The University of Cincinnati S

The University of Cincinnati’s “SUCCESS CHALLENGE”: Placing Student Success at the Center Enabling In-State At-Risk Students to Successfully Earn Baccalaureate Degrees in a Timely Fashion

Dr. Maria Palmieri Caroline Alikonis Sr. Research Associate Program Manager Office of Institutional Research Office of Institutional Research University of Cincinnati University of Cincinnati [email protected] [email protected] Dr. Caroline Miller Neal Stark Sr. Assoc. Vice President and Director of Research and Assessment Assoc. Provost for Enrollment Management Office of Institutional Research University of Cincinnati University of Cincinnati [email protected] [email protected]

Abstract – The University of Cincinnati (UC) is a large, urban research institution that currently enrolls 18,875 baccalaureate-seeking students on its Uptown campus. In 2000, UC began participating in the “Success Challenge” grant sponsored by the Ohio Board of Regents. “Success Challenge” is aimed at increasing retention and graduation rates of baccalaureate students who possess a lower chance of succeeding due to their cultural, socioeconomic or academic background. Since its inception, UC’s “Success Challenge” program has had significant impact on the academic success of its participants. This is evidenced by increased retention rates for at-risk students and for the University as a whole (from 73% to 82% since 2000). Graduation rates have improved from 48% to 52% for the 1998 and 2001 entering classes, respectively, and to 57% for “Success Challenge” program participants. UC has the third highest percentage of Pell-eligible students among research extensive campuses. Pell-eligible students from both the 2000 and 2001 graduation cohorts were approximately twice as likely to graduate as non-“Success Challenge” Pell-eligible participants. Here we introduce UC’s “Success Challenge” programs and present evidence-based research demonstrating these programs are having a positive impact on the academic success of at-risk University of Cincinnati students.

Introduction

It is no secret, and it is of great concern, that a significant number of students who begin college do not finish. As a result, student retention has been well studied on many campuses so as to understand the underlying causes of attrition. Prevailing theories, such as Tinto’s “Model of Student Persistence” (1975, 1987, 1993) and Astin’s “Theory of Involvement” (1975, 1984, 1996, 1999) assert that social and academic integration are crucial factors affecting students’ decisions to persist in college. It also is true that students from low socio-economic backgrounds both are retained and graduate at lower rates than those students from middle and higher socio-economic families (Mortenson, 2005). Additionally, black and Hispanic students persist at lower levels than their white peers (Mortenson, 2007). As our nation moves into the twenty-first century, our campuses face a demographic sea of change and increased challenges with regard to student success. Historically, traditionally successful college participants will become proportionately smaller percentages of post-secondary participants. It is within this context that efforts associated with increasing student persistence must achieve greater levels of success. As noted by Kirsch, Braun, Yamamoto and Sum in America’s Perfect Storm Three Forces 2

Changing Our Nation’s Future (2007), the consequences of not improving success rates are dire, not only for individual students but for the national economy as well. The connection between a college degree and life-long earnings is well documented. As Baum and Ma have noted, “The typical bachelor’s degree recipient can expect to earn about 61% more over a 40 year working life than the typical high school graduate earns over the same period” (2007, page 10). It is consistent with this context that UC has developed a rich array of programs under the “Success Challenge” umbrella. These are programs designed to enhance the likelihood of academic success, retention to campus, and, ultimately, graduation. All programs are evaluated annually for impact, and feedback is provided for modification, continuation and/or discontinuation. This paper provides an assessment of the impact of the “Success Challenge” (SC) programs on graduation rates, time to graduation and academic performance of SC participants versus non-participants, with a special focus on Pell-eligible students.

