Academic Success Center

2014-15 Annual Report

Stephanie Walker, M.Ed.

Interim Academic Program Director

Data provided by

Thomas Benjamin, M.Ed.

Graduate Assistant, Institutional Research

March 9, 2016

This report provides a summary of the impact on freshmen academic performance, retention

and persistence based on utilization of Supplemental Instruction and University Tutoring over

the 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 academic years. Both yearly data and longitudinal trends

support the conclusion that frequent attendees fare substantially better than their non-

attending peers. Continued institutional support for these programs constitutes an effective

strategy for ensuring consistently positive student outcomes.

1 | P a g e

Table of Contents

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………….....2

Results Summary………………………………….…………………………………………….…………….3

Infographic…………………………………………………………………..…………………………………..4

Utilization and GPA Information…………….……..…………………………………….………..5-6

Retention and Persistence Information…………………..…..…………………………………7-8

Academic Coaching Implementation………………………………………………..……………….9

Study Skills Tutoring Program…..……..…………………………..………………………………...10

Enhancements and Future Developments……………………………………………………….11

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………………12

2 | P a g e

Introduction

University-funded programming within the Academic Success Center (ASC) primarily includes

Supplemental Instruction (SI) and University Tutoring (UT), comprising both scheduled and drop-in

tutoring. This report provides an analysis on the effects of freshmen participation in SI and/or UT during

the 2014-15 academic year. The assessment approach divided the freshmen class into five distinct

cohorts based on students’ incoming high school GPA. Utilization was subsequently broken down into

the following four categories based on the number of participation hours in SI and/or UT throughout the

academic year:

A trend analysis measuring the freshmen utilization and effects of participation on cumulative college

GPA at the end of the first academic year has been conducted. Freshmen retention to the 2nd year has

been provided for the 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 academic years for SI and/or UT participants.

Freshmen persistence to the 3rd year has been provided for the 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 academic

years for SI and/or UT participants. Definitions for retention and persistence as used in this report have

been provided below.

Additionally, the following abbreviations have been utilized throughout this report in reference to high

school and college GPAs.

Non-Attendance – Zero hours Infrequent Attendance – Less than eight hours Moderate Attendance – Eight to fifteen hours Frequent Attendance – More than fifteen hours

HS-GPA – Final high school GPA C-GPA – College GPA established at Kent State University

Retention – Students are retained if they enroll in their 2nd fall semester Persistence – Students persist if they enroll in their 3rd fall semester

3 | P a g e

Results Summary

Utilization

Over the past three academic years, the incidence of freshmen utilization of SI and/or UT has remained

steady with a 1% annual increase (2012-13; 36%, 2013-14; 37%, and 2014-15; 38%). Further, the higher

a students’ high school grade point average is upon enrolling at Kent State, the more likely he or she is

to seek out these academic services. In 2014-15, 4% increases in freshman utilization were noted for

the three lowest HS-GPA tiers (3.39 HS-GPA and below). This directly aligns with last year’s goal of

increasing utilization in the lower HS-GPA tiers, as students in these tiers who utilize SI and/or UT

demonstrate the greatest gains in C-GPA.

Grade Point Average

When compared to their non-attending peers, students who utilize SI and/or UT frequently have

demonstrated C-GPA gains for the past three academic years (2012-13; +0.47, 2013-14; +0.51, and

2014-15; +0.38). While the increase in C-GPA is lowering over the three-year trend, it is important to

note that the incoming freshman C-GPA average has increased over this time span for non-attendees

(2012-13; 2.85, 2013-14; 2.86, and 2014-15; 2.92). Maintaining the three-year trend that demonstrates

greater gains for students in lower HS-GPA tiers, the 2014-15 academic year boasted a +0.53 C-GPA

increase for frequent attendees in the lowest HS-GPA tier (0-2.79) when compared to their non-

attending peers.

Retention to 2nd Year

Perhaps more staggering has been the difference in retention to the 2nd year among students who utilize

SI and/or UT frequently when compared to their non-attending peers (2012-13; +15%, 2013-14; +12%,

and 2014-15; +12%). Similar to the C-GPA trend, greater gains in retention are demonstrated from

students in the lowest HS-GPA tiers. The 2014-15 academic year demonstrated a 27% retention

increase for students in the lowest HS-GPA tier (0-2.79) when compared to their non-attending peers.

