1 Students on Probation Deserve Our Help Too! Esau Tovar, M.S. Director, Assessment Center/Retention...

1

Students on Probation Deserve Our Help Too!

Esau Tovar, M.S.Director, Assessment Center/Retention CounselorSanta Monica College

Merril A. Simon, Ph.D., NCCC, RPCAssistant Professor, College of EducationCalifornia State University, Northridge

Student Support and Instructional Services ConferenceEmerging Student Needs: The Synthesis of the Online and Onsite Environments

California Virtual CampusSan Diego, CA May 8-9, 2003

2

Presentation Abstract

This program will share the results of a series of interventions with a large sample of diverse, urban, community college students on probation after their first term. These interventions were designed to promote a return to success these students through re-orientation in small groups, the use of the College Student Inventory (Stratil, 2000), and developmental advisement. This study, conducted at a large, diverse, urban community college was undertaken to address the counseling and educational needs of the growing number of probationary students.

3

Rationale for Program

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.

4

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

needed for success in other courses

5

Funding Support

Provided by: Santa Monica College Fund for Instructional

Improvement Grant, California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office

6

Counseling Faculty Training

Developmental, intrusive advisement strategies.

Using ‘flashpoints’ (Hirsch, 2001)

Student involvement and I-E-O Model (Astin, 1993)

Retention strategies (Basham & Lunenburg, 1998)

Social & academic integration (Tinto, 1993)

Training on the administration and interpretation of the College

Student Inventory (Stratil, 1988)

7

Probationary Student “Re-Orientation”

Researched existing programs for probationary students—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)

8

Demographic Survey

Included: Distance of SMC from home Parents’/Guardians’ educational level of

attainment Hours employed per week

Location: On- or Off- campus Hours studied per week High school GPA (approximate) Student’s reason for probation Strategies for overcoming probation

9

Participant Invitations

All students who had enrolled for the first time in Fall 2002 and were now on academic or progress probation (~1,100) were mailed invitation letter with follow-up phone call reminders to those who didn’t respond.

323 students participated Small group intervention

10 to 15 students/group, 20 groups

10

Re-Orientation Beginning

Introductions: Brief introduction of counselor and student worker

Overview of Orientation and Purpose of SSP: Counselor explained the purpose and the history of SSP Counselor presented an overview of orientation Discussed ‘What is Probation’ handout

Assessment Center: Reminded students to complete the math and/or English

assessment if they had not already taken it. Briefly discussed the importance of assessing math & English placement to be successful in their other classes.

11

Icebreaker Exercise

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? Asked for volunteers from the group to

share their responses.

12

Re-Orientation Discussion Questions (1 of 2)

1. How many people have jobs? For those of you who do work, how does working affect your academic and social experience at SMC?

2. 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 in the past?

-- Distributed Math and English Tutoring Schedule

3. Each semester, about 3,500 new students are placed on probation. What factors will those students need to

address to become successful in college? -- Distributed ‘Calculating Your GPA’ handout

13

Re-Orientation Discussion Questions (2 of 2)

4. What does time management mean to you? How do you manage your time so that you can study enough hours each week?

(If relevant, distributed Time Management handouts)

5. 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, distributed Study Skills handouts)

6. 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?

14

College Student Inventory

All students were asked to complete the assessment—and all but two did.

Version B—100 items. Assesses academic motivation, coping ability, 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 discuss results in a

subsequent appointment.

15

CSI cont. Norms for the CSI are available for four-year, and

two-year colleges. Results include profiles for advisors and profiles for

students with suggested interventions. Sample reports:

http://homepage.smc.edu/tovar_esau/CSI%20Sample%20Report.pdf

Also available is a full-length version (A—164 items). May be completed online or sent in for processing.

16

Completion of Re-Orientation Process

Orientation Evaluation Students completed evaluation and answered

final demographic question (“Based on what you learned here today, what do you plan to do differently next term?”) when they finished their assessment.

Encouraged students to make an appointment to speak with an SSP counselor during the winter inter-session to solidify goals.

