Why the First Year Matters - Admissions

Report
Why the First Year Matters
Dr. Keisha L. Hoerrner
Interim Dean, University College
Kennesaw State University
The Evolution
• “Sink or Swim”
was replaced by
R-P-G
Retention
Progression
Graduation
First-Year Retention
• First-to-second-year retention generally most
critical component to many RPG initiatives
• Variety of issues impact retention rates
including selectivity, admissions standards,
student characteristics, institutional
characteristics, and more
• Focus for students and parents should be on
intentionality by institution to increase RPG
Tinto: Taking Retention Seriously
• “Students are more likely to persist and
graduate in settings that hold high and clear
expectations….”
– Challenging but explicit classroom expectations
– Academic advising that provides the roadmap to
degree completion
– Quite the opposite of the sense that making the
courses easier will lead to success
Tinto: Taking Retention Seriously
• Provide academic and social support
– Students may not be prepared for the rigors of
university coursework so institutions should
provide an array of support structures
– Students need “safe havens” as they learn to
navigate campuses
• Counseling
• Mentoring
• Connections to peers
Tinto: Taking Retention Seriously
• “Feedback is a condition for student success”
– Early alert/intervention programs
– Assessments to accurately gauge student learning
[not just exams]
– Faculty willingness to adjust based on feedback
– Timely feedback about performance
– Connecting support structures to feedback
Tinto: Taking Retention Seriously
• “Involvement is a condition for student
retention”
– Academic and social integration opportunities
with faculty, peers, and staff members
• “The more students learn, the more they find
value in their learning, the more they persist
and graduate”
– Build educational communities of learning
College Board Pilot Study
on Student Retention
• Comprehensive national survey that looked not
only at retention, progression and graduation
rates (public v. private, etc) but also provided
benchmarks for institutions
–
–
–
–
–
–
Program coordination
Research and assessment
Orientation programs
Early warning systems
Faculty/student interactions
Advising practices
High-Impact Practices
• Grounded in research
• Increase rates of student retention and
student engagement
• Named HIPs by AAC&U
• Should be integrated, available to all students,
and continually assessed
The HIPs
• First-year seminars and
experiences
• Common intellectual
experiences
• Learning communities
• Writing-intensive
courses
• Collaborative
assignments and
projects
• Undergraduate research
• Diversity/global learning
• Service learning/
community-based
learning
• Internships
• Capstone courses and
projects
KSU’s First-Year Focus
• First-year seminars
– 30-year history
– KC 101 to four distinct
seminars
•
•
•
•
KSU 1101
KSU 1111
KSU 1121
KSU 1200
• Learning communities
– Theme-based cohort of
first-semester courses
• Common reader
• First-Year Convocation
• President’s Annual 4.0
Luncheon
• First-Year Residential
Experience (FYRE)
• Mandatory orientation
and advising
Thrive
•
•
•
•
Idea grew out of the KSU graduation study
Developed collaboratively by CSL and FYTS
Focus is on HOPE-eligible FTFT students
1st pilot: ~200 students
– Recruited in spring 2011
– Now juniors
• Results: Very successful
Components of Thrive
• Graduation Coach
• April registration and
advising
– Must take MAPT
– Working with advisers to
design schedules
• June academic success
workshops
– Connecting to campus
– Focus on foundational
success skills
• July Advance
– Follows a special New
Student Orientation
session
– Team building, listening
skills, community service
projects
• Summer assignment:
Student Leadership
Challenge
Components of Thrive
• Fall Semester
– KSU 1200 sections
• All will be in LCs in 2014
– Resource room in UV
– Monthly social events
– Graduation Coach
meetings (required)
– Connections to academic
advisers
– Housing option
• Spring Semester
– Leadership development
opportunities (CSL)
– Community service
projects
– Resource room
– Quarterly social events
– Graduation Coach
meetings (optional)
– Housing option
Retention Results
• Thrive participants – when compared to
academically and demographically matched
control groups
– earn better grades
– progress more rapidly in academic standing
– are retained at higher levels
– are more likely to retain HOPE eligibility
Thrive Results
• Performance of Thrive Participants vs.
Control Group – retained to 2nd Year
Metric
Cohort 1 (Class of 2015)
Cohort 2 (Class of 2016)
Control
(n=170)
Thrive
(n=172)
Control
(n=186)
Thrive
(n=183)
Students retained (n)
134
146
125
154
Students retained (%)
79
85
67
84
Retained students with a GPA >3.0 (%)a
52
72
60
66
Retained students with credit hours >30 by
start of 2nd fall (%)
59
71
54
69
a
Based on the GPA at the end of spring semester (checkpoint for maintenance of HOPE support)
Thrive Results
• Performance of Thrive Participants vs.
Control Group – retained to 3rd Year
a
Metric
Control (n=170)
Thrive (n=172)
Students retained (n)
108
122
Students retained (%)
64
71
Retained students with a GPA >3.0 (%)a
50
67
Retained students with credit hours >60 hours by
start of 3nd fall (%)
40
60
Based on the GPA at the end of spring semester (checkpoint for maintenance of HOPE support)
Unanticipated Positive Results
• Performance of Minority Thrive Participants
vs. Control Group – retained to 2nd Year
Metric
Cohort 1
Cohort 2
Control
(n=38)
Thrive
(n=34)
Control
(n=39)
Thrive
(n=39)
Students retained (n)
30
32
27
34
Students retained (%)
79
94
69
87
Retained students with a GPA >3.0 (%)a
31
78
44
74
Retained students with credit hours >30 by
start of 2nd fall (%)
51
84
48
71
a
Based on the GPA at the end of spring semester (checkpoint for maintenance of HOPE support)
Supplemental Instruction
• National model launched at KSU in 2006
• Optional facilitated weekly sessions
• Targets 1000- and 2000-level courses with
historically high D,F, W rates
• Faculty member selects
peer facilitator
• Very successful results
Current Status of SI
• Spring ‘06: 2 sections
• Fall ‘13: 57 sections
• Fall 2013 Data
– 20 courses served by 31 facilitators
– 1581 students participated at least once
– 7485 total contact hours
SI Results
• Data gathered on students who participate vs.
those who do not within the same sections
• Qualitative data collected each semester as
part of program assessment
– Faculty
– Facilitators
– Student attendees
SI Results
• Fall 2013:
– Mean SI Grade: 2.53 vs. Mean Non-SI Grade: 2.18
DFW Rate Comparisons
60%
Percent
50%
40%
30%
26.7%
21%
20%
22%
16%
10%
8%
20.5%
17.9%
14.5% 16%
17.4% 21%
19.3%19.2%
21%
24% 23%
SI DFW
Non SI DFW
0%
S'06 F'06 S'07 F'07 S'08 F'08 S'09 F'09 S'10 F'10 S'11 F'11 S'12 F'12 S'13 F'13
Semester
U.S. News and World Report
“America’s Best Colleges” 2014
• Ranks 16 institutions for
exemplary First-Year
Experiences
–
–
–
–
–
–
Alverno College (WI)
Appalachian State (NC)
Ball State U (IN)
Bowling Green State (OH)
Elon University (NC)
Evergreen State College
(WA)
– Indiana U – Bloomington
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
IUPUI
Kennesaw State U (GA)
Ohio State University
Stanford University
U of Maryland – College
Park
U of North Carolina –
Chapel Hill
U of South Carolina
Wagner College (NY)
Washington U in St. Louis
Questions and Contact Information
• Dr. Keisha L. Hoerrner
– Interim Dean, University College
– [email protected]
– 770-499-3550
– www.kennesaw.edu/uc

similar documents