1. Course Placement Strategies and Motivational Skill Tools to Promote Effective Enrollment Management
Steve Robbins
Assistant Vice President, Applied Research, ACT, Inc.
Stephanie Lewis
Consultant, ACT, Inc.

2. Agenda Why College Students Stay: Academic Preparedness and Motivation
Effective Course Placement, Risk Assessment, and Intervention
A Model for Effective Placement and Intervention with Developmental Students
A Model for Institution-wide Assessment and Intervention

3. Harris, S. (1991) Can’t you guys read. Cartoons on Academia
Harris, S. (1991) Can’t you guys read? Cartoons on Academia. Rutgers University Press. New Brunswick, NJ, p.74

4. National Longitudinal Study of Why College Students Stay
Traditional Predictors
Psychosocial Factors
Institutional and Status Factors
15,000 students across 23 – 2-year and year postsecondary institutions in year 7.

5. Why College Students Stay: 2-year Colleges
Pre-collegiate academic preparation is the strongest predictor of all outcomes;
Motivation (Academic Discipline) distinguishes retained and graduating students from transfer and drop out
Social connection has effects only for those students who transferred to 4-year institutions;
Socioeconomic status distinguishes all groups from drop-out: higher SES kids are likely to transfer and low SES kids drop out

6. Why College Students Stay: 4-year Colleges
First-year GPA has large effects on likelihood of retention and transfer;
Motivation (Academic Discipline) and pre-collegiate academic preparation have indirect effects on retention and transfer by working through 1st-year GPA
Social connection has a direct effect on retention.
SES predictive of transfer behavior:
Higher SES students transfer while poor students give up
African-American Students have high commitment but difficulty with classes resulting in higher drop-out rates.
Robbins et al. (2006)
Allen et al. (2008)

7. Common Findings across 2- & 4-year Studies
Academic preparation, Socio-Economic Status (SES), and Academic Discipline are all critical
Passing Developmental Courses essential for 2-year students
1st year GPA essential for 4-year students
Students socially connected are more likely to transfer upon 2 year graduation or stay (4 year)

8. Centrality of Effective Course Placement and Intervention
Students who don’t “survive” mathematics, don’t survive college
Best Practices in the classroom require both targeted instruction and monitoring student compliance and motivational behaviors

9. Underprepared Students
Standard Course
. . . a course that academically
well- prepared students are
expected to take.
Underprepared Students
. . . do not have the academic skills to succeed in the standard course.

10. Developmental Course Placement
98% of two-year colleges have some kind of developmental / remedial course placement system(1).
About 42% of first-year students in public two-year colleges take developmental courses(2).
Sources:
(1) McCabe (2000)
(2) NCES (2004)

11. Placement Testing in Mathematics

12. Turning to Psychosocial Student Risk Factors
Must consider both:
Academic Performance
Persistence and Retention Behavior
3 broad areas identified on meta-analytic and longitudinal research (see Robbins, et al. 2004, 2006)
Motivation
Social Engagement
Self-regulation

14. Overview of the SRI
The Student Readiness Inventory (SRI) was designed to measure the content domains that surfaced in the Robbins meta-analysis
It is a low stakes, self-report instrument
Has 108 items that are face-valid
Ten content domains exist as scales
Each scale measures a construct that allows for intervention
The instrument contains two risk indices that predict probability of success (performance and persistence)

15. Overview of the SRI

16. Success in Developmental Courses Dependent on Academic and Psychosocial Risk
Success Rates in English Composition, by Academic and Psychosocial (SRI) Risk Levels
SRI Risk Level
High
Medium
Low
AcademicRisk
Level
23%
40%
44%
32%
47%
58%
53%
68%
78%
Success Rates in Elementary Algebra, by Academic and Psychosocial (SRI) Risk Levels
SRI Risk Level
High
Medium
Low
AcademicRisk
Level
15%
28%
27%
32%
41%
52%
50%
67%
69%

17. We Observe the Effects of In-class Student Behavior on Success
Success Rates in Elementary (precredit) Math, by COMPASS Pretest and Behavior Rating Levels
Behavior Rating Level
High
Medium
Low
COMPASS Pretest Scores
92%
77%
59%
91%
62%
17%
69%
44% 6%

18. We Observe the Effects of In-class Student Behavior on Success (cont.)
Mean COMPASS Posttest Scores for Elementary (precredit) Math, by COMPASS Pretest and Behavior Rating Levels
Behavior Rating Level
High
Medium
Low
COMPASS Pretest Scores
57.4
48.8
45.9
43.5
38.3
34.1
39.8
33.9
32.6
Mean COMPASS Gain Scores for Elementary (precredit) Math, by COMPASS Pretest and Behavior Rating Levels
Behavior Rating Level
High
Medium
Low
COMPASS Pretest Scores
19.5
8.9
8.7
15.7
11.4
6.2
19.7
14.0
12.0