17

Financial Aid Information

Answered student questions regarding financial aid.

Distributed and discussed paper titled, ‘Warning: Being on Academic Probation Does Affect Financial Aid’

Distributed ‘’Financial Aid Myths’’ pamphlet

18

Campus Resources

Distributed and discussed the ‘SSP 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.

19

Demographic Characteristics

Probationary Student Orientation Participants

20

Orientation Participation

Probation Type * Orientation Participant Crosstabulation

15 17 32

46.9% 53.1% 100.0%

1.9% 5.3% 2.9%

628 259 887

70.8% 29.2% 100.0%

79.5% 80.2% 79.7%

143 46 189

75.7% 24.3% 100.0%

18.1% 14.2% 17.0%

4 1 5

80.0% 20.0% 100.0%

.5% .3% .4%

790 323 1113

71.0% 29.0% 100.0%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Count

% within Probation Type

% within OrientationParticipant

Count



Count



Count



Count



LOP

Academic

Both

No longer

ProbationType

Total

No Yes

Orientation Participant

Total 29% of invited

probationary students attended orientation.

80% were strictly on academic probation (< 2.0 GPA)

315 students completed the College Student Inventory

21

Gender & Ethnicity

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).

Ethnicity * GENDER Crosstabulation

17 27 44

38.6% 61.4% 100.0%

11.4% 16.4% 14.0%

20 21 41

48.8% 51.2% 100.0%

13.4% 12.7% 13.1%

61 61 122

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

40.9% 37.0% 38.9%

28 28 56

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

18.8% 17.0% 17.8%

23 28 51

45.1% 54.9% 100.0%

15.4% 17.0% 16.2%

149 165 314

47.5% 52.5% 100.0%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

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

African American

Asian

Latino

White

Other/Unsp.

Ethnicity

Total

Male Female

GENDER

Total

22

Demographics (cont.)

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.

Select Demographic Characteristics

267 48 14.97 10.839

314 1 42.07 29.413

294 21 20.69 14.677

275 40 21.22 11.306

291 24 8.57 6.533

293 22 2.766 .5335

Home Distance in Miles

Travel Time to College

Fall Work Hours Employed

Spring Work Hours Employed

Fall Weekly Hours Studied

High school GPA

Valid Missing

N

Mean SD

23

Course-Taking CharacteristicsFall 2002 Course Outcomes for Academic Probation Students

296 .00 1.93 1.00 .63

296 3.0 19.0 10.04 3.33

296 .0 15.0 7.92 3.64

296 .0 15.0 5.37 3.71

296

GPA

Units Enrolled

Units Attempted

Units Completed

Valid N (listwise)

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Fall 2002 Course Outcomes for "Lack of Prgress" Probation Students

62 12.0 19.0 13.274 1.4617

62 .0 14.0 6.435 3.7224

62 .0 7.0 3.145 2.0791

62 .00 46.15 23.4268 14.94208

62

Units Enrolled

Units Attempted

Units Completed

CourseCompletion Rate

Valid N (listwise)

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

24

Research Findings

25

Evaluation Results

Generally satisfied with orientation Few students displeased (“I already know this”) Reasons given for being on probation were

assessed in terms of attribution theory with four areas (and a general-non-categorized) identified:

Course Specific Internal-Stable-Specific Attributions Internal-Unstable-Specific Attributions External-Stable-Specific Attributions External-Unstable-Specific Attributions

26

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

27

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

28

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

Internal-Stable-Specific Attributions

29

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

30

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

31

College Student Inventory

Preliminary Outcomes for

Gender, Ethnicity & Mode of Transportation

32

Multivariate Analysis of Covariance for Gender & Ethnicity

High school GPA used as covariate Significant multivariate effects for Gender:

Academic Motivation scales Significant multivariate effects for Ethnicity:

Composite CSI scales Academic Motivation scales General Coping scales Receptivity to Support Services

33

Analysis of Covariance for Composite Scales

Ethnic differences in dropout proneness, predicted academic difficulty, and educational receptivity. Educational stress, not significant.