Brief Overview of “Success Challenge” The Ohio Board of Regents instituted the SC initiative for University main campuses in 1999. The purpose of this initiative was to increase the baccalaureate graduation rates of in-state at-risk students and to shorten the length of time to degree. (http://www.regents.state.oh.us/hei/success/ successchallenge.html). UC accepted the “Success Challenge” grant and began developing and then offering SC funded programs in 2000. The SC Grant Program is administered under the auspices of the UC Strategic Enrollment Management (SEM) Council and overseen by the Senior Associate Vice President for Enrollment Management and the Senior Associate Provost for Academic Planning. Program assessment is led by the Director of Research and Assessment in the Office of Institutional Research. SC project directors are active members of either the SEM “Access” or “Success” working groups. It is through this structure that UC has organized itself to devote appropriate levels of “person power” to accomplish campus persistence objectives and maintain accountability. Both are necessary components of success (Hossler, 2006). “Success Challenge” Best Practices Learning Communities with Peer Mentors Advisor Placement in Low Retaining Colleges with Mandatory Advising for First Year and Probationary Students Supplemental Instruction in High “D’, “F” & “W” and Gateway Courses Killer Course TA Placement Cincinnati Pride Grant for “Pell-Eligible” Cincinnati Public School Graduates First Year Experiences Courses “Bearcat Bound” Orientation and Mandatory Course Placement Center for Exploratory Studies focus on Major Changers and the Undecided Students Career Navigator Transfer and Lifelong Learning Center Writing and Mathematics Walk-in Service Laboratories Brothers and Sisters Excelling Learning Assistance Center with In-Person and Web-Based Tutoring

UC analyses have shown that students respond differently to programs based on their academic preparedness upon entry. Students with weaker academic skills are most impacted by academic interventions, while better-prepared students are most positively impacted by programs designed to enhance social and campus integration. Multiple interventions have an enhanced impact on student retention (Pan, Guo, Alikonis & Bai, 2008). As such, UC has developed a full range of SC programs that address these topics as well as financial literacy, college survival skills, academic skills development, transition management, and career and personal development. One suite of programs targets first-generation students and students from low-income backgrounds (e.g. “First Year Experience”, mandatory advising, “Bearcat Bound Orientation”, mandatory placement, “Cincinnati Pride Grant”). These programs focus on the “business of being a student” since first- generation students are less likely to get that support from home. These programs are especially important at UC because Pell-eligible students comprise almost one-third of main campus undergraduate enrollments. As reported in The Chronicle of Higher Education (May 2, 2008), UC ranks third nationally among “Research-Extensive” institutions. Additionally, approximately 50% of UC students are first- generation. Historically, UC has struggled with relatively low retention and graduation rates, especially among first-generation students. Other SC programs (e.g., “The Center for Exploratory Studies”, “The Career Navigator” series, the “Transfer and Lifelong Learning Center”, “Killer-Course Supports” and “Supplemental Instruction”) focus on students in transition between campuses or majors, or in course settings shown to produce high “D”, “F”, and “W” rates. These situations can trigger exit-behaviors for all students, but they can be particularly interruptive to at-risk students. Several programs are most likely to target or support students of color. These include the BASE (“Brothers And Sisters Excelling”) program and the “Cincinnati Pride Grant”. Still others focus on academic or social integration (e.g. the “Writing Center”, the “Math Learning Lab”, the “Learning Assistance Center”, “Faculty-Student Interactions” and a variety of “Learning Communities” and “First Year Experience” courses)1. Although participation in these programs is voluntary (for the most part), participation rates have proven that a strong interest exists for them, and it is believed that this continuum of SC programs helps to provide a support infrastructure through which our students are retained, succeed academically, and graduate in an increasingly timely fashion.

Methods

A quantitative study was undertaken to assess the graduation rates, time to graduation and first-year academic performance of students who entered UC in the first two years following the inception of “Success Challenge” (SC) programs. The data for the study included Ohio residents from the 2000-01 and 2001-02 first-time, full-time, baccalaureate degree-seeking student cohorts at UC. The cohorts were broken into groups of SC participants versus non-participants. Each of these groups was further subdivided into Pell-eligible students (defined as students who submitted a FAFSA for their entering year and were deemed Pell-eligible based on their FAFSA data) or Pell-ineligible students (defined as students who either did not submit a FAFSA for their entering year or were deemed Pell-ineligible based on their FAFSA data). Bearcat Bound Orientation and Placement Test Participation were excluded from the analyses since these activities were required of all students.

