Toeing the Line: The Step-Up Program

1. Toeing the Line:The Step-Up Program Montclair State University Center for Advising & Student Transitions Presented by: Adam Yellen

2. The Need Improve retention rates • Average 82% of students after first year • Decrease in retention in subsequent years Services for students with “Warning” status Intrusive, intentional advising for this population

3. Implementation Challenge Personal interaction with students without creating more work for full-time staff? • Created graduate student internship positions • Training focused mainly on basic counseling and academic coaching techniques • All student meetings conducted by interns • Administrative tasks divided between interns and coordinator

4. Our Initial PopulationSpring 2011 Pilot: • 2nd semester first-year students • 2.0-2.29 GPA range • Undeclared and declared students • 115 students identified

5. Intervention Styles Intrusive Advising Ideal for “At-Risk” Population Proactive Approach • Different from traditional models Establish Relationship Appreciative Advising Should not appear as punitive Establish a relationship on a personal level and discuss realistic expectations about academics Collaborate on a plan of action to address any challenges • Varney, J. (2007). Intrusive advising. NACADA Journal. • Bloom, J. L., Hutson, B. L., & He, Y. (in preparation). The appreciative advising revolution. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing.

6. Procedure Registration Holds • Timing • Office-specific • Student notification Questionnaire (intake) • Survey Monkey • Required • Holistic design

7. Procedure: Intake Basic Information Level of involvement on Campus Assessment Measures • Time management • Career Exploration • Study Strategies Additional challenges

8. Coding Determiner Most Frequent Open-Ended Opportunity

9. Indicates need for Career Center referral

10. Tutor referrals frequently made

11. …Procedure (Cont’d) Coding • Low Risk • Medium Risk • High Risk • Control Group- did not fill out initial questionnaire (Non-participant population) • Sent additional questionnaire Tracking • Maintained ongoing information on: • Attendance • Survey response • Participation Completion • Control Group

12. 5 or more represents significant risk

13. Participation Requirements High-Risk Students • Workshop • One-on-One Appointments • Minimum of three Medium-Risk Students • Workshop Low-Risk Students • Completion of survey was only requirement Holds are removed once obligations are met Focus Group (optional)

14. Assessment: Student Feedback Questionnaire data: 115 students total 92 completed questionnaire • 17 did not complete program requirements (non-participant) Participant vs. Non-Participant • 74 satisfied ALL requirements (participants) • 41 did not comply (non-participants)

15. Interesting Stats… Of the 92 students… • 56% commuted • 73% felt they were a member of the campus community • 58% had a job • 14% were involved in athletics • 23% participated in clubs/activities • 8% pledged in a fraternity or sorority

16. Student Reflections “The Step-Up Program is very helpful to those who don’t have support from friends or family” “I appreciate this program reaching out to first-year students, because we are the ones that need it the most” “It seems to be useful for those who struggle academically, but others like myself prefer to figure certain things out on their own” “For me I believe it would have been an enormous help me for this semester and for all my years of attending college” “It’s really helpful to work through whatever issues you’re having, whether they are personal or academic. It’s nice to have someone to talk to.

17. Assessment: ResultsParticipant Group (74) • 81% of group (60 students) – Retained • 36% of group (27 students) – Decrease in Cum GPA • 62% of group (46 students) - Increase in Cum GPA • 11% of group (8 students) - Did not make sufficient academic progress (did not earn at least 67%of credits attempted)

18. Assessment: ResultsNon Participant Group (41) • 78% of group (32 students) – Retained • 44% of group (18 students) – Decrease in Cum GPA • 44% of group (18 students) – Increase in Cum GPA • 17% of group (7 students) – Did not make sufficient academic progress (did not earn at least 67%of credits attempted)

19. Assessment: ResultsParticipant vs. Non Participant Participant Group • 18% of group (13 students) - Cum GPA fell below 2.0 • 32% of group (24 students) - GPAbetween2.00-2.29 • 50% of group (36 students) - GPA is at or higher than 2.3 Non Participant Group • 27% of group (11 students) – Cum GPA fell below 2.0 • 22% of group (9 students) –GPA still between 2.00-2.29 • 41% of group (17 students) –GPA is at or higher than 2.3

20. Evolving ProgramFall 2011 Expand scope of program to include • Sophomores • Satisfactory Academic Progress • Fall and Spring terms - repeaters Improve focus group participation • Online feedback form Longitudinal tracking Create “Toolbox” for worksheets and resources

21. Step-Up Outcomes – Fall 2011Participants v. Non-Participants

22. Moving ForwardSpring 2012 Increase services for program • Academic Power Hours Eliminate survey and coding process • Require all students to meet and discuss presenting issues Eliminate Control Group • Require some level of participation Eliminate focus group – Online form only

23. Thank You Any Question? My contact information: Email: pelosij@mail.montclair.edu