Facilitating Probationary Students'
Success: Design, Evaluation, and
Impact of Probationary Student
Re-Orientation
Esau Tovar  Merril A. Simon
Presentation for the
2004 NACADA Pacific Region Conference
Pasadena, CA  April 21-23, 2004
1
Contact Information
Esau Tovar, M.S.
Faculty Leader/Counselor, Assessment Center
Project Director, Student Enhancement & Educational Research Project
Santa Monica College
1900 Pico Blvd., Santa Monica, CA 90405
(310) 434-4012 tovar_esau@smc.edu
Merril A. Simon, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Educational Psychology and Counseling
California State University Northridge
18111 Nordhoff St. Northridge, CA 91330-8265
merril.simon@csun.edu
Note: A full report addressing the design, evaluation, and outcomes of this project can be found at:
http://homepage.smc.edu/tovar_esau/esauprof/SEER%20Counseling%20Based%20Interventions.doc
2
Presentation Abstract
Budgetary constraints continually force colleges to design more effective
interventions to serve the most students possible. With up to 35% of firsttime students at this urban, diverse, public California community college
ending up on probation after their first semester, a probationary student
“re-orientation” was developed to address their specific needs.
Participants attended a two-hour orientation (based on
collaborative/problem-based learning) by engaging them in small group
counseling discussions on factors leading to their poor academic
performance; readiness, motivation, and commitment for college;
understanding institutional expectations; balancing personal, academic,
and social commitments; and connecting with students and faculty.
Compared to controls, participants were retained, persisted, made
greater academic gains, and overcame probation to a significantly higher
degree. Orientation content and methods will be shared.
3
Presentation Objectives

Participants will leave session with a better understanding on
how to work with at-risk college students.

Participants will leave session with concrete ideas on how to
implement a successful probationary student “re-orientation.”

Participants will be provided with an overview on how to
design a comprehensive assessment/evaluation plan to
measure the effectiveness of the orientation program and its
impact on student success, course completion, and retention.

Participants will be given the opportunity to brainstorm and
consider possible counseling/advising strategies during a
question-and-answer period.
4
Intervention Strategies Rationale
5
Pre-Program Decisions

Follow-up of three year study on the effects of
extended orientation; intentional instructor and
counselor involvement to create greater social
and academic integration; increased retention,
persistence, and GPA resulted.

Successful, so undertook this study of first-time,
first-semester probationary students to assess
effect of select intervention strategies on same
outcomes.
6
Rationale for Program
Development

35% of all first-time students are on
probation at the end of their first term.



54 - 73% success rate for first semester
students based on ethnic breakdown)
Persistence rate of 54% from semester
one to semester two.
Commitment by institution to successfully
serve students.
7
Factors Underlying High
Probationary Rates





Initial orientation to college does not meet students’
needs
Lack of social and/or academic integration
Delayed or flawed educational planning and
undefined career goals.
Need for intrusive advisement and mandatory
assessment
Delayed completion of math and English courses but
needed for success in other courses
8
Program Goals

The aim of the Student Enhancement & Educational
Research Project (SEER)—mainly through the reorientation program was to increase the percentage of
probationary (i.e., academic probation, progress
probation, disqualified) students who:

Completed courses successfully (i.e., retention);

Persisted in higher proportions to the subsequent semester;

Attained higher grades that would allow them to overcome their
probationary status.
9
Strategies Designed

The intervention strategies designed and implemented
included the following:

Development of an innovative probationary student
re-orientation;

Use of intrusive and developmental advising;


Assessment of students’ readiness and motivation to change
existing patterns of unsuccessful behaviors; and
Increase rate of assessment of students’ writing, reading, and
mathematical skills.
10
Funding Support

Provided by:
 Santa Monica College

Fund for Instructional
Improvement of the State of
California
11
Counseling Faculty Training

Developmental, intrusive advisement strategies.

