Freshmen Retention: Targeted Intervention of AtRisk Students

1
Freshmen Retention Targeted Intervention of
At-Risk Students

• AIR Forum
• June 1, 2004
• Boston, MA
• Wayne Schneider
• Randall Lennox

2
Presentation Outline

• History of Kent State retention efforts
• Overview of 2003 analysis that pointed to need
  for fall intervention
• Developing survey instrument for fall assessment
  from phone survey
• Results of fall assessment and intervention
• Spring assessment
• Plans for future

3
Kent State University

• 36,600 Students on 8 campuses
• 2nd largest public university in Ohio
• 25,000 Students at the main campus
• 3rd largest OH public university main campus
• 3,800 1st-time freshmen on the main campus
• 80 of 1st-time main campus freshmen live in
  residence halls

4
Reasons for Examining Retention

• Some contradictions
• Student HS GPA and ACT scores were rising
• Enrollment has been increasing
• SSI scores have been improving
• Kent State retention rate has been flat

5
Kent Campus First Time Freshmen
Retention Rate
Enrollment
6
Persistence at Ohio 4-Year Public Universities
Source OH Board of Regents
7
Past Retention Efforts at KSU

• 1990 Students At-Risk Task Force
• 1991 Retention Task Force Strategies for
  Academically Under-prepared Students
• 1993 AA Deans Remediation Study
• 1999 Undergraduate Retention Plan
• Provosts RFP for Increased Enrollment
• Increase Student/Faculty Interaction
• Supplemental Instruction
• Increased Intrusiveness of Advising
• Enhance the Learning/Living Environments
• Increase Academic Support Systems
• Increase Students Sense of Belonging to the KSU
  Community

8
2003 Retention Analysis

• Identified freshmen from 1999-2001 that did not
  return the following Fall
• Examined this group to determine which attributes
  had significant difference in retention rates
• Fall/Spring enrollment status
• HS GPA
• ACT Scores
• College
• Transfers
• Residence Hall vs Commuters
• Fall to Spring losses was one area of concern

9
of Kent Campus Freshmen Not Retained
10
Phone Survey of Lost Students

• Research plan included a phone survey of students
  that had left Kent State
• Interviewed 306 former students
• Survey had 46 questions including 25 Reasons
  that might have caused student to leave
• Asked student to indicate if statement was a
  Major, Minor, or Not a Reason
• Results helped define the Fall Assessment
  instrument wording and important factors

11
Fall Assessment Tool

• Attempt to determine factors that attribute to
  the loss of a student
• E-mail survey sent to all 2003 Fall, 1st Time
  Kent campus freshmen (3,822)
• Sent in early October, after about 6 weeks of
  class
• Wanted responses before mid-term exams
• Students were asked if they Strongly Agree to
  Strongly Disagree to 28 statements

12
Fall Assessment Tool

• 61 response rate
• Involved several groups across the campus
• Positive article in campus paper
• Strong support from Residence Hall and
  Orientation staff
• Responses went directly into an Access database

13
Fall Assessment Tool
14
Results of Fall Assessment

• 88 indicated that Kent was 1st or 2nd choice.
• 91.7 Agreed or Strongly Agreed to Plan to
  return to Kent in the spring
• Only 2 of respondents Disagreed or Strongly
  Disagreed to 11 or more of the 25 statements (17
  was highest)
• 66 responded negatively to 4 or fewer statements
• Wording on some to the statements needed to be
  clarified.

15
Fall Mid-term Initiative

• Residence Hall program started in 2002F
• Attempt to meet with all freshmen with a mid-term
  GPA of 2.0 or below
• Advise on academic and social issues and direct
  to appropriate campus resources
• Expanded in 2003 to include commuter students to
  be contacted by Retain Advisors
• Assessment results were provided to staff to help
  facilitate conversations

16
Assessment Results Used in Initiative
17
Results of Mid-Term Initiative

• There were 1,181 students that had a mid-term GPA
  of 2.0 or below
• Advisors were able to hold conversations with 455
  of those students ( 38.5 )
• 65 commuter students were left voice messages
• Assessment data was well received by advisors
• Intervention worked to improve retention of at
  risk students

18
Spring Retention Rates Mid-term GPA 2.0 or Less
19
Fall to Spring Retention
88.2
87.3
20
Spring assessment

• E-mailed survey to remaining 2003F freshmen
  (3,339)
• Shorter survey 19 questions
• Some were reworded to specifically ask if cost of
  college, family responsibilities, being away from
  family would keep student from returning
• Four questions were about the value of the fall
  mid-term intervention

21
Spring Assessment Tool
22
Initial spring results

• 35 response rate most had also responded to
  fall assessment, but did catch a few additional
  students
• Over a third indicated that the effort required
  to succeed at Kent State was More or Much
  More than expected.
• 68 of those that indicated that they had a
  conversation with an advisor about the fall
  assessment thought is was Helpful or Very
  Helpful

23
What has worked

• Getting various groups across the institution
  involved in the survey and retention efforts
• E-mail surveys have high response rates
• Survey provided information for conversations
• Intervention works

24
What has not worked

• Survey data does not provide predictor of which
  student might leave
• Early indications are that the spring
  intervention did not go as well as fall
  students are on to us
• Need to constantly remind people to include
  commuter students in programs

25
Plans for summer fall

• Noel-Levitz College Student Inventory will be
  given to all incoming freshmen
• Use e-mail system to send messages
• Use e-mail system to contact students sooner
• Complete additional analysis of data once fall
  term begins
• Examine other factors
• Time of enrollment
• Gap between college GPA and high school GPA