Encuentro Hacia el Exito Encounter with Excellence

Encuentro Hacia el Exito Encounter with ExcellenceHow Longitudinal Results From a Title V First Year Initiative Helped an Institution Build a

Culture of Student Success

Dr. William Franklin

Overview

Guided by the Data Doing What Works Bridge Initiative Cohorts High Impact Practices Additional Data Gathered Regional and National Support Q&A

Guided by the Data

Entry

977 Students Full-time First-time Freshmen

Hispanic 49% AfricanAm. 36% Others 15%

94% deficient inBasic English

& Math

Fall 2006 By End of Term

68% on Good

Academic Standing

86% Cohort Retained

Spring 2007By End of Term

58%

on Good Academic Standing

50% met all Basic English & math

requirements

61% Cohort Retained

Fall 2007By End of Term

49% on Good Academic Standing

53% met allBasic English

& mathrequirements

54% Cohort Retained

Spring 2008By Endof Term

46% on Good

Academic Standing

47% Cohort Returned Fall 2008

132 in Cohort did not enroll in

Spring 2007

Hispanic 42%African Amer. 42%

451 in Cohort did not enroll in

Spring 2008

Hispanic 43%African Amer. 42%

519 in Cohort did not enroll in

Fall 2008

Hispanic 44%African Amer. 41%

379 in Cohort did not enroll in

Fall 2007

Hispanic 43%African Amer. 42%

Full-Time First-Time Freshmen Fall 2006 – Fall 2008 Cohort Retention Analysis through First Two Years

CSUDH Institutional Research, Assessment and Planning

PROBLEM ANALYSIS---Half of all incoming freshman have not overcome basic skill deficiencies after a year. ---Nearly 40% of first-time, fulltime freshman students were not retained to their second year, and of those were still enrolled, 20% were NOT in Good Academic Standing.

Doing What Works

Accelerate Achievement & Ensure Equity

Infuse Effective Teaching &Learning

EducateDiverse Learners

Support StudentSuccess

Foster Promising Practices

Bridge Cohorts

Summer/Fall 2009 Cohort

Entry Status Cohort N

Avg. HS GPA

Avg. EPT Score

Avg. ELM Score

Avg. Verbal SAT

Avg. Math SAT

Avg. Total SAT

Non-Bridge 1028 2.97 139 35 417 416 833Bridge 104 2.94 137 34 394 394 788

TOTAL 1132 2.97 139 35 415 414 829

Summer/Fall 2010 Cohort

Entry Status Cohort N

Avg. HS GPA

Avg. EPT Score

Avg. ELM Score

Avg. Verbal SAT

Avg. Math SAT

Avg. Total SAT

Non-Bridge 849 3.07 139 38 427 435 862

Bridge 180 3.09 137 34 399 397 796

TOTAL 1029 3.07 138 36 422 428 850

Summer/Fall 2011 Cohort

Entry Status

Cohort N

Avg. HS GPA

Avg. EPT Score

Avg. ELM Score

Avg. Verbal SAT

Avg. Math SAT

Avg. Total SAT

Non-Bridge 955 3.06 139 36 423 429 852

Bridge 213 2.98 135 32 391 386 776

Total 1168 3.02 137 34 407 408 814

Bridge participants were less prepared than their peers

Remediation Needs2009-2011

Math English Math English Math EnglishSummer/Fall 2009 Summer/Fall 2010 Summer/Fall 2011

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Summer BridgeNon-Bridge

Placement testing shows Bridge students to be consistently less prepared than their peers.

2%

22%

1%

71%

1%3% 2%

ASIAN BLACKPRF DECLINE HISPA NORESPON TWOMORE WHITE

The vast majority of students are of Latino/Latina

backgrounds

Students from historically under-represented groups total more

than 93%

68%

32%

Female Male

78% are the first in their families to attend collegeo This is defined by FAFSA data where neither the

mother or father have attained higher than a high school diploma

Additionally, 71% will be the first child in their family to earn a college degreeo Survey data was cross-tabbed to the FAFSA datao Students were asked if any sibling had earned a

college degree or if they were only children in the family

90% of Bridge students are eligible for Federal Pell Grants, making them among the financially neediest students in the United States

The average EFC of Bridge students is $1940, meaning that they lack the financial resources themselves to attend CSUDH

Just over 58% of Bridge students have an EFC of $0, meaning that they have no resources to pay for college

High Impact Practices

Summer Bridge Supplemental Instruction Cohort Model / Block Registration Early Warning System Intrusive Advising (Peer and Professional) Peer Mentoring Leadership Development

Summer Bridge

The goal of Summer Bridge is to introduce students to the academic demands of college, as well as some practice in the basics before the start of their formal college career.

During the summer, students take developmental education courses - Math 003 or 009 and English 088 or English 099.

The 6-week Summer Bridge experience provides students with college readiness training in a number of areas, including study skills, time management, campus and community life, and career exploration.

Students develop a sense of self in the academic community, gain the ability to navigate the campus system, and learn about the resources that will help them succeed.

