1. Advising At-Risk Students: An Early Warning Effort Phil Warsaba, Student Academic Success Centre (SASC) CACUSS 2007 – Building Bridges

2. 2 Student Academic Success Centre  Carleton University’s centralized academic advising and learning support office.  Composed of 3 offices: Academic Advising Centre, Learning Support Services, and Peer- Assisted Study Sessions.

3. 3 Academic Advising Centre Staff  The unit is staffed by: –Manager –8 F/T Academic Advisors –2 P/T Academic Advisors –Administrative Assistant –3-5 P/T students

4. 4 SASC’s Mandate  The SASC mission is to help students build a foundation for academic success through the provision of programs and services that foster personal direction and academic competence.  The Student Academic Success Centre was established to: –Improve the university’s retention and graduation rates; –Enhance the undergraduate university experience, particularly in the first and second years; –Ensure the academic success of students.

5. 5 The Role of Academic Advisors  Help students understand academic rules and regulations.  Unravel the mysteries of the audit, CGPA calculation, requirements for graduation, etc.  Assist students with the development of effective study skills and strategies for academic success.  Guide students through academic difficulties they may be facing.

6. 6 Approach to Students  Focus on students and on their (individual) on-going needs over an extended period of time. One advising session builds upon another.  Students are viewed as partners who are actively engaged in intellectual and personal growth.  Help students think about and articulate what is important to them in their academic and personal lives.  Set short-term as well as long-term goals, discuss ways to achieve those goals, and help the student monitor progress in fulfilling those goals.

7. 7 Academic Improvement Planning  A significant number of students that meet with Advisors at SASC are on AW, SUS, DEB, or ITR.  Students with negative Academic Performance Evaluations (APEs) meet with Advisors to develop an Academic improvement Plan (AIP).

8. 8 Commitment to Student Success  SASC is committed to: – Guiding students through the challenges that are impeding their ability to succeed, AND; –Identifying students who are at risk of academic difficulty and addressing potential problems before they arise.

9. 9 Academic Outreach  SASC currently provides the following services for at- risk or potential at-risk groups: –Academic Improvement Planning (AIP) sessions for students on Academic Warning; –Varsity athlete workshops and one-on-one advising; –Aboriginal programming; –First Year Information (FYI) in-class workshops for FYSM students; –direct referral for students with disabilities; –Intervention advising for first-year students who have withdrawn from 1.0 or more credits in their first term of study; –Intervention advising for first-year students who have received a No Decision standing; –Intervention advising for upper-year undeclared students; –Intervention advising for students with multiple exam and/or assignment deferrals;

10. 10 University Indicators of Academic Difficulty  Course success rates are used to identify traditionally difficult classes at the university.  High DFW rates have been associated with higher attrition rates.  Deans and Associate Deans have been tasked with the challenge of improving course success rates in their respective Faculties.

11. 11 The Need for a New Early Warning Initiative  Faculty members identified class attendance as a systematic problem.  Students were found to be unaware of basic rules and regulations.  Feedback being provided to students too late to effect any significant change.

12. 12 A Model for Change  Re-Engagement Through Academic Intervention Now (RETAIN) program at Marymount College (Palos Verdes, CA).  Joe Cuseo’s (2003) research on Early-Alert (Warning) Systems.  Tinto’s (1993) research on the causes and cures of student attrition.

13. 13 Proposal for an Early Warning Initiative (EWI) at Carleton  In late January, 2007, SASC distributed a preliminary proposal for a new EWI.  Faculty of Engineering demonstrated immediate interest.  SASC agreed to conduct a small-scale pilot project to assist ENG with 5 traditionally difficult courses.

14. 14 Structure of the EWI Pilot Project  ENG identified 5 courses (1 first-year, 3 second- year, and 1 third-year) with high DFW rates.  Professors were asked to assess the performance of students in the following areas: –Attendance (class and labs) –Assignments –Practical exams

15. 15 Structure of the EWI Pilot Project  A list of 59 students was sent to SASC for follow-up between the 3 rd and 6 th week of the course (pre-midterm).  Advisors conducted a condensed performance evaluation for each student.  Students were first contacted by phone (2 attempts) or sent an email.  The importance of class attendance was discussed and students were encouraged to book an AIP appointment at SASC.

16. 16 Response Rates  Nearly 60% of students contacted responded to the outreach (compared to a 7% response rate to the Faculty outreach).  50% of respondents subsequently met with an Academic Advisor to develop an Academic Improvement Plan.  Response rates are similar to those resulting from SASC’s outreach to students on AW.

17. 17 Student Perceptions  With very few exceptions, students were genuinely pleased with the outreach.  Many expressed surprised that the university was aware of class absences.  Others noted that it was the first time they felt that someone at the university cared about their academic success.

18. 18 Common Explanations  Students offered the following explanations for their lack of engagement/poor performance in the course: –Late registration –Intention to withdraw –Ineffective time management skills –Sense that the material covered in class was a review of what they already knew –Decreased motivation –Little understanding of the relationship between attendance and grades

19. 19 Identifying At-Risk Students  Of the students contacted as part of this EWI: –37% had earned 3.0 or more discredits –14% were to be Ineligible to Return (ITR) –9% were on Academic Warning –12% had deferred examinations from the Fall term  Only 7% of the students identified by the Faculty of Engineering were intending to withdraw from the course they were registered in.

20. 20 Course-Level Outcomes  Immediate and sustained increased in class attendance was reported for each of the 5 courses.  Of the students who booked a follow-up AIP appointment with an Academic Advisor, only 2 were classified as Ineligible to Return to ENG.  D and F rates for each of the 5 courses decreased, while course Withdrawal rates increased.  Increased awareness, and use of, support services.

21. 21 University-Level Outcomes  Increased awareness of the relationship between attendance and academic difficulties.  Project triggered a university-wide attendance survey.  Individual faculty members appreciated collaboration and support.

22. 22 Future Directions  A proposal has been submitted to offer a EWI of this kind to 10 traditionally difficult first-year courses in the fall of 2008.  Support of 20+ courses with low course success rates is envisioned for 2009-2010 academic year.

23. 23 Challenges  Resources, resources, resources… –The Advising Centre alone provides 10,000 individual consultations per year. –To be effective, a pre-midterm alert effort requires sustained contact and follow-up on the part of Advisors.  First-year student compliance could be an issue.  Students identified in outreach efforts are often at the pre-contemplation stage in the Stages of Change model.  Remedial perceptions of services and programs offered.

24. 24 Applicability  Centralized advising is not required for Early Warning Efforts.  We need to foster a culture of engagement, where attendance is emphasized.  Advisors, Counsellors and other student service professionals should prioritize early assessment and guidance.

25. 25 Enjoy the Banquet! Thank you!