Running head: SUCCESS FOR ALL: AN INDEPENDENT STUDY OF ADVISING AT-RISK STUDENTS
Success for All: An Independent Study of Advising At-Risk Students
Pennsylvania State University
Joan V. Miller
1
SUCCESS FOR ALL
2
Success for All: An Independent Study of Advising Support for At-Risk Students
A college degree has taken the place of a high school diploma in regard to gaining
economic self-sufficiency (Kuh, 2008). In the United States college completion boasts many
benefits, including significantly higher earnings (close to $2.1 million more over the life span),
better health, and increased civic engagement, yet it is a well-founded fact that a concerning
percentage of students do not persist to graduation in the United States (Brock, 2010). The lack
of a college degree erects a tremendous barrier to employment opportunity and success in life.
The 2003 national unemployment rate for 20-24 year old students was 10% overall. For students
holding a high school diploma or less the rate rose to 14%. For those students with a college
degree it dropped to 6% (Lotkowski, Robbins & North, 2004). Students who fail to succeed in
college also face the plight of earning much less over their lifetime of work (DeBerard,
Speilmans & Julka, 2004).
While access to college has improved dramatically over the last few decades, success in
college has not (Brock, 2010). Countless research has been conducted to explore the causes of
students who drop out, stop out, and fail to graduate within a reasonable time span. Sociological,
psychological, ethnological, and academic causes have all been theorized as grounds for failure.
The theories themselves have each in their own way provided answers for some students some of
the time. Tinto’s (1993) research concluded that student leaving is situational in character, and
therein lays the problem. There is no single theory to account for this conundrum, and no single,
simple solution.
There are many valid reasons why a student may fail. Each student succumbs to forces
that are the result of intersecting variables that affect his or her hopes and dreams. Often these
forces attack early at a time when students are weakened by a paramount transition from the
SUCCESS FOR ALL
3
shelter of home to the independent living of campus life. Students are caught off guard by
changing academic expectations. For the first time, they may be in danger of not earning a
passing grade. They may question whether they are in the right major or possibly even whether
they belong in college. Some find their new found freedom interferes with the values with which
they were raised. Students who are not used to dealing with stress may succumb to the escape
provided by alcohol and/or drugs. Financial needs may require students to work which can
interfere with the rest needed to perform adequately in courses. Tinto (1993) suggests that the
most useful information in the study of why students do not complete college is knowledge of
the character, roots, understandings, and experiences of each individual who departs.
There are those in higher education who can help to unravel the variables that place
students in choke holds that result in a strangulation of academic success. Faculty, academic
advisers, and student affairs professionals all have the opportunity and the resources to help
students navigate the transition to higher education successfully. These professionals are
situated to identify and intervene with students who demonstrate signs of difficulty with
academic and social adjustment. For this to occur, the institutional culture must also be
committed to bolstering student success. Institutions can and should alter their activities and
policies to retain more of their students (Tinto, 1993).
The impetus for this study is the exploration of why students fail academically beyond
the point of recovery, specifically students who enter institutions with above average high school
GPA’s and standardized test scores, both being variables highly correlated with student
achievement in college (Lotkowski, Robbins, & North, 2004). It was sparked by a challenge to
advisers in a college of enrollment for exploratory students to reduce the number of students
dropped for poor scholarship. It is the author’s belief that for this challenge to succeed, more
SUCCESS FOR ALL
4
information is needed to understand the reasons behind student failure in order to inform the
design of interventions to guide their recovery.
The study intends to outline the benefits of early identification of at-risk students in order
to establish a mentoring relationship before jeopardizing situations are encountered. It explores
those causes for academic failure that are rooted in the students as they are the players most
powerful in affecting change in their destiny. The importance of focusing on individual student
needs when crafting interventions will be supported. A process will be introduced for use in any
type of institution by caring individuals such as academic advisers, tutors, mentors, and others to
establish a trusting partnership with students who may be struggling either academically or
socially. A review of literature on student achievement, student development theory, the concept
of mentoring, and the informal analysis of a group of students dropped for poor scholarship are
all considered in developing an interventional framework to assist students in strengthening their
resolve to continue confidently with their pursuit of learning and development when facing
obstacles to success.
Theoretical Considerations
A rich body of theory exists that applies to the growth and development of students as
they transition from young adults to adulthood. Student development theory endeavors to
illuminate how student identity is established. It considers a broad range of developmental
factors such as intellect, morals and ethics, racial and ethnic identity development, sexual
orientation and acknowledges that various identities may intersect within an individual (Evans,
Forney, Guido, Patton & Renn, 2010). When dissecting why some students fail to thrive and
succeed academically in institutions of higher education, theory is an important consideration in
understanding the underpinnings of this dilemma. Theories of student identity development and
SUCCESS FOR ALL
5
theory that defines the transition process, in particular, provide content that scaffolds movement
toward solutions for students at risk.
Identity Development
Chickering (1969) examined the psychosocial identity development of college students.
He believed establishing one’s identity was a core developmental issue and was needed to
address other issues that may arise along the road to maturity. He also believed that facets of the
environment influence identity development.
Chickering (1969) proposed that students experience and navigate seven vectors that
contribute to identity development: developing confidence, managing emotions, moving through
autonomy toward independence, developing mature interpersonal relationships, establishing
identity, developing purpose, and developing integrity. He did not view the vectors as
sequential. Students work through them at different rates and at different times. As competency
and confidence are developed within each vector, students gain stability and are able to resolve
issues and integrate skills from various vectors to emerge with an established personal identity.
Students who find themselves in jeopardy of failing in their academic coursework despite
good ability are likely to grapple with development in particular vectors. A critical vector for
these students to master is the development of competence. This is demonstrated by a student’s
confidence to cope with whatever is thrown his or her way and an ability to achieve goals
successfully when met with challenge. Management of emotions is another vector of identity
development which defines students’ ability to cope in the face of failure. Students at risk may
have not yet developed the ability to recognize, express, and control their emotions. These
students may experience depression, anxiety, guilt, and disappointment due to not achieving the
grades expected. They may lack the emotional maturity to manage and recover from these
SUCCESS FOR ALL
6
setbacks. The last vector of identity development that appears to apply to students who face
academic failure is that of developing purpose. This vector deals with meaningful commitments
and being able to stick with decisions in the face of opposition.
Chickering & Reisser (1993) believed that the educational environment influences
student development. Factors such as institutional size, curriculum, pedagogy, institutional
objectives and mission, student communities, student-faculty relationships, and student
development programs and services all play a role in the psychosocial identity development of
students of the institution. Consideration of the faculty-student relationships is important in
situations where students are at risk. Do the students see the faculty as caring and approachable?
Do they have the ability and resources to communicate to the student what changes are needed
for them to succeed? Also important are the interactions students have with student affairs
professionals. Are advisers interested in them holistically? Are they willing to invest time to get
to know students and develop the trusting relationship necessary to guide at-risk students
forward?
Chickering & Reisser (1993) proposed powerful admonitions for those planning and
implementing educational environments. They stressed for educators to be aware of student
differences and to plan interactions and interventions that meet the needs of all types of students.
They also reinforced that learning occurs in cycles of equilibrium and disequilibrium. Often
learning does not come without discomfort. Students who become anxious at the first sign of
failure need to be reassured that this is a natural part of the process.
Other key psychosocial theorists have imparted ideas that frame the needs of students
facing failure. Marcia (as cited in Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton & Renn, 2010) examined how
young male adults balance exploration (crisis) and commitment. Initial exploration may begin
SUCCESS FOR ALL
7
with excitement and curiosity, but in some students quickly to turn to fear and anxiety. Evans,
Forney, Guido, Patton & Renn (2010) caution that in order to make a commitment, students
facing failure may need a safety net and a caring environment to nurture them back to a healthy
platform. Josselson (as cited in Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton & Renn, 2010) noted the
importance of developing relationships to the identity formation of women. Women students
experiencing academic jeopardy would benefit from having a trusting relationship with a faculty
member or academic adviser.
Transition Theory
A key theory that describes the experiences of many students in institutions of higher
learning is Schlossberg’s (1984) transition theory. The theory was created to gain an
understanding of adults in transition and to develop connections to provide the skills needed to
cope. Nancy Schlossberg defined her theory as operationalizing variability. Considering all the
variables relevant to the cause of student’s poor performance, this theory provides a framework
to inform the experiences of these students and to also develop supportive interventions.
Schlossberg (1989) saw transitions as an opportunity for growth and development, but
recognized that positive outcomes are not always guaranteed. She theorized that an individual’s
response to transition is affected by three variables: their perception of the transition, the
characteristics of the environment in which the transition occurs, and the characteristics of the
individual experiencing the transition. The individual’s characteristics may be perceived as
assets, liabilities, a mix of these, or neutral to the situation. Schlossberg would view a student
going through transition as working through a 3-step process of approaching change, taking
stock and eventually taking charge.