19. Conclusions The three pillars of success:
Appropriately place and diagnosis
Address motivational skill and engagement behaviors within and outside classroom
Connect instruction to the diagnostic and curriculum targets essential to academic achievement domain (e.g., Math, English)
Instructional
Effectiveness
Academic
Readiness
Motivation

20. Two Case Examples: Developmental classes in community college
Traditional 4-year effort of targeting at-risk students and coordinating interventions across all segments of the university

21. COMPASS/SRI Assessment and Intervention Strategy
New student
Assessment (COMPASS & SRI)
Early Warning Risk for Academic Failure and/or Drop-out
Effective Course Placement
Specific Course Activities
Course and General Intervention Strategies
See: College Developmental
Course Best
Practices
See: Wright
Community College Early Intervention System

22. Before course registration
College
Developmental Course
Best Practices
New Student
Administer COMPASS & SRI1
Supportive review & re-test policy2
Before course registration
Non-developmental courses
Developmental
Developmental Student
Administer diagnostics1
Assess non-cognitive factors for risk2
Beginning of course
Developmental Instruction
Instruction tied to diagnostics2
SRI practice & use2
During a course
4. Monitoring Status
Effort of students in class3
Students’ non-class service use3
Academic support
Non-academic
Superscript Legend
1 Student Data / Characteristics
2 College Responses / Services / Instructional Resources
3 Student Effort / Involvement / Investment
4 College Records
During a course
5. Post-Test
Diagnostics1
Placement1
Grades4
Course completion4
6. Next Course
Grades4
Course completion4
End of course

23. Wright Community College Early Intervention System
Tutoring Center
Academic Advising
Study Skills Workshop
Physical Science Tutoring
Student Readiness Inventory (SRI)
Faculty Referral
Social Support Network (referrals)
Disability Access Center
Institutional Criteria (e.g. Academic Warning)
Learning Styles Workshop
Writing Center
Career Advisement Workshop / One-on-one Career Consultation

24. Readiness Tool to Increase Persistence
NAU Case Study
Implementing a
Readiness Tool to Increase Persistence
& Improve
Student Success

25. Public Southwestern University 4-year Institution
Over 13,000 Undergraduate Students and 1,100 Faculty
31% Dropout Rate after Freshman Year
Implemented Card Swiping System to Monitor Resource Use
Robbins et al. 2008

26. Our Need We could identify some of our “at-risk” student groups:
First generation college students
Ethnic minorities
Low incomes students
Lower SAT/ACT scoring students
BUT we needed to know
more about which students within those groups were most needy
which services might help which students.

27. Strategic Intervention Model: What We Wanted
Requirements of a strategic model
Implemented early in the first semester
Include groups known to be at risk
Collaborative and not duplicative
academic advising and first year programs
Native American Student Services outreach program
Summer bridge program and first year mentoring
any key groups interfacing with new freshmen
Systematic
Whole student
Grounded in research
We wanted to be strategic, even had a faculty and staff council dedicated to reviewing the needs of freshmen.
The slide notes what council members identified as criteria of a strategic model for intervening with freshmen.

28. Our Program Model Distributing Profiles Student Affairs
Advising Center
First Year Experience 101
EPS 101: Skills-based course for conditionally admitted students
Instructors for FYE, FS, and EPS were given student profiles to distribute in class. They distributed them in class and gave an overview of what the results meant. They were distributed during the 5th week of classes AFTER staff from the advising center and Student Affairs had the chance to have at-risk students come in to review their results. Many had already come in to meet and some had missed their one on one appts and still needed to meet.
So, profiles were labeled prior to distribution in class with information about who would help the student review his/her results.
Name of staff who would be meeting one on one with the student
Their office/program name and contact phone number
If a student was not on an at-risk list, the label indicated they would be meeting with their instructor at a time/date to be determined.
These students were also given a general invitation to meet from their academic advisor.

29. Program Model: Student Affairs
Prioritize Student Groups for Outreach
Ethnic minority students
First generation college students
Low income students
Low scores on academic success and/or retention index
Have one-on-one meeting with students to review profiles, matching student needs with campus and ACT/SRI resources
NAU Website
ACT Tool Shop
Evaluate
Track outreach efforts/communications
Meeting attendance, receptivity, and seriousness with which students took the inventory at orientation
Referrals to and use of campus resources
At the end I will summarize what we did in academic coursework and at the advising center.
This slide is just about Student Affairs

30. One-on-One Meeting in Student Affairs
Systematic Outreach
Look up schedules and set times
Postcard home with appointment time
Postcard to campus with appointment time
Personal with appointment time
Appointment time on their web calendar
Reminder phone call 1-2 days before appt
If miss scheduled meeting, protocol for rescheduling at least twice more
Academic affairs (adv, FYE, etc) area did not follow the exact same process.

