Office of the Provost, University of Illinois at Urbana

OFFICE OF THE PROVOST

AND VICE CHANCELLOR FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS

A D H O C C O M M I T T E E O N T H E R E T E N T I O N O F

U N D E R R E P R E S E N T E D U N D E R G R A D U A T E S ( C R U U )

F I N A L R E P O R T

2008-2009

OFFICE OF THE PROVOST

C O M M I T T E E O N T H E R E T E N T I O N O F

U N D E R R E P R E S E N T E D U N D E R G R A D U A T E S ( C R U U )

F I N A L R E P O R T

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.

II.

III.

IV.

V.

VI.

COMMITTEE CHARGE ...................................................................................3

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

...................................................................................3

...................................................................................4

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES AND PROCESS ..........................................................................4

SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS ...................................................................................5

COMPILATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... 19

................................................................................. 20 VII.

APPENDIXES

2008-2009

U

NIVERSITY OF

I

LLINOIS AT

U

RBANA

-C

HAMPAIGN

I.

Committee Charge:

Provost Linda Katehi established the Ad Hoc Committee on the Retention of

Underrepresented Undergraduates (CRUU) on October 28, 2009. The Ad Hoc Committee on the Retention of Underrepresented Students was charged with providing advice and recommendations to the Provost on matters related to enhancing retention and graduation rates for underrepresented undergraduates at Illinois. Specifically, CRUU was directed to consider the four sets of questions summarized below:

 study student success in critical first-year courses that either allow or disallow persistence in desired academic paths and make appropriate recommendations for enhancing student success;

 audit the availability of academic assistance for vital first-year courses and recommend enhancements;

 recommend a plan for monitoring persistence and tracking attrition across the institution more efficiently;

 recommend strategies for unifying our institutional message regarding student attitude and academic assistance.

II.

Committee Membership

Under the leadership of Domonic Cobb, Assistant Provost for Recruitment and Retention, key administrators from each undergraduate serving college or the equivalent were invited to form the committee’s inaugural membership. They are named below.

Tom Emanuel, Director of Academic Affairs, Aviation

Jesse Thompson, Assistant Dean, ACES

Renique Kersh, Assistant Dean, Applied Health Studies

Sheri Shaw, Director of I-Leap, Applied Health Studies

Jewell White, Assistant Dean, Business

Jessica Howard, Assistant Director, Business

Lori West, Assistant Director, Division of General Studies

Mildred Trent, Assistant Dean, Education

Ivan Favila, Assistant Dean, Engineering

Jonne Brown, Program Coordinator, Engineering

Michael Andrejasich, Associate Dean, Fine and Applied Arts

Kimberly Brown, Assistant Dean, Liberal Arts and Sciences

Pamela Greer, Director of Transition Programs, Liberal Arts and Sciences

Adrienne Harris, Director of Undergraduate Academic Affairs, Media

Deb Kincaid, Administrative Assistant, Office of the Provost

Ken Ballom, Dean of Students & Associate Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs

Anna Gonzalez, Director of OIIR &Associate Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs

3

A D H OC C OMMITTEE ON THE R ETENTION OF U NDERREPRESENTED U NDERGRADUATES

III.

Executive Summary

In response to Provost Katehi‘s request for “advice and recommendations…related to enhancing the persistence and graduation of underrepresented undergraduate at Illinois” our report proffers:

 preliminary analysis and suggestions for enhancing student performance in key gateway courses

 opportunities for improving the academic services currently available

 opportunities for advancing intercollegiate academic advising and monitoring

 guiding principles and new tools for communicating advancing an appropriate and consistent institutional messages to students

IV.

Committee Activities and Process

Established by Provost Katehi on in the fall of 2008, the Ad Hoc Committee on the Retention of Underrepresented Undergraduates (CRUU) was charged with providing advice and recommendations to the Provost on matters related to enhancing retention and graduation rates for underrepresented undergraduates at Illinois. CRUU Specifically, CRUU was directed to consider the four sets of questions summarized below:

 study student success in critical first-year courses that either allow or disallow persistence in desired academic paths and make appropriate recommendations for enhancing student success;

 audit the availability of academic assistance for vital first-year courses and recommend enhancements;

 recommend a plan for monitoring persistence and tracking attrition across the institution more efficiently;

 recommend strategies for unifying our institutional message regarding student attitude and academic assistance.

CRUU held its inaugural meeting on October 28, 2008. Given the wide scope of its charge, the committee divided into work groups. The groups included: 1) gateway courses, 2) academic services, 3) matriculation and 4) unifying the institutional message. Assistant

Dean Kim Brown, Assistant Dean Jewell White, Associate Dean Michael Andrejasich, and I-

Leap Director Sheri Shaw lead the respective subcommittees. With help in coordination from Deb Kincaid, each subgroup formulated independent research and data collection strategies, implemented those strategies and drafted a set of preliminary recommendations for the full committee’s consideration and endorsement. Assistant Provost Cobb, full committee chair, participated as ex-officio member of each subcommittee and convened monthly full-committee meeting for progress reporting and collective deliberation and problem solving.

4


V.

Subcommittee Reports

A.

Gateway Subcommittee Report

Charge: Given the increased difficulty associated with the intercollegiate transfer process on campus, success in gateway courses has become more important than ever before. This is particularly true for underrepresented undergraduates given their concentration in the

Division of General Studies, where low grades in gateway courses can divert students from

ICT options that align with their interest and career aspirations. Thus I ask that a subgroup of this committee focus on student success in key prerequisite courses within the first-year curricula that either allow or disallow students from persisting in their desired academic path. The subcommittee should give critical attention to the level of student of success in these courses, particularly for underrepresented students, and investigate any emerging patterns of success or challenges as it relates to a) the students’ preparedness for these courses base on their placement indicators and b) the student’s enrollment in multiple gateway courses simultaneously. Finally the subgroup will offer appropriate recommendations.

Membership: Kimberly Brown, Assistant Dean, Liberal Arts and Sciences, (Chair); Pamela

Greer, Director of Transition Program, Liberal Arts and Sciences; Jesse Thompson, Assistant

Dean, Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences; Jessica Howard, Academic

Hourly, Business; Domonic Cobb, Assistant Provost, (ex officio)

Executive Summary: Over the course of our review, our initial assessment is continued resources are required to do more in-depth examination of the impact of Gateway courses on

Underrepresented Undergraduates matriculation and persistence. Based on preliminary findings, there is a causal relationship between some of the Gateway courses and grade point averages. By and large, the Urbana campus has the necessary programs in place to overcome the academic challenges faced by Gateway courses. Thus, the committee recommends expansion, realignment and restructuring for more complimentary course placement and enhanced academic success.

Gateway Subcommittee Activities and Process: Members of the Gateway Subcommittee met eight (8) times during the fall and spring semesters (12/9, 1/13, 1/23, 2/2, 2/10, 2/27, 3/10, 4/14).

During the first meeting, the committee narrowed down the cohort of students for which we would examine. The cohorts included: 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. Afterward, we identified the most significant majors in each college in which underrepresented students gravitate. From there, we identified those first year course that were either required in the first year or were most often selected in the first year. Afterward, using these courses, we met with Carol Livingstone to request data comprising of grade distribution and other determined significant data points (e.g., attributes, campus PGPA, college PGPA, high school percentile, ACT composition, advance placement and University placement etc). The committee also met with various campus units and reviewed literature in order to identify emerging patterns as well as obtain a clearer outlook on surrounding our students’ success and challenges. Below is a summary of the outcomes from these meetings. The summary is organized by the excerpt from the charge to which they respond:

5


“The subcommittee should give critical attention to the level of student of success in these

courses, particularly for underrepresented students,”

The committee was able to gain a broader understanding of the data through numerous consultations. The guest speakers below provided structural background information centered on either ALEK, relevant merit programs or the REACH program. Additionally, based on the requisite course, each provided salient insight surrounding recent comparison data their units or departments use to assess the performance of their underrepresented students.

(1) Alison Ahlgren, Coordinator Quantitative Reasoning Courses and Instructor

Through our conversation with Alison we learned:



Alison is in the process of compiling and analyzing data associated with ALEKS placement and student performance. She has been able to glean: o Withdrawals from math courses that first year students are likely to enroll have decreased by 1%. o Enrollment in these math courses has increased 10 - 15%. o Retention in these math courses has increased 90 - 95%. o She may be able show that if the student spends about 10 hours a week on the learning module, the student’s score may increase by one course level.



Along with appropriate placement, students also need strong faculty in order to successfully absorb the material needed to advance to the next level.



ALEKS has the capability of providing information surrounding success patterns.

Although she is working towards pulling that information out for this year’s cohort.

It has not been done for underrepresented students.

(2) Jennifer McNeilly, Director, Merit Program, Mathematics

Through our conversation with Jennifer we learned:



Through the Treisman [http://www.math.uiuc.edu/MeritWorkshop/uriModel.html] model for which our Math Merit Program models, Jennifer has been able to determine that generally, underrepresented students in the merit sections perform better than those underrepresented students not enrolled in a merit section.



Jennifer believes one of the factors for the Merit Program’s success is its format (i.e. twice as long discussion sections, extra credit for 199, different teaching model and well-trained instructors).

[http://www.math.uiuc.edu/MeritWorkshop/merit_classes.html]



Although two of the challenges that Merit Programs encounter are “buy in” and participation by eligible students, it is worth noting that their waiting list steadily increases. Jennifer attributes this to the focus-specific teaching methods

[incorporating study skills and meeting the students at their math proficiency], grade output and word of mouth.



Math Merit student profile consists of: 24 Math ACT, High School, High School

Percentile, Science and Reasoning ACT score, traditionally underrepresented populations and students from small high schools.



Currently, ALEKS placement score is not utilized as a factor for placement into the

Math Merit Program. It is noted, ALEKS cannot be tied to a specific course.