Control Groups Because the number of students who participated in at least one SC program each year was greater than the number of students who did not participate, control groups for each year were randomly chosen from the pool of SC participants based on similarities to the group of non-participants in that year for the following characteristics: Pell-eligibility, gender, ethnicity and academic preparedness (based on

1 For more information about the Success Challenge programs offered by the University of Cincinnati, please visit http://www.uc.edu/success%5Fchallenge/inventory.aspx.

ACT/SAT score). The ethnicities were limited to African-American and Caucasian due to insufficient sample size for other ethnicities. Each academic year was analyzed separately. College preparedness for each student was allotted based on an aggregate of both cohorts. For students who reported SAT scores, their scores were converted to ACT (SATCONV) scores based on an ACT concordance study (ACT concordance, 1998). For students who reported scores on both exams, the higher of the two scores (ACT or SATCONV) was used. The ACT or SATCONV scores from an aggregate of the 2000 and 2001 cohorts were used to determine tiers by which we divided students into three preparedness groups: bottom third, middle third, top third. Students who reported scores for at least one of the exams were placed into each third according to where their scores fell (Table 1). In addition, because the small group of students who did not report scores for either test was heavily enriched in at- risk students, a fourth “no score reported” category was added in order to include these students in the study (Table 1).

ACT (or converted SAT) Range Preparedness Group Head Count Percentage 21 and below 1 1602 33.1% 22-25 2 1655 34.2% 26 and above 3 1576 32.6% no ACT/SAT Score Reported 0 57 Grand Total 4890 Table 1. Preparedness groupings for students based on the highest score of their ACT or converted SAT scores. Scores from African-American and Caucasian (OH) students from the 2000 or 2001 cohorts were aggregated to determine the cutoffs. Students who did not report scores for either test were assigned to a discrete group of “unknown preparedness”, which we represented as group 0.

After developing the system to categorize students by each relevant variable, they were tallied, by cohort year and the number of students in the comparison group (SC non-participants) who fit into each category. Control groups then were randomly chosen from the pool of SC participants such that the control groups matched their corresponding comparison groups in the proportion of students in each category (Table 2).

Variable 2000 Cohort 2001 Cohort Pell Eligibility Preparation Gender Ethnicity SC Non SC Total SC Non SC Total Status (ACT/SAT score) No ACT/SAT reported 1 1 2 2 2 4 Bottom third 56 56 112 51 51 102 White Middle third 92 92 184 111 111 222 Top third 85 85 170 68 68 136 Male No ACT/SAT reported 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bottom third 9 9 18 7 7 14 Black Middle third 3 3 6 1 1 2 Top third 0 0 0 1 1 2 Pell ineligible No ACT/SAT reported 1 1 2 1 1 2 Bottom third 89 89 178 52 52 104 White Middle third 100 100 200 61 61 122 Top third 34 34 68 24 24 48 Female No ACT/SAT reported 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bottom third 11 11 22 6 6 12 Black Middle third 1 1 2 0 0 0 Top third 2 2 4 1 1 2 No ACT/SAT reported 0 0 0 1 1 2 Bottom third 12 12 24 6 6 12 White Middle third 14 14 28 17 17 34 Top third 12 12 24 10 10 20 Male No ACT/SAT reported 1 1 2 1 1 2 Bottom third 6 6 12 8 8 16 Black Middle third 2 2 4 0 0 0 Top third 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pell eligible No ACT/SAT reported 0 0 0 2 2 4 Bottom third 21 21 42 19 19 38 White Middle third 17 17 34 13 13 26 Top third 11 11 22 6 6 12 Female No ACT/SAT reported 0 0 0 2 2 4 Bottom third 14 14 28 20 20 40 Black Middle third 1 1 2 2 2 4 Top third 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cohort Total 595 595 1190 493 493 986 Table 2. “Success Challenge” Participants Control Group and “Success Challenge” Non-Participants Comparison Group for the 2000 and 2001 Cohorts. Control Group students were chosen at random from the pool of qualified SC Participants. All students were Ohio residents who were first-time full-time baccalaureate degree-seeking students that entered University of Cincinnati in summer or autumn of 2000 or 2001.

