FYC 15 Year Report

FYC FIFTEEN YEAR REPORT 2

CONTRIBUTORS

FYC ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE

Kim B. Outing (Past Chair) Assistant Director for Advising First Year College

Matthew M. Rust (Chair) Assistant Director for Assessment First Year College

Donna J. Burton Assistant Director for Curriculum and Instruction First Year College

Kathy A. Ziga Academic Advisor/ Lecturer First Year College

CONSULTANTS

William “Trey” Standish III (2011-2012) Assistant Director for Enrollment Planning University Planning and Analysis

Allen P. Dupont (2010-2011) Director O�ce of Assessment Division of Undergraduate Academic Programs

Alecia R. Matthews Academic Advisor/ Lecturer First Year College

Katie E. Cartmell Academic Advisor/ Lecturer First Year College

Andrea M. Atkin (2011-2012) Academic Advisor/ Lecturer First Year College

Heather L. Duhart (2010-2011) Assistant Director for Recruitment First Year College

First Year College (FYC) is the "college of options" for students entering NC State University who are undecided or exploratory as to major. Established in 1995, FYC has developed a nationally-recognized model for successfully advising students through their /rst year at the university. From personal, one-on-one academic and career advising to a two-semester orientation course and the FYC Village living-learning community, FYC provides a comprehensive experience for /rst year students who want to choose the right major and graduate on time.

FYC is a member unit of the Division of Undergraduate Academic Programs (DUAP).


TABLE OF CONTENTS

STUDENT SUCCESS

FYC ENROLLMENT, ENTERING CHARACTERISTICS ....................... 4

GRADUATION RATES ........................................................................... 5

RETENTION RATES .............................................................................. 6

MAJOR CHANGES ............................................................................... 7

IMPACT OF VILLAGE ............................................................................ 8

IMPACT OF LINKED COURSE ........................................................... 10

AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENT SUCCESS ................................... 12

MALE STUDENT SUCCESS ............................................................... 14

FEMALE STUDENT SUCCESS ........................................................... 15

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN FIRST MAJOR ..................................... 16

ASSESSMENT-DRIVEN PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS

ACADEMIC ADVISING ....................................................................... 19

USC 101/102 (CURRICULUM) ............................................................ 19

DIVERSITY ........................................................................................... 20

PROGRAMMING ................................................................................. 20

VILLAGE ............................................................................................... 20

ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................... 21

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

% First Choice FYC 87.69% 85.33% 88.52% 83.10% 85.78% 86.60% 87.21%

80.00%

81.00%

82.00%

83.00%

84.00%

85.00%

86.00%

87.00%

88.00%

89.00%

% of Confirm

ed Inco

min

g Class in M

ay

% First Choice FYC


FYC ENROLLMENT AND ENTERING CHARACTERISTICS

ENROLLMENT, GPA, SAT

First-time, /rst year FYC students, entering in 2000 through 2009. Average GPAs are weighted GPAs. Average SAT scores only include the two-part total (i.e., maximum of 1600, no writing component). Note that these are students who participated in the FYC program, not those students who participated in the Academic Support Program for Student Athletes (ASPSA). For that reason, these numbers will di'er from what is published on other NC State University websites.

Note: All students applying to NC State may list a +rst and

second choice major. If the student is not accepted to her +rst

choice major, she is reviewed under the second choice major.

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

FYC Enrollment 731 766 635 631 554 743 708 724 691 662

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Number of Stu

den

ts

FYC Enrollment

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

FYC Cohort HS GPA 3.82 3.78 3.92 3.98 4.05 3.98 4.02 4.00 4.03 4.07

3.6

3.65

3.7

3.75

3.8

3.85

3.9

3.95

4

4.05

4.1

Weighted H

S G

PA

FYC Cohort HS GPA

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

FYC Cohort %Male 51.2% 53.7% 51.1% 47.7% 46.9% 50.6% 43.8% 49.0% 47.9% 50.3%

FYC Cohort %Female 48.8% 46.3% 48.9% 52.3% 53.1% 49.4% 56.2% 51.0% 52.1% 49.7%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Percent of Cohort

Male and Female Enrollment

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

FYC Cohort SAT 1158 1145 1174 1176 1170 1155 1150 1146 1133 1150

1110

1120

1130

1140

1150

1160

1170

11802-P

art SAT (Out of 1600)

FYC Cohort SAT


GRADUATION RATES

4- AND 6-YEAR GRADUATION

FYC Cohorts were compared to a statistically matched co-hort of entering, non-FYC students who had similar pro/les in terms of gender, SAT scores, and HS GPA. No signi/cant di7erences were found between the FYC Cohort and the matched cohort for any year in either graduation measure.

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

FYC 4YR GRD 32.97%31.85%34.65%39.94%42.42%36.20%40.40%36.88%

Comp 4YR GRD 36.39%34.77%39.40%43.42%40.61%39.43%38.42%38.81%

0.00%5.00%

10.00%15.00%20.00%25.00%30.00%35.00%40.00%45.00%50.00%

Percent of Cohort

Four Year Graduation

Note that students were counted as graduated in four or six years as long as they graduated by the end of the second sum-mer session of their fourth or sixth year, respectively. /is is how university graduation rates are calculated.