SUCCESS FOR ALL
8
Goodman, Schlossberg, and Anderson (2006) worked to expand Schlossberg’s theory.
They defined transition as “any event, or non-event, which results in changed relationships,
routines, assumptions, and roles (p.33). According to their definition, most students coming to
college experience transitions through changed relationships, routines, and roles. As students
grow and establish their own identities, assumptions may also change causing students to
question their values and beliefs. An important consideration posited by Goodman is that a
transition only exists if it so defined by the individual experiencing it.
Goodman et al. (2006) outlined many qualities of transitions. They are typically one of
three types: anticipated, unanticipated and non-events. Non-events are things that are expected
to occur, but do not. In the case of students at academic risk, they may have expected to come to
college and do well based on high school performance. When this expectation is not fulfilled it
is a non-event that did not occur. It is also unanticipated. Many students do not anticipate the
change in study methods and study hours required for college work. Transitions also vary in
their impact on individuals experiencing them. Both positive and negative transitions can
produce stress with multiple transitions compounding the stress. The impact of stress depends
on the ratio of the individual’s assets and liabilities at the time of the transition.
Schlossberg (1984) viewed transition as a process that extends over time with the length
varying by person and situation. Individuals work through transitions from a place of
preoccupation to integration. In coping with a transition, individuals must first appraise the
situation and decide how they view it and assess their resources for coping. Goodman et al.
(2006) identified four factors that influence one’s ability to cope with transition. He aptly names
them the 4 S’s: situation, self, support, and strategies. The resources found in these four areas
may be deemed by the individual as assets or liabilities. The identified ratio of the assets to
SUCCESS FOR ALL
9
liabilities accounts for the variability in people’s reactions to similar situations. It helps to
explain why some students are able to rebound from initial failure, analyze the situation, and
make changes to be successful. It also accounts for why the same individual can react differently
to similar transitions at different times in their life.
The first S, situation, examines all the details surrounding the transition and its impact on
the individual. The person examines the trigger, what event preceded the transition. What is the
timing like for the individual? Is this transition happening at a good time or a bad one? Perhaps
the student left for college in midst of his/her parents’ divorce or they may have left behind a
close relative with an illness. How much control does the individual see themselves having in
relation to the transition and/or their reaction to it? Have they experienced a similar transition?
Who does this individual see as responsible for this transition?
The second S, self, considers two aspects of the individual. The first are characteristics
related to demographics and how they shape the person’s views. What is the individual’s
socioeconomic status? Is the student a first generation college student? What is the student’s
gender, age, state of health, and ethnicity? Have they occupied positions of privilege prior to
coming to college? The second aspect of self-inquiry deals with psychological resources housed
within the individual. What coping mechanisms do they have? What are their levels of selfefficacy and resiliency?
The third S, support, relates to the support networks in an individual’s life. What type of
support or affirmation is provided by family and friends? In the case of students have they
integrated and feel part of the community of the institution? What academic supports are being
provided? Are they receiving helpful feedback from faculty and advisers?
SUCCESS FOR ALL
10
The final S, strategies, helps to move the individual to the taking charge phase of
transition. Strategies can be developed to modify the situation, get to the underlying issues of the
problem, and help to manage stress. Students in danger of failing from the university are in need
of strategies to prevent this. They may need information, a plan of action, counseling or other
behavior modifications.
Both Schlossberg et al. (1995) and Goodman et al. (2006) saw the need to merge
transition theory with a counseling model. They recognized that individuals in transition are in
need of support. Once the 4 S’s are analyzed they provide a foundation upon which a counseling
or helping skill model can be used to begin to move the individual through the transition.
Using the case of a student at academic risk, the first step is to develop or expand upon a
supportive relationship with someone trusted. This can be a faculty member, an adviser, or an
RA, for example. The helper uses basic listening skills to gain the trust needed to help the
student work through the next step of assessment. Assessment is where the information from the
4S’s is identified. It seemingly would be difficult for a student to discuss all the details of a
difficult situation, unless he or she had first established this trusting relationship. Once the
student has uncovered all the pertinent details with the assistance of the helper, they are used to
establish observable goals or outcomes. What is it the student needs to do or change to manage
through the transition? Next, interventions or plans of actions are outlined to help the student
achieve the goals. The last step is to schedule a series of follow up meetings to insure that
progress is occurring. If not, further assessment and changes to the plan may be necessary.
Together the tenets of identity and transition theory suggest that students of traditional
college age travel a tumultuous road, particularly in the first year. While facing a time of major
adjustment, they must make important academic decisions as they navigate the vectors of
SUCCESS FOR ALL
11
identity development. It should not come as a surprise that students face transition points that
are challenging. How they respond to each challenge determines the outcome of success or
failure. Much literature has emerged on the topic of student success and failure. The literature
investigates what variables influence student academic achievement, the causes of student
failure, and interventions that have proven successful.
Review of the Literature
In examining literature related to student achievement, many themes emerge. Most
studies focus on variables that influence student achievement and persistence. Some examine
solely academic variables, others non-academic factors such as psychological variables
(Reynolds & Weigand, 2010; Kintsansas, Winsler & Huie, 2008; Chemers, Hu, & Garcia, 2001),
and many combine the two (Lotkowski, Robbins & North, 2004; DeBerard, Speilmans & Julka,
2004). There are also studies that critique interventions designed to positively impact student
success (Darling, Gordon & Pong, 2012; Salinitri, 2005; Vivian, 2005). Many studies recognize
the role that transition and student adjustment plays in a first-year student’s academic success
(Tinto, 1993; Chemers, Hu, & Garcia, 2001; Clark, 2005; Keup, 2006; DeBerard, Speilemans &
Julka, 2004; Reynolds & Weigand, 2010; Darling, Gordon & Pong, 2012). The importance of
academic and social integration into the campus community is also found to be a key variable to
student success (Kuh, Cruce, Shoup, Kinzie, & Gonyea, 2008; Keup, 2006).
Lotkowski, Robbins and North (2004), in an ACT policy report, discuss the importance
of considering a combination of both academic and non-academic variables when evaluating
factors related to student success in college. Their study was implemented to identify the factors
that had the greatest effect on both college retention and performance. Their research found that
the strongest predictors of a student’s college grade point average (GPA) were the precollege
SUCCESS FOR ALL
12
academic factors of standardized test scores, high school GPA and socioeconomic information
combined with the non-academic factors of self-confidence and motivation to achieve. This
combination accounted for 26% of the variation of college GPA’s across students. The findings
from the study can be used to identify students at risk of failure and to design specific types of
programs to bolster their success. The inclusion of non-academic factors can help to identify
those students who have mastered high school course content, but who have failed to develop
adequate levels of important psychological factors that are needed to integrate and succeed when
transitioning to the campus environment (Lotkowski, Robbins, & North, 2004; Kitsantas,
Winsler, & Huie, 2008). Since these students appear to be academically ready for college, they
are often overlooked as students who may need support.
Lotkowski, Robbins & North’s (2004) study supports the use of an early identification
and monitoring system for at-risk students based on assessment data from both academic and
non-academic variables. Data (such as high school GPA, standardized test results and college
placement tests and subsequent college GPA’s) is readily available to provide accurate
information about a student’s potential and current academic performance. Non-academic
information such as socio-economic status (as measured by parent college attainment and
financial need), skills (time management, study skills), self-confidence, and levels of
commitment and integration (as measured on precollege surveys) can also be collected and
compiled to build student profiles. The profiles would provide advanced notice to advisers of
potential at-risk students so they can be monitored. At the first signs of difficulty early
interventions could be offered, as needed. This early, accurate and comprehensive information
about students and their needs form the basis of successful student performance and retention.
SUCCESS FOR ALL
13
DeBerard, Speilemans and Julka (2004) similarly studied academic and non-academic
variables predictive of achievement and retention. The correlation between proposed risk factors
and achievement and retention in a small number (N=204) of first-year students at a private west
coast university were examined. The findings showed that all of the predictive variables (high
school GPA and SAT scores; social support; coping risk factors: accepting responsibility and
escape-avoidance behaviors; health risk factors. such as smoking, binge drinking, and general
and mental health) accounted for 56% of the variance in academic achievement as measured by
first year cumulative GPA. Yet only one of the variables, low high school GPA, was statistically
significant for retention. This study further supports the need to look beyond academic variables
in the identification of students who may be at-risk for academic success.
The recommendations from Lotkowski, Robbins & North’s (2004) study frame an
integrated approach to the design and development of interventions. They support programs that
are socially inclusive and address social, emotional and academic needs. The integration of
students into the academic and social communities increases the psychological variables of
commitment, confidence, and motivation (Tinto, 1993). Psychological variables have been
found to play a critical role in academic performance. Characteristics such as self-confidence,
motivation, self-efficacy, self-regulation, and goal and institutional commitment have been
examined in the literature.
Kitsantas, Winsler, and Huie (2008) found that both self-efficacy and time management
skills contributed to unique variance in predicting academic performance over and above a
student’s precollege ability. They stress the importance of early intervention to develop time
management strategies and suggest that advisers can play a key role in developing self-efficacy.
Self-efficacy is the belief in one’s ability to complete a task. It has been found to be a strong
SUCCESS FOR ALL
14
predictor of GPA, and it also influences the academic choices students make (Robbins, Lauver,
Le, Davis, Langley, & Carlstrom, 2004). Self-effacious students are able to accomplish tasks that
require self-regulation. They set goals, use organizational strategies, self-monitor, and reflect on
their performance. Self-efficacious students are independent, self-initiators and are able to
access a variety of learning strategies. Chemers, Hu, and Garcia (2001) examined self-efficacy
more closely with similar results. They found students with high degrees of self-efficacy tend to
view work demands as a challenge rather than a threat. Their belief in their ability allowed them
to persist in the face of adversity. They placed higher academic expectations on themselves and
had better academic performance than students with lower self-efficacy. Self -efficacious
students are able to problem-solve effectively and have strong decision-making strategies.
Several studies (Mansfield, Pinto, Parente & Wortman, 2009; Gifford, Briceno-Perriott &
Mianzo, 2006; Stupinsky, Renaud, Perry, Ruthig, Haynes & Clifton, 2007) focus on the variables
of self-control or locus of control as they relate to pre-college prediction of students’ first-year
achievement. Gifford, Briceno-Perriott & Mianzo (2006) studied locus of control. This is
defined as “a belief system that individuals create about themselves and how they interact with
their environment that can cause distress or act as an internal resource” (p. 19). Students with a
low locus of control view event outcomes as a result of their actions and have internal control.
They assume responsibility for choices and behaviors. Students with a high locus of control
blame external factors for outcomes. These students lack self-efficacy to seek support from
tutors, study groups, advisers or instructors as they see their success as being externally
determined by fate or luck. As courses become harder and students are unable to rely on
themselves for motivation they may become frustrated and give up.
SUCCESS FOR ALL
15
Self-control is related to a student’s ability to delay gratification and minimize
impulsivity and risk-seeking behavior (Mansfield et al., 2009). Self-control and its subconstructs of impulsivity and risk seeking were found to be significantly related to academic
achievement. This study also found that a large proportion of the low academic performers in
the sample were male. Stupinsky et al. found perceived control to be far more important to
college students’ academic achievement than self-esteem. Students who felt they had control
over their environment tended to succeed academically, where those who felt unable to control
their circumstances were more likely to fail.
Reynolds and Wiegand (2010) also examined important psychological variables and how
they influence first-year students. They specifically looked at motivation, resilience and selfefficacy and their effect on first semester GPA. Unlike the aforementioned studies, they found
resilience rather than self-efficacy to be the variable significantly related to first semester GPA.
Resilience is the ability to use inner resources and strength to cope with adversity. Students with
both high levels of resilience and self-efficacy tend to be intrinsically motivated. When students
who lack these characteristics face academic adversity they feel out of control and tend to
develop negative attitudes about their future ability to succeed. The authors point out that this is
a beacon for why early intervention strategies are important. They argue the need for higher
education institutions to be more proactive in helping first-year students overcome obstacles.
Advisers can respond to this call by developing relationships early and being intrusive when
necessary. The authors speak to a need for an emphasis on mid-semester grade reports and
mandates to meet with advisers or retention specialists to help students get back on the right
track. Institutions should also identify common first-year struggles and develop programming
and resources to help students develop confidence to overcome them.
SUCCESS FOR ALL
16
This is especially important for special populations such as first generation students,
international students who may have limited language skills and those from ethnic or minority
backgrounds. These students would benefit from caring interactions with others through
mentoring, counseling, or advising relationships.
Advisers are in a unique position to provide quality interactions that can strengthen
student confidence and commitment and to offer support with the personal challenges new
students face during a major life transition. A survey conducted by ACT in conjunction with the
National Academic Advising Association (Habley, 2004) suggested the advisers are
underutilized as aids in student retention. Keup’s (2006) study of how nearly 20,0000 first-year
students’ experiences and programs affect academic and cognitive outcomes showed that only
28.3% interacted with advisers at least monthly, but 60.9% of those who did were very satisfied
or satisfied with their interactions. Kuh, Cruce, Shoup, Kinzie and Gonyea (2008) found that
institutions that build initiatives based on effective educational practices have students more
likely to perform well academically and demonstrate satisfaction with the institution. Intrusive
advising, early warning systems, redundant safety nets, and mentoring relationships were all
touted as effective educational practices. Advisers who have built trusting relationships with
their students are also in a position to teach students the importance of engagement in both the
academic and co-curricular side of the institution.
Keup (2006) believed the first-year of college to be a critical time due to the transitions
that students face, the creation of lasting habits and practices and the laying of the foundation for
the following years. Her regression analyses of the Your First College Year Survey provides
information from a large sample of 19,995 students across 115 baccalaureate degree granting
SUCCESS FOR ALL
17
institutions while controlling for experiences prior to college. Keup narrowed her research to
those variables occurring during the college experience that influence academic performance.
Keup found that there are several activities in college that influence academic
performance, all related to involvement. One important finding was that students’ grades
generally decline slightly from high school to college from an A- average to a B average. The
biggest variable that accounts for this is academic disengagement. This behavior was measured
by class attendance patterns, time spent on studying and assignments, and quality of their firstyear assignments. Activities that facilitate academic performance are honors courses and overall
satisfaction with academics (such as the quality of instruction, relevance of course work and
contact with faculty).
These findings are noteworthy for advising at-risk students. It is important for advisers to
have their fingers on the pulse of courses that are taught by professors who actively engage their
students and are available for contact outside of class. Students should be encouraged to attend
class and take an active role in participating. New students should be encouraged to take smaller
classes that offer more opportunity for engagement than large lectures. Students should be
encouraged to engage in courses that have a relevance to their interests and daily lives.
Kuh, et al. (2008) examined the role that engagement during the first year of college
plays in influencing first-year grade point average controlling for prior experiences and other
first-year factors. They used a large sample from 18 baccalaureate-granting institutions.
Engagement was defined by three dimensions: time spent studying, time spent in co-curriculur
activities and engagement in effective educational practices. The study results showed that alone
student demographics, pre-college experiences and prior academic achievement accounted for
29% of the variance in first-year grades. When engagement measures were added the variance
SUCCESS FOR ALL
18
increased to 42%. Student engagement in educationally purposeful activities is positively related
to academic outcomes as shown by first-year students’ grades and persistence. Kuh et al. found
that for students with two or more at-risk factors (first generation, academically underprepared or
from low income backgrounds) the effects of involvement in these activities are even greater.
Students should be taught the advantages and encouraged to participate in activities such as
service-learning, learning communities, and first-year seminars which foster engagement and
student growth and development. As do other studies, Kuh et al. (2008) argue for early
interventions and close attention to key transition points for students. They believe that an
institution must understand who their students are, what they are prepared to do academically,
and what expectations they have of the institution and themselves. Who is in a better spot to
know and act on this than advisers?
Identifying students who are potentially at risk is only the first step. Once they are
identified an effort to establish the roots of a trusting relationship is necessary. Some literature
supports that students involved in a mentoring relationship with a concerned member of the
institution are more apt to be successful. Darling, Gordon & Pong (2012) described two
programs that engaged peer mentoring to support students in academic jeopardy at a mid-sized
university in Ontario, Canada. Both programs are for students who demonstrated academic
difficulty during their first term or were on academic probation. The Boost program utilized peer
mentors to aid with the academic transition from high school to the university. Time
management, study skills, note-taking, writing and test preparation were emphasized. The Take
2 program had similar goals with the additional goal of providing students on probation with a
community of support.
SUCCESS FOR ALL
19
Early data reported success from both programs. Boost participation resulted in an
average increase in GPA over one semester of 0.93. Seventy-one percent of the probationary
students participating in Take 2 cleared probation after the eight-month program. Qualitative
data from Take 2 suggests that students find the program builds their confidence and restores
hope in their ability. Darling, Gordon & Pong emphasize that programs such as these help
students who struggle to transition. They found that peer mentoring programs reduce anxiety
and isolation for some students through the creation of opportunities for regular check-ins with
someone who cares.
Salinitri (2005) recommended that students’ transition from high school to the university
be bolstered by providing support for skills, knowledge and confidence. This was noted to be
especially pertinent for students who demonstrate lower achievement in high school. It was
presumed these students have weak study habits and do not seek help. Salinitri acknowledged
that even students with good achievement in high school are often unprepared for the rigors of
university study.
