Students are co-enrolled in two or more courses, but faculty have limited interaction. Courses in a learning community a
John N. Gardner Institute
Inside front cover
iii
iv
v
1
Other at-risk factors such as GED, low ACT scores, etc. (Please describe) Students eligible for federal or state equal opportunity programs (EOP) (e.g., TRiO, Upward Bound)
50% 25%
Science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) students
17%
Students who place into developmental/remedial courses
17%
Student athletes
8%
Figure 1. Which students are required to participate in summer bridge (n=88)
2
98%
Academic readiness for the first year Exposure to expectations of college-level courses
67%
Development of camaraderie and sense of connection to the college
59%
Social/personal readiness for the first year
59%
Shortening students’ developmental paths
57% 52%
Enhancement of retention/graduation rates
45%
Meaningful interaction with faculty
Figure 2. Goals of summer bridge programs (n = 88)
Greater familiarity with expectations of college-level courses
43%
Improved retention/graduation rates
42%
Improved academic readiness for the first year as measured by first-year grade point average
41% 39%
Enhanced friendships and feeling connection to the college
36%
Shorten students’ time spent in developmental education
34%
Improved social/personal readiness for the first year Increased comfort level with faculty No research conducted Don’t know Other (please describe)
27% 18% 11% 5%
Figure 3. Reported outcomes of summer bridge programs (n=88)
3
53%
College/unit funding State or federal grant funding
47% 36%
Tuition/fees paid by participants Private or college foundation funding
16%
Other (Please describe)
3%
Don’t know
1%
Figure 4. Sources of funding for summer bridge programs (n=88)
4
5
Orientation includes advisement/registration
75%
Orientation includes activities/sessions led by academic advisors
71% 51%
Orientation includes structured interaction with faculty
50%
Orientation includes placement testing Orientation utilizes peer leaders
49%
Orientation includes activities/sessions for family members Orientation includes convocation or other celebratory activities
38% 13%
Orientation includes a “common reading” (a book or article read before, and discussed during, orientation) Don’t know
8% 2%
Figure 5. Characteristics of pre-term orientation (n = 280)
6
7
Introduction to the college and its facilities
96%
Building connections with other students and faculty/staff
74% 73%
Improving retention/graduation rates
70%
Engaging in advising Completing course registration
62%
Improved academic performance
62%
Celebrating the arrival of new students
56%
Completing placement testing
46%
Other (Please describe)
2%
Don’t know
2%
Figure 6. Percent of colleges reporting goals for orientation programs (n = 265)
More knowledge about the college and its facilities and services
57% 51%
Student satisfaction with the orientation process More connections with other students and faculty/staff
39%
Enhanced sense of belonging and excitement
38%
No research has been conducted
28%
Improved retention/graduation rates
27%
Improved academic performance
18%
Don’t know Other (Please describe)
9% 1%
Figure 7. Outcomes of pre-term orientation (n=265)
8
9
10
65%
Academic advising
44%
Financial counseling
36%
Academic support to help students catch up Orientation None Other (Please describe) Don’t know
27% 20% 8% 5%
Figure 8. Types of support for students who start courses late (n = 284)
11
12
13
14
15
Students in remedial/developmental courses
73% 56%
Students in educational opportunity programs
52%
Students in high failure rate courses
51%
Student athletes Selected scholarship students
44% 38%
STEM students International students Don’t know
35% 12%
Figure 9. Types of first-year students monitored by early warning/academic alert (n = 181)
16
Students on academic probation
73% 57%
Students in educational opportunity programs (e.g., TRiO)
51%
Student athletes
44%
Selected scholarship students STEM students
38%
International students
36%
Don’t know Other (Please describe)
13% 2%
Figure 10. Types of second-year students monitored by early warning/academic alert (n = 190)
College monitoring and/or response are ongoing throughout the term
78%
College monitoring and/or response occur only before midterm College monitoring and/or response occur only at/or after midterm
16% 6%
Figure 11. When students are monitored by early warning/academic alert (n = 220)
17
Students are contacted by phone, letter, or electronic means
94%
Students are informed about opportunities to seek assistance
71% 55%
Students are contacted in person Students are required by a college employee to obtain assistance
23%
Students’ families are notified (with student waiver of privacy rights)
7%
Other (Please describe)
2%
Don’t know
1%
Figure 12. Types of interventions triggered by early warning/academic alert (n = 224)
Frequent absences
93% 90%
Failing grades
66%
Lack of participation/effort In-class behavioral problem indicators
61% 51%
Grades below a C Psycho-social skill assessment
17%
Other (Please describe)
2%
Don’t know
1%
Figure 13. Behavioral triggers for early warning/academic alert (n = 224)
18
Faculty/instructors
90% 83%
Academic advisors
73%
Academic support personnel Counseling staff
64% 41%
Athletic department staff Information technology staff
13%
Peer mentors
11%
Other (Please describe)
3%
Figure 14. Employees who participate in early warning/academic alert (n = 224)
Improving retention/graduation rates
88%
Assuring that students are made aware (explicitly) that they are in academic difficulty
85%
Early identification of problem behaviors that may lead to academic difficulty
81%
Course completion
79%
Providing students essential academic assistance
71%
Increasing the number of students who seek academic assistance Don’t know
59% 1%
Figure 15. Goals for early warning/academic alert (n = 224)
19
34%
No research has been conducted More students seek academic help from appropriate campus resources
28% 27%
Improved retention/graduation rates Don’t know
24%
Overall improvement in students’ grade point averages
24%
Improvement in problem behaviors
13%
Other (Please describe)
4%
Figure 16. Outcomes of early warning/academic alert (n = 224)
20
21
Other (Please describe)
46%
Developmental students
28%
Students in specific majors (other than STEM majors)
14%
Don’t know
10%
Low SES or first-generation students (as a part of a college program or larger federal or state EOP program to serve these students)?
10%
Honors students
8%
STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) students Adult students
6% 3%
Figure 17. First-year seminars offered for distinct subpopulations (n=93)
Higher utilization levels of campus resources
88%
Improved retention and/or graduation rates
88%
Greater understanding of your college’s academic expectations
88% 84%
Higher levels of academic achievement
81%
Connections between students and faculty
76%
Connections between students
61%
Improved critical thinking Other (Please describe) Don’t know
3% 1%
Figure 18. Reported goals of first-year seminars (n=93)
22
Improved retention and/or graduation rates
41%
Don’t know
27%
Greater understanding of your college’s academic expectations
27%
Higher levels of academic achievement
26%
Higher utilization levels of campus resources
25%
No research has been conducted Improved connections between students and faculty Improved connections between students
20% 18% 15%
Improved critical thinking
9%
Other (Please describe)
9%
Figure 19. Reported outcomes of first-year seminars (n=93)
23
Students are co-enrolled in two or more courses, and faculty work closely to link course content
74%
One of the courses is a first-year seminar
33%
Student affairs professionals are involved in the delivery of out-of-class experiences
33%
Courses in a learning community are linked by common intellectual theme Students are co-enrolled in two or more courses, but faculty have limited interaction
30% 15%
Other (Please describe)
4%
Don’t know
4%
Figure 20. Characteristics of first-year learning communities (n = 27)
24
25
Business
55%
Health sciences
54%
General education
52%
Occupational/technical programs
52% 43%
Education STEM fields First- or second-year seminars Other (Please describe) Don’t know
24% 17% 9% 6% 21%
Figure 21. Percent of colleges with service-learning offerings in academic areas (n = 145)
Heightened sense of civic awareness
84%
Application of specific discipline to real-world situations