Using ‘flashpoints’
(Hirsch, 2001)

Student involvement and I-E-O Model (Astin, 1993)

Retention strategies

Social & academic integration

Training on the administration and interpretation of the
College Student Inventory
(Stratil, 1988)
(Basham & Lunenburg, 1998)
(Tinto, 1993)
12
Characteristics of Programs
Addressing Academic Performance

Hirsch (2001) indicates that such programs
must:





Use a holistic approach to diagnosing causes for
academic difficulties;
Be cost-effective;
Account for students’ motivation and readiness for
change;
Individualized interventions given the type of difficulty;
Interventions based on study & learning skills
development (cognitive and affective).
13
Probationary Student
“Re-Orientation”

Researched existing programs for probationary
student – in community colleges and four-year
institutions.

Intended to address the specific needs of continuing
students.

Discussed topics including commitment to college,
motivation to succeed, understanding of institutional
expectations, balancing, school, work and personal
commitments; and connecting with faculty members and
peers (social and academic integration).
14
Re-Orientations Conducted




Summer 2002 (small pilot—focus group
based; 150 students)
Winter 2003 (350 first semester
students)
Summer 2003 (850 students)
Winter 2004 (fully institutionalized; 700
students)
15
Participant Invitations

Invitations for re-orientation sent to all students
who had enrolled for the first time and were placed
on academic or progress probation after their first
semester; follow-up phone call reminders to those
who didn’t respond.

Re-Orientation based on small group format
focusing on problem-based-learning and
collaborative learning strategies.


10-15 students per group/20-30 group sessions
Led by a professional counselor
16
PBL: Defined
Problem-based learning (PBL) is an instructional
method that challenges students to "learn to learn,"
working cooperatively in groups to seek solutions
to real world problems. These problems are used
to engage students' curiosity and initiate learning
the subject matter. PBL prepares students to think
critically and analytically, and to find and use
appropriate learning resources.
-- Barbara Duch (Editor of The Power of Problem-Based Learning)
17
Re-Orientation Beginning

Distribution of demographic questionnaire focusing on:






Introductions:


Time/Distance to college; Parents’/Guardians’ educational level of attainment
Hours employed per week
Hours studied per week
High school GPA (approximate)
Student’s reason for probation and strategies for success
Brief introduction of counselor and student worker
Overview of Orientation/Purpose of Program



Counselor briefly explained the purpose and history
Counselor presented an overview of orientation
Discussed ‘What is Probation’ handout
18
Icebreaker Exercises

Gave students five minutes to write down
a response to one of the following two
questions:



What was your biggest adjustment in starting college?
What is something important thing you have learned
about yourself since starting college?
Volunteers from the group shared their
responses.
19
Re-Orientation Discussion
Questions (1 of 2)

After icebreaker activities, the following questions/topics
were discussed:

How many people have jobs? For those of you who do work, how
does working affect your academic and social experience at SMC?

If you found yourself having trouble keeping up in class this
coming semester, what would be the most effective method
of improving your situation? Why would you choose this method?
What has worked in the past? What has not worked?
Distributed Math and English Tutoring Schedule
Reminder of English/Math placement tests completion

Each semester, about 3,500 new students are placed on
probation. What factors will those students need to address to
become successful in college?
Distribute ‘Calculating Your GPA’ handout
20
Re-Orientation Discussion
Questions (2 of 2)

What does time management mean to you? How do you manage
your time so that you can study enough hours each week?
(If relevant, distribute: Time Management handouts)

Have your instructors or counselors talked with you about effective
study skills? What study skills would you recommend to others in
your group?
(If relevant, distribute Study Skills handouts)

Research has shown that college students face many personal
obstacles while working to achieve their academic goals. How do
you deal with personal obstacles so that they do not impede your
progress towards your goals?
21
College Student Inventory

All students were asked to complete the assessment—and all but two
did.

Version B—100 items.

Assesses motivation, coping skills, and receptivity to support services.
Provides a general overview of student’s likelihood to dropout and
experience academic difficulty.

Takes approximately 30 minutes to complete.

Student and counselor will discuss results in a subsequent
appointment.
22
CSI cont.

Norms for the CSI are available for four-year,
and two-year schools.

Results include profiles for advisors and
profiles for students with suggested
interventions.