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

FYC 6YR GRD 68.0% 65.7% 70.4% 73.2% 72.2% 71.2%

Comp 6YR GRD 71.7% 64.6% 70.3% 73.1% 68.8% 72.0%

60.0%

62.0%

64.0%

66.0%

68.0%

70.0%

72.0%

74.0%

Percent of Cohort

Six Year Graduation

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008*

FYC 3YR RET 78.29% 79.06% 77.66% 78.95% 77.76% 84.37%

Comp 3YR RET 79.71% 76.90% 79.27% 77.26% 77.21% 76.70%

72.00%

74.00%

76.00%

78.00%

80.00%

82.00%

84.00%

86.00%

Percent of Cohort

Three Year Retention

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008* 2009

FYC 2YR RET 82.57% 81.23% 79.68% 80.79% 81.35% 86.83% 81.27%

Comp. 2YR RET 84.47% 81.05% 82.64% 82.34% 82.46% 81.04% 82.02%

76.00%

78.00%

80.00%

82.00%

84.00%

86.00%

88.00%Percent of Cohort

Two Year Retention

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

FYC 1YR RET 90.65% 88.81% 86.27% 89.12% 88.67% 91.03% 87.61%

Comp 1YR RET 90.97% 88.09% 89.37% 88.98% 89.09% 89.58% 87.61%

83.00%

84.00%

85.00%

86.00%

87.00%

88.00%

89.00%

90.00%

91.00%

92.00%

Percent of Cohort

One Year Retention


RETENTION RATES

1-, 2-, AND 3-YEAR RETENTION

Retention rates were calculated based on whether the stu-dents from each cohort were enrolled as of census date in the fall semester of the /rst, second, and third years a9er initial enrollment. No signi/cant di7erences were found except with the 2008 cohort where FYC students had signi/cantly higher levels of two- and three-year retention than did their matched peers.

* denotes signi+cance at the .01 level. ** denotes signi+cance at the .001 level.


MAJOR CHANGES

INTER-COLLEGE MAJOR CHANGES

FYC Cohorts were compared to a statistically matched co-hort of entering, non-FYC students who had similar pro/les in terms of gender, SAT scores, and HS GPA. For each co-hort examined (2004-2009) FYC students changed majors signi/cantly less o9en than their matched peers.

For each cohort, the di'erences are signi+cant at .001 level.

Note that students who began in an unmatriculated major (e.g., FYC, Engineering Unmatriculated, CHASS Undeclared, etc.) did not have their +rst major declaration counted as a major change. Also excluded were changes from engineering majors in one college to engineering majors in other colleges.

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

FYC MajΔ 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.25 0.07 0.03

Comp MajΔ 0.26 0.30 0.27 0.56 0.19 0.16

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

# of Changes

Major Changes


IMPACT OF VILLAGE

ANALYSES PERFORMED

<ese analyses compare FYC Students based on whether or not they resided in the FYC Village as /rst year students. <e FYC Village began operating as an o�cial Village in 2004 so only cohorts 2004-2009 are examined here.

RETENTION

More o9en than not, FYC Village Residents are retained at higher rates than are Non-Village Residents. One-, two-, and three-year retention rates are shown below.

† denotes signi+cance at the .05 level. * denotes signi+cance at the .01 level. ** denotes signi+cance at the .001 level. *** denotes signi+cance at the .0001 level.

TOTAL HOURS PASSED (THP)

FYC Villagers posted more total hours passed than Non-Villagers in each cohort a9er the 2nd, 4th, and 6th semes-ters, with one exception (2006 Cohort: 4th Sem. THP).

2004 2005* 2006 2007 2008 2009*

FYCV 1yrRET 88.7% 89.8% 89.1% 88.6% 91.3% 90.8%

FYC Non-V 1yrRET 88.9% 82.1% 89.1% 88.8% 90.5% 82.4%

76.0%

78.0%

80.0%

82.0%

84.0%

86.0%

88.0%

90.0%

92.0%

% Retain

ed

One Year Retention

2004 2005* 2006 2007 2008 2009***

FYCV 2yrRET 82.6% 83.9% 80.8% 81.7% 86.6% 86.0%

FYC Non-V 2yrRET 79.5% 74.7% 80.8% 80.5% 87.4% 73.6%

65.0%

70.0%

75.0%

80.0%

85.0%

90.0%

% Retain

ed

Two Year Retention

2004 2005* 2006 2007 2008

FYCV 3yrRET 80.0% 80.6% 78.5% 78.2% 83.9%

FYC Non-V 3yrRET 77.9% 74.1% 79.7% 76.6% 85.4%

68.0%70.0%72.0%74.0%76.0%78.0%80.0%82.0%84.0%86.0%88.0%

% Retain

ed


2004 2005* 2006 2007* 2008

FYCV 2ndTHP 31.4 30.9 31.5 31.0 32.1

FYC Non-V 2ndTHP 30.6 29.2 30.9 29.1 31.4

27.5

28.0

28.5

29.0

29.5

30.0

30.5

31.0

31.5

32.0

32.5

THP

THP After 2nd Semester

2004 2005† 2006 2007 2008

FYCV 4thTHP 59.4 60.6 58.6 60.3 60.9

FYC Non-V 4thTHP 58.6 58.8 58.6 59.0 60.2

57.0

57.5

58.0

58.5

59.0

59.5

60.0

60.5

61.0

61.5

THP

THP After 4th Semester

2004 2005* 2006 2007 2008

FYCV 6thTHP 90.2 88.2 89.2 90.1 90.8

FYC Non-V 6thTHP 89.9 85.1 88.8 88.1 88.4

82.0

83.0

84.0

85.0

86.0

87.0

88.0

89.0

90.0

91.0

92.0

THP


2004 2005 2006 2007

FYCV 4YR GRD 42.3% 39.2% 38.0% 36.0%

FYC Non-V 4YR GRD 42.6% 32.6% 44.2% 39.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