For all analyses, the cohorts were analyzed separately according to SC participation (Control Group) versus SC non-participation (Comparison Group). In addition, the SC and non-SC categories were grouped by Pell-eligibility status. To ensure the effectiveness of the preparedness tertiles, t Tests were used to compare the mean ACT / SATCONV scores for the control groups versus the comparison groups by Pell-eligibility (Table 3). For each cohort year, the mean ACT / converted SAT score for the SC participants control groups were not statistically significantly different from the means for the non- participants comparison groups. Four-, five- and six-year graduation rates were calculated for each cohort and Chi-square tests were used to compare mean graduation rates of SC participants versus non- participants by at-risk status. Mean time-to-degree (TTD) and mean first-year GPA also were calculated for each cohort and analyzed by t Test.

Success Challenge Participants Success Challenge Control Group non-Participants Significance N ACT N ACT p Value Significant Pell Eligible 111 21.927 111 22.018 0.8691 - 2000 Cohort Pell Ineligible 484 23.338 484 23.015 0.1936 - Total 595 23.076 595 22.829 0.2805 - Pell Eligible 107 21.446 107 21.386 0.9174 - 2001 Cohort Pell Ineligible 386 23.491 386 23.410 0.7491 - Total 493 23.064 493 22.988 0.7489 - Table 3. Comparison by t Test of Mean ACT / converted SAT scores for “Success Challenge” Participants versus “Success Challenge” non-Participants by Pell-eligibility status. For each cohort year, the mean ACT / converted SAT score for the “Success Challenge” participants control groups were not statistically significantly different from the means for the non- participants comparison groups.

Results and Discussion

Graduation Rates Since the inception of the SC programs in the year 2000, enough time has passed for two student cohorts ― 2000 and 2001 ― to have graduated within six (6) years. Our analyses of these cohorts indicate SC participants graduate at higher rates than non-participants (Table 4). Pell-eligible SC participants graduated at higher rates than Pell-eligible non-participants across all times-to-graduation. For non at-risk students, five- and six-year graduation rates are statistically significantly greater for participants vs. non-participants (Table 4). Since the study controlled for factors of gender, race, preparedness and at-risk status, the increased graduation rates for SC participants suggests that the SC program effectively accomplishes its goal to enable more students to earn baccalaureate degrees.

Success Challenge Success Challenge Significance Participants Control Group Non-Participants Head Count Percent Head Count Percent p Value Significant 4 yrs or less 21 18.9% 4 3.6% 0.0003 *† 5 yrs or less 40 36.0% 17 15.3% 0.0004 * Pell- 6 yrs or less 46 41.4% 23 20.7% 0.0009 * Eligible did not graduate in 6 yrs 65 58.6% 88 79.3% 0.0001 * Total 111 100.0% 111 100.0% 4 yrs or less 97 20.0% 76 15.7% 0.0781 5 yrs or less 235 48.6% 178 36.8% 0.0002 * Pell- 6 yrs or less 263 54.3% 206 42.6% 0.0002 * Ineligible did not graduate in 6 yrs 221 45.7% 278 57.4% 0.0007 * Total 484 100.0% 484 100.0% 4 yrs or less 118 19.8% 80 13.4% 0.0031 * 5 yrs or less 275 46.2% 195 32.8% <0.0001 * Total 6 yrs or less 309 51.9% 229 38.5% <0.0001 * did not graduate in 6 yrs 286 48.1% 366 61.5% <0.0001 * Total 595 100.0% 595 100.0% Table 4. Graduation rates for 2000 baccalaureate cohort “Success Challenge” participants versus “Success Challenge” non-participants. All students were classified as “in state” and belong to the first-time, full-time baccalaureate degree-seeking cohort that entered University of Cincinnati in summer or autumn of the 2000 – 2001 academic year. Asterisks indicate statistical significance according to Chi-square analyses. Pell-eligible students who participate in at least one SC program their entering year graduated at statistically significantly greater rates across all times-to-graduation. For not at-risk students, five- and six-year graduation rates are statistically significantly greater for participants versus non-participants. †Although the four-year graduation rates were significantly different for Pell-eligible students, we caution that the sample size for Pell-eligible non- participants may be prohibitively small for valid statistical testing of the four-year graduation rate.

