Upload
zan
View
26
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Encuentro Hacia el Exito Encounter with Excellence. How 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 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
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