The Impact of a Special Advising Program on Students’ Progress Matthew Basinger, Research Analyst Nancy Hardy, Academic Planning Database Coordinator Office of Institutional Research-California State University, Sacramento

California State University, Sacramento Founded 1947 Designated a Tree Campus USA 300 acres with 3,500 trees Seven academic colleges 58 undergraduate majors More than 30,700 students enrolled US News ranked for Diversity One of three CSU campuses

Introduction The Office of Institutional Research, in conjunction with the Academic Advising Center, collaborated to examine how the Undeclared Express Interest Second Year Program influenced student progress 2nd year/sophomore students the target population Mission is to encourage students to declare a major they intend to complete within 45 units Career exploration Major exploration Participants received one-on-one advising or group advising, and participated in activities including GPA calculation, True Colors, Catalog Review, and General Education Evaluation

Why do we care? Improving student outcomes is important to all CSU and UC campuses and this assessment report adds to the field of IR as outcomes are increasingly examined and discussed. The results of this study could be used to enhance the special advising program utilized by the Academic Advising Center. Our office wants to assist various entities on campus with data and research

GPA Calculator Most of the students the Academic Advising Center work with are working towards an impacted major (Expressed Interest Biology, Business Administration, Criminal Justice, Health Science, Psychology and Nursing). If their GPA is below the minimum GPA cutoff, then they calculate their GPA to project the grades that will need to be earned to be as competitive as anybody else applying to the program.

True Colors True Colors is used primarily with students who are Undeclared and in need of major and career exploration. True Colors is a personal/career assessment that allows students to gain a deeper understanding of themselves. By taking the assessment they will discover their True Colors Spectrum (the spectrum is made up of four colors: green, gold, orange and blue). Once the spectrum has been discovered, a list of majors/careers become available for students to review and consider.

Catalog Review The Sacramento State catalog is an important resource when meeting with students for information on General Education (GE)/Graduation Requirements (GR) and major requirements. The catalog provides students with a list of GE/GR and major courses. The Advising Center shows students how to navigate the catalog to find answers to their academic questions.

General Education Evaluation The Advising Center, as part of the advising session, goes over General Education (GE)/ Graduation Requirements (GR) and advises students on unmet requirements. They assist them with course planning to ensure unmet requirements are met on a timely manner.

Participants’ Profile 1,713 participants were first-time freshman 18 were transfers 7 were unknown Study focused on first-time freshman Majority (n=1,668) belonged to 2012-2015 native freshman cohorts Table 1 Participants   Participants Non-Participants Cohort Count % First-Time Freshmen Cohorts 2012 120 3.8% 3,031 96.2% 3,151 2013 436 13.0% 2,930 87.0% 3,366 2014 565 15.3% 3,130 84.7% 3,695 2015 547 14.5% 3,234 85.5% 3,781 Total 1,668 11.9% 12,325 88.1% 13,993 Advising Term Spring 2015 320 18.7% Fall 2015 287 16.8% Spring 2016 353 20.6% Fall 2016 670 39.1% Spring 2017 83 4.8% 1,713 100.0% Note: Participants include 18 transfers and 7 transitory/unknown students. They were excluded from the comparison analysis.

Table 3 Selected Matched Groups by Cohort Methodology Used a case control matching program in SPSS Fuzzy Matching Selected 1,668 advising participants and 1,704 non-participants Tracked students for 2 semesters, first being the advising semester and the subsequent semester following Study used 6 measurements Overall GPA Overall units Term unit completion Academic Standing Major status Persistence rate Table 3 Selected Matched Groups by Cohort Cohort Participants Non-Participants Total 2012 120 127 247 2013 436 432 868 2014 565 578 1143 2015 547 567 1114 1668 1704 3372

Fuzzy Matching Matches records according to a set of variables Generated matching set from comparison group (new file) Deleted non-match from original data file Merged two files together by using intervention group as host file SPSS Syntax FUZZY BY=Commuter FirstGen Gender Pell NeedRemediation HSGPA ACTScore URM SUPPLIERID=EMPL_ID NEWDEMANDERIDVARS=Match_ID GROUP=Advising_ind FUZZ=0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 80 0.9 DS3=supplier_Match /OPTIONS SAMPLEWITHREPLACEMENT=FALSE MINIMIZEMEMORY=TRUE SHUFFLE=FALSE.