These positive results were observed for the second cohort of the SC program. For the 2001 cohort, SC participants graduated at higher rates than their non-SC counterparts across all-times-to-graduation, regardless of Pell-eligibility status (Table 5). These results suggest that SC participation significantly positively affects student graduation rates.

Success Challenge Success Challenge Significance Participants Non-Participants Head Count Percent Head Count Percent p Value Significant 4 yrs or less 18 16.8% 5 4.7% 0.0041 *† 5 yrs or less 42 39.3% 20 18.7% 0.0009 * Pell- 6 yrs or less 47 43.9% 24 22.4% 0.0008 * Eligible did not graduate in 6 yrs 60 56.1% 83 77.6% 0.0043 * Total 107 100.0% 107 100.0% 4 yrs or less 71 18.4% 41 10.6% 0.0022 * 5 yrs or less 181 46.9% 130 33.7% 0.0002 * Pell- 6 yrs or less 208 53.9% 161 41.7% 0.0007 * Ineligible did not graduate in 6 yrs 178 46.1% 225 58.3% 0.0144 * Total 386 100.0% 386 100.0% 4 yrs or less 89 18.1% 46 9.3% <0.0001 * 5 yrs or less 223 45.2% 150 30.4% <0.0001 * Total 6 yrs or less 255 51.7% 185 37.5% <0.0001 * did not graduate in 6 yrs 238 48.3% 308 62.5% 0.0006 * Total 493 100.0% 493 100.0% Table 5. Graduation rates for 2001 Baccalaureate cohort “Success Challenge” participants versus “Success Challenge” non-participants. All students were classified as “in state” and belong to the first-time, full-time baccalaureate degree-seeking cohort that entered the University of Cincinnati in summer or autumn of the 2001 – 2002 academic year. Asterisks indicate statistical significance according to Chi-square analyses. Students who participated in at least one SC program their entering year have statistically significantly greater graduation rates than their non-participant counterparts. †Although the four-year graduation rates were significantly different for Pell-eligible students, we caution that the sample size for Pell-eligible non- participants may be prohibitively small for valid statistical testing of the four-year graduation rate.

According to these findings, the UC experience appears to run counter to the national trend toward increasing gaps in the graduation rates between low- and high-income students seeking baccalaureate degrees (Tinto, 2008). UC data suggest this trend can be reversed by participation in programs similar to UC’s “Success Challenge” programs. For example, in 2000 the graduation rate gap between Pell-eligible students and Pell-ineligible students was 12.9 percentage points (41.4% vs. 54.3%; see Table 4) for students who participated in SC, while the corresponding gap was 21.9 percentage points (20.7% vs. 42.6%; see Table 5) for students who did not participate. In 2001 the gap was 10 versus 19.3 percentage points for SC participants versus non-participants, respectively. Although a statistical comparison of Pell- eligible and Pell-ineligible students is beyond the scope of this paper, the diminishing disparity in graduation rates is encouraging and future research will include these analyses.

Time to Degree The second tenet of the SC program is to enable at-risk students to obtain baccalaureate degrees in a timely manner. The data presented so far clearly indicate that the SC programs helps students to graduate within the four-to-six-year time-frame that is widely accepted as a “timely” manner. Another commonly used graduation indicator, however, is the “Time to Degree” (TTD). Rather than producing a graduation rate that lumps students into graduation times of four years or less, five years or less, and six years or less, the TTD measures the specific amount of time, in years, that it takes for students to attain the degree they sought upon entering. Therefore, the TTD provides a more direct measure of the timeliness of degree completion.