A mentoring program designed to complement existing university programs for first-year
students was described. Its benefits were touted as a one-on-one relationship with a caring
individual and increased self-confidence. Mentoring was described as “creating an enduring and
meaningful relationship with another person, with the focus on the quality of that relationship
including factors such as mutual respect, willingness to learn from each other, or the use of
interpersonal skills” (Salinitri, 2005, p. 858). Salinitri paired first-year students with Faculty of
Education teacher candidates who were trained in the theory and practices of mentoring. The
mentors assisted mentees with their learning as well as motivating them to set goals. Salinitri
studied the effects of mentoring on the students’ academic achievement as measured by their
SUCCESS FOR ALL
20
cumulative grade point averages and increased personal confidence. Results showed statistically
significant evidence that the mentoring program increased the overall GPA. Mentored students
also failed fewer courses. The mentees found the mentors to be effective in encouraging them,
assisting with time-management and scheduling, and in strengthening study strategies and setting
realistic goals. Sixty-eight percent of the mentees felt that the mentors were effective in building
self-efficacy skills.
Eby, Allen, Evans, Ng, & DuBois (2007) posed the question of whether mentoring really
matters and if it does, what is its relationship to attitudes, behaviors and motivational variables.
They identified three main types of mentoring: youth, academic and workplace. All three were
considered in their meta-analysis of mentoring. They found that academic mentoring has the
strongest association with outcomes. They attribute this to the fact that academic mentoring is
focused on more specific goals and it is typically in line with the mission of the institution. They
suggest that attitudes, interpersonal relationships, and motivation are factors that are the most
easily influenced by mentoring.
Vivian (2005) reported on a minimal mentoring approach in a college setting that led to
significantly improved outcomes within the mentored group of at-risk students as compared to a
control group. In addition, the participants viewed the experience positively. Vivian recognized
several constraints related to mentoring. It’s virtually impossible to intensely mentor more than a
few students at a time. For mentoring to be successful, institutional commitment and training are
necessary. Most importantly, students must want to be mentored and participate as willing
partners in the relationship. Vivian cautioned that for mentoring to be effective it must not be a
form of stewardship or enabling. He cites Homer’s The Odyssey (n.d.) where the term mentor
originated to show how mentoring combines both encouragement and action. He sees the
SUCCESS FOR ALL
21
mentor’s role as threefold: helping the student believe they can be successful through action
rather than observance, helping them see themselves as an active member of the learning
community, and teaching them what they need to know and do to be successful. He cautions that
while a mentor has a clear sense of where a student needs to grow, the mentor must not tell the
student what to do. He or she should guide them in finding their own path.
Vivian (2005) described a mentoring relationship in which a floundering student lacked
self-confidence and the knowledge needed to navigate the university environment. He held
weekly meetings with the student and taught him to consider the outcomes of his decisions.
Eventually, the student started to stop by more frequently on his own. He ultimately became an
engaged and high performing student. At the end of the mentoring relationship, the student
reflected on what had contributed to his change. He stated that developing an understanding of
what was expected from him in college had helped him to make better decisions. Learning to
consider the outcomes or consequences of his decisions taught him to be less passive. The
mentor encouraging him to take risks and providing background support was also a crucial
factor. This foray in mentoring was the basis for his study.
He mentored twelve students with GPA’s below a 2.0. 83 percent were male, 42 percent
were members of a minority group and 66 percent were first generation college students. He
required them to meet with him weekly to give them the opportunity to talk about issues of their
choice without being judged. They also were required to send Vivian a weekly email on Friday
to tell him how they felt things were going for that week. Vivian also checked with the students’
professors about their progress, but did not initiate conversations about this unless they wanted
to. He simply wanted them to be aware that he knew how they were doing.
SUCCESS FOR ALL
22
Through his conversations he learned the students’ lack of knowledge of how college
works. Their use of fellow students and inaccurate intuition were major contributions to their
poor performance. This led to the realization that students needed to learn the workings of the
university education system and how their actions or decisions could be perceived by professors.
Overtime, students began to initiate conversations about academics and share ideas of what they
thought they should do, rather than waiting to be told. Results of this study must be regarded
with limitations due to the small number of participants; however, all of the students were able to
return for the next semester. 83 percent improved their GPA over the next two semesters. Eight
of the students improved more than half a point while one student’s GPA increased from a .80 to
a 2.9.
What is most remarkable about the results is that no formal skills or study strategies were
introduced to the students. The mentor spent a short weekly meeting with each student and
encouraged each one to self-report his or her progress weekly. This was a successful minimalist
approach. Vivian attributes the success in part to the fact that he created a system of
expectations and information channels and the students were active partners in this. Knowing
they were being observed by someone elevated their self-observations. This led to their
openness to reflect upon their actions, decisions and consequences. Vivian promotes mentoring
that awakens students’ determination to understand the environment in which they are acting and
to recognize they have the ability to do so.
Clark (2005) in her qualitative study of first-year students found that successful students
relied on strategizing to navigate the transitions and changes of the first year. She recognized
that decisions and strategies were influenced by the personal characteristics of the student and
their perception of the circumstance. As Vivian (2005) found, strategy choices were dictated by
SUCCESS FOR ALL
23
the student’s knowledge of the environment. Human resources such as advisers or mentors can
be influential in introducing strategies of which the student lacks knowledge. Psychological
attributes such as confidence also influence students’ strategizing. Often multiple strategies
become intertwined to form a supportive network of interrelated decisions and actions. Clark
suggests that the challenge of earning better grades incorporates goal orientation, motivation and
self-regulation: non-academic factors. Her study revealed that first-year students may not be
developmentally ready to devise their own strategies for all situations and institutions should be
intentional about helping students to develop effective strategies. Their dualistic thinking may
not allow for them to recognize they are active agents in their learning. They may not
understand they are expected to challenge professors, initiate ideas and seek clarification if they
are unclear. Students often use their inability to understand a professor as a barrier to their
learning, yet they fail to go to talk with the professor or strategize how to improve the situation.
This concept was accomplished by Vivian with the students in his mentoring study. Mentors can
help students to view changes as challenges rather than barriers or threats and guide them to
discovering how to navigate the situation.
Clark (2005) points out that students may not develop strategies until they encounter a
challenge. This can be too late for some who have created a deep academic hole. Other students
do not recognize a challenge even when they are in the midst of one. Clark used the example
students who have not developed decision making strategies related to career exploration. They
require advisers and mentors to teach them strategies to utilize the opportunities that course
selection presents to test their interests and abilities. Clark pointed out that students in her study
were most likely to turn to peers, rather than campus resources, to guide their strategizing. This
led, at times, to the development of maladaptive strategies. This information supports the need
SUCCESS FOR ALL
24
for early intervention with students who appear to be the most at-risk based on the information at
hand. Clark also makes a case for using a supportive intervention model such as that suggested
by Schlossberg (1995) for students who experience stress as a result of challenging situations
they may perceive as threats.
Several themes emerge in the literature; the most prominent being the effects of transition
on students’ adjustment to college. It is evident that both academic and non-academic factors
influence how a student navigates the initial adjustment to college as well as his or her
achievement. The psychological variables and level of development of each individual student
affects his or her ability to strategize independently to meet the challenges that the transition
inherently presents. Some students arrive well-equipped with high ability, motivation, goal and
institutional commitment, self-regulation, self-efficacy and the confidence that ensues. Others
come with the notion that they lack control of their environment and may or may not be
academically prepared. Early identification by advisers of this latter group is critical.
Establishing a relationship and consistent contact can lead to the strengthening of psychological
variables as described by Vivian (2005).
Mentoring and Intrusive Advising
A viable way to establish a trusting relationship and consistent contact with potentially
at-risk students is by advising through a mentor’s lens. Mentors have fulfilled an important role
for centuries. They were first referenced in Homer’s Odyssey and mentoring references
continued through ancient history. Famous mentoring pairs were Socrates and Plato, Plato and
Aristotle, and Aristotle and Alexander the Great. Mentoring relationships adopted various titles
through historical and cultural environments. Mentors and mentees respectively were known as
gurus, disciples, and apprentices (Linkroll, 2012).
SUCCESS FOR ALL
25
Mentoring
Mentoring in modern times is often defined as a mutually beneficial and rewarding
relationship between two people with a goal to help the mentee with his or her professional and
personal development. The mentor is seen as the experienced partner in the relationship who
acts as role model and trusted adviser to the mentee. In an academic mentoring relationship, the
overarching role of the mentor is to develop a relationship with the mentee and to work together
to set specific goals and objectives to help the mentee attain success. A successful mentor may
fulfill a variety of roles (MindTools, 2012).
Trusted Partner
The foundation for all solid mentoring relationships is trust. The mentor must understand
the importance of nurturing a strengthening bond with the mentee. Initial meetings are best spent
developing rapport and building an open relationship based on trust. The mentor should convey
an authentic desire to help as well as a confident and assured demeanor. It is essential to express
to the mentee that all information shared during meetings remains confidential. Confidentiality
allows the mentee to feel safe to be open and honest when evaluating their strengths and
limitations and setting goals. The trusting atmosphere that develops helps the mentor to uncover
a mentee’s skill set and ambitions (MindTools, 2012).