% G

raduating


2004 2005†

FYCV 6YR GRD 73.5% 74.9%

FYC Non-V 6YR GRD 70.5% 66.8%

62.0%

64.0%

66.0%

68.0%

70.0%

72.0%

74.0%

76.0%

% G

raduating

Six Year Graduation


IMPACT OF VILLAGE

CUMULATIVE GPA

More o9en than not, FYC Village Residents post higher cumulative GPAs than Non-Village Residents a9er the 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 8th semesters.


No consistent trends were found when comparing four- and six-year graduation rates based on place of residence.

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

FYCV 2ndCGPA 2.99 2.96 2.97 2.93 2.96

FYC Non-V 2ndCGPA 2.94 2.88 2.90 2.92 2.86

2.80

2.82

2.84

2.86

2.88

2.90

2.92

2.94

2.96

2.98

3.00

CGPA

CGPA After 2nd Semester

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

FYCV 4thCGPA 3.01 2.98 3.00 2.95 3.00

FYC Non-V 4thCGPA 3.00 2.95 2.94 3.00 2.98

2.90

2.92

2.94

2.96

2.98

3.00

3.02

CGPA

CGPA After 4th Semester

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

FYCV 6thCGPA 3.02 3.04 3.05 2.97 3.02

FYC Non-V 6thCGPA 3.03 2.99 2.99 3.02 3.01

2.92

2.94

2.96

2.98

3.00

3.02

3.04

3.06

CGPA


2004 2005 2006 2007

FYCV 8thCGPA 3.08 3.06 3.09 3.03

FYC Non-V 8thCGPA 3.06 3.04 3.05 3.05

2.99

3.00

3.01

3.02

3.03

3.04

3.05

3.06

3.07

3.08

3.09

3.10

CGPA


2004 2005† 2006† 2007 2008

Linked 6thTHP 90.9 88.8 91.5 89.0 91.5

Non-Linked 6thTHP 89.6 86.0 88.2 89.7 89.5

83.0

84.0

85.0

86.0

87.0

88.0

89.0

90.0

91.0

92.0

THP


2004 2005* 2006* 2007 2008 2009

Linked 4thTHP 59.3 61.5 60.6 60.1 61.7 62.2

Non-Linked 4thTHP 58.9 59.0 57.9 59.8 60.2 61.0

55.0

56.0

57.0

58.0

59.0

60.0

61.0

62.0

63.0

THP


2004 2005** 2006 2007 2008 2009

Linked 2ndTHP 31.0 31.6 32.7 30.8 32.6 33.5

Non-Linked 2ndTHP 31.1 29.5 30.8 30.3 31.6 32.5

27.0

28.0

29.0

30.0

31.0

32.0

33.0

34.0

THP

THP After 2nd Semester

2004 2005† 2006 2007 2008 2009

Linked 1yrRET 91.8% 90.8% 90.8% 88.6% 90.8% 83.8%

Non-Linked 1yrRET 87.4% 84.2% 88.6% 88.7% 91.1% 89.0%

78.0%

80.0%

82.0%

84.0%

86.0%

88.0%

90.0%

92.0%

94.0%

% Retain

ed

One Year Retention

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Linked 3yrRET 82.4% 81.7% 82.1% 79.1% 83.4%

Non-Linked 3yrRET 77.4% 75.9% 77.9% 77.2% 84.8%

70.0%

72.0%

74.0%

76.0%

78.0%

80.0%

82.0%

84.0%

86.0%

% Retain

ed


2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Linked 2yrRET 84.1% 83.8% 83.8% 83.6% 85.3% 83.2%

Non-Linked 2yrRET 79.8% 77.8% 79.8% 80.4% 87.6% 80.6%

72.0%

74.0%

76.0%

78.0%

80.0%

82.0%

84.0%

86.0%

88.0%

90.0%

% Retain

ed

Two Year Retention


IMPACT OF LINKED COURSES

ANALYSES PERFORMED

<ese analyses compare FYC Students based on whether or not they were enrolled in linked courses as /rst year stu-dents. Linked courses have contained a residential compo-nent since 2004; only cohorts 2004-2009 are examined here.

RETENTION OF LINKED STUDENTS

More o9en than not, Linked Students are retained at higher rates than are Non-Linked Students. One-, two-, and three-year retention rates are shown below.


TOTAL HOURS PASSED (THP)

Linked Students posted more total hours passed than Non-Linked Students in each cohort a9er the 2nd, 4th, and 6th semesters, with two exceptions (‘04:2nd Sem.; ‘07:6th Sem.).