The assessment team analyzed the mean TTD for SC participants versus non-participants by Pell- eligibility status. In general, the mean TTD was between four and five years, and was lower for SC participants than for non-participants. The 2000 cohort shows a significantly shorter TTD for SC participants vs. non-participants for Pell-eligible students, but not for Pell-ineligible students (Table 6).

SC Participants SC non-Participants Significance Head Time to Time to Cohort Pell Eligibility Status Count Degree (yrs) Head Count Degree (yrs) p Value Significant 2000 Pell eligible 51 4.69 ± 0.71 27 5.07 ± 0.68 0.0221 * Pell Ineligible 280 4.73 ± 0.67 225 4.76 ± 0.74 0.8150 - Total 331 4.72 ± 0.68 252 4.79 ± 0.74 0.3452 - Table 6. Mean Time-to-Degree for “Success Challenge” Participants Control Group versus Non-Participants Comparison Group by Pell-Eligibility Status. Only baccalaureate degree-seeking students who eventually earned baccalaureate degrees were included. Pell-eligible SC participants from the 2000 cohort had shorter TTDs than their non-SC counterparts. The mean TTD for Pell-ineligible students, however, was not statistically significantly different based on SC participation.

The 2001 cohort shows a significantly shorter TTD for SC participants vs. non-participants overall as well as for Pell-ineligible students, but not for Pell-eligible students (Table 7). Thus, participation in SC programs enabled a higher percentage of students in the 2001 cohort to graduate in a timelier manner in the 2001 cohort as compared to the 2000 cohort. The reasons for the inconsistency observed regarding Pell-eligible students is unknown. TTD results are complex and difficult to interpret, however, without first considering several caveats.

SC Participants SC non-Participants Significance Head Time to Time to Cohort Pell Eligibility Status Count Degree (yrs) Head Count Degree (yrs) p Value Significant Pell eligible 55 4.71 ± 0.69 29 4.93 ± 0.65 0.1487 - 2001 Pell Ineligible 224 4.75 ± 0.67 173 4.92 ± 0.70 0.0364 * Total 279 4.75 ± 0.67 202 4.92 ± 0.69 0.0118 * Table 7. Mean Time-to-Degree for “Success Challenge” Participants Control Group versus Non-Participants Comparison Group by Pell-Eligibility Status. Only baccalaureate degree-seeking students who eventually earned baccalaureate degrees were included; students who began as baccalaureate degree-seeking students and earned degrees other than baccalaureate degrees were excluded from the TTD calculations. In general, SC participants from the 2001 cohort had shorter TTDs than their non-SC counterparts. The mean TTD for Pell-eligible SC participants from the 2001 cohort, however, was not significantly less than the mean TTD of their non-SC counterparts.

It is important to note that a mean TTD between four and five years indicates graduation in a timely manner. Reducing the mean TTD closer to four years is difficult because approximately twenty-five percent of academic programs at UC require multiple quarters of co-operative learning (co-op) experiences that add a mandatory fifth year to the expected graduation time. In addition, most programs have minimum completion times, regardless of issues such as student preparedness. Since TTD is very program dependent, a more accurate way to assess the effect of SC on TTD might be to conduct a comparison of TTD by program. Small sample sizes of graduates from each program, however, might limit the effectiveness of such a study without using graduation data from more than one year. Secondly, by convention the TTD is calculated based on graduation within six years standard time or less. A more sensitive method to assess the impact of SC on timely graduation might be to extend the TTD window to include students who graduated in an untimely manner. It would be interesting to perform a follow-up study in the future that includes students who graduated in up to eight or nine years in the TTD calculations. Since UC data on graduation rates suggests that SC does, in fact, affect the proportion of students who graduate in a timely manner, it seems likely that including longer times to

8 9 graduation in the TTD calculations might provide the higher resolution necessary to more accurately delineate the effects of the SC program on TTD.

