Using the Student Readiness Inventory (SRI) as part of a - PDF document

Using the Student Readiness Inventory (SRI) as part of a Comprehensive Intervention and Retention System Alex Casillas ACT, Inc. 29 th Annual Conference on The First-Year Experience Denver, CO February 14, 2010 1 Agenda • Brief introduction to the SRI • Case studies – Examining risk, resource use, and success at a 4-yr institution – COMPASS, SRI, behavior ratings & course success at a 2-yr institution • Implications • Questions 2 1

The Need Six-year graduation rates average 57% at 4-year institutions (range = 36 to 75%, Horn & Nevill, 2006) and 34% at 2-year institutions (range not available, Swail, 2004) Many new students are ill-prepared to meet the hurdles they face upon entry into college. What can institutions do to help students succeed? 3 Prediction of Success Historically, prediction of first-year college success has centered on standardized achievement and high school GPA There is growing evidence that academic success behaviors should be modeled with additional relevant attributes, including psychosocial factors (Le et al., 2005; Peterson et al., 2006) 4 2

Introduction to SRI Robbins et al. (2004) conducted a meta-analysis of 109 studies ( N = 152,985 ) to examine the effect of 3 types of predictors on academic performance and retention: – Traditional (e.g., standardized test scores, HS GPA) – Demographic (e.g., SES, race/ethnicity, gender) – PSFs (psychosocial and study skill factors) 5 Introduction to SRI (cont.) Psychosocial and study skill factors can be organized into 3 broad domains: Motivation & Skills – Personal characteristics that help students to succeed academically by focusing and maintaining energies on goal-directed activities. Social engagement – Interpersonal factors that influence students’ successful integration into their environment. Self-regulation – Cognitive and affective processes used to monitor, regulate, and control behavior related to learning. Le et al., (2005) 6 3

SRI Scales Domain SRI Scale  Academic Discipline Motivation & Skills  Commitment to College  General Determination  Goal Striving  Study Skills  Communication Skills  Social Activity Social Engagement  Social Connection  Academic Self-Confidence Self-Regulation  Steadiness See www.act.org/sri/components.html for scale definitions and sample items 7 Measuring Risk • The SRI also includes predictive indices (based on a combination of SRI scales + achievement information): – Academic Success Index : likelihood of GPA 2.0 or higher – Retention Index : likelihood of returning second year • All SRI scores (scales and indices) are presented as percentile scores (range 1 to 99) 8 4

Sample SRI Student Profiles • Class of 2007 college students completed the SRI at the beginning of their 1 st semester (Fall 2003) • Sample profiles selected to contrast academic preparation and motivation Motivation Low High Low Student A Student B ACT score High Student C Student D 9 Low ACT score (composite = 14) Student A Student B LOW ACT LOW MOTIVATION HIGH MOTIVATION Percentile Percentile Scale 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 6 95 Academic Discipline General Determination 17 72 13 80 Goal Striving Commitment to College 9 51 Study Skills 47 59 Communication Skills 34 99 Social Connection 76 49 Social Activity 9 83 Academic Self-Confidence 2 46 Steadiness 6 71 Low Medium High Low Medium High SRI Indices Academic = 1 Academic = 20 Retention = 3 Retention = 17 Outcome First-year GPA = 1.5 First-year GPA = 2.22 Fall 07 status = dropped out Fall 07 status = still enrolled 10 5

High ACT score (composite = 27) Student C Student D HIGH ACT LOW MOTIVATION HIGH MOTIVATION Scale Percentile Percentile 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 92 Academic Discipline 3 50 General Determination 55 26 Goal Striving 4 22 Commitment to College 22 38 Study Skills 31 Communication Skills 12 46 Social Connection 45 7 Social Activity 15 57 Academic Self -Confidence 32 92 Steadines s 9 53 Low Medium High Low Medium High SRI Indices Academic = 60 Academic = 96 Retention = 50 Retention = 88 Outcome First-year GPA = 3.7 First-year GPA = 4.0 Fall 07 status = dropped out Fall 07 status = graduated 11 Brief Recap • The previous slides suggest that academic preparation and psychosocial factors both contribute to success. For example: – High motivation will help an academically weak student to do better. – High motivation will help an academically strong student to excel. • These findings are consistent with both the education and workforce literature. 12 6

