Implementing a Readiness Tool to Increase Persistence

1
(No Transcript)
2
Implementing a Readiness Tool to Increase
Persistence Improve Student Success

• Rick Brandel, Mary Rostenberg, Margot
  Saltonstall

3
Who are we? And, who are you?
INTRODUCTIONS
4
Goals for this Session

• Share how our institution
• measured new students readiness for college
• intervened with select groups in first few weeks
  of class
• observed gains in GPA and retention
• gathered more qualitative feedback
• Have a engaging session with lively discussion to
  not only increase participants knowledge but to
  increase our own.

5
Learning Outcomes

• Participants are able to
• Identify key scales and indices of the instrument
  we used,
• Understand the process by which we targeted
  student groups for outreach,
• Analyze our experience and integrate it with your
  own intervention strategies, and
• Apply our approach (or parts of it) to conducting
  outreach to students at your institution in order
  to increase student success in terms of GPA and
  retention.

6
Setting New Students Up for Success

• In a group of 3-4, describe and list the
  programs, interventions, efforts on your campus
  that help set new students up for success in
  college
• Freshman Year Experience
• Conditionally admitted student program
• Early alert program
• Mid-semester grade postings
• Required academic advising
• Mentor program
• Supplemental Instruction
• Other programs/strategies

7
Why do we make all these efforts?

• Nationally
• Average dropout rates from first to second year
  of college 33
• Average six-year graduation rate at four-year
  institutions 57
• (Habley McClanahan, 2004) (Horn Nevill, 2006)

• Northern Arizona Univ.
• Average first year retention rate 70
• Average six-year graduation rate 50

8
Why these efforts? (Continued)

• Higher attrition rates for
• ethnic minority students
• first generation college students
• low income
• Students of all abilities leaveneed broad
  programmatic safety nets.
• Efforts to increase retention have yielded little
• Increased pressure from constituents

9
Bottom Line

• We could identify some of our at-risk student
  groups, BUT we needed to know
• more about which students within those groups
  were most needy and
• which services might help which students.

10
The Approach

• In other words, we needed to learn more about
  each individual student.

11
Strategic Intervention Model

• Requirements of a strategic model
• Implemented early in the first semester
• Include groups known to be at risk
• Collaborative and not duplicative
• academic advising and first year programs
• Native American Student Services outreach program
• Summer bridge program and first year mentoring
• Any key groups interfacing with new freshmen
• Systematic
• Whole student
• Grounded in research

12
ACTs Student Readiness Inventory

• Reviewed Robbins (2004) meta-analysis of 109
  studies (N 152,985) that examined the effect of
  predictors on academic performance and retention
• Considered traditional (e.g., standardized test
  scores, HS GPA), demographic (e.g., SES,
  race/ethnicity, gender), and psychosocial and
  study skill factors
• Participated in a pilot study with ACT, Inc. on
  their development of the Student Readiness
  Inventory
• Crafted a program model

13
Quick Overview of the SRI

• 108-item, Self-report Instrument
• Two Indices
• Academic Success
• Retention
• Ten Scales in Three Area
• Motivation and Skills, such as Commitment to
  College, Academic Discipline, Study Skills
• Social Engagement, such as Social Activity,
  Social Connection
• Self-Management, such as Academic Self-Confidence
• Administered at Orientation
• Individual Profiles Available Ten Day after
  Administration

14
Program Model Summary

• Prioritize Student Groups for Outreach
• Ethnic minority students
• First generation college students
• Low scores on academic success and/or retention
  index
• Have one-on-one meeting with students to review
  profiles, matching student needs with campus and
  ACT/SRI resources
• NAU Website
• ACT Tool Shop
• Evaluate
• Track outreach efforts/communications
• Meeting attendance, receptivity, and seriousness
• Referrals to and use of campus resources
• Learning (self reported by students)

15
Prioritizing Student Groups

• Distributing Profiles
• Waterfall
• Summer Bridge Students (EM, FG, LI)
• Native American Students
• Other Ethnic Minorities
• Other First Generation
• Other Low Scoring
• (less than 50th percentile on either index)

16
Additional Student Groups

• Distribution of Profiles
• General review in FYE and Freshman Seminar
• Remedial skills based course, one-on-one review
  if not met with professional staff
• Invitation from advising center to meet

17
(No Transcript)
18
One-on-One Meeting

• Systematic outreach
• Look up schedules and set times
• Postcard home with appointment time
• Postcard to campus with appointment time
• Personal e-mail with appointment time
• Appointment time on their web calendar
• Reminder phone call 1-2 days before appt
• If miss scheduled meeting, protocol for
  rescheduling at least twice more

19
One-on-One meeting

• Meeting Content/Purpose
• Connect with student
• Match student need to campus resources
• Website home.nau.edu/emsa/sri.asp
• Tool Shop act.org/sri/studentguide/toolshop.html
  
• Gather some data on SRI experience

20
Evaluation Meeting Attendance
Student Affairs Group Met Not Met Group Total
Summer Bridge 149 9 158
Student Support Services 93 31 124
Student Life 35 14 49
Native American St Services 61 27 88
Residence Life 80 42 122
Learning Assistance Centers 106 75 181
Multicultural Student Centers 139 98 237
All Student Affairs 663 296 959
21
Evaluation Academic Performance
All students who met to receive SRI results fared
better than those who did not meet with SA staff.
22
Evaluation Academic Performance
Students who did NOT meet in regard to SRIs were
more likely to end up on academic probation.
23
Evaluation Retention
Students who met were more likely to be retained.
24
Apples to Apples

• How do we know it wasnt just the better students
  who came in to receive their SRI results?

25
Apples to Apples
26
Other Studies

• Associations of Resource and Service Utilization,
  Risk Level, and College Outcomes, S. Robbins, J.
  Allen, A. Casillas, A. Akamigbo, M. Saltonstall,
  R. Cole, E. Mahoney P. Gore. Research in Higher
  Education, In Press

27
Other Score Uses

• By scale for specific related services
• Advertise academic assistance to lower scorers on
  study skills scale
• Combine multiple scores
• High scores in com, soc con, com to college to
  recruit RAs, OLs, Leadership
• Spring follow up
• Probationers

28
Small Group Activity

• How would using the SRI and or our intervention
  model assist your efforts?

29
Your Campus

• Benefits and Natural Fits
• Challenges and Limitations

30
Share Your Ideas
31
Moving Forward

• At Orientation, build students expectation that
  they will meet one on one in fall to get results
• Increase students understanding of why one on
  one meeting might be good
• Fold students with no/invalid SRIs into model for
  outreach

32
Summary Points

• Designate a visible individual to coordinate
• Collaborate and use natural fits with existing
  resources
• Conduct systematic analysis
• Use your data/feedback and improve the process
• Maximize utility of the instrument
• Go beyond the limits of the instrument

33
Questions/Discussion