1. Midterm Progress Reports: How a Campus-wide Effort Can Impact Student Success and Retention Shannon Dobranski Debbie Pearson NACADA National Conference 2015

2. 2 Overview Benefits of Midterm Progress Reports or early alerts History and Design of Midterm Progress Reports (MPRS) at Georgia Tech Interventions Attempted at Georgia Tech Methods for Observing MPRs Analysis: Midterm Performance and Retention Lessons Learned

3. 3 MPR/Early Alert Benefits An accurate assessment of students’ abilities (Morales, 2014) An opportunity for student/faculty engagement (Kuh Kinzie, Schuh, & Whitt, 2005) An occasion to encourage students to pursue campus resources (Morales, 2014) An opportunity for intrusive advising (Varney, 2008)

4. 4 It Takes a Campus Early Alert systems are ineffective without the intentional follow-through of advisors and faculty (Karp, 2014) Participants should include –Key administrators –Informed coordinator –Faculty Reporting underperformance Providing academic guidance –Advisors –Student support professionals

5. 5 Georgia Tech MPR History Launched in 2001 Monitored by registrar’s office and deans Timeline modified in 2004 Interventions expanded in 2013 Improved processes in 2014, under Retention and Graduation coordinator

6. 6 Georgia Tech MPR Process MPR’s reported after 40 percent of the semester is completed (six weeks) S/U grades reported for all 1000/2000-level courses All students with midterm U’s receive an email from an academic advisor Appointments required for all first-year students with more than one midterm U Registration holds placed to ensure student compliance Non-compliant students are reported to Academic Advising Manager

7. 7 Reflection and Planning 1 Starting Point: –What midterm progress report or early alert systems are in place on your campus? –Who oversees this system? –Is there a unified effort to assist students in academic peril at the term’s mid-point?

8. 8 Reflection and Planning 2 Partners: –What offices or colleagues might contribute to efforts to intervene with students struggling at midterm? –What offices or colleagues might assist with data collection?

9. 9 MPR Participants

10. 10 Interventions: Email Communications Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education Center for Academic Success/Advising Coordinator Academic Advisors Office of Minority Education First-year Seminar Instructors

11. 11 Guidelines for Advisors’ MPR Emails Explain the purpose of midterm U’s Encourage a visit to the professor or TA Invite or require a visit to the advisor for students with midterm U’s Provide an overview of resources on campus Indicate the drop and withdraw deadlines

12. 12 Interventions: Face-to-Face Meetings Advisor meetings Professors and TA’s Workshops (“To Drop or Not?”) Academic Coaching Reboot (six-week study skills seminar) Housing

13. 13 Interventions: Electronic Resources Center for Academic Success Web Site Frequently Asked Questions Online Workshops with Student Lingo Digital Signage

14. 14 Reflection and Planning 3 Interventions: –Does your school rely on electronic or face-to-face communication with students struggling at mid-term? –What messages would best be communicated electronically? –What students would most benefit from a face-to-face meeting with an advisor? –What group interventions might benefit students?

15. 15 Reflection and Planning 4 Support Resources: –What resources are available at your school to assist students struggling at mid-term? –What resources might you add to help students to improve their performance in specific subject areas? –What general resources might you develop?

16. 16 Methods for Observing MPR Outcomes Snapshots: real-time data collected and monitored mid-semester and after final grades Faculty response rate Students with U’s by classification and numbers of midterm U’s Students with U’s by matriculation and numbers of midterm U’s Courses with disproportionately high numbers of midterm U’s Course withdrawal rates % of students with a midterm U using Center for Academic Success U-to-final grade convergence

17. 17 Methods for Observing MPR Outcomes Snapshot outcomes for spring 2015 Faculty response rate: 96.7% 3,255 U’s assigned to 2,479 students in 1000- and 2000- level courses First-year students with 2 or more U’s: 308 % of first-year students with 2 or more U’s who participated in academic advising: 94% % of students with 1 or more U’s who used Center for Academic Success: 41%