Also available is a full-length version (A—164
items). May be completed online or sent in for
processing.
23
Completion of
Re-Orientation Process

Orientation Evaluation

Students completed evaluation and answered final
demographic question when they finished their
assessment:


Based on what you learned here today, what do you plan to
do differently next term?
Encouraged students to make an
appointment to speak with a counselor
during the following semester to solidify
goals.
24
Financial Aid Information
 Answered student questions regarding
financial aid.
 Distributed and discussed the green paper
titled, ‘Warning: Being on Academic Probation
Does Affect Financial Aid’
 Distributed ‘’Financial Aid Myths’’ pamphlet
25
Campus Resources

Distributed and discussed the ‘Contact Information’ Handout

Distributed and discussed the ‘Campus Resources’ Handout

Including program-provided math & English tutoring.

Showed dates and deadlines in SMC catalog (encouraged
the students to buy one) and the Schedule of Classes.

Showed Student Planning Guide and where to get it on-line.

Showed Student Planner—buy in the bookstore.
26
Evaluation Results

Reasons given for being on probation
were assessed in terms of attribution
theory with four areas (and a generalnon-categorized) identified:





Course Specific
Internal-Stable-Specific Attributions
Internal-Unstable-Specific Attributions
External-Stable-Specific Attributions
External-Unstable-Specific Attributions
27
Course Specific Attributions

Student states “obvious” reasons
for lack of success (e.g.,
probationary status) in the
following ways:

Withdrew from too many courses

Low Grade Point Average
28
Internal-Stable-Specific
Attributions

Student identifies an aspect of him/herself
which contributed to poor performance,
and seems to impact only a given course
or only college.

Lack of Academic Preparation for Course

Adjustment to college

Too much fun

Lateness or attendance problems

Enrolling in too many classes
29
Internal-Unstable-Specific
Attributions

Student identifies an aspect of
him/herself which contributed to
poor performance in course, but not
other aspects of school.

Lack of Enthusiasm or Interest in the
Course
30
External-Stable-Specific
Attributions

Student states specific conflicts
that contributed to poor
performance and attributes lack
of success to these entities.
Persistent Work Conflicts
 “Another person made me do it”
 Unreliable transportation/Distance

31
External-Unstable-Specific
Attributions

Student states multiple conflicts that
contributed to poor performance, but
did not affect other aspects of life.




Poor performance (changed throughout) in
class
Lack of studying
Poor time management
Family, personal, financial problems
32
Program Assessment
Outcomes Based on Winter
2003 Re-Orientation Attendees
33
Study & Control Groups

Study Group:


Control Group 1:


Students attending college for the first time in fall 2002 and
subsequently placed on academic and/or progress probation at the
conclusion of the semester AND participated in the probationary
student re-orientation conducted in winter 2003.
Students attending college for the first time in fall 2002 and
subsequently placed on academic and/or progress probation at the
conclusion of the semester AND DID NOT participate in the
probationary student re-orientation conducted in winter 2003.
Control Group 2:

The cohort of first-time college students placed on academic and/or
progress probation after completing the fall 1999 semester.
34
Orientation Participation
Demographics
Probation Type * Orientation Participant Crosstabulation
Probation
Type
LOP
Academic
Both
No longer
Total
Count
% within Probation Type
% within Orientation
Participant
Count
% within Probation Type
% within Orientation
Participant
Count
% within Probation Type
% within Orientation
Participant
Count
% within Probation Type
% within Orientation
Participant
Count
% within Probation Type
% within Orientation
Participant
Orientation Participant
No
Yes
15
17
46.9%
53.1%
Total
32
100.0%
1.9%
5.3%
2.9%
628
70.8%
259
29.2%
887
100.0%
79.5%
80.2%
79.7%
143
75.7%
46
24.3%
189
100.0%
18.1%
14.2%
17.0%
4
80.0%
1
20.0%
5
100.0%
.5%
.3%
.4%
790
71.0%
323
29.0%
1113
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%

29% of invited
probationary students
attended orientation.

