Deconstructing Decision Making: Theories, Strategies, Data September 25, 2012 2:30-3:30 p.m.

1. Flunking Out: Intervention to Promote Better Decision-MakingEric R. WhiteExecutive DirectorDivision of Undergraduate StudiesRachael WileySenior Undergraduate Studies AdviserDivision of Undergraduate Studies Deconstructing Decision Making: Theories, Strategies, Data September 25, 2012 2:30-3:30 p.m.

2. Origins of Intervention Initiative TRACKED DUS STUDENTS WITH Above 2.00 cgpa, who were expected to return but decided not to Conducted over many years Found no common set of reasons

3. Shift in Emphasis STUDENTS DROPPED FOR POOR SCHOLARSHIP CGPA below 2.00 by set number of grade points (grade-point deficiencies) results in drop action to non-degree conditional status CHANGE IN ATTITUDE TOWARD DROPPED STUDENTS Financial costs for non-degree students No degrees Future prospects NUMBERS ARE SMALL—DECISION TO INVESTIGATE

4. Students who Fail Out Are there any uniform characteristics? DATA sources Transcript Advising Notes

5. Findings TRANSCRIPTS—quantitative data Below 2.00 CGPA in semester(s) prior to being dropped Failure in key course(s) for intended major Use of late-drop action Gender

6. Findings advising notes—qualitative data Inappropriate schedule Early progress report (EPR) alerting student during week 3-6 to grade below a C (2.00) in a course Lack of student engagement in conversations with an adviser Lack of response to academic review urging student to meet with an adviser Poor grades resulting from circumstances beyond student’s control

7. Our Challenge Reduce fail out rate to zero INTERVENTION Strategies Adviser freedom to reach out to student using own judgement Academic holds Goal: More informed decisions

8. Intervention Process Conversation with student (with help of hold) Outline student’s options: Late-drop Withdrawal New academic goals Referrals

9. Results to Date End of fall 2011 14 DUS students dropped for poor scholarship Compared to 22 DUS students dropped at end of Fall 2010 End of spring 2012 22 DUS students dropped for poor scholarship Compared to 44 DUS students dropped at end of Spring 2011

10. What We’ve Learned& Further Questions OUR previous assumptions as to who is an “at risk” student don’t always hold up Are the previous assumptions based on stereotypes and non-differentiated aggregate data? Students who look able to perform well based on many available variables sometimes don’t What makes the difference?

11. What We’ve Learned& Further Questions Combination of transcript analysis and direct contact data (advising notes) can help us understand drop phenomenon When the numbers are small, should the data be interpreted at all? If so, how? And what can we learn from interpretation? Holds can help prompt conversations Are holds too invasive? How can we reconcile holds with our contention that students be treated like adults?

12. What We’ve Learned& Further Questions Students “Signal” very early in their academic careers that they are having academic difficulty How early can we identify these “signals”? How can we teach students to self-identify these “signals”? Students are capable of making informed decisions What factors do students take into account when making a decision (e.g. to withdraw or to finish semester)? Are we providing the most useful information to make a decision?

13. Questions? Thank you for coming. Eric R. White erw2@psu.edu Rachael Wiley ral26@psu.edu