6




There is a recruiting relationship between three of the Merit programs [Math,

Chemistry and Integrative Biology]. However, this relationship does not extend to the programmatic implementation. Each program varies in format, eligibility requirements and content. For example, in order to remain eligible to continue in

Math Merit, students must earn a ‘B’ in the Merit section with a C or higher in the attached course. Chemistry Merit programs do not require these factors.



Math Merit is available to the third level of calculus [Math 241].

(3) Gretchen Adams, Program Director, Merit Program, Chemistry

Through our conversation with Gretchen we learned:



Currently, it is not clear whether or not there is a correlation between the ALEKS

Placement test and Chemistry placement.



Unlike Math, Chemistry relies heavily on Math ACT and the Chemistry Placement

Exam; however, the placement exam is examined in context. Thus, thoughtful advising is necessary for proper placement.



Preliminary data indicates students in merit earn D’s and F’s at a lower rate than their non-Merit counterparts. [See appendix A]



The Chemistry curriculum is looking to be revised and the department has a strong interest in providing more merit sections.



Gretchen and Don DeCoste will look at the Chem. ALEKS model to see if it can serve as placement, remediation and/or a tutorial.



Chemistry Merit student profile consists of: Math ACT, require one year of

Chemistry, all underrepresented and rural students



Chem. Merit is available up to the organic chemistry level.



Otherwise, students may also utilize various academic support services namely the

Chemistry Learning Annex.

(4) Tina Knox, Coordinator Undergraduate Instruction, Molecular and Cellular Biology

Through our conversation with Tina we learned:



Data has not been compiled to determine whether or not there is a contributory relationship between Math placement and placement in MCB or IB.



Under MCB’s advising scheme, they offer two programs: (1) Educational

Achievement Programs in MCB and (2) MCB REACH Program. Each target students from smaller high schools and traditionally underrepresented students in the sciences. However, their merit program focuses on students with a Math ACT of 25 or higher; whereas, REACH focuses on students whose Math ACT is 24 or lower, first generation students and students in the Educational Opportunities Program

(EOP).



REACH primary objectives is to assist students in their transition from high school to college, navigate the campus environment, develop good study skills and critical thinking and problem solving skills, formulate a solid foundation of the core concepts and establish a support network.



MCB Merit Program provides students with an opportunity to work on assignments to prepare for class, work on problem sets, work together in small groups where they learn how to problem solve and current merit students have the opportunity to meet with successful underrepresented students and faculty.

7




MCB is experiencing some success, but concedes some students remain in the C-F range. For example: primarily data indicates African Americans and Latino/a students with 16-19 ACT Comp and who are enrolled in MCB 150 are likely to earn grades in the D range; similarly, students with 20-23 ACT Comp are likely to earn C or lower grades. From the data Tina shared, it appears the higher the ACT Comp, the more probable it is that the student will earn a higher grade. It is worth noting, the chart that we were shown did not distinguish between non-merit underrepresented students and merit underrepresented students [See Appendix B].

(5) Carol Livingstone, Associate Provost for Management Information

Through our conversation with Carol:



We identified three cohorts for which we wanted comparative data. They are 2006-

2007, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009.



We requested the following data points to use for our comparative analysis:

ACTC

ACTM

ALEKS placement score

AP Placement scores/credit = Bio, Chem., Math, Phys

Attributes

Campus pgpa

College pgpa

Ethnicity

Gender

HS%

HS

Term gpa [FA; SP; SU]

CHEM. placement score Term credit hours [FA; SP; SU]

All subsequent terms



Along with the data points, college determined gateway courses were provided as a means to capture a causal relationship [See Appendix C].

“Investigate any emerging patterns of success or challenges as it relates to”:

(1) The students’ preparedness for these courses based on their placement indicators



At this time, we are unable to fully address this question. As the need for data persists . Carol Livingstone reports, “She cannot run regressions with all factors because there is no student who has taken every class. Regression requires there to be complete data for every student for all factors. So, she will need to run separate regressions for each class or perhaps use some data mining techniques to make some sense of it all.”



Based on the information Carol has been able to provide thus far, there appears, to some degree, to be a negative correlation between grade point averages earned and the provided factors.



Although students are being retained, there appears to be a decrease in grade point averages. Nowhere is this more noticeable, than in the STEM courses.



Consequently, in the STEM related courses, there is a noticeable decline in enrollment in the succeeding course.



Per the Campus Class Schedule, humanities and social science courses are not sequential. As a result, per the data, we see more consistent enrollment patterns and higher grade point averages.

(2) The student’s enrollment in multiple gateway courses simultaneously



Again, at this time, we are unable to fully address this question. According to Carol, this is a difficult task based on the time frame and data techniques.

8


Members of the Gateway Subcommittee reviewed the following literature:



Cohen, J.E. (2004). Mathematics Is Biology's Next Microscope, Only Better; Biology Is

Mathematics' Next Physics, Only Better. PLoS Biol 2(12): e439 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0020439



Pearce, K. & Anderson, R.M. “The Effects of Placement Examinations and Enforcing

Prerequisites on Student Success in Entry-Level Mathematics Courses” Pre-Print.

Texas Tech University”, 1998. <http://www.math.ttu.edu/~pearce/papers/exams.pdf

(page 2)>



Office of Equal Opportunity and Access. (2004). A Report on the Participation and

Success of Underrepresented Students and Staff. Retrieved from University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign University Office for Planning & Budgeting website:http://www.pb.uillinois.edu/Documents/participreports/2004/whole%20repo rts/UIUC%20Whole%20Report%20Web.pdf



Clark, L. (2004). Cultural Learning Styles: Promoting Learning Within A Diverse

Classroom. Retrieved from Old Dominion University Multicultural Student Services

Website: http://studentservices.odu.edu/mss/archive/2003/cultural%20learning%20styles.htm



Tanner, K., Chatman, C.S. & Allen, D. (2003). Approaches to Cell Biology Teaching:

Cooperative Learning in the Science Classroom—Beyond Students Working in

Groups. Cell Biol Educ 2(1): 1-5 DOI: 10.1187/cbe.03-03-0010

Recommendations: Based on the aforementioned information, the initial assessment of the

Gateway Subcommittee is as follows:

1. Reconstitute the Gateway Subcommittee, in some form, to continually analyze data on barriers to retention and academic success for underrepresented students and create a sustainable database where relevant data is routinely collected for analysis to support evidence driven recommendations for continual improvement.

Rationale: At this time, we are unable to fully address the following factors: A) The students’ preparedness for these courses based on their placement indicators and B) The student’s enrollment in multiple gateway courses simultaneously. The need for data persists. Carol

Livingstone reports, “[She] cannot run regressions with all factors because there is no student who has taken every class. Regression requires there to be complete data for every student for all factors. So, [she] will need to run separate regressions for each class or perhaps use some data mining techniques to make some sense of it all.”

Nevertheless, it is clear from the partial data Carol provided, the need to assess the impact on



Gateway courses upon students persistence remains essential. For example:

There appears, to some degree, to be a negative correlation between grade point averages



 earned and the provided factors.

Although students are being retained, there appears to be a decrease in grade point averages.

Nowhere is this more noticeable, than in the STEM courses.

Consequently, in the STEM related courses, there is a noticeable decline in enrollment in the succeeding course.

9




Per the Campus Class Schedule, humanities and social science courses are not sequential. As a result, per the data, we see more consistent enrollment patterns and higher grade point averages.

2. Request that Chemistry, Economics, Integrative Biology (IB), Math, Molecular and Cellular

Biology (MCB), and Physics departments create a work group to determine the efficacy of using

ALEKS placement scores in addition to ACT Comp and Math ACT scores for placement that leads to success in introductory STEM Gateway courses.

Rationale: Although ALEKS has demonstrated placement success (Withdrawals from math courses that first year students are likely to enroll have decreased by 1%. Enrollment in these math courses has increased 10 - 15%. Retention in these math courses has increased 90 - 95 %.), currently the ALEKS placement score is not used to determine placement in introductory courses such as Chemistry, Integrative Biology, Molecular and Cellular Biology or Economics. In the case of Chemistry, among other factors, the Math ACT is more heavily relied on to determine appropriate placement. Nevertheless, IB, MCB and Econ use neither ALEKS nor Math ACT to establish placement. If one concedes that Joel Cohen is accurate “… mathematics has long been intertwined with the biological sciences…”1 then it would stand to reason each would need a firm understanding of what level of math would be required to be successful in the requisite course.

This is further supported by Kent Pearce and Ronald Anderson who state, “SAT and ACT scores are designed to represent a measure of the level of preparation for collegiate studies. They are generally not designed as predictors of success in individual courses.”2 By determining if the

ALEKS placement exam is an additional means of appropriate placement for STEM courses the campus positions itself to reap two benefits: (1) consistency in placement messages and (2) more regimented and transparent course progression.

3. Create more “Merit” and “REACH” programs for more gateway courses, particularly those with high rates of unsatisfactory student performance, and extend existing merit programs to 200 and 300 levels. Further, while designing the aforementioned courses the committee encourages the departments to incorporate teaching strategies that address multiple learning styles.

Rationale: Preliminary data indicates students of color in Merit sections have a higher degree of success than their Non-Merit counterparts. For Example:

(1) Chemistry Merit Program

“In 2003, the Chemistry Merit Program released “A Review of Academic Achievement” which provided quantitative evidences of success including retention analysis. In its evaluation of the

Merit Program, the Department of Chemistry was very pleased with the progress to date. The indepth, quantitative analysis showed that the retention of Merit students in Chemistry and

Chemical Engineering, as majors, was higher than the retention of non-Merit Program students,

1 Cohen, J.E. (2004). Mathematics Is Biology's Next Microscope, Only Better; Biology Is Mathematics'

Next Physics, Only Better. PLoS Biol 2(12): e439 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0020439

2 Pearce, K. & Anderson, R.M. “The Effects of Placement Examinations and Enforcing Prerequisites on

Student Success in Entry-Level Mathematics Courses” Pre-Print. Texas Tech University”, 1998.