80% were strictly on
academic probation
(< 2.0 GPA)

315 students completed
the College Adjustment
Inventory
35
Gender & Ethnicity
Ethnicity * GENDER Crosstabulation
Ethnicity
African American
Asian
Latino
White
Other/Uns p.
Total
Count
% within Ethnicity
% within GENDER
Count
% within Ethnicity
% within GENDER
Count
% within Ethnicity
% within GENDER
Count
% within Ethnicity
% within GENDER
Count
% within Ethnicity
% within GENDER
Count
% within Ethnicity
% within GENDER
GENDER
Male
Female
17
27
38.6%
61.4%
11.4%
16.4%
20
21
48.8%
51.2%
13.4%
12.7%
61
61
50.0%
50.0%
40.9%
37.0%
28
28
50.0%
50.0%
18.8%
17.0%
23
28
45.1%
54.9%
15.4%
17.0%
149
165
47.5%
52.5%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
44
100.0%
14.0%
41
100.0%
13.1%
122
100.0%
38.9%
56
100.0%
17.8%
51
100.0%
16.2%
314
100.0%
100.0%

No Gender X Ethnicity
differences found for
participation.

Attendees were
predominantly Latino
(39%). However, they
constitute 26% of SMC
students.

Age: 93% were 22 or
younger (M = 19.5, SD =
3.5).
36
Demographics (cont.)
Select Demographic Characteristics
N
Home Dis tance in Miles
Travel Time to College
Fall Work Hours Employed
Spring Work Hours Employed
Fall Weekly Hours Studied
High s chool GPA
Valid
267
314
294
275
291
293
Mis sing
48
1
21
40
24
22
Mean
14.97
42.07
20.69
21.22
8.57
2.766
SD
10.839
29.413
14.677
11.306
6.533
.5335

Male and females differed on self-reported HS GPA (Female: 2.8 vs. 2.7, p < .05).

Ethnic differences in Distance traveled, travel time, and self-reported HS GPA (p <
.05).

Mode of Transportation: 27% use public transportation to get to the college; 55%
drive; 13% are driven by another person; and 5% walk or ride a bike.
37
Course-Taking Characteristics
Fall 2002 Course Outcomes for Academic Probation Students
N
GPA
Units Enrolled
Units Attempted
Units Completed
Valid N (lis twis e)
296
296
296
296
296
Minimum
.00
3.0
.0
.0
Maximum
1.93
19.0
15.0
15.0
Mean
1.00
10.04
7.92
5.37
Std. Deviation
.63
3.33
3.64
3.71
Fall 2002 Course Outcomes for "Lack of Prgress" Probation Students
N
Units Enrolled
Units Attempted
Units Completed
Cours e
Completion Rate
Valid N (lis twis e)
62
62
62
Minimum
12.0
.0
.0
Maximum
19.0
14.0
7.0
Mean
13.274
6.435
3.145
Std. Deviation
1.4617
3.7224
2.0791
62
.00
46.15
23.4268
14.94208
62
38
Outcomes Attained
Effect of Re-Orientation on Select
Student Outcomes
39
Re-Orientation Participation by
Probationary Outcomes

Although study and control group 1 students
completed their first semester with a similar
standing, those participating in the reorientation were more likely to decrease their
probationary rates:

