National Survey of Student Success Initiatives at Two-Year Colleges

0 downloads 118 Views 12MB Size Report
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

82% 77%

Service to community

44%

Improved retention/graduation rates

41%

Awareness of issues related to diversity

28%

Increased student-to-student interaction Increased faculty-to-student interaction Don’t know Other (Please describe)

25% 6% 1% 21%

Figure 22. Percent of colleges reporting goals for service-learning (n = 146)

26

No research has been conducted

50%

Increased civic awareness

25%

Improved ability to see connection of discipline to realworld situations

25%

Increased level of service to the community Don’t know

21% 18%

Increased awareness of issues related to diversity

14%

Improved retention/graduation rates

14%

Increased student-to-student camaraderie

12%

Increased faculty-to-student camaraderie

11%

Other (Please describe)

1% 21%

Figure 23. Percent of colleges reporting outcomes for service-learning (n = 146)

27

28

STEM fields

85% 25%

General education Health sciences

20%

Occupational/technical orograms

12%

Business

10%

Other (Please describe) Education Don’t know

8% 5% 2%

Figure 24. Percent of colleges with student/faculty research opportunities in academic areas (n = 59)

29

Table 39. Transfer Centers by Public/Private Status Public

Private

All

Yes

48.8%

39.1%

127

No

49.6%

60.9%

134

Don’t Know

1.7%

0.0%

4

n

23

242

265

89%

Preparing students for entry to 4-year colleges Developing relationships with 4-year colleges

87%

Providing space for personnel from 4-year colleges to meet with students

76%

Providing information for incoming students

71%

Career counseling

68%

Increasing faculty and staff awareness of 4-year institutions’ resources and transfer policies Other (Please describe)

63% 1%

Figure 25. Goals addressed by college transfer centers (n=127)

30

31

Admission application support

81%

Academic advising

79%

Instruction and course offerings

75%

Financial aid

41%

Counseling Don’t know

37% 4%

Figure 26. Services offered by four-year institutions with presence on two-year campus (n=140)

32

Career and interest testing

78%

Internships

73% 56%

Career center Co-ops

39%

A career exploration course

39%

Job shadowing Faculty-led career meetings Don’t know Other (Please describe)

20% 15% 3% 2% 21%

Figure 27. Career exploration opportunities at the colleges (n=262)

33

None

46%

Achieving the Dream Other (Please describe) Foundations of Excellence

25% 14% 10%

Project Win Win

7%

Don’t know

7%

Completion by Design Baldridge Performance Excellence

6% 5%21%

Figure 28. Participation in national or regional college success initiatives (n=261)

34

35

36

37