2004 2005† 2006† 2007 2008

Linked 6thCGPA 3.07 3.09 3.11 2.95 3.08

Non-Linked 6thCGPA 3.00 2.98 3.00 3.00 2.99

2.85

2.90

2.95

3.00

3.05

3.10

3.15

CGPA


2004 2005* 2006* 2007 2008 2009

Linked 4thCGPA 3.05 3.05 3.10 2.95 3.06 3.02

Non-Linked 4thCGPA 2.98 2.93 2.94 2.97 2.96 3.00

2.80

2.85

2.90

2.95

3.00

3.05

3.10

3.15

CGPA


2004 2005** 2006 2007

Linked 4YR GRD 44.0% 45.9% 45.7% 38.6%

Non-Linked 4YR GRD 41.7% 31.9% 38.7% 36.1%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

% G

raduating


2004 2005

Linked 6YR GRD 76.4% 74.2%

Non-Linked 6YR GRD 70.2% 69.8%

66.0%

68.0%

70.0%

72.0%

74.0%

76.0%

78.0%

% G

raduating

Six Year Graduation

2004 2005** 2006 2007

Linked 8thCGPA 3.09 3.16 3.12 3.02

Non-Linked 8thCGPA 3.06 3.00 3.06 3.04

2.90

2.95

3.00

3.05

3.10

3.15

3.20

CGPA



IMPACT OF LINKED COURSES

CUMULATIVE GPA

More o9en than not, Linked Students post higher cumula-tive GPAs than Non-Linked Students a9er the 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 8th semesters.


<ough only signi/cant in the 2005 Cohort’s 4-year rate, Linked Students posted consistently higher 4- and 6-year graduation rates than Non-Linked Students.

2004 2005** 2006** 2007 2008 2009

Linked 2ndCGPA 2.99 3.07 3.13 2.92 3.02 3.00

Non-Linked 2ndCGPA 2.95 2.85 2.88 2.93 2.89 2.97

2.70

2.75

2.80

2.85

2.90

2.95

3.00

3.05

3.10

3.15

3.20

CGPA

CGPA After 2nd Semester

2004 2005 2006 2007† 2008

FYC AA 3yrRET 78.0% 79.4% 78.1% 89.4% 87.0%

Comp AA 3yrRET 65.7% 74.4% 75.8% 71.3% 75.5%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

% Retain

ed


2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

FYC AA 2yrRET 78.0% 79.4% 75.0% 85.1% 90.7% 85.0%

Comp AA 2yrRET 72.9% 84.6% 78.8% 74.7% 81.4% 87.5%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

% Retain

ed

Two Year Retention

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

FYC AA 1yrRET 82.9% 82.4% 90.6% 93.6% 92.6% 95.0%

Comp AA 1yrRET 85.7% 87.2% 89.4% 87.4% 90.2% 95.8%

75.0%

80.0%

85.0%

90.0%

95.0%

100.0%

% Retain

ed

One Year Retention

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

FYC AA SAT 1046 1058 1041 1024 1009 1037

Comp SAT 1070 1069 1059 1047 1060 1080

960

980

1000

1020

1040

1060

1080

1100

Two-P

art SAT (1600 m

ax.)

African American SAT

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

FYC AA HS GPA 3.75 3.78 3.83 3.69 3.80 3.84

Comp AA HS GPA 3.78 3.80 3.83 3.81 3.90 3.96

3.55

3.60

3.65

3.70

3.75

3.80

3.85

3.90

3.95

4.00

Weighted H

S G

PA

African American HS GPA

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

FYC AA % 7.4% 4.6% 9.0% 6.5% 7.8% 6.0%

Comp AA % 12.6% 10.5% 9.3% 12.0% 14.8% 10.9%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

% of Cohort

African American Enrollment


AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENT SUCCESS

ANALYSES PERFORMED

<ese analyses compare African American FYC Students to African American Students in the Matched Cohort across a range of student success measures.

ENROLLMENT AND CHARACERISTICS

African American representation within each FYC Cohort is not always equivalent to representation with each Matched Cohort. Entering characteristics are roughly similar.


RETENTION OF AFRICAN AMERICANS

No consistent trends emerge and only one signi/cant di7er-ence was found between FYC and Matched Cohorts (07: 3-year). One-, two-, and three-year retention is shown below.

2004 2005 2006 2007

FYC AA 4YR GRD 31.7% 23.5% 25.0% 23.4%

Comp AA 4YR GRD 34.3% 16.7% 16.7% 24.1%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

% G

raduating


2004 2005

FYC AA 6YR GRD 61.0% 55.9%

Comp AA 6YR GRD 58.6% 47.4%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

% G

raduating

Six Year Graduation


AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENT SUCCESS


Six year graduation rates were consistently higher for Afri-can American students in the FYC Cohort, though not sig-ni/cant. Results were mixed in the four year rates.

2004 2005 2006 2007

FYC AA 4YR GRD 31.7% 23.5% 25.0% 23.4%

Comp AA 4YR GRD 34.3% 16.7% 16.7% 24.1%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