Academic Probation status


Participants: 40 percentage point decrease in just one
semester;
Non-Participants: 25% percentage points decrease
40
Re-Orientation Participation by
Probationary Outcomes
Table 1. Academic Status for Study Group and Control Groups and Study Group Outcomes by
Counseling Intervention
Academic Standing
Semester
Study Group Only:
Number of Times Meeting
with Counselor
None
Academic Probation
Progress Probation
Both
Disqualified
Good Standing
1
2
3
4
-
-
-
Study1
(N=324)
260 (80%)
Spring 2003
42%
48%
34%
101 (40%)
235 (55%)
Summer 2003
41%
38%
33%
96 (38%)
228 (54%)
NA
-
-
-
17 (5%)
15 (2%)
668 (38%)
-
Spring 2003
3%
0
3%
6 (2%)
22 (5%)
NA
105 (2%)
Summer 2003
3%
0
3%
6 (2%)
22 (5%)
Fall 2002
Fall 2002
Fall 2002
Once
Twice+
Overall Academic Standing by Student Group:
Study, Control, or Successful Students4
Control 12
(N=790)
628 (80%)
Control 23
(N=1745)
851 (49%)
Successful4
(N=4532)
-
NA
253 (6%)
267 (6%)
108 (2%)
-
-
-
46 (14%)
143 (18%)
226 (13%)
-
Spring 2003
11%
14%
16%
33 (13%)
69 (16%)
NA
94 (2%)
Summer 2003
12%
19%
18%
36 (14%)
73 (17%)
-
-
-
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
-
-
Spring 2003
26%
24%
24%
64 (25%)
58 (14%)
NA
23 (1%)
Summer 2003
26%
24%
24%
64 (25%)
14 (25%)
NA
23 (1%)
-
-
-
1 (1%)
4 (0%)
2977 (63%)
4532 (81%)
Spring 2003
18%
14%
24%
49 (19%)
41 (10%)
NA
4057 (89%)
Summer 2003
18%
19%
24%
51 (20%)
44 (10%)
NA
4037 (89%)
Fall 2002
Fall 2002
97 (2%)
Student must have attended the counselor-led probationary student re-orientation conducted in winter 2003
Students invited to participate in probationary student re-orientation but did not attend
Fall 1999 probationary student
First-time college students attending Santa Monica College in fall 2002 who were in good academic standing at end of fall
41
Influence of Re-Orientation
Participation AND Counseling on
Probationary Outcomes

Probationary students attending the reorientation & meeting with a counselor:

Accounted for fewer cases of academic probation
in subsequent semester


34% for participants vs. 42% for non-participants;
Accounted for a greater proportion of “good
standing” cases:

24% for participants vs. 18% for non-participants
42
Influence of Re-Orientation on
Course Completion

Participants completed more coursework
successfully—“C” or better—after the reorientation intervention:



57% for P vs. 47% for NP in spring 2003; and
73% for P vs. 65% for NP in summer 2003
Increased significantly higher when also
accounting for counseling intervention:


60-63% for P vs. 53 % for NP in spring 2003; and
75-87% for P vs. 64% for NP in summer 2003
43
Influence of Re-Orientation on
Semester GPA

GPA increased from a mean first-semester GPA
of 1.09 to:


Higher when also accounting for counseling
intervention:



1.53 mean GPA in one semester
1.65-1.66 for those meeting with counselor in second semester vs.
1.45 for those not meeting with one;
2.29-2.21 for those meeting with counselor in summer session vs.
1.61 for those not meeting with one;
Significant because of mathematical difficulty in
raising GPA.
44
Influence of Re-Orientation on
Persistence to Subsequent
Semesters

Participants persisted to a significantly higher
degree than non participants:

Fall to Spring:


Fall to Fall:


72% for P vs. 23% for NP--a near 50 percentage point difference;
43% for P vs. 14% for NP--a 30 percentage point difference.
Accounting for counseling Intervention,
participating students meeting with counselor:

Fall to Spring:


71% for those not meeting and 74% for those meeting 1+ times
Fall to Fall:

39% for those not meeting; 44% for those meeting 1; 51% for 2+ times
45
Re-Orientation Participation by
Success Outcomes
Table 2. Performance Indicators for SEER Study and Control Groups by Counseling Intervention
Performance
Indicator
Course Completion
Rate
Persistence Rate
Grade Point Average
Mean (SD)
1
2
3
4
Semester
Study Group Only:
Number of Times Meeting
with Counselor
None
Once
Twice+
-
-
Spring 2003
53%
Summer 2003
Overall Performance Indicators
by Student Group:
Study, Control, or Successful Students4
-
Study1
(N=324)
53%
Control 12
(N=790)
33%
60%
63%
57%
47%
75%
64%
75%
87%
73%
65%
83%
Spring 2003
71%
74%
74%
234 (72%)
178 (23%)
4142 (74%)
Summer 2003
21%
37%
26%
76 (23%)
645 (8%)
2056 (37%)
Fall 2003
39%
44%
51%
140 (43%)
110 (14%)
3106 (57%)
Fall 1999
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Fall 2002
-
-
-
1.09 (0.72)
0.59 (0.70)
2.36 (1.27)
Spring 2003
1.45 (1.22)
1.65 (0.98)
1.66 (1.15)
1.53 (1.18)
1.34 (1.26)
2.37 (1.24)
Summer 2003
1.61 (1.35)
2.29 (1.39)
2.21 (1.31)
1.90 (1.36)
1.83 (1.44)
2.58 (1.39)
Cumulative
1.48 (0.93)
1.46 (0.82)
1.53 (0.82)
1.49 (0.76)
0.97 (0.93)
2.58 (0.96)
Fall 2002
Control 23
(N=1745)
Successful4
(N=4532)
75%
1.29 (1.10)
Student must have attended the counselor-led probationary student re-orientation conducted in winter 2003
Students invited to participate in probationary student re-orientation but did not attend
Fall 1999 probationary student
First-time college students attending Santa Monica College in fall 2002 who were in good academic standing at end of fall
46
Adjustment Findings &
Student Receptivity
Outcomes for
Gender & Ethnicity
47
CSI Composite Scales