Persistence to 3rd Year

Similar to the noted impact on retention, persistence rates to the 3rd year were markedly higher relative

to student utilization of SI and/or UT (2011-12; +19%, 2012-13; +15%, and 2013-14; +18%). Again, the

greatest gains in persistence were noted for students in the lowest HS-GPA tiers. The 2013-14 academic

year demonstrated a +28% and +21% persistence rate increase for students in the lowest HS-GPA tiers

(0-2.79 and 2.8-3.09, respectively) when compared to their non-attending peers.

4 | P a g e

5 | P a g e

Freshmen Utilization and Cumulative GPA by HS-GPA Tier (2014-2015)

Utilization During the 2014-15 academic year, 38% of the freshmen population attended SI or UT at least once. Utilization increased relative to each HS-GPA tier group, ranging from 29% (0-2.79 HS-GPA) to 44% (3.7-4.0 HS-GPA). Students who used these services were more likely to either attend infrequently (N = 941) or frequently (N = 393), with moderate utilization (N = 293) being least likely.

GPA

The impact on academic performance was proportional to the frequency of attendance in almost all cases. Non-attendees averaged a 2.92 C-GPA (B-) at the conclusion of their first academic year, while frequent attendees averaged a 3.31 C-GPA (B+), a difference of +0.38 points. A substantial increase in performance (+0.53) was noted among students in the lowest HS-GPA tier (0-2.79 HS-GPA) who attended frequently relative to non-attendees (2.17 to 2.70 C-GPA). A comparable increase was noted among students in the next HS-GPA tier up (2.8-3.09 HS-GPA) whose performance was also greatly impacted, a relative difference of +0.42, by frequent utilization (2.51 to 2.93 C-GPA).

Table 1

HS GPA

Tier % of FR

Did Not

Attend <8 hours 8-15 hours 15+ hours

% Change

from AY

13-14

Did Not

Attend <8 hours 8-15 hours 15+ hours

Frequent

vs. Non-

Attendance

0-2.79 29% 323 76 30 24 +4% 2.17 2.50 2.54 2.70 +0.53

2.8-3.09 32% 520 180 30 38 +4% 2.51 2.53 2.79 2.93 +0.42

3.1-3.39 40% 607 233 76 91 +4% 2.78 2.90 2.93 3.12 +0.33

3.4-.69 41% 614 232 81 117 -3% 3.19 3.20 3.28 3.37 +0.18

3.7-4.0 44% 543 220 76 123 -1% 3.57 3.61 3.65 3.63 +0.07

Total 38% 2607 941 293 393 +1% 2.92 3.04 3.16 3.31 +0.38

FR Utilization of UT/SI During 14-15 Academic Year Cumulative GPA End of Freshman Year

Freshmen Utilization of Tutoring and Supplemental Instruction with Average GPA

6 | P a g e

Freshmen Utilization and GPA Academic Year Trends

Utilization

The three-year utilization trend indicates that the freshmen population primarily utilizes SI and/or UT on

an infrequent basis. The next most prevalent use of services is frequent, followed by moderate. This

trend is heavily consistent from year-to-year, indicating that freshmen typically utilize services on an as-

needed or short-term basis.

Chart 1

GPA

The three-year cumulative C-GPA trend indicates that the more frequently freshmen utilize SI and/or

UT, the greater the gains have been in terms of cumulative C-GPA. This trend is consistent from year-to-

year and strengthens the inference that frequent participation relates directly to improved academic

performance.

Chart 2

7 | P a g e

Freshmen Retention and Persistence by Utilization and HS-GPA Tier (2014-2015)

Retention The Fall 2014 to Fall 2015 retention rate at the Kent Campus was 81%. Freshmen who never utilized SI or UT were retained at a lower 79% rate. However, these rates increased substantially in relation to HS-GPA tier group and utilization with an average of 91%, a difference of +10%, across all HS-GPA tiers among freshmen who were frequent attendees. Students from the lowest HS-GPA tiers (0-2.79 and 2.8-3.09) who did not utilize services were reported at 61% and 73%, respectively. These rates increased by 27% (61% to 88%) for the lowest tier group (HS-GPA 0-2.79) and by 11% (73% to 84%) for the second lowest group (HS-GPA 2.8-3.09). Persistence The Fall 2013 to Fall 2015 persistence rate at the Kent Campus was 73%. Freshmen who never utilized SI and/or UT persisted at a lower rate of 69%. However, consistent with the impact shown thus far in terms of retention and GPA, persistence rates escalated to 87% among frequent attendees constituting an overall difference of +18% between non-attendees and frequent attendees. Students from the lowest HS-GPA tiers (0-2.79 and 2.8-3.09) who did not utilize services were reported at 50% and 58%, respectively. These rates increased by 28% (50% to 78%) for the lowest tier group (HS-GPA 0-2.79) and by 21% (58% to 79%) for the second lowest group (HS-GPA 2.8-3.09). Table 2

HS GPA

Tier

Did Not

Attend <8 hours 8-15 hours 15+ hours

Frequent vs.

