Building a Student Success Model Through Academic Persistence

1
Building a Student Success Model Through Academic
Persistence

• University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
• College of Education and
• Health Professions
• Gloria Flores (gflores_at_uark.edu)
• Marla Kendrick (mmewing_at_uark.edu)

2
Introduction

• University of Arkansas
• College of Education and Health Professions
  (COEHP)
• Land-grant, Research, Public liberal arts and
  sciences institution
• One of six Academic Colleges at the University of
  Arkansas that serves undergraduate students
• University Decentralized advising system
• Freshman Entry program
• Approximately 1600 undergraduate students in
  COEHP
• Total Intake Advising Model
• Boyer Center for Student Services through
  completion of 44 hours
• Faculty Advising after completion of 45 hours

3
Objectives for Today

• Rationale for developing the program
• Overview of the Advising, Inspiring, and
  Motivating Student Success (AIMS) Program
• Support and Resources
• Process of developing the program
• Describe and give details of the pilot, building,
  and standard ideal terms
• Discussion

4
AIMS Program

• This program assists students whose cumulative
  grade point average is below a 2.00 and could
  possibly be on academic warning.

5
Rationale for the Program

• The University of Arkansas does not consider
  students with fewer than 61 hours and a
  cumulative grade point average below a 2.0 to be
  in poor academic standing.

6
Rationale for the Program

• However, we noticed several factors that made it
  important for us to reach out to these students
  for their success.

7
Rationale for the Program

• In order to graduate a student must have a 2.0
  cumulative GPA
• We have several restricted or competitive entry
  programs such as
• The Elementary Education program requires a
  minimum of a 2.7 cumulative GPA prior to
  admission into the senior core block
• The Middle Level Education program requires a
  minimum of a 3.0 cumulative GPA for admission
  into the Master of Arts in Teaching program

8
Rationale for the Program

• The Communication Disorders program requires
  undergraduate students to have a cumulative GPA
  of 3.0 in 60 hours to be considered
• The Nursing program is a competitive entry
  program undergraduate students must have a
  minimum of a 2.75 cumulative GPA in order to be
  considered for the program the average GPA is
  3.2 for students accepted
• Several majors in the COEHP require a C or
  better in certain courses in order to meet
  graduation requirements.

9
Rationale for the Program

• All teaching majors require a C or better in
  all of its pre-education core courses for
  eligibility to the MAT
• Admission to specific Master of Arts in Teaching
  degree concentrations require a cumulative GPA of
  2.7

10
Rationale for the Program

• The most obvious rationale is the MORE hours a
  student takes, the MORE difficult it is to raise
  the cumulative GPA in order to achieve the
  desired GPA

11
Rationale for the Program

• As a result, we decided this program was
  necessary for our College to pay close attention
  to these students and offer them the academic
  support and resources necessary to enhance their
  academic performance.

12
AIMS Program

• Assists students with improving their academic
  performance
• The student must complete an agreement and a
  consent form with their assigned advisor
• Meet with their assigned advisor three (3) times
  during the semester
• Contact their advisor every two (2) weeks through
  e-mail to discuss current classes

13
Developing the Program

• Pilot Term
• Building Term
• Standard Ideal Term

14
Pilot Term

• Population
• Query
• Terms and conditions of the program
• Develop forms
• Mail out letters

• Develop a database/log
• Appointments
• Documentation
• Follow-up
• Analysis

15
Support and Resources

• Meeting with the student and offering them
  encouragement
• Discussing their alternative options
• Having a Reality Check
• Using the Enhanced Learning Center
• Utilizing Grade Forgiveness
• Developing a plan
• Attending Workshops

• Explaining how to calculate GPA
• Helping student understand the importance of
  their GPA
• Calculating the GPA they need to make in order to
  get off probation
• Improving Study Skills
• Improving Time Management Skills

16
Pilot Term Statistics

• 55 students participated in the program
• 40/55 (73) increased their GPA
• 15/55 (27) did not increase their GPA
• 13/55 (24) were removed from probation (above a
  2.0)
• 28/55 (51) fully participated (completed all
  requirements)
• 21/28 (75) increased their GPA
• 6/28 (21) were removed from probation

17
Additional Data

• 13 students did not continue for the next term
  because
• 3 students were suspended
• 2 students were dismissed
• 8 students did not enroll
• In addition 2 students withdrew during this term

18
Building Term

• Query
• Mail letters in a more timely manner
• Sent e-mails as reminders
• Amended the forms
• Looked at early progress grades for students with
  less than 45 hours

• Added workshops (Time Management, Study Skills,
  Test Anxiety, Resumes, and Interviews)
• Used the hold during the registration process

19
Building Term Statistics

• 52 students participated in the program
• 41/52 (79) increased their GPA
• 11/52 (21) did not increase their GPA
• 16/52 (31) were removed from probation (above a
  2.0)
• 29/52 (56) fully participated (completed all
  requirements)
• 24/29 (83) increased their GPA
• 6/29 (21) were removed from probation

20
Additional Data

• 9 Students did not continue to the next term
  because
• 2 students were suspended
• 1 student was dismissed
• 6 students did not enroll
• In addition 1 student withdrew during this term

21
Additional Data

• Spring 2005 results
• 48 students had a cumulative GPA below 2.00,
  however only 39 students remained eligible due to
  withdrawal, or change of academic college
• 23/39 (59) increased their GPA
• 15/39 (38) did not increase their GPA
• 11/39 (28) were removed from probation (above a
  cumulative 2.00 GPA)
• 24/39 (32) participated in the program
• 14/24 (58) increased their GPA
• 7/24 (29) were removed from probation

22
Standard Ideal Term

• Aspects of Truman State Universitys program A
  Model for Predicting and Addressing Academic
  Difficulty presented by Maria Di Stefano
  (mdistefa_at_truman.edu) and others will be adapted
  in the future
• Truman States main question
• What if we could
• Identify students before they are in academic
  difficulty?
• Intervene to prevent or lessen academic
  difficulty?

23
Standard Ideal Term

• Traditional Predictors of Academic Success
• High school GPA
• High School Rank
• ACT Scores (or SAT)

24
Standard Ideal Term

• Additional Indicators
• Number of high school C, D, F grades
• College Success Factors Index (CSFI)
• Measures factors related to academic success and
  predicts students who will experience academic
  difficulty
• 8 subscales Responsibility/Control, Competition,
  Task Precision, Expectations, Wellness, Time
  Management, College Involvement, and Family
  Involvement
• 15 minutes to complete and self-score
• Watch-line to indicate students who may
  experience academic difficulty

25
Standard Ideal Term

• Truman State had an 83.3 predictability rate
  with their pilot group when they assessed the
• Number of high school C, D, F grades and
• applied the College Success Factors Index (CSFI)

26
Standard Ideal Term

• Due to budget constraints we were unable to
  purchase the survey 800 for 400 students, or
  obtain permission from the Office of Admissions
  to view high school transcripts to implement
  strategies for Fall 2005.
• We are continuing the AIMS program and will
  attempt to purchase the CSFI and challenge the
  politics of obtaining access to high school
  transcripts for future development of the AIMS
  program.