Ethnic differences in dropout
proneness, predicted academic
difficulty, and educational
receptivity. Educational stress,
not significant.
Mean Composite Scales by Ethnicity
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5

Latino students are most likely
to dropout and experience
academic difficulties; however,
are also more willing to accept
assistance.
African American
6.0
Asian
5.5
Latino
White
5.0
Other
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0

Asian students are under
somewhat more educational
stress than other students.
Dropout
Proneness
Predicted
Academic
Difficulty
Educational Receptivity to
Stress
Help
48
CSI Academic Motivation Scales
Mean Academic Motivation Scales by Ethnicity

Consistent with theory, students with poor
academic achievement, these students generally
express a low tolerance toward instructors.
Latino’s had a slightly more favorable impressions
than other students. African American students
had the least impression.
80.0
70.0
60.0
African American
50.0
Asian
40.0
Latino
White
30.0
Other
20.0
10.0
on
fid
H
rb
al
C
y
St
ud
en
ce
ts
ab
i
ce
s
on
f id
C
at
h
&
Ve
In
te
l
Sc
ie
nc
e
le
ct
ua
en
es
t
le
ge
lI
nt
er
Co
l
sh
to
re
es
i
M
ud
e
to
w
Fi
ni
ar
d
Ed
uc
at
or
s
0.0
D
White students expressed a higher degree of
verbal confidence compared to African American
and Latino students. This is particularly crucial as
it impacts students’ attitudes and subsequent
success in courses where extensive reading,
writing, and public speaking is expected.
At
t it

Mean Academic Motivation Scales by Gender
Regardless of ethnicity, females expressed a
higher degree of intellectual interests (i.e., enjoys
the learning process). Men, on the other hand,
expressed higher degrees on confidence in their
perceived capacity to do well in math and science,
and where communication skills are highly
emphasized.
70.0
60.0
50.0
Male
40.0
Female
30.0
20.0
10.0
en
ce
ts
ab
i
ce
on
fid
H
en
C
rb
al
St
ud
on
f id
y
Ve
s
es
t
C
lI
nt
er
nc
e
M
at
h
&
Sc
ie
sh
to
re
es
i
D
In
te
l
Fi
ni
ar
d
to
w
ud
e
le
ct
ua
Ed
uc
Co
l
le
ge
at
or
s
0.0
At
t it

80.0
49
CSI Coping Scales

No statistically significant
differences were found for gender
or ethnicity in the General Coping
scales. This indicates that all
students have developed similar
coping mechanisms, albeit not
particularly favorable.
Mean General Coping Scales by Ethnicity
70.0
60.0
50.0
African American
Asian
40.0
Latino
30.0
Other
20.0
10.0
bi
lit
y
Fi
na
n
So
ec
lS
cia
cia
it y
ur
ce
an
To
le
r
n
ni
o
of
ns
e
Se
Em
ily
O
pi
ot
io
ar
e
er
C
na
lS
up
lo
s
ur
po
rt
e
0.0
C
As such, counselors must work
all the harder with these students
through personal work as we
strive to find the “flashpoint”
(Hirsch, 2001) to effect change
and ensure student success.
Fa
m