Latino students are most likely to dropout and experience academic difficulties; however, are also more willing to accept assistance.

Asian students are under somewhat more educational stress than other students.

Mean Composite Scales by Ethnicity

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

DropoutProneness

PredictedAcadem icDifficulty

EducationalStress

Receptivity toHelp

As ian

Latino

White

Other

34

Analysis of Covariance for Academic Motivation Scales

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.

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.

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.

Mean Academic Motivation Scales by Ethnicity

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

Attitud

e to

ward

Educa

tors

Desire

to F

inish

Col

lege

Inte

llectu

al In

tere

sts

Mat

h & S

cienc

e Con

fiden

ce

Study

Hab

its

Verba

l Con

fiden

ce

African American

Asian

Latino

White

Other

Mean Academic Motivation Scales by Gender

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

Attitud

e to

ward E

ducat

ors

Desire

to F

inish C

ollege

Inte

llectu

al Inte

rest

s

Mat

h & S

cienc

e Conf

idence

Study

Hab

its

Verbal C

onfid

ence

Male

Female

35

Analysis of Covariance for General 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.

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.

Mean General Coping Scales by Ethnicity

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

Career

Closu

re

Family

Em

otional

Support

Opinion

Tolerance

Sense o

f Fina

ncial S

ecurit

y

Sociabilit

y

African American

Asian

Latino

White

Other

36

Analysis of Covariance for Receptivity for Institutional Help Scales

African American and Latino students are more receptive to discuss means by which to increase financial resources to pay for college and to receive academic assistance.

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.

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.

Mean Receptivity to Institutional Help Scales by Ethnicity

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

Finan

cial G

uidanc

e

Person

al Counse

ling

Enrichm

ent

Acade

mic

Assist

ance

Career

Cou

nselin

g

African American

Asian

Latino

White

Other

37

Multivariate Analysis of Covariance for Mode of Transportation & Ethnicity

Significant multivariate effects for Mode of Transportation and Ethnicity: Composite CSI scales Academic Motivation scales (Gender &

Ethnicity) Receptivity to Support Services

38

Analysis of Covariance for Composite Scales

Mode of transportation differences found for dropout proneness, predicted academic difficulty, and receptivity to institutional help.

Not surprising, students commuting by public transportation are more likely to dropout and experience academic difficulties. However, they are more willing to receive assistance.

Mean Composite Scales by Mode of Transportation

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

DropoutProneness


EducationalStress

Receptivity toHelp

Bus

Car

Driven

39

Analysis of Covariance for Receptivity for Institutional Help Scales

Students coming to the college using public transportation expressed a higher willingness to receive financial guidance and personal counseling, compared to those that drive.

This finding is particularly important as lack of finances is likely to impact students’ ability to get to the college and lead to significant stress and perceived lack of control.

Mean Receptivity to Institutional Help Scales by Mode of Transportation

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

Bus

Car

Driven

40

MANCOVA ResultsMultivariate Analyses of Covariance (Gender X Ethnicity, HS GPA Covariate)

Effect Wilks’ λ F H df Error df Sig. Partial η2 Composite Scales

Intercept .268 190.061 4.000 278.000 .000 .732 GPA Covariate .635 39.883 4.000 278.000 .000 .365 Gender .993 .493 4.000 278.000 .741 .007 Ethnicity .753 5.160 16.000 849.942 .000 .068 Gender X Ethnicity .967 .589 16.000 849.942 .894 .008

Academic Motivation Intercept .866 7.098 6.000 276.000 .000 .134 GPA Covariate .939 2.967 6.000 276.000 .008 .061 Gender .857 7.703 6.000 276.000 .000 .143 Ethnicity .795 2.731 24.000 964.059 .000 .056 Gender X Ethnicity .931 .835 24.000 964.059 .694 .018