<http://www.math.ttu.edu/~pearce/papers/exams.pdf (page 2)>

10


53% versus 37%. Furthermore, 31% of the Chemistry and Chemical Engineering degrees awarded to Merit students were underrepresented minorities versus only 3% for the non-Merit students.”3

(2) Math Merit Program

According to the data compiled by Jennifer McNeilly during fall 2008, students of color in the

Math 115 merit sections earned an average grade point average of 2.34 versus their non-merit counterparts who earned an average grade point average of 1.69 [See Appendix D]. The findings through the preliminary data also indicate that most students who do well in Math 115 go on to do well in Math 220 (~85% of the students who earned an A, B in Math 115 Fall 2007 went on to earn at least a C in Math 220) [See Appendix D]. Similarly, the McNeilly data demonstrates students of color who enroll in merit Math 220 during fall 2007 earned an average grade point average of 2.31 versus a 1.77 average grade point average for non-merit participants of color [See

Appendix D].

(3) MCB Merit Programs

MCB is experiencing some success, but concedes some students remain in the C-F range. For instance: primarily data indicates African Americans and Latino/a students with 16-19 ACT

Comp and who are enrolled in MCB 150 are likely to earn grades in the D range; similarly, students with 20-23 ACT Comp are likely to earn C or lower grades [See Appendix B]. From the data Tina shared, “It appears the higher the ACT Comp, the more probable it is that the student will earn a higher grade.” It is worth noting; the chart that we were shown did not distinguish between non-merits underrepresented and merit underrepresented

According to Diversity Initiatives In Education/Paper Clip Communications “An expanding body of research supports that there is a correlation between student’s cultural background and their preferred learning style; that students’ individual learning preferences seems to be accompanied by culturally determined tools that influence the way they process information; and that cultivating the instructional climate to support, or at least acknowledge the individually and culturally influenced differences in learning styles, value systems and educational preferences does have an impact on the academic success and retention of multicultural students.”4

One particular tool outlined by Tanner, Chapman and Allen based on studies by Johnson and

Johnson and Springer et al that takes into consideration varying learning styles is cooperative learning. Springer et al believe the use of cooperative learning enhances students’ ability to learn and retain material thereby increasing academic achievement and retention in the subject area.

In a paper available on the CLC website and presented in 2000, Johnson and Johnson conducted a meta-analysis of only that literature that specifically analyzed the impact of

3 Office of Equal Opportunity and Access. (2004). A Report on the Participation and Success of

Underrepresented Students and Staff. Retrieved from University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

University Office for Planning & Budgeting website: http://www.pb.uillinois.edu/Documents/participreports/2004/whole%20reports/UIUC%20Whole%20Rep ort%20Web.pdf

4 Clark, L. (2004). Cultural Learning Styles: Promoting Learning Within A Diverse Classroom. Retrieved from Old Dominion University Multicultural Student Services Website: http://studentservices.odu.edu/mss/archive/2003/cultural%20learning%20styles.htm

11


cooperative learning on student achievement. In their estimate, students in cooperative learning situations score, on average across many studies, almost two thirds of a standard deviation higher than their peers in competitive or individualistic learning situations

(Johnson et al., 2000).

More specific to college and university instruction, a meta-analysis of studies of small-group learning in undergraduate science, math, engineering, and technology courses documented clear improvements in academic achievement, attitudes toward learning, and persistence in coursework for these students compared with students who experienced more traditional teaching methods (Springer et al., 1999).

The authors of the analysis noted that the "reported effects are relatively large in research on educational innovation," and that the size of the effect across studies would imply that small-group learning would "move a student from the 50th percentile to the 70th on a standardized test," and "reduce attrition from courses and programs by 22%" (qtd.

Springer et al., 1999, p. 9). In addition to these benefits, cooperative learning has been associated with improved attitudes toward subject matter, increased interest in schooling, expanded student–faculty interaction, improved classroom behavior and climate, and the development of life-long learning skills (CLC, 2003; Johnson, 1989).5

Peppered throughout the interviews with each departmental representative was the above core theory. The departmental representatives believe the success of their merit programs is in part due to the deviation from the standard teaching model. Although each merit program may differ in the delivery of their service, each provides the opportunity for cooperative learning. Our campus data is clear: offering a hybrid teaching model (competitive and cooperative learning) to learn STEM material has a significant impact on learning. Consequently, these models offer assistance with the ability to learn and retain material thereby as illustrated, in the graphs within the appendix, increase likelihood for improved grades.

5 Tanner, K., Chatman, C.S. & Allen, D. (2003). Approaches to Cell Biology Teaching: Cooperative Learning in the

Science Classroom—Beyond Students Working in Groups. Cell Biol Educ 2(1): 1-5 DOI: 10.1187/cbe.03-03-0010

12


B.

Tutoring & Academic Support Subcommittee Report

Charge: Quality academic support and assistance are essential on most campuses today and

Illinois is no exception. The need for such services is especially important for our high achieving underrepresented students from under-resourced rural and urban high schools.

Given this reality a subgroup will a) work to audit the availability of academic assistance in critical first year courses, b) identify any gaps in our current service and c) make recommendations to for improvements.

Membership: Jewell White, Assistant Dean, Business (Chair); Ken Ballom, Dean of Students;

Tom Emmanuel, Director of Academic Services, Aviation; Mildred Trent, Assistant Dean,

Education; Domonic Cobb, Assistant Provost (ex officio).

Executive Summary: Preliminary finding from the Tutoring and Academic Support

Subcommittee reveal an array of campus tutoring and services. While the quality of most services were not readily verifiable, the subcommittee was able to determine a) some alignment between these services and the 100 and 200 level gateway courses and b) the need for more support in quantitative courses.

Tutoring & Academic Support Activities and Process: Members of the Tutoring & Academic

Support Subcommittee met eight (6) times during the fall and spring terms (12/12/08 and

2/5, 2/10, 2/17, 3/5, 4/2/09).

Early in the process the subcommittee decided to conduct and audit of the available tutoring and support services available for underrepresented students on campus. Given the full committee’s interest in gateway course conducted the audit with an eye for services which provided assistance with gateway courses. Each subcommittee member was assisted their own college/ division and an additional one. The audit finds are available in

[Appendix F]. Upon completion of the audit the subcommittee conferred with the gateway subcommittee to access the alignment of tutoring and services to underrepresented student need as revealed by their performance in gateway courses. The sum of the subcommittee’s aforementioned effort culminates in the recommendations which follow.

Subcommittee Recommendations:

4. Develop and offer non-credit, study skills and test taking instruction, particularly, for quantitative courses.

Rationale: Preliminary DMI, data reveals that the underrepresented students in the

Gateway courses study earned a mean GPA of 2.19 or lower in 16 quantitative gateway courses [Appendix E]. Currently all of the study skill building services available on campus are geared to non-quantitative courses. Hence we recommend designing instructional opportunities which assist students in building their quantitative study and test taking skills.

5. Align tutoring and supplement instruction availability with the gateway courses where students achieve less.

13


Rationale: Our audit of campus academic services and support reveals the availability of tutoring and academic support is driven by student request, rather than student data. We strongly endorse aligning academic support service with student’s academic need as demonstrated by their course performance. Such would require the consistent, systematic analysis of student performance. While laborious, we believe the end will justify the means and suggest managing the scope of the task by targeting gateway course at the 100 and 200 level, given their critical important to student persistence.

6. Establish clear, consistent expectations for routine assessment of academic service and tutoring providers (preferably with shared metrics for that invite comparative impact analysis).

Rationale: A major shortcoming unveiled in our audit was the paucity of impact and student satisfaction data regarding campus academic service providers. While the audit sharpened our knowledge regarding the availability of services, it remains silent on the quality of said services. While, anecdotally, program descriptions have ranged from excellent to hit or miss, we strongly endorse a systematic, evidence based approach to this question. Such and approach with allow for inter-institutional comparisons of quality, identification of best practice and opportunities for ongoing improvement.

C.

Matriculation Subcommittee Report

Charge: Given our historically decentralized administrative culture, Illinois has long struggled to track student persistence both consistently and systemically. While many approaches exist across campus there is a need for more coordination within Academic

Affairs and between Student Affairs. To this end, a subgroup will audit our current efforts in monitoring persistence and tracking attrition across the institution and offer recommendation for greater efficiency and continuity.

Membership: Michael Andrejasich, Associate Dean, Fine and Applied Arts (Chair); Jonne

Brown, Program Coordinator, Engineering; Anna Gonzalez, Associate Vice Chancellor;

Adrienne Harris, Director of Undergraduate Academic Affairs, Media; Domonic Cobb,

Assistant Provost (ex officio)

Executive Summary: Early intervention and advising center on students’ individual needs are the most effective approaches to successful retention. This relies entirely on our system of advisors and their ability to identify, track and communicate students in their charge.

“A Case Study of Retention Practices at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

(Crenshaw, et.al., 2006) reported that “Retention efforts involve support structures for existing students, particularly those who are underrepresented and are thus more likely to leave. Such support structures can be fostered by providing role models via effective advising and mentoring relationships”.

The study identified student-community interactions as critical to successful completion and student isolation (from the larger University community) was perhaps the most significant single factor. The sub-committee sought to identify indicator data already passively collected within existing processes and organizing it in tools that will better equip advisors and mentors for early intervention.

14


Matriculation Subcommittee Activities and Process: Members of the Matriculation

Subcommittee met eight (6) times during the fall and spring semesters (11/21, 12/19/08 and

1/16, 2/20, 3/30, 4/15/09). The subcommittee focused on the following:

1. Review of practices

College practices vary and are contextualized to individual unit needs.

ICT, Withdrawal and Cancellation

Unofficial withdrawal reports

Most information collected remains local, some collected at University level

Advising (student contact)

Information sharing (Electronic\Paper)

2. Coordination with CoUD \Retention Committee

ICT report (Kramer, et.al.)

Retention Sub-Committee Report (Ramsbottom, et.al.)

work group report on college practices (Mullins)

work group report on Enterprise Data Warehouse & tracking (Tucker\Andrejasich)

3. Review of Management Information

The Campus Profile custom reporting offers units “report cards” that indicate trends in retention\ 12 term graduation rates within a unit. EDW can be “drilled” down to cohorts or the individual student level.

Subcommittee Recommendation:

7. Create system for intercollegiate, student file sharing (preferably electronic) and a

“dashboard’ tool.

Rationale: Currently, some colleges (for example, Engineering, Media and Applied Health

Studies) have implement web based advising tools that are effective in sharing information within a college or department but have limitations when crossing college boundaries.

These limitations include security issues (access, privacy levels, etc.) and input (quality, level of detail and currency of information). We recommend that a campus-wide advisor information system be implemented with advisor training (Advisor Track or Talisma).

Further, it may be most efficient to adopt one of the systems currently in-use by Business,

Engineering, Media and AHS with tabs that incorporate individual college needs. In the absence of an electronic system, it is important to establish simple processes\protocols for student advising records to follow the student in paper copy when transferring colleges.

Additionally, developing a “dashboard” tool similar to applications created for business objectives that allow academic administrators to quickly compare student cohort data sets across units, curricula or courses would enhance their ability to monitor student performance and make data driven academic and programmatic decisions.

8. Expand the use of early warning tools among faculty and within college offices (i.e.: irregular attendance forms, midterm grade reports); expand the use of automatic attendance keeping (i.e.: “clickers” or card swipes) and expand midterm grade reporting to sophomores.

15


Rationale: College and unit advisors draw from several sources to establish “red flags” or indicators that students are “in trouble” and at risk. Some of these information sources are generated locally (for example, irregular attendance reports, late drop petitions, etc.) while others are generated at a campus level (mid-term grades, Emergency Dean communications, etc.). Irregular attendance and midterm grades are tools that are already available but under utilized by faculty. Improving the “friendliness” of the reporting tools may improve faculty participation. Expanding the use of automated attendance keeping

(“clickers” or card swipe) may also improve the access to and the quality of attendance data for academic advisors.

Currently, freshmen midterm grade reporting remains at about a 50-60% reporting level but nearly all freshmen receive at least one mid-term grade. These reports allow advisors (in the units and OMSA) to flag students with reported grades below a given threshold (C-, D-,

F, etc.) or in “gateway” courses for intervention by an advisor. Expanding this tool through the fourth term would be useful to advisors even at current faculty participation levels.

Such expansion is critical given attrition among underrepresented undergraduates at

Illinois is as high or higher after year as it is year one. 6 [See Appendix I]

9. Create a New Advisor Training program and Establish annual workshop/ retreat for advisors to share practices

Rationale: This is presently no forum for advisors to regularly sharing of college practices on issues of recruitment and retention for under-represented undergraduates. Correcting this absence will allow advancements in this area to be shared widely and promote continuity within the advising community across campus. This activity should be charged to the Iliac Professional Development sub-committee with the support of the Provost’s office but include the participation of the Council of Undergraduate Deans and the A&A

Deans Committee.

D.

Unifying the Institutional Message Subcommittee Report

Charge: As our campus intensifies to recruit larger numbers of underrepresented students to campus, it is important that we unify our institutional message and address the seeming contradiction between our belief in their scholastic process, as articulated during the admissions process, and our belief that they are best served with early, intensive academic advising and mentoring, as articulated by the college advising and academic service professionals. While many of us find no contradiction between these messages, a growing number of our students do. Hence the committee will student this issue and offer recommendation for articulating a unified institutional message.

Membership: Sheri Shaw, Director of I-LEAP Program, Applied Health Sciences, (Chair);

Kirkshinta Turnipseed, Assistant Director of I-LEAP Program, Applied Health Sciences; Lori

West, Assistant Director, Division of General Studies; Ivan Favila, Assistant Dean,

6 Carol Livingstone, Associate Provost and Director, Division on Management and Information: “Illinois

Promise Student Comparison Report” (pn2008/093). January, 2009.

16


Engineering; Renique Kersh, Assistant Dean, Applied Health Sciences; Domonic Cobb,

Assistant Provost(ex officio)

Executive Summary: As we attempt to best serve students from underrepresented populations, several units and departments campus wide provide academic support and general assistance for incoming students from diverse backgrounds and varying high school merit. In partnership or alone, there are multiple resources that students are able to receive for academic achievement and personal attainment. Through these programs, students are able to identify study skills, tutoring, employment contacts, job opportunities, internships, and more prescriptive individual-based assistance. Additionally, students are able to discover mentors, role models, and networking opportunities.

Each unit and department utilizes different approaches when communicating with incoming students. Some examples of communication approaches used by departments and units range from mailings, phone calls, presentations, and open houses. Students are inundated with information from several units, not to mention from their college administration,

Academic Advisor, The Office of Minority Student Affairs (OMSA), New Student Programs,

Division of Intercollegiate Athletics, and a host more. Shuffling through the information is overwhelming; and incoming students have admitted to not reading thoroughly all information received. As retention is a principal goal and in order to ensure the success of reaching each student invited to utilize additional preparatory services, the subcommittee for unifying institutional message has designed a way to streamline information to incoming students to increase retention, utilization of additional services, and streamline the communication efforts across all departments and units to students.

Unifying Institutional Message Subcommittee Activities and Process: Members of the Gateway

Subcommittee met 12/17/08 initially and conducted follow up meetings electronically. The subcommittee for unifying institutional message identified two major goals:

1. To create communication the emphasizes a warm and welcoming message to students, that: a) details available services and expects the use of services and offices; b) identifies, explains, and showcases services comprehensively and student friendly; c) encourages and supports students where they are, addressing contradictions, recognizing student strengths, while demonstrating the value of the offices that offer student support.

2. To streamline a collaborative timeline involving student mailings/student contact with campus units and departments to connect students with the services more efficiently.

In pursuit of the aforementioned goals the subcommittee:

1. Identified guiding principles for constructing a unifying message:

 emphasize the continuation of academic success value of leadership

 academic course tutoring “academic skills” development

 make sure message writes to the student’s aspirations

 access to mentoring structures offered by various offices

2. Collected information of communication examples from undergraduate admissions, campus units (OMSA), and several college departments (if possible, the director of student assistance/outreach programs) in regards to mailings sent out to underrepresented students.

3. Contacted Honor Deans to collect information and communication examples sent to honor students to become familiar with frequency of mailings, timelines, and language.

4. Received and reviewed Illinois definition of underrepresented students.

5. Requested timelines and frequencies of letters mailed to incoming freshman from departments, units, and admissions.

17


Subcommittee Recommendations: Based on the aforementioned information, the initial assessment of the Unifying Institutional Message Subcommittee is as follows:

10.

Incorporate the newly drafted initial letter for new students featuring a new unified institutional message. We propose this letter be mail BEFORE any unit or college sends out information. The letter will speak of students’ ambition, affirm aspirations, but provide expectations, direction, and introduce student support services that are provided on campus.

We envision this letter being sent with information from undergraduate admissions. NOTE:

The new letter is designed to replace the paragraph to EOP and PAP students in the current acceptance letter.

 The subcommittee for unifying institutional message proposes that the letters come from the Office of the Provost. As one of the primary missions of the Provost is to ensure the quality of the student body and maintain educational excellence, we believe having the letter stream from the Office of the Provost will allow the Office to further the mission, while providing information on distinct services students can use to ensure and continue personal and educational excellence.

 The letter is a combination of the language and information received from correspondence examples we received from the departments/units

11.

Coordinate the communication across the institution. Institutional coordination of new student communication will allow for more coherent and timely communication with students and reduce interdepartmental duplication.

 Through our early review and research, the Unifying Institutional Message

Subcommittee recognized that students do not begin to receive correspondence from

University departments/units until June. We envision these letters as a general welcome and introduction of services and campus prior to the specific information that students will receive beginning in June. We believe that with this early introduction and education, students will be more receptive to utilize the services offered.

 The subcommittee foresees three additional letters to follow the initial letter in the following manner:

1.

Initial letter of introduction (draft attached)

2.

Second letter detailing additional services and resources that we (as dept/unit representatives) would like to strongly emphasize: OMSA/OMSA East,

Leadership Center, Library, etc. (letter to be developed and completed with guidance and collaboration from the CRUU). We propose the use of a teamwork analogy with this letter to show how it takes coaches and a team for continuance of academic achievement and excellence.

3.

Third letter as a student testimonial letter that encourages using the program and services (letter to be developed and completed with guidance and collaboration from the CRUU)---allows students to receive the current student view

4.

Wrap up letter that reintroduces the program, includes statistics of support and student success through use of the services/programs (letter to be developed and completed with guidance and collaboration from the CRUU) - and informs them that they will receive directed information from their respective program in June and throughout the rest of the summer.

 The subcommittee recommends the letters to be sent weekly in the month of May. After the acceptance date of May 1, letter one would be mailed and the subsequent letters will be mailed on the following Mondays in May.

12.

Use unified message in all communication with the aforementioned new students. The subcommittee believes that it is important for the message in the letters to be consistent with the messages that students receive on the web and in other corresponding information. The following are potential next steps for consideration:

18


 Collaborate with Undergraduate admissions to create or revise mailing/brochures that emphasize the specialized programs and services in a unified message

 Collaborate with the current website, http://diversity.illinois.edu and possibly place links in regards to resources and services that would be helpful to a targeted population

 Collaborate with the “my.illinois” student portal project to reinforce messaging

 Collaborate with New Student Programs to add a stronger presence on I-Start

VI.

Synopsis of Recommendations

By and large, the Urbana campus has the necessary programs in place to overcome the myriad challenges faced by underrepresented undergraduates. Hence the committee recommendations focus chiefly on expanding, realigning and restructuring our resources to increase our effectiveness in ensuring every undergraduate is retained and graduated from

Illinois. To that end we join our colleague from the Retention Subcommittee of the Council of

Undergraduate Deans in endorsing an approach to retention that is consistent, “embracive of a variety of student outcomes and sensitive to multiple student characteristics”7. And so it follows, based on our analysis and group consensus we, the CRUU, submit this compilation of complimentary, recommendations in pursuit of that shared commitment:

1. Reconstitute the Gateway Subcommittee, in some form, to continually analyze data on barriers to retention and academic success for underrepresented students and create a sustainable database where relevant data is routinely collected for analysis to support evidence driven recommendations for continual improvement (see p. 9 for rationale)

2. Request that Chemistry, Economics, Integrative Biology (IB), Math, Molecular and Cellular

Biology (MCB), and Physics departments create a work group to determine the efficacy of using ALEKS placement scores in addition to ACT Comp and Math ACT scores for placement that leads to success in introductory STEM Gateway courses (see p. 10 for rationale).

3. Create more “Merit” and “REACH” programs for more gateway courses, particularly those with high rates of unsatisfactory student performance, and extend existing merit programs to 200 and 300 levels. Further, while designing the aforementioned courses the committee encourages the departments to incorporate teaching strategies that address multiple learning styles (see p. 10 for rationale).

4. Develop and offer non-credit, study skills and test taking instruction, particularly, for quantitative courses (see p. 13 for rationale).

5. Align tutoring and supplement instruction availability with the gateway courses where students achieve less (see p. 13 for rationale).

6. Establish clear, consistent expectations for routine assessment of academic service and tutoring providers; preferably with shared metrics for that invite comparative impact analysis (see p. 14 for rationale).

7 Council of Undergraduate Deans: “Final Report of the Subcommittee on Retention” p.1, Spring 2009.

19


7. Create system for intercollegiate, student file sharing (preferably electronic) and a

“dashboard’ tool (see p.15 for rationale).

8. Expand the use of early warning tools among faculty and within college offices (i.e.: irregular attendance forms, midterm grade reports); expand the use of automatic attendance keeping (i.e.: “clickers” or card swipes) and expand midterm grade reporting to sophomores

(see p. 15 for rationale).

9. Create a New Advisor Training program and establish an annual workshop/ retreat for advisors to share practices (see p.16 for rationale).

10. Incorporate the newly drafted initial letter for new students featuring a new unified institutional message (see p. 18 for rationale) .

11. Coordinate the communication across the institution (see p. 18 for rationale) .

12. Use unified message in all communication with the aforementioned new students (see p.

18 for rationale) .

Finally, we, the Ad Hoc Committee on Retention for Underrepresented Undergraduates, join the Retention Subcommittee from the Council of Undergraduate Deans in recommending a standing Committee on the Retention of Undergraduates (CRU).

VII.

Appendixes

A.

Chemistry Merit Statistics [fall 2004 – spring 2007]

B.

MCB Merit Statistics

C.

Gateway Courses

D.

Math Merit Statistics

E.

DMI Statistics (pn2009/027)

F.

Academic Services Audit

G.

Draft of initia l letter of introduction

H.

Template of contact/ unit resource postcard to send with initial letter

I.

DMI IP Statistics (pn2008/093)

20


APPENDIX A

Chemistry 101 (FA04, FA05, FA06)

Letter Grade

A

B

All Students

(1732)

330

649

Non-Merit

(1595)

19.05% 305 19.12% 25

37.47% 606 37.99% 40

Note: NM stands for Non-Merit

Merit (124)

NM Minority

(356)

20.16%

32.26%

21

88

5.90%

24.72%

C

D

F

NC

NR

ABS

CR

I

Total

GPA

Math ACT

Comp. ACT

HS %

539

134

55

10

1

5

8

1

1732

31.12% 490 30.72% 42

7.74% 121 7.59% 12

3.18%

0.58%

0.06%

49

9

1

3.07%

0.56%

0.06%

5

0

0

0.29%

0.46%

0.06%

100%

2.61

25.33

25.21

83.62

5

8

1

1595

0.31%

0.50%

0.06%

100%

2.62

25.52

25.41

83.79

0

0

0

124

2.43

23.53

23.47

82.56

33.87% 154 43.26%

9.68% 53 14.89%

4.03%

0.00%

0.00%

26

7

0

7.30%

1.97%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100%

1

356

2

4

0.56%

1.12%

0.28%

100%

2.03

22.25

22.60

81.17

30

10

2

0

0

0

0

0

69

Merit Minority

(69)

7

20

10.14%

28.99%

43.48%

14.49%

2.90%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100%

2.21

21.55

21.43

78.94

NM Rural (412) Merit Rural (72)

77 18.69% 18 25.00%

157 38.11% 25

122 29.61% 22

34.72%

30.56%

37

12

1

1

8.98%

2.91%

0.24%

0.24%

4

3

0

0

5.56%

4.17%

0.00%

0.00%

2

2

1

412

2.60

25.49

25.36

82.85

0.49%

0.49%

0.24%

100%

0

0

0

72

2.65

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100%

25.05

25.11

84.04

21


Chemistry 102 (FA04 - SP07)

Letter Grade

A

B

C

D

F

NC

NR

ABS

CR

I

Total

GPA

Math ACT

Comp. ACT

HS %

All Students

(2961)

Non-Merit

(2586) Merit (375)

NM Minority

(287)

470

980

990

345

148

8

3

11

2

4

2961

15.87% 393 15.20% 77

33.10% 835 32.29% 145

33.43% 879 33.99% 111

11.65% 316 12.22% 29

5.00%

0.27%

0.10%

0.37%

0.07%

138

7

3

5.34%

0.27%

0.12%

11 0.43%

2 0.08%

0.14%

100%

2.44

2

2586

0.08%

100%

2.41

10

1

0

0

0

2

375

29.28

28.25

88.11

29.54

28.43

88.13

0.53%

100%

2.67

27.52

27.02

88.01

20.53% 14 4.88%

38.67% 51 17.77%

29.60% 103 35.89%

7.73% 75 26.13%

2.67%

0.27%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

40 13.94%

0

0

3

0

0.00%

0.00%

1.05%

0.00%

1

287

0.35%

100%

1.74

25.26

24.80

82.42

Merit Minority

(101)

9

34

37

14

6

0

0

0

0

1

101

8.91%

33.66%

36.63%

13.86%

5.94%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.99%

100%

2.24

25.46

24.77

82.82

NM Rural (624)

Merit Rural

(261)

82 13.14% 56 21.46%

190 30.45% 103 39.46%

222 35.58% 77

90 14.42% 18

29.50%

6.90%

34

1

3

2

0

5.45%

0.16%

0.48%

0.32%

0.00%

5

1

0

0

0

1.92%

0.38%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0

624

2.33

0.00%

100%

29.64

28.66

86.44

1

261

2.72

0.38%

100%

28.00

27.70

88.29

22



Letter Grade

A

All Students

(3659)

741

Non-Merit

(3379) Merit (280)

20.25% 676 20.01% 65 23.21%

NM Minority

(287)

24 8.36%

B

C

D

F

NC

NR

ABS

CR

I

Total

GPA

Math ACT

Comp. ACT

HS %

1270 34.71% 1159 34.30% 111

1281 35.01% 1194 35.34% 87

270

64

7.38%

1.75%

258

61

7.64%

1.81%

12

3

6

4

14

2

0.16%

0.11%

0.38%

0.05%

6

2

14

2

0.18%

0.06%

0.41%

0.06%

0

2

0

0

0

280

7

3659

0.19%

100%

2.65

29.27

28.22

88.26

7 0.21%

3379 100%

2.64

29.46

28.38

88.26

39.64% 76 26.48%

31.07% 117 40.77%

4.29%

1.07%

47

18

16.38%

6.27%

0.00%

0.71%

0.00%

0.00%

2

0

1

0

0.70%

0.00%

0.35%

0.00%

0.00%

100%

2.78

27.00

26.45

88.34

2

287

0.70%

100%

2.11

25.53

24.99

83.07

2

0

0

0

79

36

8

2

0

Merit Minority

(79)

8

23

10.13%

29.11%

45.57%

10.13%

2.53%

0.00%

2.53%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100%

2.31

24.42

23.86

83.52

NM Rural (819)

Merit Rural

(168)

152 18.56% 48 28.57%

273 33.33% 70 41.67%

316 38.58% 45 26.79%

61

13

2

0

1

0

7.45%

1.59%

0.24%

0.00%

0.12%

0.00%

4

1

0

0

0

0

2.38%

0.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1

819

2.60

0.12%

100%

29.32

28.44

86.83

0

168

2.95

0.00%

100%

27.87

27.49

90.23

23



Letter Grade

A

All Students

(700)

195

Non-Merit

(620) Merit (80)

27.86% 174 28.06% 21 26.25%

B

C

255

177

36.43% 223 35.97% 32

25.29% 154 24.84% 23

NM Minority

(23)

40.00%

2

6

8.70%

26.09%

28.75% 12 52.17%

D

F

NC

NR

ABS

CR

I

Total

GPA

Math ACT

Comp. ACT

HS %

40

24

0

0

9

0

0

700

5.71%

3.43%

0.00%

0.00%

1.29%

0.00%

0.00%

100%

2.80

31.83

29.89

90.78

38 6.13%

23 3.71%

0

0

0.00%

0.00%

8

0

1.29%

0.00%

0 0.00%

620 100%

2.81

32.03

30.01

90.87

1

0

0

80

2

1

0

0

2.50%

1.25%

0.00%

0.00%

1.25%

0.00%

0.00%

100%

2.85

30.30

28.94

90.08

2

0

0

23

0

1

0

0

0.00%

4.35%

0.00%

0.00%

8.70%

0.00%

0.00%

100%

2.44

30.49

29.18

83.38

0

0

0

0

0

25

Merit Minority

(25)

6

8

24.00%

32.00%

10

1

0

40.00%

4.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100%

2.68

29.92

28.44

84.04

0

0

2

0


27 27.27% 14 29.17%

33 33.33% 19

29 29.29% 12

2

6

2.02%

6.06%

1

1

39.58%

25.00%

2.08%

2.08%

0

99

0.00%

0.00%

2.02%

0.00%

2.73

0.00%

100%

0

0

1

0

0

48

0.00%

0.00%

2.08%

0.00%

0.00%

100%

2.88

32.35

30.13

88.19

30.71

29.29

91.23

24


Chemistry 204 (SP05, SP06, SP07)

Letter Grade

A

All Students

(491)

142

Non-Merit

(437)

28.92% 126 28.83% 16

Merit (54)

29.63%

B

C

184

146

37.47% 154 35.24% 30

29.74% 138 31.58% 8

NM Minority

(17)

55.56%

2

2

11.76%

11.76%

14.81% 12 70.59%

D

F

NC

NR

ABS

CR

I

Total

GPA

Math ACT

Comp. ACT

HS %

15

1

0

0

3

0

0

491

3.05%

0.20%

0.00%

0.00%

0.61%

0.00%

0.00%

100%

2.91

32.08

30.08

91.43

15

1

0

0

3

0

3.43%

0.23%

0.00%

0.00%

0.69%

0.00%

0 0.00%

437 100%

2.88

32.27

30.22

91.79

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

54

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100%

3.17

30.52

28.94

88.69

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

17

5.88%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100%

2.35

29.94

28.88

87.73

0

0

0

0

17

3

0

0

0

Merit Minority

(17)

4

10

23.53%

58.82%

17.65%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100%

3.04

29.88

28.24

80.82


16 22.22% 10 33.33%

32

22

44.44%

30.56%

15

5

50.00%

16.67%

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

72

1.39%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.39%

0.00%

2.84

0.00%

100%

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

30

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100%

3.18

32.21

30.50

90.46

31.10

29.17

90.13

25



Letter Grade

A

B

C

D

F

NC

NR

ABS

CR

I

Total

GPA

Math ACT

Comp. ACT

HS %

All Students

(3154)

Non-Merit

(2842) Merit (312)

NM Minority

(225)

698

961

22.13% 603 21.22% 95

30.47% 854 30.05% 107

1271 40.30% 1171 41.20% 100

169 5.36% 160 5.63% 9

42

6

1

0

5

1.33%

0.19%

0.03%

0.00%

0.16%

42

5

1

0

5

1.48%

0.18%

0.04%

0.00%

0.18%

0

1

0

0

0

0

312

1

3154

0.03%

100%

2.65

29.04

28.16

88.23

1 0.04%

2842 100%

2.62

29.24

28.34

88.10

0.00%

100%

2.92

27.28

26.64

89.37

30.45% 17 7.56%

34.29% 50 22.22%

32.05% 121 53.78%

2.88% 26 11.56%

0.00%

0.32%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7

3

0

0

0

3.11%

1.33%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1

225

0.44%

100%

2.16

25.14

24.74

82.29

Merit Minority

(70)

0

1

0

0

0

0

70

7

14

43

5

10.00%

20.00%

61.43%

7.14%

0.00%

1.43%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100%

2.28

23.93

23.81

84.16

NM Rural (589)

Merit Rural

(143)

7

2

0

0

1

128 21.73% 50 34.97%

164 27.84% 57 39.86%

253 42.95% 33 23.08%

34 5.77% 3 2.10%

1.19%

0.34%

0.00%

0.00%

0.17%

0

0

0

0

0

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0

589

2.62

0.00%

100%

28.82

28.35

86.38

0

143

3.06

0.00%

100%

27.73

27.30

90.92

26



Letter Grade

A

All Students

(392)

67 17.09%

Non-Merit

(345) Merit (47)

56 16.23% 11 23.40%

B

C

D

F

NC

NR

ABS

CR

I

Total

GPA

Math ACT

Comp. ACT

HS %

0

0

2

3

149

122

38

10

1

392

38.01% 130 37.68% 19

31.12% 107 31.01% 15

9.69%

2.55%

36

10

10.43%

2.90%

2

0

0.00%

0.00%

0.51%

0.77%

0

0

2

3

0.00%

0.00%

0.58%

0.87%

0

0

0

0

0

47

0.26%

100%

2.59

31.82

30.12

91.35

1 0.29%

345 100%

2.55

31.94

30.20

91.84

40.43%

31.91%

4.26%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100%

2.82

30.85

29.42

87.47

7

1

2

0

1

5

NM Minority

(16)

6.25%

31.25%

0

0

0

43.75%

6.25%

12.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0

16

0.00%

100%

2.12

29.17

28.40

83.91

Merit Minority (9) NM Rural (57) Merit Rural (20)

1 11.11% 7 12.28% 6 30.00%

3

4

33.33%

44.44%

22

17

38.60%

29.82%

6

8

30.00%

40.00%

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

9

11.11%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100%

2.41

7

2

0

0

0

2

0

57

12.28%

3.51%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.51%

0.00%

100%

2.45

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

20

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100%

2.87

30.06

28.06

82.67

31.06

30.01

86.70

31.18

29.27

84.75

27



Letter Grade

A

B

C

D

F

NC

NR

ABS

CR

I

Total

GPA

Math ACT

Comp. ACT

HS %

All Students

(1355)

Non-Merit

(1167) Merit (188)

NM Minority

(76)

7

2

8

8

1

383

466

438

39

3

1355

28.27% 325 27.85% 58

34.39% 379 32.48% 87

32.32% 402 34.45% 36

2.88% 34 2.91% 5

0.52%

0.15%

0.59%

0.59%

0.07%

7

0

8

8

1

0.60%

0.00%

0.69%

0.69%

0.09%

0.22%

100%

2.84

3

1167

0.26%

100%

2.84

0

2

0

0

0

0

188

29.52

28.20

88.89

29.69

28.36

88.71

0.00%

100%

3.05

28.47

27.25

89.99

30.85% 6 7.89%

46.28% 16 21.05%

19.15% 37 48.68%

2.66% 13 17.11%

0.00%

1.06%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2

0

1

0

0

2.63%

0.00%

1.32%

0.00%

0.00%

1

76

1.32%

100%

2.11

24.99

24.38

80.61

Merit Minority

(31)

0

2

0

0

0

0

31

2

10

17

0

6.45%

32.26%

54.84%

0.00%

0.00%

6.45%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100%

2.45

24.78

24.29

81.75


3

0

2

1

0

72 30.13% 25

64 26.78% 30

87 36.40% 10

9 3.77% 4

1.26%

0.00%

0.84%

0.42%

0.00%

1

239

0.42%

100%

2.80

29.47

28.33

87.50

36.23%

43.48%

14.49%

5.80%

0

0

0

0

0

0

69

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.11

0.00%

100%

28.61

27.59

90.78

28


Chemistry 436 (FA04, SP05, SP06, SP07)

Letter Grade

A

All Students

(259)

65 25.10%

Non-Merit

(216) Merit (43)

54 25.00% 11 25.58%

B

C

D

F

NC

97

79

8

8

0

37.45%

30.50%

3.09%

3.09%

0.00%

80 37.04% 16

66 30.56% 13

6

8

0

2.78%

3.70%

0.00%

2

1

0

NR

ABS

CR

I

1

1

0

0

0.39%

0.39%

0.00%

0.00%

1

1

0

0

0.46%

0.46%

0.00%

0.00%

Total 259 100% 216 100%

2.79

31.95

30.22

43

GPA

Math ACT

Comp. ACT

2.78

31.86

30.16

HS % 90.05 91.28

Statistics compiled by Gretchen Adams, Director, Chemistry Merit Program

0

0

0

0

2.75

31.48

29.83

85.92

37.21%

30.23%

4.65%

2.33%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100%

1

0

0

0

10

5

0

0

0

1

3

NM Minority

(10)

10.00%

30.00%

50.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.73

29.83

28.55

88.22

10.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100%

0

0

0

0

5

Merit Minority (5) NM Rural (31) Merit Rural (18)

0 0.00% 7 22.58% 7 38.89%

1

4

20.00%

80.00%

7

12

22.58%

38.71%

4

5

22.22%

27.78%

0

0

0

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2

3

0

6.45%

9.68%

0.00%

1

1

0

5.56%

5.56%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100%

2.20

30.60

28.40

80.80

0

0

0

0

31 100%

2.43

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

31.42

29.74

91.71

0

0

0

0

18

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100%

2.82

29.39

27.78

89.61

29


APPENDIX B

30


31


32


33


34


35


36


Data compiled by Tina Knox, Coordinator Undergraduate Instruction, Molecular and Cellular Biology

37


APPENDIX C

G ATEWAY C OURSES

ACCY 201

ACE 100

ADV 300

ANTH 103

CHEM. 101

CHEM. 102/103

CHEM. 104/105

CHLH 100

CHLH 101

CHLH 244

CHLH 304

MATH 115

MATH 117

MATH 124

MATH 125

MATH 220/221

MATH 231

MATH 241/242

MCB 100

MCB 101

MCB 103

MCB 104

CMN 101

CS 105

ECON 102

ECON 103

FSHN 120

HDFS 105

HIST 141

HIST 142

HIST 171

HIST 172

HIST 200

IB 150

JOUR 200

KIN 140

MCB 150

MS 101

PHYS 101

PHYS 211

PHYS 212

PS 101

PSYC 100/103/105

RHET 101/100; 102/100;

103; 104; 105

RST 100

RST 110

RST 120

RST 130

SHS 120

KIN 150

KIN 262

MATH 012

MATH 103

SHS 170

SHS 171

SOC 100

SPED 117

STAT 100

Courses compiled by both the Committee of Undergraduate Deans – ICT Subcommittee and the CRUU Gateway Subcommittee

38


APPENDIX D

Math 115: Preparation for Calculus



Relatively new course – first offered in Spring 2007.



Designed to prepare students for our Calculus I course (Math 220)



Some demographic information (preliminary):

Merit Non-Merit

Fall 2007

GPA

2.81

(N=39)

Spring 2008 2.05

ACT

24.51

21.86

GPA

2.25

(N=441)

2.02

ACT

25.36

25.33

Merit

Underrepresented

GPA

2.67

(N=20)

ACT

23.21

20

Fall 2008

(N=15)

2.44

(N=57)

25.98

(N=142)

2.03

(N=417)

26.42

1.63

(N=9)

2.34

(N=30)

24.97

Non-Merit

Underrepresented

GPA

1.63

(N=109)

AC T

22.63

23.11 1.39

(N=48)

1.69

(N=119)

24.35



Preliminary data indicate that most students who do well Math 115 go on to do well in Math 220 (~85% of the students who earned an A, B in Math 115 Fall 2007 went on to earn at least a C in Math 220)

Merit Math 220 – Grade Summary from Fall 2004 – Fall 2007

Merit Non-Merit Merit

Underrepresented

Non-Merit

Underrepresented

Fall 2004

GPA

2.78

(N=78)

ACT

28.73

GPA

2.72

(N=138)

ACT

29.77

GPA

2.28

(N=19)

ACT

26.35

GPA

1.91

(N=15)

AC T

25.93

Spring 2005 24.05 27.75 22 25.17

Fall 2005

Spring 2006

2.61

(N=22)

2.84

(N=60)

2.31

(N=14)

29.10

27.62

2.72

(N=199)

2.48

(N=165)

1.77

(N=187)

30.01

28.63

2.44

(N=12)

2.61

(N=12)

1.91

(N=7)

26.42

27.83

2.14

(N=40)

1.16

(N=18)

1.25

(N=36)

25.88

25.09

Fall 2006

Spring 2007

2.77

(N=33)

2.10

(N=17)

27.95

24.38

2.61

(N=694)

2.27

(N=235)

28.78

27.85

2.33

(N=17)

1.74

(N=11)

26

23.73

2.53

(N=52)

1.69

(N=63)

26.80

24.02

Fall 2007 2.63

(N=53)

28.5 2.29

(N=600)

29.35 2.31

(N=16)

Data compiled by Jennifer McNeilly, Director, Merit Program, Mathematics

27.88 1.77

(N=71)

26.63

39


APPENDIX E

DMI Statistics (pn2009/027)

Descriptive Statistics, Grades & Hours as of 3/1/09

3291 Underrepresented new beginning freshmen FA06, FA07, FA08

Management Information PN2009/027

Factor

Dependent Variables-- All students

N Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum

GPA

GPA Hours

3282

3282

2.71

42.56

Dependent Variables-- Fall, 2006 cohort

GPA 1199 2.66

GPA Hours 1199 66.81

0.75

25.82

0.07

21.51

0

0

0

0

4

107.66

4

107.66


GPA

GPA Hours

1029

1029

2.71

42.60


GPA 1054 2.78

GPA Hours 1054 14.95

Independent Variables

0.72

10.56

0.78

2.87

0

0

0

0

4

105.00

4

42.00

Campus PGPA

College PGPA

Illinois Promise

First generation college

Bridge

EOAP

Chez

PAP

Transition Program

High School Percent rank

ACT Composite

ACT Math

AP-Biology

AP-Chemistry

AP-Calc AB

AP Calc BC

AP Physics B

AP Physics C

ALEKS 1

ALEKS 2

Chem. Placement test

3181 2.82

328 2.41

320 0.13

914 0.38

140 0.06

26 0.01

3 0.00

1707 0.70

268 0.11

336 83.92

3291 23.54

3291 23.31

240 2.55

178 2.46

398

8

94

34

930

344

2038

2.70

3.88

2.57

3.32

53.74

65.96

9.96

0.37

0.51

0.34

0.48

0.23

0.10

0.04

0.46

0.31

13.70

3.88

4.66

1.37

1.32

1.45

1.81

1.39

1.43

25.73

21.29

5.66

1.31

0.98

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

9

13

13

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

6.25

3.48

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

100

36

36

5

5

5

5

5

5

100

96

30

40


14

:49

Thursday, February

26, 2009

415

ECON102

ECON103

HIST141

HIST142

HIST171

HIST172

HIST200

HIST286

KIN_140

KIN_150

KIN_262

MATH012

MATH103

MATH115

MATH117

MATH124

MATH125

MATH220

MATH221

MATH231

Grade average for Selected Courses

ACCY201

ACE_100

ANTH103

CMN_101

CS__105

FSHN120

HDFS105

IB__150

224 2.83

43 1.85

86 2.66

779 3.06

385 2.31

136 3.11

157 3.24

206 2.28

JOUR200

MS__101

PS__101

SOC_100

SPED117

STAT100

CHEM101

CHEM102

CHEM103

CHEM104

CHEM105

CHLH100

CHLH101

CHLH244

CHLH304

98 2.73

99 3.42

335 2.43

455 3.06

42 3.68

447 2.98

572 2.19

760 1.97

803 3.21

372 2.17

391 2.66

153 3.24

206 2.86

114 3.02

37 2.48

543 1.86

482 2.17

183 2.64

122 2.74

118 2.88

96 2.98

34 3.11

4 2.58

46 2.65

54 2.54

27 2.80

286 1.96

34 2.35

355 1.81

48 2.03

39 1.77

216 2.01

381 2.19

203 2.48

305 2.27

0

0

0

2

0.67

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1.33

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1.33

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

3.33

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

41


1.20

1.13

0.86

1.04

0.89

0.78

0.88

0.57

0.86

0.87

0.82

0.88

0.76

0.90

1.03

1.10

0.89

0.50

0.92

0.84

0.78

0.98

0.94

0.92

0.90

1.15

1.13

0.78

1.05

0.91

0.92

1.05

0.95

0.79

1.13

1.05

1.20

1.11

1.19

1.15

1.16

1.06

1.05

MATH241

MCB_100

MCB_101

MCB_103

MCB_104

MCB_150

PHYS101

PHYS211

PHYS212

PSYC100

200 2.17

78 1.81

9 3.26

77 2.51

53 2.87

306 2.19

110 1.88

219 1.98

135 2.43

1045 2.34

1.09

1.10

0.89

0.95

0.95

1.04

1.09

1.04

0.96

1.00

0

0

1.67

0.67

0.67

0

0

0

0

0

PSYC103

PSYC105

RHET100

RHET101

RHET102

RHET103

RHET104

RHET105

28 2.12

25 2.73

392 2.86

391 3.15

242 3.07

226 3.22

150 3.22

1515 3.16

0.97

0.72

0.63

0.75

0.82

0.81

0.74

0.85

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

3.67

4

3

4

4

4

4

4

RST_110

RST_120

RST_130

RST_100

174 3.03

9 3.19

58 2.35

217 2.89

0.93

0.85

0.99

0.86

0

1.67

0

0

4

4

4

4

SHS_120

SHS_170

409 2.70

50 3.00

1.04

0.84

0

0

4

4

SHS_171 9 2.70 0.59 2 3.67

Statistics compiled by Carol Livingstone, Associate Provost and Director, Division of Management Information

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

42


APPENDIX F

A UDIT OF A CADEMIC S ERVICES ( SPRING 2009)

Report

College/Unit by

Disability Resources and

Educational Services

(DRES)

Tutoring Services Available

Educational Services http://www.disability.uiuc.edu/services/

Leah

Randle

Hours

Available Cost & Location

Office of Minority Student

Affairs (OMSA)

College of Agriculture,

Consumer, &

Environmental Sciences

College of Applied Health

Services (Illinois

Academic Enrichment &

Leadership Program)

Mildred

Trent

Leah

Randle

Leah

Randle

1. Most 100-level courses, esp. Gen

Eds

2. Math courses through Calculus 3

3. Selected 200-level courses

4. Other courses by demand

5. Final review sessions for selected courses.

ABE Mathhelp: Online Math help for

Calculus I, II, III, and Differential

Equations http://ageweb.age.uiuc.edu/faculty/dc/Mathemati cs/mcourses.htm

Drop in Tutoring for AHS courses http://ahs.illinois.edu/ILEAP/ProgramHi ghlights.aspx

.