Good Listener
A good listener is an active listener. Active listeners are patient and take the time to
process what the mentee is sharing. A good mentor will provide immediate feedback that
accurately summarizes what the mentee says to validate the message. The message can also be
interpreted in a way that will add value and also attempt to help the mentee develop new
perspectives on a situation. Asking the right questions is also a function of good listening.
SUCCESS FOR ALL
26
Strong mentors ask open ended questions that require the mentee to think further about a topic
and provide more information to deepen their thinking (MindTools, 2012).
Teacher
All types of mentors share knowledge, experience, and offer advice. Mentors support
and encourage mentees by offering knowledge and suggestions, both general and/or specific. A
major goal of academic mentoring is to help mentees improve their skills. Mentors can share
techniques that are timesavers: shortcuts that are efficient, yet effective, ways to achieve goals.
While mentors do not typically teach content, they do teach techniques and strategies such as
time management and goal setting to assist in making learning attainable. They work with their
mentees to identify strengths and areas for improvement. Mentees are then guided to develop
action plans where they set goals with deadlines and attainment strategies (MindTools, 2012).
Coach
Coaches assist athletes through not only the development of skill sets, but also by
providing motivation and confidence building to their players. Academic mentors fulfill this roll
with students. They assist the mentee in reaching his or her goals by encouraging them to
complete assignments and stick to deadlines. They coach the mentee in deciding on a best
course of action when faced with difficult academic situations. While maintaining a professional
demeanor, mentors as coaches provide constructive feedback and also celebrate successes
(MindTools, 2012).
In summary, the classic mentor/mentee relationship requires the mentor to wear many
different hats. Mentors befriend, counsel, teach, and coach their mentees. Similarly, Tinto
(1993) sees advisers as having not only informational, but also conceptual and relational aspects
SUCCESS FOR ALL
27
to their roles. This requires a consistent commitment of both time and effort that both parties
must be willing to give for a successful outcome. Is this a role that advisers can fulfill?
Intrusive Advising
It is the author’s belief that this role is taken on by advisers when they adopt an intrusive
advising philosophy. Intrusive advising involves “proactive interactions with students, with the
intention of connecting with them before situations occur that cannot be fixed” (Varney, 2007,
p.1). Intrusive advising promotes many educationally effective practices. It denotes active
concern for students’ academic preparation, a willingness to guide students to appropriate
services, and the desire to help students improve skills and increase motivation. The overarching
goal is to develop a caring and beneficial relationship that leads to the outcome of increased
motivation, improved goal setting and persistence. These goals are consistent with those of
academic mentoring.
A strong characteristic of intrusive advising that separates it from traditional prescriptive
or developmental advising while linking it to mentoring is that intrusive advisers generally make
the initial contact with students. They strive to initiate contact to establish a quality relationship
with a significant member of the college community; a practice that has been found to affect
persistence (Kuh et al., 2008). At-risk students, in particular, benefit from an early intrusive
approach so that they are already in an established relationship and more likely to accept help
when they encounter unanticipated failures.
A main goal is to genuinely let the students know that the adviser cares about them
(Bigger, 2005). This view is supported through the concepts of mattering (Schlossberg, 1989)
and validation (Rendon, as cited in Evans et al., 2010). Validation is defined as a process that is
confirming and supporting. It is typically delivered by agents both in and out of class to foster
SUCCESS FOR ALL
28
both academic and personal development; much like mentoring. Rendon noted that when
students feel validated their confidence and self-worth increases. She states that to be truly
effective the validation process should commence early in a student’s academic career,
preferably during the first few weeks of class.
Intrusive advising plants its seeds at orientation where students are taught about
advisers’ roles and how to contact them. It develops roots when assigned advisers initiate
contact and send a genuine message of wanting to get to know them. Initial conversations may
contain the following inquiries: What was high school like for the student? What are some of
their interests and hobbies?
How do they plan to spend their time at the university and do they
need help getting started? Students need to know that advisers care about them as people; not
just a student who has classes to schedule.
Intrusive advisers are proactive by monitoring their students’ progress through the review
of mid-term grades and semester grade point averages. Advisers should view this as a two-way
process and look for opportunities to send messages to students who both do well and also to
those who need support. Both communications build a powerful bond that the student will
remember down the road.
Varney (2007) recommends that advisers be familiar with the institutional definition of
at-risk students and find ways to connect with these students. Discussions should be proactive
and come from a strengths based platform. Advisers can focus on the student’s expectations and
goals and help the student to analyze what went wrong. An established trusting relationship can
uncover what led to failure while a conversation about how the student has overcome past
failures can spark ideas for intervention.
SUCCESS FOR ALL
29
An intrusive method of working with students promotes the themes uncovered in the
literature. Intrusive advising provides an opportunity to create strong bonds with students early in
their career before they encounter trouble (Varney, 2007). It allows for early identification of
students who may lack the necessary motivation and attributes to succeed and promotes the
initiation of interaction with these students. Intrusive advising strategies help to build student
resiliency and other psychological attributes significant for student achievement (Tinto, 2004;
Miller & Murray, 2005).
Application of the Findings to Interventions for DUS
This study was undertaken for the purpose of investigating literature that reviews factors
affecting student failure and practices to enhance the advising of at-risk students in the Division
of Undergraduate Studies (DUS) at Pennsylvania State University. The concept of academic
mentoring, in particular, was of interest to the author.
Analysis of Need
In the spring semester of 2012, twenty-two students were dropped from the unit for poor
scholarship. An informal analysis of the students’ transcripts and interactions with their advisers
yielded information that suggested reasons for their failure (See Appendix B). In short, two of
the students were international and appeared to have language difficulty that impeded their
progress. Five had mental health concerns and were seeking retroactive withdrawals. Three
were students who had been reinstated after having been dropped previously for poor
scholarship. The review of the remaining students’ information provided no concrete reason for
their lack of progress. Scrutiny of the notes provided by their advisers, however; indicated a lack
of willingness to engage in genuine conversation about their struggles. Some denied that they
were failing by stating to the advisers that they were making good to adequate progress when
SUCCESS FOR ALL
30
they were not. Others readily acknowledged the degree of academic jeopardy yet ignored
advisers’ suggestions to remedy the situation. In some cases it was obvious the student did not
have the resiliency to recover from a setback, and two students were clearly not invested from
the start. The majority of the conversations occurred via email despite frequent adviser attempts
to initiate face-to-face meetings. This review of the information supports a need for intrusive
advising, at least for potentially at-risk students, in order to establish a trusting relationship
before the onset of academic difficulty.
A similar formal study undertaken by the Office of Planning and Institutional Assessment
at the Pennsylvania State University examined the academic records and adviser-student
interactions of 67 Division of Undergraduate Studies (DUS) students who were dropped for poor
scholarship in the fall 2010 and the spring 2011 semesters (Warcholak & Yin, 2012). Findings
reported a variety of reasons for student failure: personal and family issues, lack of ability to
balance academics with other commitments and not following the advice of advisers. They also
noted the students were not proactive in seeking help from advisers as evidenced by their not
initiating appointments until it was too late to recover, frequent meeting cancellations, and not
following advisers’ advice. All 67 were advised to meet with their adviser early in the semester,
yet only 52 followed up and made contact at some point in the semester. On average the first
contact made occurred after 8 weeks, or better than halfway through the semester. This was well
past the point of cultivating the early trusting relationship that is recommended for at-risk
students. The data from both this formal study and the informal analysis suggest a need for the
early identification of potentially at-risk student in order initiate an advising relationship,
intrusively, if necessary.
SUCCESS FOR ALL
31
Early identification
Advisers in DUS have a wealth of pre-college profile data to use in the early
identification of their students who may be at-risk for both academic and non-academic reasons.
Academic data may be obtained from three sources. The First-Year Testing, Consulting and
Advising Program (FTCAP) Summary provides percentile ranges for a student’s high school
grades, Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores, and placement test results for key math courses
and chemistry. Admissions information located in the elion application for advisers also
provides more specific academic data. The student’s high school course work is listed along
with Carnegie units for each course, as well as the number of AP and Honors courses taken.
Thus, the rigor of the student’s high school course work can be ascertained. The actual high
school GPA is listed along with the specific SAT scores for reading, mathematics and writing.
Non-academic information is also available through the FTCAP Survey completed by
students prior to entering their fall semester. Each student provides his or her parent’s level of
education. This information can be used to determine if the student is first-generation for college.
First-generation status is considered to be a red flag for at-risk students (Clark, 2005; Heisserer
& Parette, 2002). Students also answer questions about how many hours they studied in high
school, their reason for attending college, the certainty of their major and who influences their
decisions. The answers give indication of psychological attributes such as goal commitment,
motivation, and locus of control. Other important attributes such as measures of resilience and
self-efficacy can be obtained through quick surveys sent to students via email from their advisers
(See Appendix C). This data provides the means for advisers to identify the students who present
as academically underprepared or lacking the psychological attributes to successfully navigate
the transition to university academics. Intrusive advising or successful academic mentoring
SUCCESS FOR ALL
32
requires frequent scheduled check-ins with the student. It is not possible to do this with every
student. Taking the time to scrutinize the pre-college data yields indications which students
would most benefit from the time spent on cultivating an early relationship.
Initial Intrusion
Initial meetings should focus on getting to know the students and conveying the adviser’s
interest and concern for the student. This is the time to establish a sense of mattering
(Schlossberg, 1995) and validation (Rendon, as cited in Evans et al., 2010) in the student.
Asking questions about the student’s interests, hobbies and family convey this concern. This
approach is in keeping with the unit’s philosophy of serving students. The DUS mission
statement speaks of valuing individual students and their unique qualities and characteristics as
well as helping students to assess their abilities and interests.
This is also an opportune time to explore the student’s educational values and
commitment to college. The DUS philosophy encourages students to take ownership of their
education and decisions and be the author of their own well-informed educational plans.
Wlazelek and Hartman (2007) suggest that some students arrive at college without a genuine
desire to be here. They succumb to parental desires to attend college or enroll because they
haven’t identified an alternative. Students do not always know how to view themselves as
learners, know how to set goals, or apply strategies. An inability to describe goals or share why
a particular institution was selected is a reflection of weak commitment. These students will
need frequent check-ins to insure they are not just going through the motions to please their
parents. There is a good chance they will lack the resilience and self-control to recover from
setbacks if they did not really want to be here in the first place. In clear cut cases where the
SUCCESS FOR ALL
33
student truly desires to be elsewhere, it may be best to rehearse a conversation that they can have
with their parents to share their true thoughts and feelings.
Early Warning Signs
Academic failure represents a crisis in a student’s life (Wlazelek and Hartman, 2007). It
should be treated as an emergency even though it is not considered to be a life-threatening
occurrence. The effects, however, do add difficulty to other sectors of the student’s life such as
psychological health, family interactions and financial obligations. The emotional effects can be
long-lasting. Thus, as it has been state throughout numerous sections of this study, it is critical to
identify students and intervene as early as possible.
In a perfect world, students would come to visit their advisers for help at the first sign of
struggles. Perhaps if a student has established an early trusting relationship, this may be the
case. In most instances, however, students do not initiate a plea for advice for academic
difficulty. Conscientious advisers will be on the lookout for signs that indicate a student may
need assistance. Early progress reports in specific courses, dropping of classes and a lack of
response to questions about progress are signs that a student may be in need of help.
Another somewhat obvious warning sign of an academically at-risk student is one who is
below a 2.0 GPA. This is especially critical for students at the end of their first semester. It is
important to reach out immediately to these students and ascertain the factors that are influencing
their lack of progress.
One other factor was noted in the informal study of students dropped from DUS for poor
scholarship. Almost all of the 22 students received either an F or a D in their initial math class at
the university. Problems appeared to ensue after the semester in which the math grade occurred.
This is another possible early warn sign of students who lack resilience. Students who perhaps
SUCCESS FOR ALL
34
for the first time were faced with difficulty in a course did not have the ability to regroup or
bounce back. The failure may have caused them to question whether they belong in college and
could have led to overall feelings of inadequacy.
Often the student who has not built a relationship with an adviser will be reluctant to talk
with someone they view as a stranger about their personal failings. These students may shy
away from requests for meetings or inquiries about their progress. It is important to persist with
endeavors to draw them in and untangle the complicated web that has ensnared the student’s
progress. This requires a process that addresses all the factors that may cause failure: a failure
that is most likely an unanticipated event.
Developing Action Plans
Prevention
For those advisers who have the time and data resources to identify their potentially atrisk students, prevention is the more salient approach. Initial meetings with these students would
build rapport and identify the student’s values and commitment to education. Short weekly
check-ins to ascertain how the student is taking in his or her classes reinforce the message of
concern and validation. Factors critical to progress such as attendance, classroom engagement,
study skills, and time management can be discussed at each meeting and early difficulties
remedied quickly via contact with proper academic resources. If many students display similar
needs, the adviser may want to initiate a skills workshop for the students rather than referring
them out to campus resources.
When these students with whom a consistent relationship has been developed encounter
failure, it will likely be brought up during a weekly check-in. It may be a poor test score, a low
grade on a paper, or a missed assignment. Whatever the case, it is important that the adviser
SUCCESS FOR ALL
35
follow through with unpacking the academic and non-academic aspects of the failure using the
Guided Action Plan (GAP) (See Appendix A). This form will help to explore the students’
thoughts and feelings about aspects of their academic and non-academic preparation and
attributes. It will help the student to understand what interfered, to create goals, and to
implement appropriate strategies.
Intrusion
For advisers who are unable to access data that helps them to identify potentially at-risk
students or for those students who do not respond to requests for appointments, interventions
often occur at the eleventh hour. Advisers who are aware of students who are doing poorly
based on institutional notifications such as early progress reports or indications of dropped
courses, may need to use administrative actions to encourage a student to keep an appointment.
Holds placed on student accounts will often get their attention and motivate them to visit an
adviser in order to have the hold released.
Once the student does appear, the situation is one of making- up for lost time. It can be
awkward and uncomfortable for both the adviser and student to have a discussion about the
student’s failings when this is a first encounter. Use of the Guided Action Plan (GAP) as a
discussion guide, however, can help initiate a conversation that is based on concern and invites
the student into a partnership to design a plan for success.
This is especially critical for those students who are below a 2.0 and have acquired grade
point deficiencies. These are students on the brink of being dropped for poor scholarship and the
decisions they make at this point will tip the scales in either direction. It is imperative to unpack
theses students’ experiences layer by layer to uncover the causes. What is really the issue? Is it
lack of commitment and motivation? Is it that the courses are not interesting? Does the student
SUCCESS FOR ALL
36
not have the aptitude for the coursework required for the major they are pursuing? Is there a
personal issue? Is the student experiencing mental health demise? The GAP helps to uncover
the answers.
The Guided Action Plan
The impetus for the GAP is a combination of a K-12 Instructional Support Process and
the 4 S’s of the counseling model from Schlossberg’s Transition Theory (Goodman et al., 2006).
It encourages the student to examine their liabilities, but also works to help them use their assets
and develop strategies to move forward. It recognizes that the academic difficulty may be
situated in the student (self) or the environment (situation) and helps the student to identify
supports. It uses the themes from the literature that encourage early intervention, engagement in
the process, and the consideration of many psychological factors that influence student
achievement. Wlazelek and Hartman (2007) believe that exploration of psychological attributes
and interventions is fundamental for students experiencing failure. Use of the GAP encourages a
mentoring relationship in which the adviser acts as a guide or mentor in helping students to
explore themselves and invites them to partner with the adviser in designing an appropriate
intervention.
Pamela Schockley-Zalabak (2012) in her address to advisers at the NACADA Annual
Convention in 2011challenged advisers to become intentional interaction designers to create
experiences that contribute to the future of students. She sees advisers as central to student
retention and development. They are the key players who guide students into and out of the
university. Yet she also recognized that students have individual needs; no one approach works
for all. She urged that advisers not solve problems for students, but to teach them to be problem
SUCCESS FOR ALL
37
solvers. She encouraged advisers to promote adaptability with students to help them gain the
emotional skills required to manage continuous transition.
Using the GAP with students in jeopardy promotes the goals of interaction design. It
helps students arrive at a plan of action that will encourage their growth, examine their options,
and motivate them to persist. She closed her speech by stating that advisers were accomplices in
helping students to create their own futures. The GAP does just that for students facing failure.
It allows students with the help of advisers to design a plan of action.
The GAP consists of three sections of questions about The Student, The Situation, and
The Supports in the student’s life. It is completed one section at a time followed by a discussion
of the answers and what the answers collectively indicate to the student about their academic
performance. There is space for the student and adviser to jot notes after each section. The
questions are designed to promote discussion and answers that help to lead the student to identify
the main factor or factors that are disrupting their learning. This is noted in the section labeled
Problem Identification. Problem identification along with the notes from the questions in each
section is used to help the student select behavioral and measureable goals which are noted in the
Goals section. This is followed by a section labeled Follow-up. Dates are inserted into this
section for mandatory appointments at which the student and adviser will check the progress that
is being made both toward the goals and in the student’s classes. The last section is for the
adviser’s use to notate the student’s cumulative grade point average at the end of the semester
and to summarize progress that student achieved while using the GAP.