General Coping Intercept .803 13.570 5.000 277.000 .000 .197 GPA Covariate .963 2.156 5.000 277.000 .059 .037 Gender .992 .446 5.000 277.000 .816 .008 Ethnicity .892 1.615 20.000 919.655 .043 .028 Gender X Ethnicity .935 .936 20.000 919.655 .541 .017

Receptivity to Support Services

Intercept .790 14.717 5.000 277.000 .000 .210 GPA Covariate .996 .222 5.000 277.000 .953 .004 Gender .971 1.643 5.000 277.000 .149 .029 Ethnicity .766 3.856 20.000 919.655 .000 .065 Gender X Ethnicity .947 .756 20.000 919.655 .768 .013

41

ANCOVA ResultsAnalyses of Covariance for College Student Inventory (Gender, Ethnicity, & HS GPA Covariate)

Effect Type III MS df MS F Sig. Partial η2

Composite Scales (Ethnicity Only) Dropout Proneness 33.811 4 8.453 4.377 .002 .059 Predicted Academic Difficulty 73.021 4 18.255 9.726 .000 .122 Educational Stress 22.168 4 5.542 1.995 .095 .028 Receptivity to Institutional Help 108.411 4 27.103 6.014 .000 .079

Academic Motivation (Ethnicity) Attitude Toward Educators 10898.292 4 2724.573 3.830 .005 .052 Desire to Finish College 6677.946 4 1669.486 2.168 .073 .030 Intellectual Interests 5755.905 4 1438.976 2.020 .092 .028 Math & Science Confidence 3534.484 4 883.621 1.163 .327 .016 Study Habits 1193.205 4 298.301 .539 .707 .008 Verbal Confidence 13351.649 4 3337.912 4.332 .002 .058

Academic Motivation (Gender) Attitude Toward Educators 465.203 1 465.203 .654 .419 .002 Desire to Finish College 564.182 1 564.182 .733 .393 .003 Intellectual Interests 15591.855 1 15591.855 21.888 .000 .072 Math & Science Confidence 6981.910 1 6981.910 9.191 .003 .032 Study Habits 719.563 1 719.563 1.300 .255 .005 Verbal Confidence 5045.387 1 5045.387 6.549 .011 .023

General Coping (Ethnicity) Career Closure 14.268 1 14.268 .017 .896 .000 Family Emotional Support 98.125 1 98.125 .115 .735 .000 Opinion Tolerance 269.470 1 269.470 .324 .570 .001 Sense of Financial Security 469.951 1 469.951 .527 .468 .002 Sociability 765.094 1 765.094 1.082 .299 .004

Receptivity to Support Services (Ethnicity only) Financial Guidance 11734.635 4 2933.659 3.519 .008 .048 Personal Counseling 10032.961 4 2508.240 4.032 .003 .054 Social Enrichment 24701.347 4 6175.337 8.563 .000 .109 Academic Assistance 22138.356 4 5534.589 7.485 .000 .096 Career Counseling 7331.517 4 1832.879 2.191 .070 .030

42

Estimated MeansEstimated Marginal Means for Ethnicity on CSI Scales

African American

(1) Asian (2) Latino (3) White

(4) Other

(5)

Composite Scales Dropout Proneness (SSD in 1 & 3*)

5.192 5.384 6.059 5.467 5.411

Predicted Academic Difficulty (SSD in 1 & 4**, 3 & 4***, 3 & 5***)

6.014 5.664 6.213 4.860 5.127

Educational Stress (No SSD) 6.383 7.013 6.137 6.217 6.211 Receptivity to Inst. Help (SSD in 2 & 4*, 3 & 4***, 3 & 5**)

5.674 5.865 5.991 4.491 4.787

Academic Motivation

Attitude Toward Educators Male 23.585 28.870 42.610 36.383 25.788 (SSD in 1 & 3**) Female 27.592 30.455 40.633 38.282 34.086 Desire to Finish College Male 42.423 34.687 41.469 40.171 31.802

