1. A Tale of Two Cities: Comprehensive Assessment of College Student Readiness Paul Gore, Ph.D. University of Utah Paul.gore@utah.edu

2. Student Readiness There is concern that college students are not prepared to meet the challenges of attaining a college education. Average six year graduation rate at two-year institutions = 34% (Swail, 2004) Average six-year graduation rate at four-year institutions = 53% (Carey, 2004) First to second year retention Traditional 73.4%; Selective 81.7%;Two year colleges 52%

3. Student Readiness

5. Predicting student success –Primary focus on cognitive factors (ACT, GPA) –Pre-enrollment situational (SES, first generation) –Post-enrollment situational (Housing, hours worked on campus, campus climate) –Non-cognitive/motivational (engagement, achievement motivation, self-efficacy) Your institutions probably focuses on all 4 Student Readiness

6. In 2004, Robbins and his colleagues published a meta-analysis of non- cognitive prediction of student outcomes Their work included calculations of incremental validity

7. Student Readiness Persistence and Success High School GPA Non Cognitive Factors

8. Overview of the SRI The Student Readiness Inventory (SRI) was designed to measure the content domains that surfaced in the Robbins meta-analysis It is a low stakes, self-report instrument Has 108 items that are face-valid Ten content domains exist as scales Each scale measures a construct that allows for intervention The instrument contains two risk indices that predict probability of success (performance and persistence)

9. Overview of the SRI

10. * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

12. Institutional Application Programs designed to promote the transition of first- year students abound Over 75% of all colleges and universities have an FYE seminar course Many colleges and universities lack a systematic, integrated, and coordinated set of programs Effort was undertaken to bring together first-year campus programs around a common focus and to use data to drive coordination efforts

13. Institutional Application Project developed by workgroup on first-year including advising, faculty, FYE, Native American and Multicultural Student Centers, Assessment, LAC, New Student programs Goal: proactive, intrusive interventions which could influence first year student success.

14. Institutional Application Requirements Data from assessment of student success tool must be usable by both student services/faculty and students Data must be presented in a user friendly, accessible format Data must be provided early enough for dissemination and use by both student services and students themselves Results must connect students to university resources Different areas of campus must be willing to provide programming to meet the needs identified by the students success tool

15. Institutional Application 1.ID early and make direct contact with students who were determined to be at risk for either failure to persist at NAU or failure to remain in good academic standing 2.Use the information to match student needs with specific university resources and services 3.Embed the student profiles in FYE seminars to facilitate understanding of the connection between student needs and campus resources 4.Use composite indices of retention and academic success to build a customized retention prediction equation for NAU

16. Institutional Application 1.Direct contact with students at risk  Composite indices in SRI used  Identified group of reachable students based on resource decisions. Interventions varied  NAU used retention risk index and did not allocate their resources to the lowest percentiles 2.Connect students to campus resources using scale scores  Direct contact via email or postcards encouraging students to access services or participate in events. SRI not explicitly referenced  Examples: Students with potential academic problems invited to LAC; Students with high scores on academic discipline and goal striving invited to meet with Res Life and New Student Programs to participate in leadership opportunities

17. Institutional Application 3.Including student SRI profiles in lesson and instructional activities in FYE seminar courses  Traditional 3-credit FYE for special admit students  One-credit FYE course for regularly admit students  Scores used regularly as opportunities for reflection in class  Students met one-on-one with instructor to develop student success action plan

18. Institutional Application

23. Final Predictive Model of GPA (33% of variance) –Academic risk –Academic services –Academic services X Academic risk –Recreational resources –Social Resources –Academic referrals –Academic referrals X Academic risk –Advising/Career Services –Ethnicity –Gender

24. Institutional Application Final Predictive Model of Retention (13% of variance) –Retention risk –Academic services –Social resources –Academic referrals –Advising/Career services

25. Institutional Initiative Establish baseline understanding of U of U students’ strengths and weaknesses Develop strategic data-use plan with academic and student support services Provide training as needed to support outreach and early warning efforts

26. Institutional Initiative When compared to the national sample –7.8% of students fall in the lowest quartile on the Retention Risk Index (N=175) –9.2% of students fall in the lowest quartile on the Performance Risk Index (N=206)

27. Institutional Initiative

28. Assessment Admissions Index/SRI Pre-Enrollment Data ProcessingEarly Outreach First Semester Advising College Success Class Special Population Services Outreach Early Warning System Other University Support Services First-Year Seminars Long-Term Career Services Leadership/Mentors Utilization/ Engagement Retention/Graduation Program Refinement

29. Institutional Initiative Push back –Students don’t like taking the instrument –Too much time out of orientation (20 minutes) –Not enough time available in advising –Tracking concerns –Support exists at the administrative level but not the front line