Data Driven Counseling Intervention

for Students on Academic Probation Ryan Fernandez MPH 1, Melanie Purdy PhD 2

1Office of Institutional Research, 2 Counseling Department Truckee Meadows Community College

Research Questions

Does using group process facilitate positive behavior change of students on academic probation?

What happens to get students on academic probation?

Academic probation occurs when degree seeking students who have ATTEMPTED 12 or more credits drop be-

low a 2.0 GPA.

Student Learning Outcomes

Help students gain awareness of their issues related to being on academic probation.

Provide an environment for students to create a success identity and to choose behaviors leading to academic

success.

Decrease the number of students below 2.0 GPA.

Method

Students on probation were notified of their status by Admissions and Records.

Mandate to attend a group session (or maintain a registration hold on student account) was identified in the

letter.

Students self-select to attend the group session (or not), and are required to complete an on-line activity fol-

lowing the session.

Group Session Format

Approximately 8-10 individuals per group.

One counselor to facilitate.

1.5 hour timeframe.

One session only, with follow up on-line activity.

Follow up individual sessions offered.

Components of the Intervention

Examination of the problem. This is set up so students discover and process the reason(s) for their academic

difficulty.

The counselor leads a group discussion where students introduce themselves, and identify the reasons they

are on probation, and the successes they are currently having.

Counselor expands on the topics given from students, and facilitates group input.

Students complete a “Wise Choice” process form (identifying an ideal they want to establish to help with

their success); a difficulty assessment; and a goal setting activity (in pairs). They watch a goal setting video

prior to attempting the activity.

Wrap up – counselor identifies relevant policies, resources, and processes the emotions of the individuals at

the completion of the workshop.

One Way ANOVA Using SPSS

Hypotheses:

- There will not be a difference in the average GPA’s for each co-

hort (control and treatments) at the start of the intervention.

- There will be a difference in the average GPA’s for each cohort at

the end of the intervention.

- There will be a difference in the 4th term persistence rates for

each cohort.

SPSS Code:

ONEWAY CumulativeGPA BY group

/STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES HOMOGENEITY

/MISSING ANALYSIS

/POSTHOC=LSD T3 ALPHA(0.05).

Conclusions The starting GPAs for the 3 treatment cohorts were not statistical-

ly different. In other words, all three treatment cohorts began the

treatment with the same GPA. However the control cohorts

tended to have a lower starting GPA compared to the treatment

cohorts.

The control cohorts' final GPAs tended to be lower compared to

all other treatment cohorts. We attribute this difference to the

effectiveness of the Counseling intervention.

The 4th term persistence rates for the control cohorts were al-

ways much lower compared to the treatment cohorts (by +30%;

see chart “Comparison of Persistence Rates…”)

Very true of me…

Working Full Time

Had Family Emergency

Do not know what I want to study.

Setting priorities is a big issue with students as is finding motivation to com-

plete academics.

Exit Survey

Very not true of me…

Took too many drugs/alcohol.

I don’t want to be in college right now.

Took 12 credits for financial aid.

It seems students do want to be in college, and are not feeling distracted by

“partying” too much.

“Please identify the factors that you think contributed most to you getting on academic probation.”

Descriptives

persisted

N Persis-

tence Rate Std. Deviation Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound

Control 385 6% .24673 .01257 .0402 .0897 .00 1.00

Interven-tion

96 46% .50088 .05112 .3568 .5598 .00 1.00

Online 214 49% .50098 .03425 .4185 .5535 .00 1.00

Workshop 68 46% .50175 .06085 .3344 .5773 .00 1.00

Total 763 27% .44288 .01603 .2359 .2988 .00 1.00

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

persisted

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

379.756 3 759 .000

Multiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable:persisted

(I) group (J) group Mean Difference (I

-J) Std. Error Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound

Dunnett T3 1.00 2.00 -.39340* .05264 .000 -.5344 -.2524

3.00 -.42105* .03648 .000 -.5177 -.3244

4.00 -.39095* .06213 .000 -.5588 -.2231

2.00 1.00 .39340* .05264 .000 .2524 .5344

3.00 -.02765 .06153 .998 -.1912 .1359 4.00 .00245 .07947 1.000 -.2094 .2143

3.00 1.00 .42105* .03648 .000 .3244 .5177

2.00 .02765 .06153 .998 -.1359 .1912

4.00 .03010 .06982 .999 -.1567 .2169 4.00 1.00 .39095

* .06213 .000 .2231 .5588

2.00 -.00245 .07947 1.000 -.2143 .2094 3.00 -.03010 .06982 .999 -.2169 .1567

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Fall 2010 Persistence Comparison (Example SPSS Output)