18. 18 Methods for Observing MPR Outcomes Snapshot outcomes for spring 2015 Withdrawal rate for courses in which U’s were earned: 15% Courses in which at least one in five students earned a midterm U: - Physics I (38%) - Physics II (35%) - Calculus II (23%) U to A/B/C/S convergence rate: 53%

19. 19 Methods for Observing MPR Outcomes “Deep Dive”: Longitudinal trends--usually five-year trends--involving U-to-final-grade convergence Faculty response rates Course withdrawal rates Advisement outcomes Courses with disproportionate numbers of U’s Retention and graduation rates for students with U’s

20. 20 Faculty Response Rate 2010-2015

21. 21 Withdrawal Rates for U’s 2009-2014

22. 22 Impact on Retention Final grades are highly predictive for retention For students with a midterm U in fall 2013 who were able to pull up their grade to A/B/C/S by the end of the term, 97.5% returned for spring 2014 and 93.9% returned for fall 2014. For students with a midterm U in fall 2013 who earned a D/F/W/U for the course, 85.1% returned for spring 2014 and only 75.0% returned for fall 2014.

23. 23 Impact on Graduation Rates Graduation rates for students with midterm U’s (average rates for past five years) First-time freshmen with no U’s: 94.0% graduated within six years Transfer students with no midterm U’s: 84.6% graduated within four years First-time freshmen with only one U: 86.0% graduated within six years Transfer students with only one U: 77.4% for transfer students and 86.0% for first-time freshmen

24. 24 Overall Retention and Graduation Rates First-to-second retention rate for 2014 cohort: 96% Six-year graduation rate for 2009 cohort: 85%

25. 25 Methods for Observing MPR Outcomes Participant surveys –Students –Advisors

26. 26 SP 15 Student Survey Outcomes Student Perceptions: –Mixed response about value of MPRs (44.8% “valuable”/ 18.3% “not sure”/ 36.9% “not valuable”) –Advisor is primary source of information about MPRs (57.7%) –Inadequate study (17.4%) and poor test performance (38.2%) primary causes of U’s –Primary responses to U’s were professor visits (35.7%) and advisor visits (35.2%)

27. 27 SP 15 Advisor Survey Outcomes Advisor Perceptions: –Timing (77.1%), intervention (61.8%) is appropriate –Faculty visits (100%), tutoring (97%), and time management (85.3%) most common suggestions –Perceived utility of study skills workshops (48.6%)

28. 28 Reflection and Planning 5 Analysis: –What data related to midterm performance does your school already collect? –Do you sort struggling students by classification, matriculation date, gender, race/ethnicity, first generation status, or other categories? –Do you collect information about classes with especially high rates of underperformance at midterm?

29. 29 A successful MPR process requires Support from high-level administrators Buy-in from faculty Carefully timed and executed communication Intentional outreach Systematic, meaningful evaluation Action based on analysis

30. 30 Lessons Learned Ensure all participants are aware of available interventions Resilience at mid-term is a strong indicator of likely graduation Begin to shift campus culture away from intelligence toward resilience

31. 31 Resources Karp, M. M. (2014, Jan. 13). Essay looks at how early warning systems can better boost retention. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2014/01/13/essay-looks-how-early- warning-systems-can-better-boost-retention Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & Associates, (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Morales, E. E. (2014). Learning from success: How original research on academic resilience Informs what college faculty can do to increase the retention of low socioeconomic status students. International Journal of Higher Education 3 (3), 92-102). DOI: 10.5430/ijhe.v3n3p92 Simons, J. M. (2011). A national study of student early alert models at four-year institutions of higher education (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (AAT 3482551) Varney, R. A. (2008). Study of early alert intervention on first-year, nondevelopmental community college freshmen (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (AAT 3302988)

32. 32 Questions? Debbie Pearson Retention & Graduation Coordinator debbie.pearson@gatech.edu Shannon Dobranski Director of Pre-Graduate & Pre-Professional Advising shannon.dobranski@gatech.edu