M-Th:

9am-8pm

F 9am-

5pm

No charge to UI Students

OMSA Academic

Services Center

701 S. Gregory; Suite I

College of Business

(Undergraduate Affairs)

College of Business

(Accountancy)

College of Business

(Finance)

Jewell

White

Jewell

White

Jewell

White

Courses taught in the following: Math

220, Math 234, Math 125, Econ 102,

Econ 103, Econ 202/203

*Econ 302coming soon…

ACCY 301 and 302 for Juniors enrolled in the class, future plans include offering these services for

ACCY 304 and ACCY 405

Fin 300, Fin 221

Math

220/Econ

102 6pm-

7pm

Math

Free for Students, personal after hours available for $8/hr

234/Econ

103 7pm-

8pm

Math 125,

Econ

202/203

8p-9pm

Math is in room 1025

BIF

Free for Students Location

2011 BIF;

Sun-Tues

7-9pm

Mon-

Thurs, 170

Wohlers

Hall

Free walk up tutoring as well as private tutoring is available

43


Division of General

Studies

Engineering

(Undergraduate

Programs)

Engineering

(Undergraduate

Programs)

Engineering (Mechanical)

Engineering (Aerospace)

Engineering (Physics)

College of Fine and

Applied Arts

College of Media

College of Liberal Arts &

Sciences (Chemistry)


Sciences (Math)

Jewell

White

None for their specific unit offered but encourage students to use other resources on campus such as Alpha

Lambda Delta, Office of Minority

Student Affairs, Phi Eta Sigma,

University Residence Halls Academic

Assistance, Chemistry Learning

Center, College of Engineering

Tutoring, Math Department Tutoring, etc...see Division of General Studies,

Academic Support Services Handout

(Spring 2009)

ENG 199M (3 hour course): There are two class sessions each week. One of these sessions is a study session with tutors available.

Mildred

Trent

Mildred

Trent

ICE: Illinois Connections in

Engineering

Mildred

Trent

Pi Tau Sigma (ME Honor Society) offers to all students for ME required courses.

S, T, R: 7-

9pm

Mildred

Trent

Mildred

Trent

Tom

Emanuel

Jewell

White

Leah

Randle

Leah

Randle

M-F: 2-4

Visit website:http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/c ources/phys211/spring09/office_hours.

html

MUS 110-Music James Scholars tutor

Freshman music theory students

(program will be first offered fall 2009)

No College Sponsored Tutoring; generally utilize services offered by

OMSA. They do however offer mentorship by Faculty as well as peer mentoring

Chemistry Learning Center http://www.chem.uiuc.edu/clcwebsite/T utoring_Center.html

Math Tutoring Services http://www.math.illinois.edu/Undergrad uateProgram/tutoring.html

4:30-7:30

M-Th

9 am to 8 pm M-Th

9 am to 5 pm F

Other hours by arrangem ent, esp. during finals week

OMSA

Acad

Services

Center

701 S.

Gregory;

Suite I, 6-

8pm

No charge to students

Dormitories: ISR mpr,

Scott Dining Hall, FAR

Aerobics Room

FAR Pagodas (ICE students are housed in

FAR)

Computer Lab in ME visit website

44



Sciences (Molecular &

Cellular Biology)


Sciences (Spanish, Italian

& Portuguese)


Sciences (French)

Leah

Randle

Leah

Randle

Leah

Randle


Sciences (Center for

Writing Studies))

Leah

Randle

MCB Learning Center http://mcb.illinois.edu/undergrad/enrich ment.html

SIP Language Support http://www.sip.illinois.edu/resources/

Language Support www.french.illinois.edu/people/tutorstr anslators.html

The Writers Workshop http://www.cws.illinois.edu/workshop/

45


APPENDIX G

Draft of the proposed initial letter for incoming freshman

Dear:

Congratulations! Entering college can be an amazing life-altering adventure: An adventure where you will have the freedom to explore an array of curiosities while developing numerous competencies. Here, you will perfect your skills as a leader. As you blaze your path, allow this letter to serve as a guide.

Nationally recognized as one of the leading public institutions, the University of Illinois enrolls approximately over 30,000 undergraduates from all 50 states and more than 30 countries worldwide. Much of the university’s success stems from its diverse faculty, students, and staff which serve as a major source of the intellectual vitality of the University of Illinois.

The campus community is located in the crossroads between Chicago, St. Louis, and Indianapolis. The University of

Illinois welcomes thousands of visitors each year. You will find the campus community welcoming and eager to make your visit worthwhile.

After a careful review of your application, your high school merit indicates that you are indeed one of the “best and brightest.” You have the potential for complete success here. In order to assure that you reach your potential, there are several programs and services offered by your individual college that introduce students to the programs, resources, and services housed within each college and across campus.

The purpose of these programs and services is to promote your successful adjustment to the academic demands of the

University. As a student accepted to the University through the Educational Opportunities Program (EOP) or the

President’s Award Program (PAP), you are expected to participate in these services. Each program entails a comprehensive academic support program that aids in your educational and personal development by ensuring that you have the opportunity to excel in the curricula you have selected.

One avenue of support to highlight is mentoring. As an incoming freshman, you will receive a mentor that will be active in assisting you with understanding the campus environment, making informed decisions, monitoring academic progress, negotiating financial aid forms, identifying campus employment and will assume a general support with respect to student concerns and needs. Through this mentoring partnership, you will feel supported at your home away from home.

So our adventure starts today! In the meantime, please feel free to contact your department or college unit listed on the enclosed postcard whenever you require assistance or simply feel the need to “talk things out”. Remember, there is a genuine commitment to your success! Let us serve as your guide during this whirlwind voyage.

Again, Congratulations!

Warmest regards,

The Office of the Provost

46


APPENDIX H

A S AMPLE FROM THE P ROPOSED P OSTCARD S ERIES

(The complete series is available upon request)

Welcome to the University of Illinois! We are committed to your success and want to serve as guides during your college voyage. To assist you we have provided contacts for each college.

Please feel free to contact the representative for your college or academic unit if you need assistance or support during your journey.

College of Agricultural,

Consumer and

Environmental Sciences

Jesse Thompson jthomps5@illinois.edu

109 Mumford Hall

Urbana, IL 61820

217-333-3380

College of Education

Mildred Trent mtrent1@illinois.edu

1310 S Sixth

Champaign, IL 61820

(217) 333-2800

College of Applied

Health Sciences

Sheri Shaw snshaw@illinois.edu

229 Huff Hall

Champaign, IL 61820

217-333-4964

Institute of Aviation

Tom Emanuel emanuel@illinois.edu

Willard Airport

Savoy, IL 61874

(217) 244-8671

College of Business

Jewell White white7@illinois.edu

515 E Gregory

Champaign, IL

61820

(217) 333-2740

College of Engineering

Ivan Favila ifavila@illinois.edu

206 Engineering Hall

1308 W Green

Urbana, IL 61801

(217) 244-3815

College of Fine and

Applied Arts

Michael

Andrejasich andrejas@illinos.edu

110 Architecture

608 E Lorado Taft Dr

Champaign, IL 61820

(217) 333-6061

Division of

General Studies

Lori West loriwest@illinois.ed

u

807 S Wright

Champaign, IL

61820

(217) 333-4710

47


APPENDIX I

DMI IP STATISTICS (pn2008/093)

All other students

Cohort Race/Gender

Coun t

Year

2

# Retained

Year

3

Year

4

Year

2

% Retained

Year

3

Year

4

Hours

Earne d

All

African

American

7341 6810 6425 6120 93% 88% 83% 94.7

412 373 332 320 91% 81% 78% 89.8

Asian American 1251 1158 1075 1012 93% 86% 81% 95.0

Fall,

2005 freshme n

Caucasian 5051 4734 4521 4314 94% 90% 85% 96.0

Hispanic

Native

American

476 412 373 357 87% 78% 75% 86.2

23 22 20 19 96% 87% 83% 91.3

Unknown 128 111 104

F 3389 3189 3041

98

2894

87%

94%

81%

90%

77%

85%

90.1

96.6

M 3944 3613 3376 3219 92% 86% 82% 93.1

7 100% 100% 88% 105.1

94% 88% 71.3

Fall,

2006 freshme n

N

All

African

American

8

6947

8

6501

8

6147

472 416 386

Asian American 1169 1098 1023

Caucasian 4591 4356 4173

Hispanic

Native

American

582 514 455

12 12 12

Unknown 121 105

F 3394 3199

98

3050

M 3551 3300 3096

1

88%

94%

95%

88%

100%

87%

94%

93%

82%

88%

91%

78%

100%

81%

90%

87%

100% 50%

94%

66.9

71.4

72.6

65.3

Fall,

2007 freshme n

N

All

African

American

2

6761

2

6324

431 397

Asian American 1351 1247

Caucasian 4310 4077

Hispanic

Native

American

484 429

18 18

Unknown 167 156

F 3197 3028

M 3559 3291

N 5 5

92%

92%

95%

89%

100%

93%

95%

92%

100%

74.3

66.0

72.2

70.4

72.0

44.6

42.7

44.1

45.3

42.1

44.6

44.5

45.1

44.2

46.0

Cumulativ e GPA

3.08

2.49

3.08

3.17

2.67

2.49

3.08

3.21

2.73

2.64

3.05

3.20

2.73

2.84

3.04

3.22

2.96

3.11

3.10

3.00

3.01

3.20

3.00

2.41

3.10

3.22

3.10

3.19

3.02

3.34

48


Fall,

2008 freshme n

All

African

American

7107

452

Asian American 1657

Caucasian 4314

Hispanic

Native

American

486

18

Unknown 180

F 3281

M 3821

N 5

15.6

14.8

14.9

16.1

14.8

16.9

16.0

15.7

15.6

13.4

3.17

2.73

3.14

3.25

2.87

2.59

3.25

3.27

3.08

3.30

49


Office of the Provost, University of Illinois at Urbana

OFFICE OF THE PROVOST

AND VICE CHANCELLOR FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Descriptive Statistics, Grades & Hours as of 3/1/09

Factor

Dependent Variables-- All students

N Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum

Dependent Variables-- Fall, 2006 cohort

Dependent Variables-- Fall, 2007 cohort

Dependent Variables-- Fall, 2008 cohort

Independent Variables

Grade average for Selected Courses

All other students

Cohort Race/Gender

Coun t

Year

2

# Retained

Year

3

Year

4

Year

2

% Retained

Year

3

Year

4

Hours

Earne d

Fall,

2005 freshme n

Fall,

2006 freshme n

Fall,

2007 freshme n

Cumulativ e GPA

Fall,

2008 freshme n

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib