Advising At-Risk Students: An Early Warning Effort

1. Advising At-Risk Students: An Early Warning Effort Phil Warsaba, Student Academic Success Centre (SASC) CACUSS 2007 – Building Bridges

2. Student Academic Success Centre • Carleton University’s centralized academic advising and learning support office. • Composed of 3 offices: Academic Advising Centre, Learning Support Services, and Peer-Assisted Study Sessions.

3. Academic Advising Centre Staff • The unit is staffed by: • Manager • 8 F/T Academic Advisors • 2 P/T Academic Advisors • Administrative Assistant • 3-5 P/T students

4. SASC’s Mandate • The SASC mission is to help students build a foundation for academic success through the provision of programs and services that foster personal direction and academic competence. • The Student Academic Success Centre was established to: • Improve the university’s retention and graduation rates; • Enhance the undergraduate university experience, particularly in the first and second years; • Ensure the academic success of students.

5. The Role of Academic Advisors • Help students understand academic rules and regulations. • Unravel the mysteries of the audit, CGPA calculation, requirements for graduation, etc. • Assist students with the development of effective study skills and strategies for academic success. • Guide students through academic difficulties they may be facing.

6. Approach to Students • Focus on students and on their (individual) on-going needs over an extended period of time. One advising session builds upon another. • Students are viewed as partners who are actively engaged in intellectual and personal growth. • Help students think about and articulate what is important to them in their academic and personal lives. • Set short-term as well as long-term goals, discuss ways to achieve those goals, and help the student monitor progress in fulfilling those goals.

7. Academic Improvement Planning • A significant number of students that meet with Advisors at SASC are on AW, SUS, DEB, or ITR. • Students with negative Academic Performance Evaluations (APEs) meet with Advisors to develop an Academic improvement Plan (AIP).

8. Commitment to Student Success • SASC is committed to: • Guiding students through the challenges that are impeding their ability to succeed, AND; • Identifying students who are at risk of academic difficulty and addressing potential problems before they arise.

9. Academic Outreach • SASC currently provides the following services for at-risk or potential at-risk groups: • Academic Improvement Planning (AIP) sessions for students on Academic Warning; • Varsity athlete workshops and one-on-one advising; • Aboriginal programming; • First Year Information (FYI) in-class workshops for FYSM students; • direct referral for students with disabilities; • Intervention advising for first-year students who have withdrawn from 1.0 or more credits in their first term of study; • Intervention advising for first-year students who have received a No Decision standing; • Intervention advising for upper-year undeclared students; • Intervention advising for students with multiple exam and/or assignment deferrals;

10. University Indicators of Academic Difficulty • Course success rates are used to identify traditionally difficult classes at the university. • High DFW rates have been associated with higher attrition rates. • Deans and Associate Deans have been tasked with the challenge of improving course success rates in their respective Faculties.

11. The Need for a New Early Warning Initiative • Faculty members identified class attendance as a systematic problem. • Students were found to be unaware of basic rules and regulations. • Feedback being provided to students too late to effect any significant change.

12. A Model for Change • Re-Engagement Through Academic Intervention Now (RETAIN) program at Marymount College (Palos Verdes, CA). • Joe Cuseo’s (2003) research on Early-Alert (Warning) Systems. • Tinto’s (1993) research on the causes and cures of student attrition.

13. Proposal for an Early Warning Initiative (EWI) at Carleton • In late January, 2007, SASC distributed a preliminary proposal for a new EWI. • Faculty of Engineering demonstrated immediate interest. • SASC agreed to conduct a small-scale pilot project to assist ENG with 5 traditionally difficult courses.

14. Structure of the EWI Pilot Project • ENG identified 5 courses (1 first-year, 3 second-year, and 1 third-year) with high DFW rates. • Professors were asked to assess the performance of students in the following areas: • Attendance (class and labs) • Assignments • Practical exams

15. Structure of the EWI Pilot Project • A list of 59 students was sent to SASC for follow-up between the 3rd and 6th week of the course (pre-midterm). • Advisors conducted a condensed performance evaluation for each student. • Students were first contacted by phone (2 attempts) or sent an email. • The importance of class attendance was discussed and students were encouraged to book an AIP appointment at SASC.

16. Response Rates • Nearly 60% of students contacted responded to the outreach (compared to a 7% response rate to the Faculty outreach). • 50% of respondents subsequently met with an Academic Advisor to develop an Academic Improvement Plan. • Response rates are similar to those resulting from SASC’s outreach to students on AW.

17. Student Perceptions • With very few exceptions, students were genuinely pleased with the outreach. • Many expressed surprised that the university was aware of class absences. • Others noted that it was the first time they felt that someone at the university cared about their academic success.

18. Common Explanations • Students offered the following explanations for their lack of engagement/poor performance in the course: • Late registration • Intention to withdraw • Ineffective time management skills • Sense that the material covered in class was a review of what they already knew • Decreased motivation • Little understanding of the relationship between attendance and grades

19. Identifying At-Risk Students • Of the students contacted as part of this EWI: • 37% had earned 3.0 or more discredits • 14% were to be Ineligible to Return (ITR) • 9% were on Academic Warning • 12% had deferred examinations from the Fall term • Only 7% of the students identified by the Faculty of Engineering were intending to withdraw from the course they were registered in.

20. Course-Level Outcomes • Immediate and sustained increased in class attendance was reported for each of the 5 courses. • Of the students who booked a follow-up AIP appointment with an Academic Advisor, only 2 were classified as Ineligible to Return to ENG. • D and F rates for each of the 5 courses decreased, while course Withdrawal rates increased. • Increased awareness, and use of, support services.

21. University-Level Outcomes • Increased awareness of the relationship between attendance and academic difficulties. • Project triggered a university-wide attendance survey. • Individual faculty members appreciated collaboration and support.

22. Future Directions • A proposal has been submitted to offer a EWI of this kind to 10 traditionally difficult first-year courses in the fall of 2008. • Support of 20+ courses with low course success rates is envisioned for 2009-2010 academic year.

23. Challenges • Resources, resources, resources… • The Advising Centre alone provides 10,000 individual consultations per year. • To be effective, a pre-midterm alert effort requires sustained contact and follow-up on the part of Advisors. • First-year student compliance could be an issue. • Students identified in outreach efforts are often at the pre-contemplation stage in the Stages of Change model. • Remedial perceptions of services and programs offered.

24. Applicability • Centralized advising is not required for Early Warning Efforts. • We need to foster a culture of engagement, where attendance is emphasized. • Advisors, Counsellors and other student service professionals should prioritize early assessment and guidance.

25. Enjoy the Banquet! Thank you!