31. Meeting Purpose Above all else, connect with student
Acknowledge student’s strengths and identify campus activities to reinforce them
Match student’s needs to campus resources
Website: home.nau.edu/emsa/sri.asp
Tool Shop: act.org/sri/studentguide/toolshop.html
Gather some data on SRI experience
How did you hear about your appointment
How seriously did you take the SRI when you completed it at orientation?

32. Evaluation: Academic Performance
All students who met to receive SRI results fared better than those who did not meet with Student Affairs staff.

33. Evaluation: Academic Performance
Students who did NOT meet in regard to SRIs were more likely to end up on academic probation.

34. Evaluation: Retention
Students who met were more likely to be retained.

35. Resource & Services Utilization:
Resource/ Service Category
Level of Utilization
High
Moderate
Low
Ret.
GPA
Academic Services
.75
2.75
.79
2.92
.70
2.63
Recreational
Resources
.77
2.87
2.76
.71
2.67
Social
.72
2.83
.85
2.91
.69
Academic
Referrals --
.88
2.95
.60
2.53
Advisory / Career
Sessions
.84
.57
2.68
Robbins et al. (2008)

36. Gains show interaction on GPA
Association of Risk Level & Academic Service Use on Retention & 1st-year GPA
Service Use
Risk Level
High
Moderate
Low
Ret.
GPA
0 use
.61
2.11
.72
2.58
.77
3.14
1 – 3 Sessions
2.41
2.81
.84
3.38
4+ Sessions
.62
2.35
.81
.85
3.22
Gains show interaction on GPA
.24
.08

37. Summary Points Designate a Visible Individual to coordinate
Collaborate and use Natural Fits with Existing Resources
Conduct Systematic Analysis
Use your Data/Feedback and Improve the Process
Maximize Utility of the Instrument
Go Beyond the Limits of the Instrument

38. Herzog & Miller (1985)

39. Questions?

40. References
ACT, Inc. (2008). What We Know about College Success: Using ACT Data to Inform Educational Issues. Iowa City, IA: Authors.
ACT, Inc. (2004). Schools Involving Parents in Early Postsecondary Planning. Iowa City, IA: Authors.
ACT, Inc. (2002). Creating Seamless Educational Transitions for Urban African American and Hispanic Students. Iowa City, IA: Authors.
Allen, J., Robbins, S., Casillas,A., & Oh, I.-S. (2008). Third-year college retention and transfer: Effects of academic performance, motivation, and social connectedness. Research in Higher Education, 49(7),
Bucheri, C., Hampton, T., & Voelker, V. (eds.) (1991). The Student Body: Great Cartoons from the Kappan. Phi Beta Kappa. Bloomington, IN.
Habley, W. & McClanahan, R. (2004). What Works in Student Retention – All Survey Colleges. ACT, Inc. Iowa City, IA.
Harris, S. (1991) Can’t you guys read? Cartoons on Academia. Rutgers University Press. New Brunswick, NJ
Herzog, K. & Miller, M. P. (eds.) (1985). Scholarship: More Great Cartoons from the Kappan. Phi Beta Kappa. Bloomington, IN.
Le, H., Casillas, A., Robbins, S., & Langley, R. (2005). Motivational and skills, social, and self-management predictors of college outcomes: Constructing the Student Readiness Inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65,

41. References (cont.)
Lotkowski, V., Robbins, S., & Noeth, R. (2004). The role of academic and non-academic factors in improving college retention. ACT Policy Report. Iowa City, IA: ACT, Inc.
McCabe, R.H. (2000). No one to waste. Washington, DC: Community College Press.
NCES (2004). Remedial Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions in Fall (NCES ).
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How College Affects Students: A Third Decade of Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Peterson, C. H., Casillas, A., & Robbins, S. B. (2006). The Student Readiness Inventory and the Big Five: Examining social desirability and college academic performance. Personality and Individual Difference, 41,
Porchea, S., Allen, J., Robbins, S., & Phelps, R. (2009). Predictors of Long-Term Enrollment and Degree Outcomes for Community College Students: Integrating Academic, Psychosocial, Socio-demographic, and Situational Factors. Manuscript submitted for review.
Robbins, S. B., Allen, J. Casillas, A., Akamigbo, A., Saltonstall, M., Campbell, R., Mahoney, E. & Gore, P.A. (2009). Associations of Resource and Service Utilization, Risk Level, and College Outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 50(1),

42. References (cont.)
Robbins, S., Allen, J., Casillas, A., Peterson, C., & Le, H. (2006). Unraveling the differential effects of motivational and skills, social, and self-management measures from traditional predictors of college outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98,
Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., David, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130,
Swail, W. S. (2004, January 23). Legislation to improve graduation rates could have the opposite effect. The Chronicle of Higher Education, B16.

43. Steve Robbins, Assistant Vice President
Course Placement Strategies and Motivational Skill Tools to Promote Effective Enrollment Management
Correspondence regarding this presentation should be addressed to:
Steve Robbins, Assistant Vice President
Applied Research, ACT, Inc.
phone:
Stephanie Lewis, Consultant
ACT, Inc.
phone: