AT-RISK OF WHAT? DEFINITIONAL ISSUES IN ACADEMIC INTERVENTION JOANNE HARVEST KOREN LECTURER-IN-LAW...
-
Upload
alexia-gregory -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of AT-RISK OF WHAT? DEFINITIONAL ISSUES IN ACADEMIC INTERVENTION JOANNE HARVEST KOREN LECTURER-IN-LAW...
AT-RISK OF WHAT? DEFINITIONAL ISSUES IN ACADEMIC INTERVENTION
JOANNE HARVEST KORENLECTURER-IN-LAW AND DIRECTOR ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT PROGRAMUNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF LAW
ALEX SCHIMELLECTURER-IN-LAW AND ASSOCIATE DIRECTORACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT PROGRAMUNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF LAW
AALS Section on Academic SupportAnnual Conference 2014www.law.miami.edu/aap
We all agree
We are going to do something… At some point… For some group of students…
What are we going to do? When? For/to/by whom?
“At-Risk”
Two main risk categories: Risk of underperformance in law
school Risk of failing the bar exam
Why designate risk status?
We want to identify students who may encounter academic problems, before those problems arise and cause consequences.
Indicators of risk
Historical indicators: Low LSAT Low UGPA Low GPA first semester Low GPA first year Racial and ethnic
background
Additional indicators:
Racial and ethnic profiling replaced with “non-traditional student” designation
Socioeconomic indicators
Learning disabilities Foreign-education Prior educational
experiences/training
Indicators that are more difficult to identify early
Personal circumstances/life crisis Mental illness/substance abuse Reading/writing deficiencies Study skill deficiencies
How good are we at predicting risk?
Typically, there are consequences for “at-risk” status
Risk categories at the University of Miami: Academic Oversight: GPA between 2.0 -
2.499 Academic Probation: GPA below 2.0
Bar exam failers: 1L GPA
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2 2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3 3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4
count failers
0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 4 3 3 2 6 5 4 2 4 4 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
Fre
quency
Outdated risk assumptions
The majority of our students who fail the bar have 1L GPAs between 2.5 and 3.5.
Our sub 2.5 cohort passes at a low rate (55%), but comprise only 25% of our bar failers.
Intervention
Two models: Proactive
Provides baseline skills and support for students, before problems arise
Reactive Provides remedial support for students,
after problems arise
Assumptions about our students Assumption 1: Students arrive with
fundamental skills.
Assumption 2: Many students lack fundamental skills, but can obtain them through total and early immersion.
Assumption 3: We cannot assume that our students have all the necessary skills to succeed in law school, nor that they can acquire those skills through mere immersion.
“Early Intervention”
Law schools should move from move from predominantly reactive intervention to predominantly proactive intervention.
“Early” means establishing a proactive intervention strategy at the very beginning of law school.
Remedial intervention strategies are still necessary, but proactive intervention will better serve our student populations.
Proactive intervention compensates for our inability to accurately predict risk.
Institutional support and involvement is critical.
Reactive intervention
Remedial support for students after problems arise.
Examples: Remedial curricular electives Required workshops Individual counseling
Reactive intervention
Benefits: Focuses on the most
needy students Can address specific
problems
Problems: Stigmatizing
Students feel punished or ashamed
Compounding problems associated with stigma
May inhibit participation in certain opportunities
It may be too late to fully resolve the problem
Proactive intervention
Support for students before problems are identified.
Examples: Pre-orientation programs First semester programs for all new students
Substantive peer teaching fellows (Dean’s Fellows)
Peer teaching fellows for legal writing Workshops on exam writing and study skills, for
all class levels One-on-one academic and personal counseling
Proactive intervention
Benefits: Captures students with
unidentified risk factors Provides benefits for
students at all levels of proficiency
Establishes relationships with students who will require remediation in the future
May prevent the need for reactive intervention
Inclusive; builds community
Problems: Students who need services
the most may not participate