Academic Performance UC defines student success not only in terms of degree attainment, but also in terms of academic performance. The analysts investigated first-year GPA by SC participation and Pell-eligibility status. The data reveal that SC participants, Pell-eligible or not, had statistically significantly higher first year GPAs as compared to the corresponding non-participants for the 2000 cohort (Table 8).

Success Challenge Participants Success Challenge Control Group non-Participants Significance N 1yr GPA N 1yr GPA p Value Significant Pell-eligible 111 2.688 111 2.329 0.0001 * Pell-ineligible 484 2.798 484 2.666 0.0003 * Total 595 2.780 595 2.611 <.0001 * Table 8. Performance Indicators for 2000 Baccalaureate Cohort “Success Challenge” Participants versus “Success Challenge” non-Participants. All students were classified as “in state” and belong to the first-time, full-time baccalaureate degree-seeking cohort that entered University of Cincinnati in summer or autumn of the 2000 – 2001 academic year. First-year GPAs were significantly higher for SC participants, as compared to non-participants, regardless of Pell-eligibility status.

For the 2001 cohort, first-year GPAs were statistically significantly higher for SC participants as compared to non-participants (Table 9). As with the 2000 cohort, first-year GPAs were statistically significantly elevated for Pell-eligible and non-eligible participants.

Success Challenge Participants Success Challenge Control Group non-Participants Significance N 1yr GPA N 1yr GPA p Value Significant Pell-Eligible 107 2.550 107 2.285 0.0033 * Pell-Ineligible 386 2.868 386 2.634 <.0001 * Total 493 2.806 493 2.571 <.0001 * Table 9. Performance Indicators for 2001 Baccalaureate Cohort “Success Challenge” Participants versus “Success Challenge” non-Participants. All students were classified as “in state” and belong to the first-time, full-time baccalaureate degree-seeking cohort that entered University of Cincinnati in summer or autumn of the 2001 – 2002 academic year. First-year GPAs were significantly higher for SC participants, as compared to non-participants, regardless of Pell-eligibility status.

As previously demonstrated, the mean ACT / SATCONV scores ― a proxy for college preparedness ― were not significantly different for SC participants versus non-participants by Pell-eligibility (Table 3). Since the analysis also controlled for race, ethnicity and gender, these data suggest that participation in SC significantly enhances student academic performance.

Quality of Experience The continuum of services provided at UC yields benefits to students far beyond the realm of academic performance. This is evidenced by the results of two national surveys ― the “National Survey of Student Engagement” (NSSE) and the “Student Satisfaction Inventory” (SSI) ― in which UC participates on a regular basis. Results from these surveys indicate that UC students are becoming increasingly more engaged in campus life/experiences and in part from doing so are reporting increasing levels of satisfaction. NSSE measures student engagement based on student responses to questions about their college experience. The questions fall into broad benchmark categories such as academic challenge, active and collaborative learning, student-faculty interactions, enriching educational experiences, and supportive campus environment. UC has participated in the NSSE three times ― 2002, 2005 and 2007. Results indicate that UC students have become increasingly more engaged in every benchmark category since UC

9 10 began participating in the NSSE, and our students’ mean scores are statistically significantly higher than those for other Doctoral-Extensive universities nationwide in four of the five benchmark areas2. The SSI measures student satisfaction with UC in the following areas: student centeredness, campus life, instructional effectiveness, recruitment and financial aid, campus support services, academic advising, registration effectiveness, safety and security, concern for the individual, service excellence, responsiveness to diverse populations, and campus climate. UC has participated in the SSI three times ― 2003, 2006, and 2008. Results indicate that our students are increasingly satisfied with their educational experience at UC. Satisfaction was statistically significantly increased in seventy-five (75) out of eight- two (82) individual items on the survey (i.e., 91%). Also, student satisfaction with UC was at least equal to the mean student satisfaction at four-year public institutions nationwide in every broad category surveyed, and statistically significantly higher than the four-year public mean in seven (7) of the eleven (11) categories3. It is prudent to attribute these increases, in part, to the suite of SC programs that are an integral part of the UC|21 Academic Strategic Plan. It is a plan by which the University strives to achieve five equal goals:  Place Students at the Center  Grow Research Excellence  Achieve Academic Excellence  Forge Key Relationships and Partnerships, and  Establish a Sense of Place

But, it should be noted, it is clear that “Placing Students at the Center” is the first goal among equals.