% G

raduating


2004 2005

FYC Males 6YR GRD 64.6% 69.4%

Comp Males 6YR GRD 66.2% 67.0%

62.0%

63.0%

64.0%

65.0%

66.0%

67.0%

68.0%

69.0%

70.0%

% G

raduated

Six Year Graduation

2004 2005 2006 2007

FYC Males 4YR GRD 29.6% 25.5% 25.8% 26.2%

Comp Males 4YR GRD 27.7% 27.9% 29.0% 27.3%

23.0%

24.0%

25.0%

26.0%

27.0%

28.0%

29.0%

30.0%

% G

raduated


2004 2005 2006 2007 2008**

FYC Males 3YR RET 76.2% 77.7% 76.1% 77.7% 85.2%

Comp Males 3YR RET 76.5% 75.8% 78.7% 73.5% 72.2%

65.0%

70.0%

75.0%

80.0%

85.0%

90.0%

% Retain

ed


2004 2005 2006 2007 2008* 2009

FYC Males 2YR RET 80.4% 80.1% 79.0% 82.3% 86.4% 81.1%

Comp Males 2YR RET 79.2% 79.5% 83.9% 79.2% 77.3% 79.9%

72.0%

74.0%

76.0%

78.0%

80.0%

82.0%

84.0%

86.0%

88.0%

% Retain

ed

Two Year Retention

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

FYC Males 1YR RET 86.4% 88.1% 86.2% 93.0% 88.8% 86.4% 85.8% 87.6% 90.3% 87.7%

Comp Males 1YR RET 90.6% 84.2% 87.9% 91.0% 86.9% 86.4% 89.0% 87.6% 88.8% 85.3%

78.0%

80.0%

82.0%

84.0%

86.0%

88.0%

90.0%

92.0%

94.0%

% Retain

ed

One Year Retention


MALE STUDENT SUCCESS

ANALYSES PERFORMED

<ese analyses compare Male FYC Students to Male Stu-dents in the Matched Cohort across a range of student suc-cess measures.

RETENTION OF MALE STUDENTS

<ough few signi/cant di7erences exist, retention rates of FYC Males seem to trend upward more so than do the rates of Comparison Males.



No consistent trends emerge and no signi/cant di7erences were found.

2004 2005 2006 2007

FYC Females 4YR GRD 53.7% 47.1% 51.8% 47.2%

Comp Females 4YR GRD 52.0% 51.2% 45.7% 49.9%

40.0%

42.0%

44.0%

46.0%

48.0%

50.0%

52.0%

54.0%

56.0%

% G

raduated


2004† 2005

FYC Females 6YR GRD 78.9% 73.0%

Comp Females 6YR GRD 71.1% 77.1%

66.0%

68.0%

70.0%

72.0%

74.0%

76.0%

78.0%

80.0%

% G

raduated

Six Year Graduation

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005* 2006 2007 2008 2009

FYC Females 1YR RET 87.1% 89.6% 90.3% 88.5% 88.8% 86.1% 91.7% 89.7% 91.7% 87.5%

Comp Females 1YR RET 88.0% 88.4% 90.0% 90.9% 89.1% 92.4% 88.9% 90.5% 90.3% 90.0%

82.0%

83.0%

84.0%

85.0%

86.0%

87.0%

88.0%

89.0%

90.0%

91.0%

92.0%

93.0%

% Retain

ed

One Year Retention

2004 2005† 2006 2007 2008 2009

FYC Females 2YR RET 82.0% 79.3% 82.2% 80.5% 87.2% 81.5%

Comp Females 2YR RET 82.7% 85.8% 81.2% 85.6% 84.4% 84.2%

74.0%

76.0%

78.0%

80.0%

82.0%

84.0%

86.0%

88.0%

% Retain

ed

Two Year Retention


FEMALE STUDENT SUCCESS

ANALYSES PERFORMED

<ese analyses compare Female FYC Students to Female Students in the Matched Cohort across a range of student success measures.

RETENTION OF FEMALE STUDENTS

No clear patterns emerged when comparing Female FYC students to Matched Female Students in terms of retention rates.


No consistent trends emerge and only one signi/cant di7er-ence was found between FYC Female Students and Matched Female Students (04: six year graduation).

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

FYC Females 3YR RET 81.6% 77.7% 81.2% 77.8% 83.6%

Comp Females 3YR RET 77.2% 82.8% 76.1% 80.8% 80.8%

72.0%

74.0%

76.0%

78.0%

80.0%

82.0%

84.0%

86.0%

% Retain

ed


2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Female 1.40% 1.70% 1.90% 2.40% 1.70% 4.90% 2.76% 3.52% 4.44% 4.26%

Male 2.10% 1.50% 1.50% 2.30% 1.93% 3.46% 2.90% 2.82% 2.42% 2.10%

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

% of Gen

der

First Major in CED


GENDER DIFFERENCES IN FIRST MAJOR

ANALYSES PERFORMED

<ese analyses compare Male FYC Students to Female FYC Students in regard to college of /rst matriculated major.

COLLEGE OF AG. AND LIFE SCIENCES

COLLEGE OF DESIGN

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

COLLEGE OF NATURAL RESOURCES

COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES & SOC. SCI.

