Enhancing Persistence for Students on Academic Probation Utilizing Peer Mentors

3/9/2021

Rebekah Reysen, Ph.D. & Kyle Ellis, Ph.D. University of Mississippi

Outline

• Retention Efforts at the University of Mississippi • History of EDHE 101 Academic Skills for College • Methods for the Course • Think-Pair-Share Activity • Results of our EDHE 101 Mentorship Study • Questions

1 3/9/2021

Why Is Retaining First Year Students Important?

• Correlation to 4, 5, and 6-year graduation • National rankings • Job security • Better environment • Students’ best interest • Continuation of tuition and fees

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (2018)

2 3/9/2021

Freshman Retention Rate at UM (As of Census Date)

88.0%

86.0%

84.0%

82.0%

80.0%

78.0% Retention Rate 76.0%

74.0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012* 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 *2012 4-Year Graduation Rate was 43.8% (38.6% in 2011) *2012 5-Year Graduation Rate was 60.6% (55.9% in 2011) *2012 6-Year Graduation Rate was 64.2% (60.1% in 2011)

University of Mississippi Freshman Retention

Retention is everyone’s job.

However, when something is everyone’s job, no one person owns it.

With centralized ownership, everyone must support retention efforts

3 3/9/2021

• Support From the Top • Utilizing Technology • Having a Point Person • Academic Support • Retention Advisory Board • Special Cohort Programs • Data Commitment • Contacting Students • Professional Academic • Connecting Students to Each Advisors Other • First-Year Experience Course • Professional • Parent Inclusion Development/Best Practices • Support from Financial Aid • Partnering with Housing

Academic Support Programs

• The A Game

• Student Success Summit

• Tutoring Clearinghouse

• Academic Consultations

• Supplemental Instruction

• D & F Course Initiatives

• Support Courses  EDHE 101

4 3/9/2021

History of EDHE 101

2004 2007 2015 2020 2021

Center for Center for COVID COVID Excellence Student Pandemic, Academic Pandemic in Success In Person Support & Move to Teaching and Learning, Center Online and First-Year & Online Learning Learning Experience Section

Rationale for Our Approach

• We posited that interventions for freshmen on academic probation in their second semester must involve:

• An increase in GPA

• An acquisition of academic skills and knowledge for college and career development

• Substantial interaction with faculty, staff, and peers

5 3/9/2021

Think-Pair-Share

• Does your campus have an academic success course?

• What is the criteria for participating in the course?

• What is the content focus of the course?

• Who teaches the course?

• What has worked and not worked in the course?

Literature Review

• Importance of Personal Connections (Ensign, 2010; Tinto, 2016)

• Increase in Personal Connections (Jaijairam, 2016)

• Peer Mentor Programs (Terrion & Leonard, 2007; Goff, 2011)

• Three Factors that Influence Persistence (Tinto, 2016)

• Mentor Programs that Focus on Academic Probation/Difficulty

 University of North Carolina, Charlotte – Students Obtaining Success  Minnesota State University, Mankato – Mentor Connection  University of Portland – Academic Peer Mentor Program  University of Central Florida – Peer Outreach Mentoring Program

6 3/9/2021

EDHE 101 Mentoring Program

• 2016 – Pilot Year Counselor Ed Students - volunteer, practicum

• 2017- Higher Ed, Counselor Ed, MBA – some practicum, some paid hourly

• 2018 – MBA, Higher Ed, Counselor Ed, ESL masters students, paid hourly

• 2020/21 – COVID-19

Traditional

• Textbook: University created student packet

• Textbook Cost: Free or $10 for university to print

• Course Fee: $200

• Instructor Payment: $2,000

• Content: Paper-based guided practice and independent practice of study skills and career exercises

7 3/9/2021

Traditional

• Content: • Time-management • Cornell note-taking, SQ4R, Mind mapping • Self-monitoring of grades • Programs and support services on campus • Learning styles and strategies • Motivation • Career research

• Assessment: • Attendance and Participation • Work sample of study skill

Traditional

• Day 1: • Introduce strategy, practice on content provided

• Day 2 (and/or 3): • Practice strategy on other coursework

• A-Game required • Presentation by Dr. Sufka • Free to all students attending Ole Miss Orientation

8 3/9/2021

Mentoring

• Traditional Class + Mentor Meeting

• Mentor Payment: $8.50/hour

• Mentoring: Use 30-45 minutes of class time per week for student to meet with a graduate peer mentor

EDHE 101 Mentorship Study - Background

• Common for freshmen to experience difficulty adjusting to college • Reasons for struggling (Mental Health America, 2019): • Roommate issues • Financial problems • Not getting enough sleep • Unreasonably high expectations for the college experience • College workload • Tinto (1993) views both academic and social integration as keys to student retention

9 3/9/2021

Research Questions

• RQ1: Do students who enroll in mentor sections have higher semester GPA’s than students enrolled in non-mentor sections?

• RQ2: Do students who enroll in mentor sections have higher EDHE 101 course grades than students enrolled in non-mentor sections?

• RQ3: Do students who enroll in mentor sections persist at higher rates than students enrolled in non-mentor sections?