Case Study: Examining Risk, Resource Use & Success at a 4-yr Institution 13 Background • Public Southwestern University • Over 13,000 Undergraduate Students and 1,100 Faculty • 31% Dropout Rate across Freshman Year • Implemented Card Swiping System to Monitor Resource Use 14 7

Intervention Model • Implemented early in the (first) semester • Included groups known to be at risk • Collaborative and not duplicative – academic advising and first-year programs – summer bridge program and first-year mentoring – other key groups interfacing with new students • Systematic • Addressed whole student (using 1-on-1 meetings between student and advisor) • Grounded in research 15 Student-Advisor Meeting • Above all else, connect with student • Acknowledge student’s strengths and identify campus activities to reinforce them • Match student’s needs to campus resources – See SRI Tool Shop: act.org/sri/studentguide/toolshop.html • Gather some data on SRI experience – How did you hear about your appointment – How seriously did you take the SRI when you completed it? 16 8

Evaluation: Academic Performance Avg 1st Sem GPA by Distribution Group 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 ALL Grp 1 Grp 2 Grp 3 Grp 4 Grp 5 Grp 6 Grp 7 Student Affairs Met 3.02 2.77 2.64 2.48 2.45 2.36 2.15 2.55 Not Met 2.83 2.28 2.41 2.19 2.06 1.97 1.91 2.23 All students who met to receive SRI results fared better than those who did not meet with Student Affairs staff. 17 Evaluation: Academic Performance (cont.) Percent on Probation by Distribution Group 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% ALL Grp 1 Grp 2 Grp 3 Grp 4 Grp 5 Grp 6 Grp 7 Student Affairs 31% 26% 23% 16% 15% 15% 10% 18% Met 41% 42% 21% 11% 28% 24% 14% 26% Not Met Students who did NOT meet regarding their SRI were more likely to end up on academic probation. 18 9

Resource & Services Utilization Level of Utilization Resource/ High Moderate Low Service Category Ret. GPA Ret. GPA Ret. GPA Academic Services .75 2.75 .79 2.92 .70 2.63 Recreational Resources .77 2.87 .77 2.76 .71 2.67 .72 2.83 .85 2.91 .69 2.63 Social Resources Academic Referrals -- -- .88 2.95 .60 2.53 .84 2.67 .79 2.83 .57 2.68 Advisory / Career Sessions Robbins et al. (2009) 19 Association of Risk Level & Academic Service Use on Retention & First-Year GPA Risk Level Service High Moderate Low Use Retention GPA Retention GPA Retention GPA 0 Use .61 2.11 .72 2.58 .77 3.14 1 – 3 .72 2.41 .77 2.81 .84 3.38 Sessions 4+ Sessions .62 2.35 .81 2.81 .85 3.22 Gains show interaction .24 .23 .08 on GPA Robbins et al. (2009) 20 10

Recommendations from Case Study (4-yr) • Coordinate institutional efforts across service areas • Identify at-risk students early • Provide students with resources designed to increase their opportunity to succeed – Be strategic in your use of resources – Don’t be afraid of intrusive advising • Track student progress – Use your data/feedback and improve the process 21 Case Study: Developing an Early Intervention System at a 2-yr Institution 22 11

Background • Located in a major urban center • Over 8,700 Students and 350 Faculty with a range of programs (e.g., general studies, career/vocational) • Among students completing the college's placement exams in Fall 2009: – 58% were placed in developmental/remedial English. – 58% were placed into developmental/remedial Reading. – 84% were placed into developmental/remedial Math. • Working to implement a comprehensive First-Year Experience Program 23 Objectives of Early Intervention • Lend focus to first-year success by identifying at-risk students • Customize student support services according to students’ individual, varied needs • Target existing resources toward at-risk students • Seek to yield higher returns on efforts and college resources 24 12