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Female 13.20% 16.40% 17.70% 16.40% 11.56% 15.53% 19.60% 8.94% 14.72% 15.81%

Male 8.60% 8.50% 11.10% 13.30% 10.42% 13.83% 14.52% 10.99% 15.71% 8.41%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

% of Gen

der

First Major in CALS

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Female 2.50% 1.70% 1.90% 0.90% 1.36% 0.82% 1.51% 1.36% 0.28% 2.13%

Male 1.30% 0.50% 2.50% 0.30% 0.00% 0.80% 1.61% 0.56% 0.91% 0.00%

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50%

3.00%

% of Gen

der

First Major in COD

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Female 3.10% 2.00% 1.90% 4.50% 2.38% 3.81% 2.51% 1.08% 2.22% 2.13%

Male 14.20% 13.30% 16.90% 12.60% 13.13% 10.64% 9.35% 11.83% 9.97% 11.11%

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

14.00%

16.00%

18.00%

% of Gen

der

First Major in COE

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Female 3.10% 3.70% 3.20% 2.70% 2.72% 4.09% 3.77% 5.69% 4.72% 6.69%

Male 7.80% 8.30% 5.80% 10.00% 8.11% 10.64% 10.32% 6.20% 12.08% 9.61%

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

14.00%

% of Gen

er

First Major in CNR

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Female 35.00% 37.60% 32.90% 29.70% 25.85% 31.61% 34.42% 20.05% 40.56% 27.96%

Male 15.20% 18.90% 19.10% 23.60% 14.67% 18.88% 15.48% 16.06% 19.34% 15.02%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

45.00%

% of Gen

der

First Major in CHASS

CHASS

33%

COM

20%

CALS

18%

COE

10%

CNR

8%

COT

4%

CED

3%

PAMS

3%COD

1%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Female 11.80% 12.10% 15.50% 20.00% 16.33% 15.26% 12.81% 13.01% 12.22% 11.25%

Male 12.00% 11.90% 12.90% 14.60% 23.17% 16.76% 19.68% 14.37% 16.62% 17.12%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

% of Gen

der

First Major in COM

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Female 4.50% 2.00% 3.90% 3.30% 3.06% 4.90% 5.53% 0.81% 7.22% 5.17%

Male 1.30% 0.70% 0.00% 2.70% 3.09% 4.26% 2.26% 0.85% 3.32% 1.80%

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

7.00%

8.00%

% of Gen

der

First Major in COT

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Female 3.60% 3.40% 2.60% 0.90% 1.36% 1.63% 1.51% 0.54% 1.39% 0.91%

Male 4.30% 3.60% 2.20% 1.70% 1.16% 1.06% 1.61% 2.54% 0.91% 0.60%

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50%

3.00%

3.50%

4.00%

4.50%

5.00%

% of Gen

der

First Major in PAMS


GENDER DIFFERENCES IN FIRST MAJOR

COLLEGE OF PHYS. AND MATH. SCI.

DISTRIBUTION OF FIRST MAJOR,

COHORTS 2000-2009

COLLEGE OF TEXTILES

COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT


ANALYSES PERFORMED

<e assessment committee reviewed the annual impact reports of data-driven program recom-mendations and improvements from academic years 2005-2006 through 2009-2010. What follows are snapshots, by program emphasis area, of some of the most signi/cant changes implemented in the First Year College as a direct result of assess-ment.

ASSESSMENT-DRIVEN

PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS



ACADEMIC ADVISING

Academic Warning Intervention. In 2006-2007, FYC expe-rienced a spike in the number of students suspended. <ough an advising intervention was in place for students on aca-demic warning, the assessment committee recommended the development of a tool to assess the needs of students on aca-demic warning and their satisfaction with current interven-tion e7orts. In 2008-2009, a new intervention was piloted with intensive workshops on study skills and motivation. Participating students were surveyed a9er each workshop. <ough there was some success, participation was not as high as hoped among academic warning students (twelve partici-pated and eight showed positive changes in GPA).

A survey was developed and administered to students in 2009-2010 when the only intervention in place was intensive ad-vising. <is survey was emailed and administered online and had a very low response rate. Based in part on lessons learned from earlier interventions and the most recent survey e7orts, the FYC sta7 implemented an academic coaching initiative in 2010-2011 in which more than 30 students participated. Stu-dents in this intervention met with a coach on a weekly or bi-weekly basis to develop strategies to overcome challenges from the previous semester. To measure the di7erences in topics covered in the new coaching and existing advising interventions, a survey was completed by either the students on academic warning or their advisors/coaches. <is yielded FYC’s most comprehensive data to date on academic inter-vention initiatives and highlighted the di7ering strategies and number of meetings employed within the coaching and ad-vising interventions respectively. Coached students were met with much more frequently and were more likely to set and monitor goals related to time management than uncoached students. Additionally, a GPA analysis showed that coached students raised their GPAs signi/cantly more than did the uncoached students. Based on this data, the coaching initia-tive was expanded with grant funding into the 2011-2012 academic year.

Student Learning Outcomes. In 2009-2010, the assessment committee developed advising-related student learning out-comes (SLOs) and cra9ed an advising syllabus a9er review-ing sample syllabi and literature on the use of the advising syllabus. <e syllabus was published in the 2010-2011 edition of the USC workbook and the assessment committee recom-mended developing an in-house assessment instrument to measure some of the SLOs that were—at the time—not cov-ered by the assessment plan. In 2010-2011 the assessment committee developed and piloted 10 new questions on the fall and spring semester Student Experiences Survey (SES), which is taken by /rst-year students. <ese new questions were speci/c to academic advising SLOs. Additionally, con-tinuing students advised by FYC were surveyed for the /rst time regarding their satisfaction and their attainment of the advising-related SLOs. Lastly, the 2010-2011 survey of stu

dents on academic warning (mentioned above) included items speci/c to the goal-setting and -monitoring SLOs. Feedback on these SLOs were compiled into individualized advisor feedback forms and shared in a workshop where advisors could discuss best practices that were yielding higher than average SLOs. <ese instruments will likely inform divi-sion-wide assessment of academic advising as those processes and policies develop.