Non-Attendance

Did Not

Attend <8 hours 8-15 hours 15+ hours

Frequent vs.

Non-Attendance

0-2.79 61% 76% 80% 88% +27% 50% 49% 69% 78% +28%

2.8-3.09 73% 72% 73% 84% +11% 58% 69% 81% 79% +21%

3.1-3.39 78% 81% 86% 92% +14% 70% 81% 74% 81% +11%

3.4-.69 85% 88% 85% 91% +6% 78% 78% 85% 95% +17%

3.7-4.0 90% 89% 93% 93% +3% 85% 81% 77% 88% +3%

Total 79% 82% 86% 91% +12% 69% 75% 79% 87% +18%

2013-14 First Year Persistence Rate to Third Year 2014-15 First Year Retention Rate to Second Year

Freshman Retention and Persistence Rates Based on University Tutoring and Supplemental Instruction Participation Rates

8 | P a g e

Freshmen Retention and Persistence Rate Academic Year Trends

Retention

The three-year retention rate trend indicates that the more frequently freshmen utilize SI and/or UT,

the more likely they are to be retained. This trend is consistent from year-to-year, indicating that

freshmen who do not utilize services are retained at a lower rate than the KSU average, whereas

freshmen who utilize services are retained at higher rates than the KSU average.

Chart 3

Persistence

The three-year persistence rate trend indicates that the more frequently freshmen utilize SI and/or UT,

the more likely they are to persist to their third year. This trend is consistent from year-to-year,

indicating that freshmen who do not utilize services persist at a lower rate than the KSU average,

whereas freshmen who utilize services persist at a higher rate than the KSU average.

Chart 4

9 | P a g e

Academic Coaching

Program Overview

The 2014-15 academic year inaugurated the Academic Coaching program. This program was designed

to reach students from a more personalized approach through the offering of six one-on-one sessions

with an Academic Coach throughout the duration of one semester. These sessions focused on

identifying personal academic strengths, as well as establishing goals, identifying challenges and creating

strategies of success toward goal attainment. A total of 44 students were served by Academic Coaching.

These students attended 270 meetings that totaled 187 hours.

Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI)

The LASSI was utilized as a pre- and post- assessment to measure students’ progress from the onset of

the program to its completion. Overall, LASSI scores improved by 26% across all ten LASSI scales by the

end of the program. The highest improvements were noted for anxiety (42%) and time management

(41%), two areas in which students frequently identify as challenges.

Table 3

Spring 2015 Impact on GPA and Retention

The majority of the Spring 2015 participants (N = 30) were students on Academic Probation (N = 21).

Two additional assessment measures were utilized for participants from that term: Fall 2014 to Spring

2015 C-GPA increase and University Dismissal rates, as all students on Academic Probation in Spring

2015 were under review for University Dismissal at the end of the term. The average semester C-GPA

increase from Fall 2014 to Spring 2015 for program participants was +0.74 (Fall 2014 C-GPA average;

1.67, Spring 2015 C-GPA average; 2.41). Additionally, the University Dismissal rate decreased for

program participants (21%) when compared to the Kent campus average (32%) for students on

Academic Probation. Both of these measures indicate that the Academic Coaching program was

successful in its goal of improving student success for students with the greatest academic need.

LASSI ScalePre- to Post-

Assessment

Anxiety +42%

Attention +9%

Concentration +24%

Information Processing +19%

Motivation +19%

Self-Testing +29%

Selecting Main Ideas +24%

Study Aids +31%

Time Management +41%

Test Strategies +24%

Overall Average % Change +26%

LASSI Pre- to Post- Assessment Scores for

Academic Coaching Participants (N = 27)

10 | P a g e

Study Skills Tutoring

Tutoring

The 2014-15 academic year reinvigorated the Study Skills Tutoring (SST) program. SST was designed to

reach students that were not enrolled in courses supported through the SI and UT programs. Rather,

SST focused on assisting students with non-subject specific academic needs. These needs included the

following topics: transition to college, semester planning, time management, note taking, test

preparation, test taking, active learning strategies, study aids and the study cycle. Program participants

met one-on-one with a tutor for weekly sessions throughout the duration of the semester. A total of 24

students participated over the course of 119 tutoring sessions that totaled 154 hours.