Comparison of Profiles Table 4 Comparison of Profiles for Matching Groups   Participants Non-Participants Gap Statistical Significance Count % Ethnicity URM 701 42.0% 682 40.0% 2.0% No Non-URM 967 58.0% 1,022 60.0% Gender Female 1,123 67.3% 1,175 69.0% -1.6% Male 545 32.7% 529 31.0% First Generation of College Student Yes 617 37.0% 620 36.4% 0.6% 947 56.8% 1,058 62.1% Unknown 104 6.2% 26 1.5% Low Income (Pell Grant Recipients) 936 56.1% 987 57.9% -1.8% 732 43.9% 717 42.1% Commuting Status Commuter 1,236 74.1% 1,362 79.9% -5.8% Living on Campus 432 25.9% 342 20.1% College Readiness Need Remediation 1,035 1,114 65.4% -3.3% None 633 37.9% 590 34.6% Test Scores Mean HS GPA 1,668 3.24 1,704 3.25 -0.01 SAT Verbal 1,604 442 448 -6 SAT Math 453 459 -5

Comparison of Academic Performance Spring 2015 For the group in Spring 2015, Overall Unit Completion was significantly higher (53 vs. 38 for the advising term and 66 vs. 53 for subsequent term) Academic Standing during the advising term was significantly higher for participants compared to non-participants (92.5% vs. 86.8%, respectively) Participants had a higher persistence rate from Spring 2015 to Fall 2015 (89.2% vs. 71.4%) and from Fall 2015 to Spring 2016 (86.5% vs. 68.8%) 95% of participants were undecided in Spring 2015, but only 54% remained undecided in Fall 2015, with 138 participants declaring a major

Comparison of Academic Performance Fall 2015 Overall GPA was higher for non-participants at both terms (2.72 for participants vs. 2.81 for non- participants during the advising term and 2.73 vs. 2.83 the following term) Overall unit completion was higher for participants than non-participants (53 vs. 38 units for the advising term and 64 vs. 50 units the following term) Term unit completion was lower for participants (participants had 11 vs. 13 units for non-participants in the advising term, followed by 11 vs. 12 units) Academic standing was higher for participants (93.2% vs. 88.8%) Reduction in undecided majors (33.5% to 20.8%) Higher persistence rate from Fall 2015 to Spring 2016 (92.6% vs. 77.3%) and Spring 2016 to Fall 2016 (78.2% vs. 69.1%)

Comparison of Academic Performance Spring 2016 Participants had a higher Good Standing Rate (95% vs. 89%) Non-participants accumulated more Overall Units in the following term and more units completed during both terms (50 vs. 49 units and 66 vs. 62 units, respectively) 45% of special advising participants were undecided in the advising semester, but only 16% remained as undecided in the following semester Had a higher persistence rate (90.6% vs. 69.1%)

Comparison of Academic Performance Fall 2016 Data availability at time of assessment was not prevalent, therefore there are fewer findings and comparative analysis is incomplete Non-participants had significantly higher Overall Unit Completion (66 vs. 44 units) Additionally, non-participants had higher Term Unit Completion (14 vs. 13 units) Participants had more individuals with a declared major during the advising term (6.8% vs. 0.8%)

Discussion and Recommendations Majority of participants were undecided (as high as 95%) when they received special advising After the session, 13% to 41% declared a major at the following semesters, which is much higher than non-participants at less than 3% Participation rate increased from 16% to 68% from 2012-2015 The term-to-term persistence rate was about 18% higher for participants (9% to 15% higher for Fall 2015 and 22% higher for Spring 2016)

Participant Declaration of Major

Conclusion The special advising is a very effective intervention, in terms of helping students choose majors after 1 year and increasing their persistence rate at the university According to the findings of this study, the special advising should expand its service to reach all undecided students during their second year despite the participation rate has increased significantly.

Questions? Matthew Basinger, Research Analyst matthew.basinger@csus.edu Nancy Hardy, Academic Planning Database Coordinator nhardy@csus.edu