Implementing a Readiness Tool to Increase Persistence & Improve Student Success

Rick Brandel, Mary Rostenberg, & Margot Saltonstall

Who are we?

And, who are you?

INTRODUCTIONS

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.

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.

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

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%

Why these efforts? (Continued)

• Higher attrition rates for – ethnic minority students– first generation college students– low income

• Students of all abilities leave—need broad programmatic safety nets.

• Efforts to increase retention have yielded little• Increased pressure from constituents

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.

The Approach

In other words, we needed to learn more about each

individual student.

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

ACT’s 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

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

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)

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)

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

All New Freshmen

21%15%

9%

7%5%

6%

3%

4%

5%

3%

2%

11%

7%

3%

MSC

Bridge

NASS

LAC

SSS

Res Life

SL

EPS 101

FYE 101

ADV

Low Score

No Contact

Invalid

No SRI

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

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

Evaluation: Meeting Attendance

Student Affairs Group MetNot 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

Evaluation: Academic PerformanceF07 Avg 1st Sem GPA by Distribution Group

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

Met 3.02 2.77 2.64 2.48 2.45 2.36 2.15 2.55

Not Met 2.83 2.28 2.41 2.19 2.06 1.97 1.91 2.23

Grp 1 Grp 2 Grp 3 Grp 4 Grp 5 Grp 6 Grp 7ALL

Student Affairs

All students who met to receive SRI results fared better than those who did not meet

with SA staff.

Evaluation: Academic PerformanceF07 Percent on Probation by Distribution Group

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Met 31% 26% 23% 16% 15% 15% 10% 18%

Not Met 41% 42% 21% 11% 28% 24% 14% 26%

Grp 1 Grp 2 Grp 3 Grp 4 Grp 5 Grp 6 Grp 7ALL

Student Affairs

Students who did NOT meet in regard to SRIs were more likely to end up on academic probation.

Evaluation: RetentionF07 One Sem Retention by Met/ Not Met in Each Unit

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Met 94% 93% 91% 90% 87% 87% 80% 89%

Not Met 87% 90% 71% 88% 78% 87% 85% 88%

Grp 1 Grp 2 Grp 3 Grp 4 Grp 5 Grp 6 Grp 7 All SA

Students who met were more likely to be retained.

Apples to Apples

How do we know it wasn’t just the better students who came in to receive their SRI results?

Average Scale Scores

58 5457 53

0102030405060708090

100

Retention Index Academic Success Index

Met

Not Met

Apples to Apples

Average ACT/SAT Scores

21 21

0

5

10

15

20

25

Met Not Met

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

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

Small Group Activity

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

Your Campus

• Benefits and Natural Fits

• Challenges and Limitations

Share Your Ideas

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

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

Questions/Discussion