White
50
Receptivity for Institutional Help


African American and Latino students
are more receptive to discuss means
by which to increase financial
resources to pay for college.
Mean Receptivity to Institutional Help Scales by Ethnicity
80.0
70.0
Asian students express a higher
need to discuss problems of a
personal nature (e.g., personal
problems, dating, family problems,
school) with a counselor. This finding
is consistent with their high degree of
educational stress.
60.0
African American
50.0
Asian
40.0
Latino
White
30.0
Other
20.0
10.0
lin
se
ou
n
C
As
si
C
ar
e
er
ic
En
Ac
ad
em
g
st
an
ce
en
t
ric
hm
el
in
g
ns
lC
ou
ui
d
rs
on
a
ia
lG
Pe
an
c
Latino students are more willing to
readily to engage in the social
communities of the college by
meeting other people and
participating in group experiences.
Fi
n

an
ce
0.0
51
MANCOVA Results
Multivariate Analyses of Covariance (Gender X Ethnicity, HS GPA Covariate)
Effect
Composite Scales
Intercept
GPA Covariate
Gender
Ethnicity
Gender X Ethnicity
Wilks’ λ
F
H
d
f
E
r
r
o
r
d
f
S
i
g
.
Partial η2
.268
.635
.993
.753
.967
190.061
39.883
.493
5.160
.589
4.000
4.000
4.000
16.000
16.000
278.000
278.000
278.000
849.942
849.942
.000
.000
.741
.000
.894
.732
.365
.007
.068
.008
Academic Motivation
Intercept
GPA Covariate
Gender
Ethnicity
Gender X Ethnicity
.866
.939
.857
.795
.931
7.098
2.967
7.703
2.731
.835
6.000
6.000
6.000
24.000
24.000
276.000
276.000
276.000
964.059
964.059
.000
.008
.000
.000
.694
.134
.061
.143
.056
.018
General Coping
Intercept
GPA Covariate
Gender
Ethnicity
Gender X Ethnicity
.803
.963
.992
.892
.935
13.570
2.156
.446
1.615
.936
5.000
5.000
5.000
20.000
20.000
277.000
277.000
277.000
919.655
919.655
.000
.059
.816
.043
.541
.197
.037
.008
.028
.017
Receptivity to Support Services
Intercept
GPA Covariate
Gender
Ethnicity
Gender X Ethnicity
.790
.996
.971
.766
.947
14.717
.222
1.643
3.856
.756
5.000
5.000
5.000
20.000
20.000
277.000
277.000
277.000
919.655
919.655
.000
.953
.149
.000
.768
.210
.004
.029
.065
.013
52
ANCOVA Results
Analyses of Covariance for College Student Inventory (Gender, Ethnicity, & HS GPA Covariate)
Type III MS
df
MS
F
Sig.
Partial η2
33.811
73.021
22.168
108.411
4
4
4
4
8.453
18.255
5.542
27.103
4.377
9.726
1.995
6.014
.002
.000
.095
.000
.059
.122
.028
.079
Academic Motivation (Ethnicity)
Attitude Toward Educators
Desire to Finish College
Intellectual Interests
Math & Science Confidence
Study Habits
Verbal Confidence
10898.292
6677.946
5755.905
3534.484
1193.205
13351.649
4
4
4
4
4
4
2724.573
1669.486
1438.976
883.621
298.301
3337.912
3.830
2.168
2.020
1.163
.539
4.332
.005
.073
.092
.327
.707
.002
.052
.030
.028
.016
.008
.058
Academic Motivation (Gender)
Attitude Toward Educators
Desire to Finish College
Intellectual Interests
Math & Science Confidence
Study Habits
Verbal Confidence
465.203
564.182
15591.855
6981.910
719.563
5045.387
1
1
1
1
1
1
465.203
564.182
15591.855
6981.910
719.563
5045.387
.654
.733
21.888
9.191
1.300
6.549
.419
.393
.000
.003
.255
.011
.002
.003
.072
.032
.005
.023
General Coping (Ethnicity)
Career Closure
Family Emotional Support
Opinion Tolerance
Sense of Financial Security
Sociability
14.268
98.125
269.470
469.951
765.094
1
1
1
1
1
14.268
98.125
269.470
469.951
765.094
.017
.115
.324
.527
1.082
.896
.735
.570
.468
.299
.000
.000
.001
.002
.004
4
4
4
4
4
2933.659
2508.240
6175.337