• RQ4: Do specific groups of students who enroll in mentor sections persist at higher rates than students enrolled in non-mentor sections?

Methods

• 847 participants - students enrolled in the EDHE 101: Academic Skills for College class at the University of Mississippi

• Spring 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018 freshman cohorts • 390 enrolled in mentor sections • 457 enrolled in non-mentor sections

• Students could opt for: a) Traditional classroom format, or b) Traditional classroom format + weekly peer mentoring session

10 3/9/2021

Table 1. A comparison of mentor versus non-mentor sections for demographic variables.

Demographic Variable Mentor Non-Mentor Mentor Non-Mentor NN %% ______Gender Male 242 266 62.1 58.2 Female 148 191 37.9 41.8 Residency In-state 180 204 46.2 44.6 Out-of-state 210 253 53.8 55.4 First Gen Yes 60 61 15.4 13.3 No 330 396 84.6 86.7 ______

Metrics

• Gender • Were or were not retained the following semester after intervention • Semester GPA • SAT/ACT scores • EDHE 101 course grade • Residency • University of Mississippi GPA following enrollment in the • Major course

11 3/9/2021

Results

Independent samples t-test 1: • No significant difference in semester GPA’s.

Independent samples t-test 2: • Students enrolled in mentor sections had lower course grades than those in non-mentor sections.

Table 2. A comparison of mentor versus non-mentor sections on academic metrics.

Mentor Non-Mentor p value Mean SD Mean SD ______GPA 1.86 1.06 1.89 1.00 0.62 Course Grade 2.75 1.46 2.95 1.35 0.04* ______*p<.05

12 3/9/2021

Table 3. A comparison of students enrolled in mentor versus non-mentor sections in regards to retention rates for specific student groups

Metric Mentor Non-Mentor ______Overall Non-Resident Retention 26.2% 29.6% Male Non-Residents 28.1% 32.9% Female Non-Residents 23.2% 25.2%

Overall Resident Retention 38.3% 23.0% Male Residents 39.5% 21.7% Female Residents 36.4% 25.0% ______

Table 4. A comparison of students enrolled in mentor versus non-mentor sections in regards to average academic metrics scores.

______Mentor Non-Mentor (n=390) (n=457) ______ACT Average 23.44 23.02 SAT Average 1100.90 1091.68 HS Overall GPA 3.20 3.20 High School Core GPA 2.91 2.89 Average EDHE 101 Course Grade 2.75 2.95 Spring Semester GPA 1.86 1.89 UM GPA after Intervention 1.62 1.64 % Retained to the following Semester (Overall) 31.8% 26.7% ______

13 3/9/2021

Discussion

• Students enrolled in mentor sections had an almost 5% higher rate of retention than students enrolled in non-mentor sections, even when EDHE 101 course grades were slightly lower.

• Peer mentoring can help students with troubleshooting issues related to college adjustment

• In-state students were retained at statistically higher rates than out-of-state students.

• Potentially some interventions within the program that are most robust in helping specific populations of students.

Discussion

• There are several potential reasons why in- state students, both males and females, may be retained at such higher rates than their out- of-state peers. • In-state students had social networks from their home cities or towns that made their transition to college easier.

• In-state students may also have been familiar with the city near the University of Mississippi – Oxford

• Should a crisis arise, in-state students are easily able to return home

14 3/9/2021

Discussion (cont’d)

• Both males and females were retained at higher rates if they were residents.

• The needs of male students differ from those of females:

• Sax (2008) has found that female students arrive at the university with better high school GPAs, study skill knowledge, and a higher level of attentiveness to college, but lag behind their male peers in regards to confidence.

• EDHE 101 may have helped females with confidence; males with study skills.

• Out-of-state students can still benefit from mentorship but they may be too overwhelmed with adjusting to college to make huge academic strides in just one semester.

Limitations

• Mentor meeting attendance records were not included in the analysis, only course grade.

• Participants were from one public university in the Southern United States

15 3/9/2021

Recommendations for Future Research

• Exploring which factors helped this population of students.

• Investigate gender dynamics and how they impact mentorship program success.

• Future interventions could be created to focus on the specific needs of various populations beyond residents.

• For example, a qualitative study to identify the how and why could be beneficial in exploring various outcomes from quantitative data found in this study.

Adapting due to COVID-19

Spring 2020 • All meetings occurred via Zoom after spring break • Meetings had mixed results

Spring 2021 • Meetings are encouraged to take place in-person • Utilize COVID-19 safety protocols • Meetings can occur via Zoom if needed

32 of <#>

16 3/9/2021

Table 5. A comparison of mentor versus non-mentor sections on retention rates for Spring 2020 enrollees.

______Mentor Non Mentor ______All Students N=62 N=158 Retained Frequency 48 117 Percentage 77.4% 74.15% Not Retained Frequency 14 41 Percentage 22.6% 25.9%

Students Who Attended at least 60% of Classes N=33 N=0 Retained Frequency 27 No Cases Met Criteria Percentage 81.8% Not Retained Frequency 6 Percentage 18.2%

The End Goal: Success This Semester (and Beyond)

17 3/9/2021

Questions?