Female 44.330 36.011 51.601 32.370 41.452 Intellectual Interests Male 38.837 42.714 49.795 58.413 47.919 (SSD in Gender***) Female 58.333 65.287 64.103 69.105 60.809 Math & Science Confidence Male 53.139 65.264 56.163 63.935 58.078 (SSD in Gender**) Female 47.609 54.202 43.180 45.352 52.730 Study Habits Male 35.334 30.602 29.877 28.636 34.475

Female 23.987 30.320 28.847 25.462 33.130 Verbal Confidence Male 50.274 57.485 56.189 67.344 57.432 (SSD in Gender** & Female 1 & 4*, 3 & 4**)

63.465 68.061 56.380 82.776 63.527

General Coping

Career Closure 45.862 38.243 41.690 37.808 42.055 Family Emotional Support 47.468 33.427 46.518 48.636 44.596 Opinion Tolerance 50.230 40.329 54.394 56.828 47.242 Sense of Financial Security 39.877 47.649 42.117 50.686 49.188 Sociability 60.953 50.011 59.056 51.701 50.853

Receptivity to Support Services Financial Guidance (SSD in 1 & 4*; 3 & 4**)

58.909 58.020 57.638 41.262 51.119

Personal Counseling (SSD in 2 & 4*; 2 & 5**)

60.996 73.428 64.145 57.365 53.247

Social Enrichment (SSD in 2 & 4*; 3 & 4***; 3 & 5***)

49.307 50.077 55.563 33.641 34.444

Academic Assistance (SSD in 1 & 4***; 3 & 4***; 3 & 5*)

61.060 53.240 59.179 37.081 45.541

Career Counseling 47.914 58.946 58.745 50.236 47.761 Note: SSD = statistically significant differences among the groups indicated. *** p < .001 ** p < .01 * p < .05

43

Recommendations To facilitate student success, we must:

Commit to a culture promoting student success Develop highly-structured programs or intervention

strategies with intensive student contact Adopt an intrusive/developmental counseling framework to

work with at-risk students Provide appropriate and ongoing training and support for

counselors working with at-risk students Includes multicultural understanding, intrusive/developmental

advisement skills, and academic success skill strategies (e.g., overcoming procrastination, increasing intrinsic motivation)

Rewards and recognitions for at-risk students Promote evaluation of institutional programs through action

research.

44

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)

Hirsch, G. (2001). Helping college students succeed. Philadelphia: Brunner-Routledge.

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.

45


3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

DropoutProneness


EducationalStress

Receptivity toHelp

As ian

Latino

White

Other

46

Mean Academic Motivation Scales by Ethnicity

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

African Am erican

As ian

Latino

White

Other

47

Mean Academic Motivation Scales by Gender

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

Attitud

e to

ward

Educa

tors

Desire

to F

inish

Col

lege

Inte

llectu

al In

tere

sts

Mat

h & S

cienc

e Con

fiden

ce

Study

Hab

its

Verba

l Con

fiden

ce

Male

Female

48

Mean General Coping Scales by Ethnicity

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

Caree

r Clos

ure

Fam

ily E

mot

ional

Suppo

rt

Opinio

n To

leran

ce

Sense

of F

inanc

ial S

ecur

ity

Sociab

ility

African American

Asian

Latino

White

Other

49

Mean Receptivity to Institutional Help Scales by Ethnicity

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

Fina

ncial

Guid

ance

Perso

nal Cou

nseli

ng

Enrich

men

t

Acade

mic

Assist

ance

Caree

r Cou

nseli

ng

African American

Asian

Latino

White

Other

50


3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

DropoutProneness


EducationalStress

Receptivity toHelp

Bus

Car

Driven

51

Mean Receptivity to Institutional Help Scales by Mode of Transportation

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

Bus

Car

Driven

1 Students on Probation Deserve Our Help Too! Esau Tovar, M.S. Director, Assessment Center/Retention...

Documents

Transcript of 1 Students on Probation Deserve Our Help Too! Esau Tovar, M.S. Director, Assessment Center/Retention...