USC 101/102

Encouraging Involvement through Forums. According to the Spring 2006 SES results, only 22% of non-Village students and 29% of Village students participated in a campus club outside of a religious/spiritual organization, Wolfpack Club, and one-time service projects. <e assessment committee recommended that FYC encourage more leadership, campus activities, and service activities in order to enhance personal and academic development. <e method enacted was an individualized forum contract that would give students credit for the three required forum events in the USC class so long as they became involved in a leadership capacity in an organ-ization of the student's choosing.

Diversity in the Curriculum. In 2006-2007, students were surveyed as to whether the USC course helped in their under-standing and exposure to diversity issues. Since fewer than 85% agreed, the assessment committee recommended that curriculum committee explore ways to further integrate di-versity topics into the curriculum. <e curriculum committee revised the summer reading assignment to coincide with the University's new summer reading program and focus on the diversity of values represented in the selected book each year. Additionally, during the 2007-2008 academic year, the cur-riculum committee surveyed the sta7 and updated the USC workbook with diversity information that was more develop-mentally appropriate, up-to-date, and comprehensive with regards to campus diversity programs available to students.

Critical �inking. In 2009-2010, the assessment committee reviewed the FYC program goal related to critical thinking. <e committee continued to develop its holistic critical thinking rubrics used in assessing the /nal exam question on diversity and the end of year letter of intent (both rubrics are discussed below in the Diversity and Assessment sections). As a result of this continued focus on improving the teaching of critical thinking skills in the USC class, the curriculum committee organized a series of workshops which occurred in summer 2010 and gave instructors transferable ideas for in-class activities that would enhance the critical thinking stu-dents applied to the major decision-making process. A9er incorporating these ideas, instructors realized impressive gains in critical thinking outcomes on the /nal exam ques-tion and the end of year letter of intent. To further communi-cate to USC students the importance of critical thinking, the letter’s point value was increased to 25% of the course grade in Spring 2011.



DIVERSITY

Enhancing the Climate for Diversity. In 2007-2008, a diver-sity attitudes survey was developed and yielded unsurprising and ultimately unusable data about students' attitudes. <e assessment committee continued to wrestle with the diversity-related learning outcomes and /nally proposed new out-comes related to diversity that were more developmentally appropriate and better incorporated into the USC class. <e curriculum committee re/ned the diversity question on the /nal exam, moving from a values-focused question to one more focused on diversity experiences.

In Fall 2009 the new /nal exam question was piloted with a rubric which asked advisors to score all students on their ability to critically analyze the university's commitment to diversity and identify three speci/c actions they could take to help create and maintain a campus community where diver-sity is valued and respected. In Fall 2010, 77% of FYC Stu-dents were able to able to demonstrate a "pro/cient" or "exemplary" understanding of the University's statement of diversity and the climate it seeks to promote by giving a spe-ci/c example of an occurrence that either a�rmed or contra-dicted a positive climate for diversity at NC State. 79% did a "pro/cient" or "exemplary" job of identifying three concrete actions they could take to enhance the climate for diversity. In 2010-2011 the assessment committee recommended that the diversity committee and curriculum committee work together to have the USC 101 course approved for the US Diversity Co-requisite on the University's General Education Plan. <is recommendation is currently being implemented with hopes the USC 101 course will be approved beginning with the Fall 2012 semester. In anticipation of this, the cur-riculum committee is expanding the diversity-related content currently in the USC workbook and weaving this topic throughout the workbook.

Dinner Discussions. In 2007-2008, the assessment commit-tee noted that the Resident Mentor (RM) Dinner Discussions were well-attended and frequently cited on the SES as the most impactful program attended. Also noted was the com-mon thread of diversity in the themes chosen for RM Dinner Discussions over the years (e.g., “Turn Down Your Stereo-types,” “A�rmative Action and American Idol,” “Taste of Faith: the Religion Sampler,” etc.). <e assessment committee recommended formalizing the RM Dinner Discussions as diversity-themed events given their wide-spread impact on students. In 2008-2009, the RM Coordinator instituted this expectation and these discussions continue to center around diversity.

PROGRAMMING

Campus Resources. In the Fall 2007 SES, 6.7% of respond-ents indicated that they did not use the Counseling Center or Student Health Center services, but should have used them.

In the spring 2008 SES, 5.2% of students gave this response. <e assessment committee recommended developing a re-source use program of some sort to better advertise these important but underutilized services. Beginning in Fall 2010, representatives from the Counseling Center, Student Health services, Disability Services O�ce, and University Tutorial Center were involved in the college welcome week event to better publicize these services.

Career Exploration. In 2007-2008, the assessment commit-tee conducted an analysis of the USC /nal exam question dealing with major and career decision-making. <e commit-tee recognized in the sample of answers that students strug-gled with applying the self-knowledge they were gaining to making a decision, particularly in regards to career. <e com-mittee recommended an enhanced e7ort to incorporate ca-reer exploration into spring semester programming. In 2008-2009, the FYC Parent Leadership Network sponsored and facilitated a career information and networking event called “<e Works.” In spring semesters 2010 and 2011, the Aca-demic Networking event (required of all USC students) in-cluded a panel of professionals whom students could gain insights into various industries. 35% of the Spring 2011 Net-working attendees visited the professional panel.