A hypothetical example would be one where Jane is a first semester student who has
always wanted to come to college. She loves literature and hopes to major in journalism and
become an editor. She has received C’s on first two English papers and is devastated. She has
SUCCESS FOR ALL
38
never received a grade lower than an A on a paper in high school and she is questioning her
writing ability. She made an appointment with her adviser for the first time to talk about this.
While two C’s is not an indication of an academic crisis, Jane’s adviser recognizes that Jane is at
a critical point. She has not had much experience with having to confront grades below her
expectations. The adviser decides that this would be a good situation to use the GAP to help
Jane begin to learn how to problem solve academic situations.
From answers to the questions, Jane’s values about education and commitment are clear.
She has a strong academic goal, but has encountered a setback of sorts. The adviser then uses
more questions from the section on the Self to explore Jane’s self-efficacy and resilience. The
answers indicate that these areas are weak as Jane has never had much experience with academic
difficulty. The adviser notes this as a potential goal. Further questioning about the situation
shows that Jane is intimidated by her professor. She views her comments on her papers as
criticism and has not been to office hours. In terms of support, Jane was unaware that there is a
writing center where she can receive help with revising and editing her drafts.
The information gleaned from the interview questions helps Jane recognize that the
expectations for college work may be different from high school. She is willing to make some
changes to try to improve her situation. She sets a goal of going to office hours to get to know
her professor, share her career goals with her, and to ask for help. She also sets another goal of
using the writing center when she drafts her next paper. Jane and her adviser set a follow up
appointment for after the due date of the next paper to assess if the goals are helping or if they
should reassess the situation.
This brief example shows how the GAP can be used to obtain information relevant to a
situation and use it to identify a problem and develop goal setting strategies. It works for all
SUCCESS FOR ALL
39
students, in any size university, facing all types of academic problems. It serves as a springboard
to get students to explore themselves, the situation, and supports they have tried or may need and
most importantly, allows for follow up assessment of the efficacy of the plan.
Conclusion
The author’s interpretation of the student development theory and literature on student
achievement supports the need for the use of pre-college data to identify students potentially atrisk and initiate a consistent and caring mentoring relationship. A mentoring relationship will
establish the trust that is needed to provide the student with an academic safety net should a
crisis arise. Initial advising contacts can build important feelings of mattering and validation in
the student. In the event a mentoring relationship is not established, the author supports the use
of intrusive advising and administrative action to initiate a meeting when warning signs of
academic failure surface. In both cases, use of the GAP will help the adviser and student
navigate what is likely to be an unanticipated event for the student. The GAP teaches the student
a process to explore both academic and non-academic factors to target those influencing their
situation. This knowledge, along with self-identified student strengths, combines to produce
goals specific to the student and his or her needs. The GAP delivers on Tinto’s (1993)
observation that the most important factor in understanding why student’s leave college is to
know their experiences, character, roots, and understandings. It then applies this knowledge to
script an entirely different ending; one in which the student overcomes obstacles and remains.
SUCCESS FOR ALL
40
Appendix A
The Guided Action Plan (GAP)
Questions of Self
1. Why did you come to college? Was it your decision?
2. What would you have done if you didn’t come to college? What would that be like?
3. What do you hope to achieve by coming to college?
4. What are you planning to study? How important is that to you?
5. What things about yourself do you view as strengths?
6. In the past how have you overcome challenges in school? What worked?
7. How much control do you feel you have in your progress? If little, what would you need
to feel as if you had more control?
8. What changes have you considered making recently, if any? Why or why not?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
SUCCESS FOR ALL
41
The Guided Action Plan (GAP)
Situational Questions
1.
How different is course work in college than high school for you? How is it
different?
2. What skills would you need to make improve your progress?
3. Have your study habits changed recently? Is anything different from other semesters?
4. Has anything changed in your personal life with family or friends?
5. What co-curricular activities are you involved in? Do you work? How much time is
devoted to these each week?
6. What classes are going well for you? What is it about them that allow you to do
well?
7. What is your greatest academic strength?
8. What do you notice about the times you are most successful?
9. What is the biggest concern for you at the moment?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
SUCCESS FOR ALL
42
The Guided Action Plan (GAP)
Supports
1. Who have you turned to for help? Tell me about that.
2. What else do you need to be successful?
3. How do you know how you are doing in class?
4. Would connecting with others in similar situations be helpful?
5. Would a tutor or a mentor be more useful to you? How?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Problem Identification
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
SUCCESS FOR ALL
43
Goals:
1. _______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
2. _______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Follow-up Appointments:
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
Semester CGPA____________________
Progress During Duration of Plan:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
SUCCESS FOR ALL
44
GAP Checklist for Advising Conversations with At-Risk Students
Explore Self
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Why did you come to college? Tell me about that decision.
What would you have done if you didn’t come to college? What would that be like?
What do you hope to achieve by coming to college?
What are you planning to study? How did you develop those goals? How important is that to you?
What things about yourself do you view as strengths?
In the past how have you overcome challenges with school? What worked?
How much control do you feel you have in your progress? If little, what would you need to feel as if you
had more control?
What changes have you considered making recently, if any? Why or why not?
Explore the Situation
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
How different is course work in college than high school for you? How is it different?
What skills would you need to improve your progress?
Have your study habits changed recently? Is anything different from other semesters?
Has anything changed in your personal life with family or friends?
What co-curricular activities are you involved in? Do you work? How much time is devoted to these
events each week?
What classes are going well for you? What is it about them that allow you to do well?
What is your greatest academic strength?
What do you notice about the times you are most successful?
What is the biggest concern for you at the moment?
Explore Supports
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Who have you turned to for help? Tell me about that.
What else do you need to be successful?
How do you know how you are doing in class?
Would connecting with others in similar situations be helpful?
Would a tutor or a mentor be more useful to you? How?
Problem Identification:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Goals:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
SUCCESS FOR ALL
45
Appendix B
Analysis of Students Dropped from DUS
Spring 2012
Primary Pattern
1. Reinstated/Reenrolled without
specific plan of what
they would do
differently this time
around
2. International
Student/Apparent
Language Struggles
3. Mental Health/Health
Interference*
4
5
Transferring Athlete
Lack of resilience to
recover from a setback
Number of Students
3
Mentoring Candidates?
Yes
2
5
1
1
8
Student not invested
2
from start
7 Lack of face to face
13
contact with discussion
about
interferences/student
did not respond to r to
appointments or advice
from adviser/students
unrealistic
(Possible FSP for RW)
(ADHD diagnosis)
Yes
6
Yes – accountability factors
interfere with students making
choices that work in their
favor. Many ignore advisers
email advice as this does not
provide the setting for
authentic conversations and
student accountability.
If a trusting relationship can
be developed which requires
face to face meetings, students
may be more willing to work
adviser. Have to convince
them we are on their side!!
*Unclear whether the Mental Health Issues were a cause of a result of poor scholarship.
SUCCESS FOR ALL
Student
46
High
School
HS
GPA
SAT
CR
SAT
M
SAT
W
Karachi
Grammar
School
NA
NA
NA
NA
Suspected
Reason for
Drop
3, 7
Lewistown
Area HS
2.32
NA
NA
NA
5,7
Central HS, 2.60
Phila
650
510
500
3,7
Perry HS,
3.28
Pittsburgh
Passaic HS, 3.51
NJ
State
2.77
College HS
430
410
420
5
440
480
510
5,7
500
400
540
White
Knoll HS,
South
Caroling
State
College HS
State
College HS
Central
Bucks HS
South
Woodberry
Forest HS,
VA
2.15
NA
NA
NA
7 – Strong
summer
start then
quick
decline
5,7
2.43
430
510
400
7
2.09
540
600
540
6
3.43
530
560
560
5
2.56
540
420
550
State
College HS
2.90
600
520
500
4 (Had
access to
T&M at
Morgan
Center
5, 7
(Much
time and
effort put
into
helping
him) – not
Special
Populati
on
US
Citizen,
but from
Pakistan
VET
LANG
DEF
MATH
MATH
110 AMATH
140 F
MATH
021 F
MATH
022 WN
MATH
110 F
MATH
021 D
MATH 04
F
VET
MATH
021 D
MATH
22/26 F
MATH
021 F
MATH
140 F
MATH
110 W
FB
Athlete
MATH
021 W
MATH
036 F
SUCCESS FOR ALL
47
Tianjin #1
3.82
Mid School
521
731
531
reciprocat
ed
2
Mohawk
Area Jr.-Sr.
HS – PA
Paramus
Catholic
HS
State
College
Area HS
State
College
Area HS
PennTrafford
HS, PA
Culver
Academies,
IN
4.08
580
490
560
3
NA
NA
NA
NA
1, 2
3.33
450
610
450
1
MATH
110 F
2.8
40
700
580
1
MATH
017 B
3.6
490
600
590
MATH
140 D
2.9
621
661
591
State
College
Area HS
Bergen
County
Tech HS,
NJ
2.19
450
400
440
3?, 5
(Great
start), 7
5, 7 (good
attempts
to help
him)
3?, 5, 7
3.32
631
591
651
Salesianum
School, DE
3.35
710
710
780
6,7
(missed
numerous
scheduled
appts.)
