1 / 31

Critical Risk Factors Refined :

Critical Risk Factors Refined :. Implications for Institutional Practice. Paper Presented at the 23 rd Annual Meeting of the Michigan Association for Institutional Research November 6, 2009 By Paul Duby, Northern Michigan University. Critical Risk Factors Refined:.

argyle
Download Presentation

Critical Risk Factors Refined :

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Critical Risk Factors Refined: Implications for Institutional Practice Paper Presented at the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Michigan Association for Institutional Research November 6, 2009 By Paul Duby, Northern Michigan University

  2. Critical Risk Factors Refined: Critical Risk Factors Refined is the second presentation in an ongoing research study taking place at NMU. The results from the 1st phase were presented at the Fall 2008 MIAIR conference held in Traverse City entitled: Identifying Critical Risk Factors in Student Retention

  3. Critical Risk Factors Refined: What did we learn from the Critical Risk Factor study? (1) NMU serves a large population of new freshmen who bring one or more ‘risk factors’ to the University

  4. Critical Risk Factors Refined: • Academic • Financial • 1st Generation • Minority What are the Critical Risk Factors that NMU students face?

  5. Critical Risk Factors Refined: • Do many of NMU’s new freshmen face these “critical risk factors?” YES • For the Fall 2008 class of first-time, full-time new freshmen of 1,776 new students • Risk Factor # 1 Financial: 548 or 30.9% • Risk Factor # 2 First Generation: 710 or 40.0% - Risk Factor # 3 Academic: 500 or 28.2% • Risk Factor # 4 Minority: 151 or 8.5% • “Duplicated” count of risks = 1,909

  6. Critical Risk Factors Refined: What did we learn from the Critical Risk Factor study? (2) The negative impact of each risk factor in terms of performance and retention can be quantified, both individually and in combination.

  7. Critical Risk Factors Refined: • What is least damaging? 1st Generation • What is less damaging? Minority • What is more damaging? Financial • What is really damaging? Academic

  8. Critical Risk Factors Refined: What did we learn from the Critical Risk Factor study? (3) Academic risk is the most damaging, especially since it is already being remediated. All probationary or ‘restricted admits’ are required to enroll in a special First Year Experience program.

  9. Critical Risk Factors Refined: What did we learn from the Critical Risk Factor study? (4) The impact of FYE participation for restricted admits is significant (+5% to +7%) but appears to lose much of its benefit over time.

  10. Critical Risk Factors Refined: • While members of the Enrollment Management Network found the work interesting and the results challenging, they did not feel compelled to recommend changes to admissions criteria nor the range and type of support services being provided. • This anguishing lack of committee action led to the use of longitudinal analyses of the long term impact of being academically ‘at risk’ on restricted admit status at Northern Michigan University.

  11. Percent by Admit Status

  12. 1st Semester G.P. A. by Admit Status

  13. % 1st Semester Clear Standing

  14. % 2nd Semester Retention

  15. % 3rd Semester Retention**

  16. % Graduated

  17. % Graduated

  18. Critical Risk Factors Refined: This baccalaureate success level is peer comparable and isn’t bad for baccalaureate students, so why do we need to change? In other words, Why do we need to change the future so as to be different that the past? (1) Higher Education Reauthorization Bill, (2) American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, (3) Voluntary System of Accountability, (4) Michigan performance monitoring. (5) We can’t continue to “Write off” the at risk.

  19. Critical Risk Factors Refined: • Faced with numbers of failures in the thousands, the members of the Enrollment Management Network indicated (finally) in April 2009 that we needed to augment our support services in order to better meet the needs of our restricted admits. • The recommendation was made that we needed to explore the use of placement testing prior to enrollment for our restricted admits.

  20. Critical Risk Factors Refined: Implications for Institutional Practice

  21. Institutional Research as an agent of institutional Change • An outline of IR Activity • Met with English Dept. Reps re dissatisfaction • Met with head of administrative support services re complaints • Arranged a joint reconciliation meeting • Received the ok to form an ad hoc Committee • A timeline of IR Activity • May 2009 • June 2009 • June 2009 • June 2009

  22. Institutional Research as an agent of institutional Change • An outline of IR Activity • Meetings of COMPASS ad hoc advisory group • ACT COMPASS rep presents to broadened ad hoc group • Ad hoc group’s final recommendations to launch a pilot study & form a new ad group • A timeline of IR Activity • June 25 (through August 12th) • August 5th • August 12th

  23. Institutional Research as an agent of institutional Change • An outline of IR Activity • Arrangements made to obtain lab space and computer terminals for pilot tests • Testing of 11 sections of academically at risk new freshmen • Presentation of results to academic cabinet • A timeline of IR Activity • August 24 -26 • September 9th – Sept 15th • September 22nd

  24. Institutional Research as an agent of institutional Change • An outline of IR Activity • Meeting with Provost to move forward with Fall 2010 COMPASS testing • Agreement by all parties to move ahead with a second advisory body to deal with Developmental Studies issues • A timeline of IR Activity • September 22nd • October 2009

  25. Institutional Research as an agent of institutional Change • An outline of IR Activity • Recruitment of ad hoc committee members in student services, English, Mathematics and the TLAC. • 1st meeting of the Developmental Education Advisory Committee (DEAC) • A timeline of IR Activity • October 2009 • October 29th

  26. Institutional Research as an agent of institutional Change Charge: To identify and recommend practices and procedures which will serve to increase the long term performance and retention of the large numbers of new freshmen who are currently being admitted in restricted status by:

  27. Institutional Research as an agent of institutional Change • Conducting a review of current practices in areas such as: • (a) admissions • (b) placement testing, • (c) advising and registration, • (d) adequacy of the current array of developmental support courses, • (e) effectiveness of current developmental support courses, and • (f) others? • 2. Establishing recommendations for best practices in these areas; • 3. Developing a framework and a charge for a University standing • committee which will be responsible for monitoring the success and • making recommendations of ways to enhance the performance and • retention of new freshmen who are admitted at academic risk.

  28. Institutional Research as an agent of institutional Change Will this Work?????? I do know that what we are doing now – doesn’t So to me it is worth the effort!

  29. “Access without success isn’t anything more than a bad taste in the mouth and student loans.” James L. Applegate, Lumina Foundation, 2009 Institute for Service-Learning and Civic Engagement, Feb 13, 2009.

  30. Questions, Concerns, Observations For an electronic copy of this presentation e mail me at: pduby@nmu.edu

More Related