Supplemental Instruction

SI is the single most well documented intervention available for improving academic performance of under-prepared students.

SI focuses on content issues as well as learning process habits, contributing to the students’ overall learning improvement as well as decreasing their sense of isolation.

SI requires an active role in providing materials for an SI session, with an experienced SI Leader, a student who has successfully completed the course.

SI leaders are trained to incorporate a number of collaborative review techniques to help students learn course material within a safe and familiar setting.

Cohort Model

During the summer, students’ respective scores in Math and English are reviewed and block schedules are designed for the fall.

The cohort models created are also comprised of a series of general education courses that will balance out their first semester schedule.

All students are enrolled in 12 units and they travel as cohorts to math, English and 2 pre-selected general education course.

Early Warning

The Early Warning System is designed for students who are experiencing academic and attendance problems. 

The system is set up to intervene in the face of student issues through the assistance of counseling, tutorial referrals, and supplemental instruction.

Instructors send mid-semester reports to make students and advisors aware when they are showing low attendance or having problems with in-class or test performance. 

Upon receiving the Early Warning notification, advisors will determine the need for further intervention.

Intrusive Advising

Advisors do not wait for students to come forward to ask for help but insist that students make frequent appointments throughout the year.

Intrusive advising does not mean hand-holding. Rather, it does mean active concern with the students' academic preparation and a willingness to assist them.

Advisors insist upon regular contact with their advisees regardless of whether or not advisees think it is needed.

Peer and professional advisors head off potential problems before they arise and reduce the need for crisis intervention.

Peer Mentoring

Peer Mentors meet with their caseload twice each semester to disseminate critical information and inquire about how students are acclimating.

Peer Mentors report to Academic Advisors on “redflag” students who could benefit from additional advising or other interventions.

Peer Mentors serve as role models and student advisors who can offer advice on choosing a major, course selection, and refer students to campus resources, based on their own experience.

Leadership Development

Students are required to complete at least 20 hours of service to the program during each school year.

The aim of this requirement is to help students develop leadership skills and a college network.

Students fulfill these requirements through participation in student organization, women’s group, program newsletter, and program recruitment.o Students serve as officers, coordinators, and journalists.o Students assist in the recruitment of future program

students.

Filling in the Data Gaps

Campus Labs (Student Voice) was used to survey students

Survey instruments are administered largely online

Three goals for the use of surveys:o Fill in data gapso Gather information about how students

perceived their experiences to improve program delivery

o Evaluate teacher and curriculum effectiveness

Sibling educational attainment levels Distance traveled to campus from

home Method of transportation Plans for work during college Actual work on or off-campus Time spent studying in high school

and college

Perceptions of readiness for success in college-level math and English courses

Perceptions of academic preparation provided by high school

Support of family to attend college Support of friends to attend college

Revisiting the Cohorts

Summer/Fall 2009 Cohort

Entry Status Cohort N

Avg. HS GPA

Avg. EPT Score

Avg. ELM Score

Avg. Verbal SAT

Avg. Math SAT

Avg. Total SAT

Non-Bridge 1028 2.97 139 35 417 416 833Bridge 104 2.94 137 34 394 394 788

TOTAL 1132 2.97 139 35 415 414 829

Summer/Fall 2010 Cohort

Entry Status Cohort N

Avg. HS GPA

Avg. EPT Score

Avg. ELM Score

Avg. Verbal SAT

Avg. Math SAT

Avg. Total SAT

Non-Bridge 849 3.07 139 38 427 435 862

Bridge 180 3.09 137 34 399 397 796

TOTAL 1029 3.07 138 36 422 428 850

Summer/Fall 2011 Cohort

Entry Status

Cohort N

Avg. HS GPA

Avg. EPT Score

Avg. ELM Score

Avg. Verbal SAT

Avg. Math SAT

Avg. Total SAT

Non-Bridge 955 3.06 139 36 423 429 852

Bridge 213 2.98 135 32 391 386 776

Total 1168 3.02 137 34 407 408 814

Bridge participants were less prepared than their peers

Remediation Needs2009-2011

Math English Math English Math EnglishSummer/Fall 2009 Summer/Fall 2010 Summer/Fall 2011

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Summer BridgeNon-Bridge

Placement testing shows Bridge students to be consistently less prepared than their peers.

Outcomes

One-term rate One-year rate Three-term rate Two-year rate55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

90%

86%

82%

74%

92%

66%

64%

59%

98%

94%

90%

74%

97%

89%Freshman Reten-

tion Rates: Bridge and Non-

Bridge2009-2011

Overall Results

Students who begin with two semesters of math and/or English remediation required have a much lower chance of progression toward a degree.

Students in the Bridge program with the same needs have a much stronger chance of persistence.o Over the last 3-4 years, they are generally 15-20

percentage points higher. Bridge students are persisting at much higher

rates than the control group.

2008-2009 -VP

2009-2010 -Gilbert -Verizon -VP

2010-2011 -Gilbert -Title V

2011-2012-Gilbert -Title V

2012-2013-Title V -Gilbert II -CSUDH

Questions & Answers