at all educational levels (Ceballos, 2006).
On higher education, the relationship between the family and the institution loses its strength (Shute, Hansen, Underwood and Razzouk, 2011; Zayas, Corral and Lugo, 2011; Karbach, Gottschling, Spengler, Hegewald and Sipnath, 2013). Families continue their involvement in their children’s education through; upbringing and care, communications, support (economic and material), and their control actions. But their involvement with the institution often becomes scarce or casual.
At present, there is a noticeable increase of university programs whose objective is to strengthen the relationships between university and families. These are born under the assumption that there is a direct relationship between the involvement of families with academic success or improvement of educational quality.

Method

The methodology used has been ex-post-facto, of a quantitative character, with a descriptive and predictive design. The study was performed at the Faculty of Educational Science at the University of Seville. With participation of 85 students, whom dropped out their degrees in the academic year 2009/2010, not enrolling again, in the following two courses (2010/2011 and 2011/2012). These students belonged to the Degrees of Pedagogy and Physical Activity and Sports. For the collection of data, a questionnaire designed ad hoc was used. The review of the bibliography observed served as a reference for its elaboration. The statistical software SPSS allowed its validation through factorial analysis. In each one of the items of the questionnaire, KMO adaptation measure obtained values over 0.5. Communality has exceeded the result of 0.4; and Bartlett’s Sphericity Test has given a result of meaningfulness lower than 0.05. With the aim of identifying the presence of social and family related difficulties in students, we used techniques of descriptive analysis with frequencies, percentage distributions, mean and standard deviation. These allow us to discover that 74.4% of the sample presents some kind of social and family related difficulty. To know the influence that the family has in the university drop out a C&R decision tree has been done as a technique of data mining. This tree is constituted by two levels. These levels start from the root node or node 1, called “Type of drop out”. Where, we can observe that 75.6% of the students that constitute the sample have resumed or changed their studies after a time, presenting a temporary drop out. The first level corresponds to the presence (node 2) or non-presence (node 3) of social and family related difficulties. The second level is born from node 2. It represents the presence of family support (node 4) and nonexistence (node 5). 88.9% of students with social and family related difficulties receive family support. If we analyze the decision tree as a whole, we observe that students who do not present any difficulties are more likely to resume or change their studies alter a time. 90.9% of the students who do not suffer from social and family related difficulties present temporary drop out. In relation to students who suffer from the presence of difficulties, if they receive support from a family member, their probability of resuming their studies or reorienting them is 71.4%.

Expected Outcomes

The decision to drop out is influenced by the presence of social and family related difficulties (Elías, 2008; MECD, 2015; Patrick et al., 2016). 74.4% of students who drop out the Degrees of Pedagogy and Physical Activity and Sports present these difficulties. Thanks to the presence of the family, these students indicate that they can continue their studies or reorient their preferences after a time. In this sense, the influence of the family manages to diminish the definitive drop out of students who present social and family related difficulties. According to Shute et al. (2011), Zayas et al. (2011) or Karbach et al. (2013), the family is present at the higher educational level. They offer support to the student, trying to cope with social and family related difficulties. Therefore, to reduce the rates of definitive drop out and to improve the educational quality of students, proposal for intervention must be created. The results obtained may serve as a reflection of those responsible for educational institutions, to implement strategies that foster greater participation for families in the higher education of their children. In summary, this paper has revealed the role of the family is reducing the rates of definitive drop out. At the same time, it opens future lines of research. It is of interest to identify what kind of family support allows the suppression of definitive drop out.

References

Castaño, E., Gallón, S., Gómez, K., and Vásquez, J. (2008). Análisis de los factores asociados a la deserción estudiantil en la Educación Superior: un estudio de caso. Revista de Educación, 345, 255-280. Ceballos, E. (2006). Dimensiones de análisis del diagnóstico en educación: El diagnóstico del contexto familiar. RELIEVE, 12 (1), 33-47. Available: http://www.uv.es/RELIEVE/v12n1/RELIEVEv12n1_4.htm. Colás-Bravo, P., and Contreras-Rosado, J.A. (2013). La participación de las familias en los centros de educación primaria. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 31 (2), 485-499. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.6018/rie.31.2.171031. Elías, M. (2008). Los abandonos universitarios: retos ante el Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior. Estudios sobre Educación, 15, 101-121. García, A. and Adrogué, C. (2015). Abandono de los estudios universitarios: dimensión, factores asociados y desafíos para la política pública. Revista Fuentes, 16, 85-106. doi: http//:dx.doi.org/10.12795/revistafuentes.2015.i16.04. Hill, N.E., and Tyson, D.F. (2009). Parental Involvement in Middle School: A MetaAnalytic Assessment of the Strategies That Promote Achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45 (3), 740-763. doi: 10.1037/a0015362. Karbach, J., Gottschling, J., Spengler, M., Hegewald, K. and Sipnath, F.M. (2013). Parental involvement and general cognitive ability as predictors of domainspecific academic achievement in early adolescence. Learning and Instruction, 22, 43-51. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.09.004. Lehmann, W. (2007). “I just didn’t feel like I fit in”: The role of habitus in university dropout. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 37 (2), 89-110. MECD (2015). Datos básicos del sistema universitario español: curso 2014-2015. Available: http://www.mecd.gob.es/dms/mecd/educacion-mecd/areaseducacion/universidades/estadisticas-informes/datos-cifras/Datos-y-Cifras-delSUE-Curso-2014-2015.pdf. Moncada Mora, L. (2014). La integración académica de los estudiantes universitarios como factor determinante del abandono de corto plazo. Un análisis en el sistema de educación superior a distancia del Ecuador. RIED, 17 (2), 173-196. OECD (2013). Education at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2013-en. Patrick, M.E., Shulenberg, J.E., and O’Malley, P.M. (2016). High school substance use as a predictor of collage attendance, completion, and dropout: a national multicohort longitudinal study. Youth & Society, 48 (3), 425-447. doi: 10.1177/0044118X135089861. Pomerantz, E.M., Moorman, E.A., and Litwack, S.D. (2007). The How, Whom, and Why of Parent’s Involvement in Children’s Academic Lives: More Is Not Always Better. Review of Educational Research, 77 (3), 373-410. doi: 10.3102/003465430305567. Shute, V. J., Hansen, E.G., Underwood, J.S., and Razzouk, R. (2011). A review of the Relationship between Parental Involvement and Secondary School Students’ Academic Achievement. Education Research International, 2011, 1-10. doi: 10.1155/2011/915326.

Author Information

Inmaculada Pedraza-Navarro (presenting / submitting)

University of Seville, Spain

Teresa González-Ramírez