Presentations

An additional facet of the SST program was to provide group presentations. These presentations were

primarily offered in collaboration with Student Success Programs through the Student Success Series

and the US 10097: First Year Experience course. Presentation topics included: Ready, Set, Go! Preparing

for a Successful Semester, The Study Cycle, Time Management: Taking Control of Your Semester, and

Winding Down, But Not Wearing Out: Successfully Avoiding Procrastination at the End of the Semester

Crunch Time. A total of 26 presentations were provided to 240 students over 33 hours.

Table 4

Students Tutored 24 Students Attended 240

Total Sessions 119 Total Presentations 26

Total Hours 154 Total Hours 33

Study Skills Tutoring Utilization

Individual Tutoring Sessions Group Presentations

11 | P a g e

Academic Year Enhancements (2014-2015)

A primary enhancement for the ASC over the past year was the attainment of the goal to increase

freshmen utilization from students in the lowest HS-GPA tiers. This goal was identified after reviewing

historical data that indicated students in the lowest HS-GPA tiers were least likely to utilize SI and/or UT,

however when services were utilized these students experienced substantially greater C-GPA gains. The

2014-15 academic year demonstrated a 4% increase in utilization from students in the three lowest HS-

GPA tiers (3.39 and below) averaging a +0.43 C-GPA increase among this group of frequent attendees

when compared to their non-attending peers.

The 2014-15 academic year also initiated the Academic Coaching program. This program provided an

individualized offering for students that was previously unavailable. Initially, this program was intended

to serve the needs of formerly remedial students whose support course work was no longer offered at

the Kent campus. However, the program grew to include many non-traditional and academically

struggling students that demonstrated success in their development of academic strengths as identified

by the LASSI pre- and post- assessment.

Another notable enhancement to the ASC during the 2014-15 academic year was the location change

from the Schwartz Center to the Center for Undergraduate Excellence (CUE). This newly renovated

building provides state of the art technology at a centralized campus location, making both content

delivery techniques more advanced and location more convenient for students.

Future Developments

A primary area of growth for the ASC during the 2015-16 academic year is an intentional collaboration

with the Destination Kent State program; the overnight orientation, advising, and registration program

for incoming freshman. The advising and registration program takes place at the new ASC location in

the CUE, which allows for great opportunities to personally connect with incoming freshman prior to

their beginning of classes. This collaboration will enhance the marketing efforts of the ASC to the aim of

reaching student populations who demonstrate the greatest need of academic support.

The Study Skills Tutoring (SST) program has also grown considerably over the past year. Further growth,

including the creation of a new Academic Program Officer position, is essential in effectively overseeing

SST and continuing to broaden both its reach and alignment with University Tutoring. This will further

allow the ASC to reach students on an individual basis, but at a larger scale.

Finally, the ASC seeks to form a stronger connection to the National College Learning Center Association

(NCLCA) over the next academic year. Avenues to reach this aim are to seek recognition through the

Frank L. Christ Outstanding Learning Center Award, incorporate staff development through individual

Leadership Certification and move towards becoming a Learning Center of Excellence.

12 | P a g e

Conclusion

University support for the various programs and services within the Academic Success Center have

yielded some momentous results for undergraduate students at the Kent Campus. Students that utilize

services report higher C-GPAs, retention rates, and persistence rates than their peers who elect not to

participate. This result is clearly established and consistent over the three-years analyzed in this report.

More specific 2014-15 academic year reports of the Supplemental Instruction, University Tutoring,

Academic Coaching and Study Skills Tutoring programs are available as separate documents. These

reports further demonstrate the effectiveness of each individual program at decreasing DFW rates,

increasing student utilization, and optimizing efficiency with respect to University funding.

Continued support constitutes an investment in Kent State University students’ success and justifiably

remains an essential component of a holistic strategy to enhance undergraduate academic performance

campus-wide. The additional impact on retention and persistence further substantiates the rationale

for continued support as a progressive means of securing similar positive outcomes well into the future.