3, 7
INT
INT
ROTC
MATH
110 F
MATH
021 D
MATH
022 F
MATH
140 W
MATH
140 F
MATH
021 F
MATH
110 F
MATH
140 F
SUCCESS FOR ALL
48
Considerations from Informal Transcript Analysis
1. Require mentoring as a condition of reinstatement/re-enrollment.
2. Offer mentoring to veterans.
3. Refer international students with weak language skills to conversation partners or a
similar program.
4. For many students, poor math performance was an early indicator.
Prominent Warning Signs



Poor first semester grades
Early Progress reports or late drop of courses
Lack of response to communication from advisers
SUCCESS FOR ALL
49
Appendix C
Psychologica
l Attribute
Self-efficacy
Resilience
Description
Recommended
Scale of Measure
Schwarzer and
Jerusalem’s
General
Perceived SelfEfficacy Scale
(Schwarzer &
Jerusalem, 1995)
This is the
belief that
one can
perform a
novel or
difficult
tasks, or
cope with
adversity -in various
domains of
human
functioning.
Perceived
selfefficacy
facilitates
goal-setting,
effort
investment,
persistence
in face of
barriers and
recovery
from
setbacks.
The
Resilience Scale
capacity to
(RS)
withstand
life
stressors,
thrive and
make
meaning
from
challenges
Conditions
Retrieve from:
of Use
You do not
http://userpage.funeed explicit berlin.de/~health/engscal.htm
permission
to utilize the
scale.
Permission
to use and
reproduce
the General
SelfEfficacy
Scale is
granted,
given that
appropriate
recognition
of the source
of the scale
is made.
You must
also
purchase
licenses to
use the
Resilience
Scale (RS).
There are
license
packs for
organization
s,
researchers
and
professors,
with a
http://www.resiliencescale.co
m/
en/rstest/rstest_25_en.html
SUCCESS FOR ALL
50
special price
for students.
Locus of
Control
The extent
to which an
individual
views
him/herself
as causative
or
responsible
for his/her
experiences.
Multidimensional
Locus of Control Available
Scale (Levenson) on line.
The Locus of
Control (Rotter,
1966)
http://cart.rmcdenver.com/
instruments/multidimensional
_locus.pdf
http://www.psych.uncc.edu/
pagoolka/LocusofControlintro.html
SUCCESS FOR ALL
51
Salient Learning Outcomes
1. Early identification of at-risk students is critical. Use of both academic and nonacademic pre-college or early college data allows for the identification of potentially atrisk students by advisers.
2. Early identification allows for the establishment of contact to initiate a mentoring
relationship with potentially at-risk students before incidents of academic failure occur.
3. A mentoring relationship allows for the advisee to establish feelings of mattering and
validation which leads to the strengthening of important psychological attributes such as
self-efficacy and resilience.
4. Advisers should watch for early warning signs such as early progress reports, dropped
courses, lack of response to communication and low initial grades in courses or a drop in
GPA.
5. Intrusive advising such as the use of administrative holds can initiate contact with
students exhibiting early warning signs and to explore causes.
6. A variety of causes result in academic jeopardy. Use of a framework that explores both
academic and non-academic factors that influence student achievement is recommended
to uncover the problem and design goals for success.
7. The Guided Action Plan (GAP) is proposed as a framework for advisers to consider in
establishing a partnership with the student to develop an individual plan for recovery.
8. A significant body of literature recognizes the role transition plays in student adjustment
to academic progress in higher education. The identification of causes and solutions is
situated in the individual and can be unpacked with the help of a caring individual.
SUCCESS FOR ALL
52
Further Explorations
1. Further study of how important psychological factors can be strengthened in students
through advising conversations.
2. Further study of the literature on the validity and reliability of surveys that assess
psychological attributes in students is of interest.
3. Study of learning theory related to student growth and development and the role it plays
in the academic adjustment of student’s transition to learning in higher education.
SUCCESS FOR ALL
53
References
Bigger, J. J. (2005). Improving the odds for freshman success. Retrieved from NACADA
Clearinghouse of Academic Advising Resources:
http://www.nacad.ksu.edu/Clearinghouse/AdvisingIssues/First-Year.htm
Chemers, M. M., Hu L., & Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first-year college
student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 55-64.
Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education and Identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chickering A. W. & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and Identity (2nd ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Clark, M. R. (2005). Negotiating the freshman year: Challenges and strategies among first-year
college students. Journal of College Student Development, 46(3), 296-316.
Darling, R., Gordon, J. & Pong, J. (2012, May). Early warning and early intervention programs
restore students’ hope and increase academic success. Strategic Enrollment Management
Newsletter. Retrieved from
http://www2.aacrao.org/sem/index.cfm?fa=view&id=5427
DeBerard, M. S., Spielmans, G. I., & Julka, D. L. (2004). Predictors of academic achievement
and retention among college freshmen: A longitudinal study. College Student Journal,
38, 66-80.
Eby, L. T., Allen, T. D, Evans, S. C., Ng, T., & DuBois, D. L. (2008). Does mentoring matter?
A multidisciplinary meta-analysis comparing mentored and non-mentored individuals.
Journal of Vocational Behavior 72, 254-267.
Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K.A. (2010). Student
Development in College: Theory, Research, and Practice. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
Goodman, J., Schlossberg, N. K., & Anderson, M. L. (2006). Counseling Adults in Transition
(3rd ed.). New York: Springer.
Habley, W. R. (Ed.). (2004). The status of academic advising: Findings from the ACT sixth
national survey (Monograph No. 10). Manhatten, KS: National Academic Advising A
ssociation.
Heisserer, D. L. & Parette, P. (2002). Advising at-risk students in college and university
settings. College Student Journal, 36(1).
Keup, J. R. (2006). Promoting new-student success: Assessing academic development and
achievement among first-year students. New Directions for Student Services114, 27-46.
SUCCESS FOR ALL
54
Kitsantas, A., Winsler, A. & Huie, F. (2008). Self-regulation and ability predictors of academic
success during college: A predictive validity study. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20,
42-68.
Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T. M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J. & Gonyea, R. M. (2008). Unmasking the effects
of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. The Journal of
Higher Education, 79(5), 540-563.
Linkroll.com. (2012). Mentoring. [Online]. Retrieved October 14, 2012, from
www.linkroll.com/mentoring
Lotkowski, V.A., Robbins, S. B., & Noeth, R. J. (2004). The role of academic and non-academic
factors in improving college retention. ACT Policy Report. Retrievable online at:
www.act.org/research/policy/index.htlm.
Mansfield, P. M., Pinto, M. B., Parente, D. H. & Wortman, T. I. (2009). College students and
academic performance: A case of taking control. NASPA Journal, 46(3), 502-518.
Miller, M.A. & Murray, C. (2005). Advising academically underprepared students. Retrieved
from NACADA Clearinghouse of Academic Advising Resources
http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Clearinghouse/AdvisingIssues/AcademicallyUnderprepared.htm
MindTools.com. (2012). Mentoring: A mutually beneficial partnership. [Online]. Retrieved
October 14, 2012, from www.mindtools.com/pages/article/new CDV72.htm
Reynolds, A. L., & Weigand, M. J. (2010). The relationships among academic attitudes,
psychological attitudes, and the first-semester academic achievement of first-year college
students. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 47(2), 175-195.
Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do
psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 130(2), 261-288.
Salinitri, G. (2005). The effects of formal mentoring on the retention rates for first-year, low
achieving students. Canadian Journal of Education, 28(4), 853-873.
Shockley-Zalabak, P. (2012). Advisors as interaction designers. The Journal of the National
Academic Advising Association, 32(1), 43-52.
Stupinsky, R. H., Renaud, R. D., Perry, R. P., Ruthig, J. C., Haynes, T. L., & Clifton, R. A.
(2007). Comparing self-esteem and perceived control as predictors of first-year college
students’ academic achievement. Social Psychology of Education 10, 303-330.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving College. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
SUCCESS FOR ALL
55
Varney, J. (2007). Intrusive advising. NACADA clearinghouse of academic advising resources.
Retrieved December 3, 2012, from http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/AAT/NW30_3.htm#10
Vivian, C. (2005). Advising the at-risk college student. The Educational Forum, 69(4), 336350.
Warcholak, N. & Yin, A. (2012), Examining adviser notes of students who don’t succeed.
Research and Analyses. Retrieved December 5, 2012 from
http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/planning_research/reports/
Wlazelek, B. & Hartman, K. (2007). In J. A. Lipppincott, R. B. Lippincott (Eds.), Special
populations in college counseling: A handbook for mental health professionals (pp. 173185). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.