Presented by Michele J. Hansen, Ph.D., Director of UC Assessment November 20, 2008

1. Understanding Student Success and Retention Presented by Michele J. Hansen, Ph.D., Director of UC Assessment November 20, 2008 CRG Steering Committee Meeting

2. Presentation Overview • Student Progress and Academic Success • Highlights of Research on Impacts of UC Programs • First-Year Seminars • Themed Learning Communities • Summer Bridge • Critical Inquiry • Factors Associated with Academic Success • 2008 First-Time, Full-Time Cohort (Indianapolis Only)

3. One-Year Retention Rates

4. Six-Year Graduation Rates

5. IUPUI Six-Year Graduation Trend

6. IUPUI (Indianapolis Only) Retention Trend Lines Source: IMIR UC 10-Year Celebration Report.

7. FT Beginners GPAs and Retention Rates Source: University Reporting & Research: official reports are available at http://www.indiana.edu/~urr

8. Approaches to Assessing First-Year Programs • Use assessment to prove and improve programs: summative and formative evaluation. • Employ multiple measures of student learning and academic success - moving beyond retention. • Use program evaluation methodology: understanding needs, processes, and learning outcomes. • Understand the dialogue between qualitative and quantitative research. • Seek involvement of key stakeholders in assessment planning, implementation, and deployment. • Ensure information used for program improvement. • Meta-Assessment

9. Focus on Accountability • Four-Year Graduation Rates • Degree Completion • Course Completion • “Value-Added” Interventions • Cost-Effectiveness • Student Learning Outcomes

10. Complexity of Retention • Pre-College Factors and Preparation • Background Characteristics • Students’ Intentions • Students’ Expectations • Students’ Needs • Students’ Financial Issues • Institutional Factors • External Environmental Factors

11. Fall 2007 Impact of Participation in a First-Year Seminar on One-Year Retention  

12. Hierarchical Logistic Regression: 2007 First-Year Seminar and Retention

13. Other Indicators of Academic Success: 2007 First-Year Seminars • 30% of the non-participants earned a grade point average below a 2.0 compared to 23% of participants. • The DWF rate for non-participants (29%) was notably higher compared to participants (23%). • The IUPUI fall-to-spring retention rate for non-participants was 83% compared to 87% for participants.  

14. 309 Non-Participants No significant differences in hours expected to work off-campus, studying, or care for dependents! Participants expect to work significantly more hours on-campus.

15. Impact of Participation in a 2007 First-Year Seminar: One-Year Retention

16. Fall 2007 Impact of Participation in a First-Year Seminar on One-Year Retention  

17. Students’ Reported Notable Improvements and Course Benefits in the Following Areas… • Making connections with other students, peer mentors, faculty, and advisors. • Academic advising (e.g., knowledgeable, available when needed assistance). • Experiencing environment that promotes and respects diversity. • Becoming familiar with campus and academic support resources. • Deciding on a major or future career. • Adjusting to college.

18. Most Valued Aspects of Leaning Communities • Making connections and forming a sense of community. • Learning more about IUPUI campus and academic support resources. • Exploring majors and career opportunities. • Learning about library resources.

19. Least Valued Aspects of Leaning Communities • Assignments that do not contribute to learning process: “busy work.” • Unorganized activities in and outside of class. • Class activities that are not linked with discipline courses. • Class activities that are not related to major or career goals.

20. National Survey of Student Engagement Significant differences of FYS students in comparison to others: Students participating in FYS • made more class presentations. • worked with students outside of class more often. • participated in more community-based projects. • Included diverse perspectives in class discussions or writing assignments. FYS students also reported • Better quality of academic advising. • experiencing a more supportive campus environment. • engaging in more active and collaborative learning.

21. TLC First Semester G.P.A. Comparison group – students who participated in a freshman seminar or learning community. *G.P.A. adjusted to control for significant covariates including: course load, gender, ethnicity, SAT scores, high school percentile ranks, units of high school math, and first-generation students. Bolded items are significant p<.01

22. TLC Retention Fall 2004 One Year Retention # of Students Retention Rate* TLC Participants 28769% Non-TLC Participants 1351 68% Fall 2005 One Year Retention # of StudentsRetention Rate* TLC Participants 338 70% Non-TLC Participants 1211 65% Fall 2006 One Year Retention # of StudentsRetention Rate* TLC Participants 37770% Non-TLC Participants 1779 67%  Fall 2007 One Year Retention # of Students Retention Rate* TLC Participants 565 76% Non-TLC Participants 1690 67%  Comparison group – students who participated in a freshman seminar or learning community. *Bolded items are significant p<.05, even while controlling for differences in demographics, enrollment, and academic preparation.

23. TLC Retention: Full-Time Students

24. National Survey of Student Engagement Significant differences between TLC students (80) in comparison to others (280): Students participating in TLCs more often: • Worked on a paper or project that required integrating ideas or information from various sources. • Made more class presentations. • Included diverse perspectives (different races, religions, genders, political beliefs, etc.) in class discussions or writing assignments. • Put together ideas or concepts from different courses when completing assignments or during class discussions . • Worked harder than thought they could to meet an instructor's standards or expectations. • Tried to better understand someone else's views by imagining how an issue looks from his or her perspective. • Learned something that changed the way you understand an issue or concept.

25. National Survey of Student Engagement TLC students also reported more institutional emphasis on: • Providing the support needed to help students succeed academically • Encouraging contact among students from different economic, social, and racial or ethnic backgrounds • Helping students cope with non-academic responsibilities (work, family, etc.) • Working effectively with others • Understanding people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds

26. National Survey of Student Engagement

27. National Survey of Student Engagement

28. Academic Performance of TLC Students Compared to Students in Same School or Discipline Seminar

29. Essential Elements Of Summer Bridge • Offered as a two-week program for incoming freshmen held in August before fall classes begin • Open to students in specific majors • Based on student interest in pursuing a particular major or in exploring various major options • Provides a collegiate-level curriculum • Creates communities of entering students • Offered free to participants • Required for all First Generation Scholarship award winners beginning fall 2006

30. Characteristics of 2005 Cohort • 175 Students Participated • 70% Women • 9% African American • 53% First-Generation College Student • 18% First-Generation Scholars • 22% Admitted Conditionally • 1016 Average SAT Score • 69% Average High School Percentile Rank • 39% Campus Housing • 18-19 Primary Ages. Average=18.17

31. Characteristics of Fall 2006 Two-Week Cohort • 209 Students Participated • 71% Women • 8% African American • 89% First-Generation College Student • 70% First-Generation Scholars • 7% Admitted Conditionally • 1000 Average SAT Score • 75% Average High School Percentile Rank • 27% Campus Housing • 18-19 Primary Ages. Average=18.75

32. Characteristics of Fall 2007 Two-Week Cohort • 361 Students Participated • 72% Women • 7% African American • 91% First-Generation College Student • 78% First-Generation Scholars • 10% Admitted Conditionally • 982 Average SAT Score • 3.31 Average High School GPA • 34% Campus Housing • 18-19 Primary Ages. Average=18.77

33. Impact of Summer Bridge Participation 2005

34. Impact of Summer Bridge Participation 2005

35. Two-Week Summer Bridge Participants Compared to Non-Bridge Participants: Conditional Admits

36. Summer Bridge Participants Compared to Non-Bridge Participants: First-Generation Scholars

37. 2007 Bridge-Themed Learning Community Combination has Positive Effects

38. Hierarchical Multiple Regression: 2007 Two Week Summer Bridge and GPA

39. First-Time, Full-Time Eligible for the 21st. Century Scholarship Bridge Participants vs. Cohort Non-Participants

40. Top Rated Benefits of Summer Bridge

41. Factors that Significantly Predict Overall Satisfaction with Summer Bridge • College Adjustment • Course Activities • Campus Resources • Interactions with Instructional Team Members adjusted R2 =.215, F (9, 756)=23.97, p<.0001).

42. Summer Bridge (Two-Week)Student Questionnaire Results 98% of 2008 students surveyed (n=414) said they would recommend the Summer Bridge program to other first-year students. 2007 = 98% 2006 = 99% 2005 = 96%, 2004 = 98%

43. Summer Bridge Long Term Impacts

44. Spring 2008 Impact of Participation in a Critical Inquiry Course for Conditional Admits

45. Spring 2008 Impact of Participation in a Critical Inquiry Course for Conditional Admits

46. Factors That Threaten Persistence and Graduation from College • Academically underprepared for college-level work • First-generation college student • Gap between high school and college • 30+ hours working per week • Part-time enrollment • Single parent • Financially independent • Children at home • Lack of institutional and goal commitment • George Kuh, 2006

47. Factors Associated with Success (Source: Gary Pike Presentation 4/19/07) • Gender • First-Generation Student • Institutional Commitment (Intent to Transfer) • Amount of Time Spent Working • Student Groups (predicted GPAs based on SAT/ACT & High School GPA) Ethnicity (minority status) was not significantly related to student success.

48. IUPUI Factors Related to Academic Success • Levels of Academic Hope. • The process of thinking about one’s goals, along with the motivation to move toward those goals (agency) and the strategies to achieve those goals (pathways). • Comprehension and completion of assignments during the last year of high school. • Participating in First-Year Seminars, Thematic Learning Communities, and Summer Bridge (early interventions).

49. Summary of Major Changes • ICHE Accountability and Outcomes Focus: degree completion, on-time graduation, value-added experiences. • More academically prepared students. • More International and Out-of-State students. • More students entering just out of high school: 18-19 years of age. • More students living on-campus. • Improved retention and graduation rates. Retention not likely to exceed 80% in next 5 years.

50. Factors to Consider • Many students have not completed a rigorous high school college-preparatory curriculum (23% of 2007 FT, FT students earned below a 2.0 GPA during their first semester). • Difficult for students to make the necessary connections with other students and faculty. • First generation students may benefit from support/mentoring to help bolster academic performance. • Notable percentage of African American students are first generation college students (70%). • Students seem to have unrealistic expectations about their expected levels of academic performance and time they should be devoting to studying. • Continue investigations of what interventions produce the best educational outcomes and take into account diverse students’ needs.