Conclusions

In response to a charge by the state of Ohio for its universities to enable in-state at-risk students to earn baccalaureate degrees, UC accepted the “Success Challenge” grant and implemented a suite of programs to enhance success for students who are at an increased risk of dropping out due to their cultural, economic or academic backgrounds. In the eight years since its inception at UC, more than 100 different SC initiatives have been implemented, assessed and either retained or discontinued to achieve the overarching goal of student success. Enough time has elapsed to determine graduation rates for the first two cohorts of “Success Challenge” participants. Results indicate that “Success Challenge” effectively enables students to earn baccalaureate degrees in a timely manner, and is particularly effective at helping students from lower-income backgrounds to attain baccalaureate degrees. Our rich array of “Success Challenge” programs are part of a University-wide continuum of services that provide a support infrastructure through which our students are retained, succeed academically, graduate in a timely manner, and are increasingly more engaged and satisfied with their UC educational experience 4. Taken together, these data lend support to Tinto’s theory of student engagement, and suggest that UC is effectively addressing issues that continue to vex universities nationwide as they struggle to reach and to help at-risk students. UC leadership, while pleased with the success to date, will be the first to acknowledge that there is much more student success work to be accomplished at UC.

2 For more information on NSSE results for the University of Cincinnati go to: http://www.uc.edu/institutionalresearch/ NSSE/nsse.htm 3 For more information on SSI results for the University of Cincinnati go to: http://www.uc.edu/ institutionalresearch/student %20satisfaction%20inventory.htm 4 It should be noted that the interaction effects of student motivation were not a part of this study. Since most “Success Challenge” programs are voluntary the authors recognize that motivation could be and probably does play a role in the success of “Success Challenge” participants. Members of the UC assessment team are seeking ways to incorporate motivational factors to enrich this longitudinal study.

References

ACT inc. (1998). Table M-1 Concordance Between ACT Mathematics Score and SAT I Recentered Mathematical Score; Table E-1 and Concordance Between ACT English Score and SAT I Recentered Verbal Score. Source: ACT, Inc. Questions about the concordance study may be directed to ACT's Research Division (319/337-1471).

Astin, A. W. (1975). Preventing Students from Dropping Out. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-808.

Astin, A. W. (1996). Involvement in learning revisited: Lessons we have learned. Journal of College Student Development, 37, 123-134.

Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 518-529.

Baum, S. and Ma, J. (2007). Education pays. The benefits of higher education for individuals and society. Washington, D.C.: The College Board Press.

Fischer, K. (2008). Top colleges admit fewer low income students. Chronicle of Higher Education. May 2, 2008.

Hossler, D. (2006). Managing student retention: Is the glass half full, half empty or simply empty? College and University, 81(2), 11-14.

Kirsch, I., Braun, H., Yamamoto, K and Sum, A. (2007). American’s Perfect Storm Three Forces Changing Our Nation’s Future. Policy Evaluation and Research Center, Educational Testing Service

Mortenson, T. (2005). Family income and higher education opportunity 1970-2003. Post Secondary Education Opportunity, 156, 1-16.

Mortenson, T. (2007). College continuation rates for recent high school graduates, 1959-2006. Post Secondary Education Opportunity, 179, 1-13.

Pan, W., Guo, S., Alikonis, C. and Bai, H. (2008). Do intervention programs assist students to succeed in college? A multilevel longitudinal study. The College Student Journal, 42(1), 90 – 98.

Tinto, V. (1975). “Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research”. Review of Educational Research, 45, 89-125.

Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tinto, V. (2008). “Access without support is not opportunity”. Inside Higher Ed. June 9th, 2008. http://insidehighered.com/views/208/06/09/tinto.