Working Towards a Situational Student Success Model

Working Towards aSituational

Student Success Model

NEASC Assessment Workshop

William J. Gammell, Ph.D.Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs for Institutional EffectivenessEastern Connecticut State University

Situational Student Success Model*

Low HighStudent’s Academic Potential

Classic “Input” approach

Low to Moderate Potential Moderate to High Potential

• Historically, models of improving academic success have focused on one dimension.

Relied on: demographics -- Race/Ethnicity, SES, 1st Gen Past academic data -- HS GPA, SAT, Placement Exams

Situational Student Success Model*

Low HighStudent’s Academic Potential

Classic “Input” approach

Low to Moderate Potential Moderate to High Potential

• Limitations:

Explained variance – o Some poor prospects flourish, others do noto Some well-prepared students do not persistent Exams

Resource Issues –o Support delivered where not necessary

Situational Student Success Model*

Low HighStudents’ Academic Potential

Classic “Input” approach

High

Students’ Commitment/ Social Readiness Level

Low

Low to Moderate Potential/Low Commitment

Low to Moderate Potential/Low Commitment

Low to Moderate Potential/High Commitment

Moderate to High Potential/High Commitment

What if…..?

Enthusiastic Plugger Self-Reliant Achiever

Lost Learner Capable /Needs to Engage

Situational Student Success Model*

Goal = explore other data tracking routines:

• More actionable; provide opportunity for earlier interventions

• Behavior-based: re-assign risk level based on student behaviors in the first semester or year of enrollment

Access to Success Leading Indicator Project provided foundation

5

Situational Student Success Model*

• Focused on Four Sources of Behavioral Engagement

6

Judicial Proceedings

Student Clubs

2715 FTFT students (100%)

1868 (68.8%) 830 (30.6%)

Transferred

Not Retained

601 (22.1%)

Drop Out/Not Enrolled

229 (8.4%)

Continually Retained

Enrollment Patterns for First Two Years for Fall 2007, Fall 2008, Fall 2009 FTFT Cohorts at Eastern

Stop Out/Return

17 (<1%)

• 4-yr institutions 12.5%• CC 9.6%

7

2715 FTFT students (100%)

1868 (68.8%) 830 (30.6%)

Transferred

Not Retained

601 (22.1%)

Drop Out/Not Enrolled

229 (8.4%)

Continually Retained

Enrollment Patterns, Student Engagement Behavior and Characteristics for First Two Years for Fall 2007, Fall 2008, Fall 2009 FTFT Cohorts at Eastern

Stop Out/Return

17 (<1%)

(%)Pell 20.3URM 15.6Any offense 24.2No Library Training 14.7Complete Training 51.4Any Club Year 1 8.5True Vol Service 27.5Sem 1 GPA > 2.0 89.2Sem 2 GPA > 2.0 89.8

(%)Pell 24.6URM 20.6Any offense 28.8No Library Training 26.0Complete Training 38.4Any Club Year 1 3.9True Vol Service 17.5Sem 1 GPA > 2.0 43.4Sem 2 GPA > 2.0 33.5

• 4-yr institutions 12.5%• CC 9.6%

8

CSU Sister = 97 (3.6%)

Enrollment Patterns, Student Characteristics and Engagement Behaviors for 601 First Transfer Students

(%)Pell 10.3URM 9.7Any offense 25.8No Library Training 16.9Complete Training 44.9Any Club Year 1 5.2True Vol Service 16.5Sem 1 GPA > 2.0 90.7Sem 2 GPA > 2.0 81.3

UConn = 116 (4.3%)

In State Community College = 212 (7.8%)

Other 4-YR = 126 (4.6%)

Out of State Community College = 50 (1.8%)

(%)Pell 12.1URM 5.7Any offense 30.2No Library Training 14.4Complete Training 56.6Any Club Year 1 2.6True Vol Service 20.7Sem 1 GPA > 2.0 96.6Sem 2 GPA > 2.0 99.0

(%)Pell 19.0URM 7.6Any offense 28.6No Library Training 17.8Complete Training 53.5Any Club Year 1 7.1True Vol Service 13.5Sem 1 GPA > 2.0 88.1Sem 2 GPA > 2.0 92.0

(%)Pell 25.5URM 22.8Any offense 25.5No Library Training 25.1Complete Training 39.4Any Club Year 1 7.1True Vol Service 16.5Sem 1 GPA > 2.0 49.0Sem 2 GPA > 2.0 42.8

(%)Pell 16.0URM 8.9Any offense 44.0No Library Training 28.9Complete Training 28.9Any Club Year 1 8.0True Vol Service 12.0Sem 1 GPA > 2.0 40.8Sem 1 GPA > 2.0 43.3 9

Situational Student Success Model*

• Fall 2011 implemented the Library Orientation key indicator with follow-up for all new students that did not participate, or only took the on-line library assessment.

• The search for other indicators continues.

* Adapted from K. Blanchard’s & Paul Hersey’s Situational Leadership Model® and Situational Leadership® II (SLII®) from The Ken Blanchard Companies both are registered trademarks of their respective companies.