Student Council. In 2008-2009 the student council members and advisors noted that taking time to select o�cers at the start of the academic year was time-consuming and likely the cause of lower participation in this organization. Students got bogged down with determining who was an o�cer and strug-gled to learn what had been accomplished the year before. <is prompted a recommendation that the student council o�cers elected for 2008-2009 be asked to return for Fall 2009 to better transition leadership of the council. <is has proven e7ective and continues as the model of leadership transition in the student council.

VILLAGE

Faculty Engagement. In response to an open-ended question on the Fall 2007 SES, the two groups of faculty members that students most frequently cited as having “provided the most support or [having] had the greatest positive impact on [them]” were (1) linked faculty/faculty fellows, and (2) Eng-lish 101 instructors. As a result it was suggested that ENG 101 instructors be recruited to teach a linked course as these instructors were already impacting students and might fur-ther enhance the impact of the linked courses. In Fall 2011, an ENG 101 linked course was taught for the /rst time. <e Assessment Committee also compiled the names of the most frequently cited impactful faculty and shared these names with the Associate Director for recruiting faculty to partici-pate in faculty fellows meals and programs. <e faculty fel-lows program continues to be strong and is likely the cause of Village students reporting signi/cantly higher social engage-ment with faculty than non-Village students on the com-bined Fall semester SESs from Fall 2007 through Fall 2011.


Pack Study. In 2006-2007, Pack Study was instituted in Tucker Hall classroom. Pack Study consists of a university trained tutor o7ering support in common /rst year math and science courses. <e FYC Graduate Intern was given the re-sponsibility of tracking attendance at Pack Study through organizing a schedule of RMs to open up the room each night and maintain a logbook of usage. Data showed that 70% of available tutoring hours were used thereby justifying the continued funding of this tutoring, which remains in place to date. Tracking of tutoring usage continues but with-out the use of RMs; the tutor now maintains the logbook.

PAWS. Sensing a need for better direction for the program-ming done by Resident Mentors (RMs) in the residence halls, the RM coordinator piloted the Pack Academic Workshop Series (PAWS) in 2008-2009. RMs developed programs around topics in six categories: Personal Understanding, Stress/Time Management, Study Skills, Campus Resources, Test Taking, and Choosing a Major. Students who attended workshops in at least four of the six categories were awarded a certi/cate at the Village end of year banquet. <ough par-ticipation in the individual workshops was high, the certi/-cate was not pursued by as many students as FYC desired. <e assessment committee recommended continuing the program but with enhanced focus on marketing of the certi/-cate. Beginning in 2009-2010, the PAWS certi/cate was ex-plained in the “Community” chapter of the USC workbook. In Spring 2010, the number of students receiving PAWS certi/cate more than doubled from the prior year to 54.

ASSESSMENT

Tracking Reasons for Departure. Eighteen students from the 2005 cohort le9 a9er the fall semester, not returning for their second semester. <ese students had not been suspend-ed and only three had been placed on academic warning. Eight of these students had GPAs above 3.0. <e Assistant Director for Assessment began following up with each stu-dent's advisor individually to gather the reasons for the stu-dent departure. Beginning in Fall 2007, this data was cap-tured online in the SES with students reporting their inten-tions to return or not return and cite any reasons for leaving. Using data collected from opened responses in 2007-2008 through 2009-2010, the SES was updated with the most fre-quently cited reasons for departure. In the Fall 2010 and Fall 2011 SESs, the most commonly cited reasons for students planning to leave NC State were: Major desired is not o7ered at NC State (30% of non-returners), Desire to be closer to home (30%), Financial Concerns (14%), and Student expects to be unable to matriculate into desired major (7%).

Focus Groups. In 2005-2006, an external review from Betsy Barefoot provided feedback that FYC could use more qualita-tive assessment data for a richer perspective on the student experience. <e /rst focus groups were piloted by the assess-ment committee in 2007-2008 and invited students to discuss their experiences with Resident Mentors. A result of these

focus groups was a realization that students take forum rec-ommendations from RMs much more seriously than from FYC instructors or from Siers or emails. <is lead to a rec-ommendation that RMs be expected as part of their teaching assistant responsibilities to highlight a forum event each week that the students should consider attending. <e focus groups had low attendance even with various incentives which lead to a further recommendation that future focus groups take advantage of existing groups of students. For example, in 2008-2009, focus groups were conducted with the residence hall councils in the Village and examined the impact of the USC curriculum and workbook.

Letter of Intent Review. In 2008-2009, the assessment com-mittee began reviewing the students' end of year letter of intent using a holistic critical thinking rubric. <e committee reviewed a sample of the student papers but was unhappy with the result that only 30% of students scored a 3 or higher on the 4-point rubric scale. <e committee recommended that instructors receive training on using the rubric and criti-cal thinking activities that could be incorporated into the USC course to enhance the students' letters of intent. Train-ing did occur in Summer 2009 and, in Spring 2010, instruc-tors began reviewing a sample (one section) of their own students' papers using the rubric. In 2009-2010, the assess-ment committee recommended further training on incorpo-rating the critical thinking rubric into instructors' grading of all letters of intent (not just being used as an assessment of one section's papers). In spring 2011, 78% of a 186 letter sam-ple (one section per advisor) scored a 3 or higher on the 4-point rubric scale.

Documents

FYC 15 Year Report