5534.589
1832.879
3.519
4.032
8.563
7.485
2.191
.008
.003
.000
.000
.070
.048
.054
.109
.096
.030
Effect
Composite Scales (Ethnicity Only)
Dropout Proneness
Predicted Academic Difficulty
Educational Stress
Receptivity to Institutional Help
Receptivity to Support Services (Ethnicity only)
Financial Guidance
11734.635
Personal Counseling
10032.961
Social Enrichment
24701.347
Academic Assistance
22138.356
Career Counseling
7331.517
53
Estimated Means
Estimated Marginal Means for Ethnicity on CSI Scales
Composite Scales
Dropout Proneness
(SSD in 1 & 3*)
Predicted Academic Difficulty
(SSD in 1 & 4**, 3 & 4***, 3 & 5***)
Educational Stress (No SSD)
Receptivity to Inst. Help
(SSD in 2 & 4*, 3 & 4***, 3 & 5**)
Academic Motivation
Attitude Toward Educators
(SSD in 1 & 3**)
Desire to Finish College
Intellectual Interests
(SSD in Gender***)
Math & Science Confidence
(SSD in Gender**)
Study Habits
Verbal Confidence
(SSD in Gender** &
1 & 4*, 3 & 4**)
General Coping
Career Closure
Family Emotional Support
Opinion Tolerance
Sense of Financial Security
Sociability
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
African
American
(1)
Asian (2)
Latino (3)
White
(4)
Other
(5)
5.192
5.384
6.059
5.467
5.411
6.014
5.664
6.213
4.860
5.127
6.383
5.674
7.013
5.865
6.137
5.991
6.217
4.491
6.211
4.787
23.585
27.592
42.423
44.330
38.837
58.333
53.139
47.609
35.334
23.987
50.274
63.465
28.870
30.455
34.687
36.011
42.714
65.287
65.264
54.202
30.602
30.320
57.485
68.061
42.610
40.633
41.469
51.601
49.795
64.103
56.163
43.180
29.877
28.847
56.189
56.380
36.383
38.282
40.171
32.370
58.413
69.105
63.935
45.352
28.636
25.462
67.344
82.776
25.788
34.086
31.802
41.452
47.919
60.809
58.078
52.730
34.475
33.130
57.432
63.527
45.862
47.468
50.230
39.877
60.953
38.243
33.427
40.329
47.649
50.011
41.690
46.518
54.394
42.117
59.056
37.808
48.636
56.828
50.686
51.701
42.055
44.596
47.242
49.188
50.853
Receptivity to Support Services
Financial Guidance
58.909
58.020
(SSD in 1 & 4*; 3 & 4**)
Personal Counseling
60.996
73.428
(SSD in 2 & 4*; 2 & 5**)
Social Enrichment
49.307
50.077
(SSD in 2 & 4*; 3 & 4***; 3 & 5***)
Academic Assistance
61.060
53.240
(SSD in 1 & 4***; 3 & 4***; 3 & 5*)
Career Counseling
47.914
58.946
Note: SSD = statistically significant differences among the groups indicated.
*** p < .001
** p < .01
* p < .05
57.638
41.262
51.119
64.145
57.365
53.247
55.563
33.641
34.444
59.179
37.081
45.541
58.745
50.236
47.761
54
References
Astin, A. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Basham, V., & Lunenburg, F. (2001, Aug.). Usefulness of the College Student
Inventory as a needs assessment tool in community colleges. Paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of the National Council of Professors in Educational
Administration. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED457211)
Dutch, B. J., Groh, S. E., & Allen, D. E. (Eds.). (2001). The power of Problem-Based
Learning: A practical “how to" for teaching undergraduate courses in any
discipline. , Herndon, VA: Stylus.
Hirsch, G. (2001). Helping college students succeed. Philadelphia: BrunnerRoutledge.
Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Stratil, M. (1988). College Student Inventory. Coralville, IA: Noel-Levitz.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student
retention. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
55