Center for access and academic success Reports... · CENTER FOR ACCESS AND ACADEMIC SUCCESS...

C e n t e r f o r A c c e s s a n d A c a d e m i c S u c c e s s

P a g e 1 | 73

CENTER FOR ACCESS AND ACADEMIC

SUCCESS

Division of Academic Affairs Fall 2015 Programs and Services Update

Academic Advising

Academic Coaching

Supplemental

Instruction (SI)

Tutoring Center

FOCUS

DREAM

General Studies

Early Alert Program

Hawk Mentoring

Workshops Series

Advocate 2 Educate

Predictive Analytics

Reporting (PAR)

First-Year Experience


P a g e 2 | 73

The Center for Access and Academic Success (CAAS) is designed to promote holistic academic

and personal student development. The Center provides assistance primarily to first- and second-

year students and transfer students with fewer than 30 credits, with access to comprehensive

academic support services that strengthen their performance and promote student success and

retention. The Center offers academic support through the following services: Academic Advising

and Coaching, Tutoring, and Supplemental Instruction (SI). The Center also encompasses student

enrichment programs, such as “Future Outstanding Cohort of University Students” (FOCUS),

“Dare to be Resilient, Accountable & Motivated (DREAM) Summer Bridge program,” the First-

year Experience-Hawk Mentor Partnership, and Advocate to Educate (A2E). CAAS partners

regularly with personnel from each of the divisions on campus—Administrative Affairs, Student

Affairs, and Institutional Advancement to support student engagement, persistence, retention,

and graduation. The staff is comprised of highly trained and caring professionals who are

dedicated to helping students achieve academic and personal success at UMES.

MEET THE STAFF

Angela L. Williams, PhD Director of Retention

Sheila Curtis Administrative Assistant

Andrea Taylor, MS Coordinator/Academic Coach, Tutoring Center

Tselate Talley, MS Academic Advisor, General Studies

Sasha Cousins, BS Coordinator/Academic Coach, Supplemental Instruction/FOCUS

Juliana Reagan, MA Coordinator/Academic Coach, Summer Bridge

Kennice Evans, BA Statistical Data Assistant

For more information, contact: Center for Access and Academic Success Student Development Center, Suite 2200

Phone: 410-651-6457/6215 Fax: 410-651-6322 www.umes.edu/caas

http://www.umes.edu/caas


P a g e 3 | 73

Table of Contents

Profile of First-Time Full-Time Freshmen…………………………………………………………………………………...4

First-Year Assessment……………………………………………………………………………………..……………12

Academic Advising/Coaching…………………………………………………………………………..……………………….17

Supplemental Instruction (SI)…………………………………………………………………………………………………..19

Tutoring Center……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….26

FOCUS (Future Outstanding Cohort of University Students)………………………………………………….…32

DREAM (Dare to be Resilient, Accountable & Motivated) Summer Bridge Program…….………..…47

DREAM Summer Bridge Follow-Up Program Fall 2015………………………………………………….53

General Studies………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..62

Early Alert Program………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….65

Hawk Mentoring………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………67

Workshops Series…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………69


P a g e 4 | 73

Profile of First-Time Full-Time Freshmen Fall 2015, Fall 2014, Fall 2013

Section I

This section of the report contains descriptive information concerning demographic and academic information of first-time full-time freshmen for Fall 2015, 2014, and 2013. Included in this segment is information regarding the following topics: Enrollment Status SAT/ACT Scores Gender Average Credit Hours after 1 year Age Program of Study Racial/Ethnic Group Withdrawals State of Permanent Address Developmental Math 101 The Fall 2015 cohort of 1011 first-time, full-time freshman included students who entered the university during the summer 2015. Fifty-six percent of the class was female, and 87 percent of the class was African American. The class was comprised of students from 16 states; 79 percent were from Maryland, with a mean SAT reading score of 425, and a mean math score of 419. Ninety-four percent placed into Intermediate Algebra (developmental) which does not satisfy the General Education Requirement in Mathematics and does not count toward graduation requirements. The most popular majors were Biochemistry, Criminal Justice, Computer Science, and Exercise Science. At the time of data collection during the semester, 17 of the 1011 had withdrawn for various reasons, indicating family and medical as the greatest concerns. Of the 1011 cohort, the starting fall average attempted credit hours were 15.5. At the conclusion of Fall 2015, the final cumulative credit hours earned were 12.8, with an average cumulative grade-point average of 2.332. Sixty-six percent were in good academic standing. However, 344 (34%) were placed on academic probation for failure to maintain the cumulative grade-point average consistent with the number of credit hours attempted. Students placed on academic probation are required to participate in the Future Outstanding Cohort of University Students (FOCUS) program and are required to enroll in the Academic Retention and Success Strategies Course the following semester of being placed on academic probation. At the beginning of Spring 2016, the fall to spring persistence rate for the Fall 2015 cohort denoted 879 enrolled (87%). Fifty-six percent were female and 43 percent were male, with an average credit load of 14.5.


P a g e 5 | 73

Table 1. Demographic Information and Profile of First-Time Freshmen, Fall 2015, Fall 2014, and Fall 2013

Status Fall 2015 Fall 2014 Fall 2013

N % N % N %

First-time full-time* 1011 77% 756 71% 604 64%

Full-Time 124 9% 75 7% 85 9%

Part-Time 50 5% 49 5%

Transfer 176 13% 186 17% 205 22%

All 1311 100% 1067 100% 943 100%

*indicates this is the cohort data set for the students listed in this report below.

Gender Fall 2015 Fall 2014 Fall 2013

N % N % N %

Male 442 44% 328 43% 254 42%

Female 569 56% 428 57% 350 58%

Total 1011 100% 756 100% 604 100%

Age Fall 2015 Fall 2014 Fall 2013

N % N % N %

<17 4 0% 7 1% 3 0%

17 267 26% 188 25% 159 26%

18 627 62% 461 61% 374 62%

19-20 87 9% 79 10% 56 9%

21-22 11 1% 11 1% 6 1%

23+ 15 2% 10 1% 6 1%

Total 1011 100% 756 100% 604 100%

Racial/Ethnic Group Fall 2015 Fall 2014 Fall 2013

N % N % N %

African American/Black 884 87% 606 80% 456 75%

Alaskan Native/American Indian 1 0% 5 1% 1 0%

Asian 12 1% 7 1% 10 2%

Hispanic 33 3% 16 2% 5 1%

Pacific Islander 4 0% 0 0% 2 0%

White 56 6% 30 12% 47 8%

Multiracial 12 1% 87 12% 73 12%

Not Specified/Unknown 9 1% 5 1% 10 2%

Total 1011 100% 756 108% 604 100%


P a g e 6 | 73

State of Permanent Address Fall 2015 Fall 2014 Fall 2013

N % N % N %

Alabama (AL) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Alaska (AK) 0 0% 0 0% 1 0%

Arizona (AZ) 0 0% 1 0% 0 0%

Arkansas (AR) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

California (CA) 3 0% 3 0% 4 1%

Colorado (CO) 0 0% 0 0% 1 0%

Connecticut (CT) 1 0% 3 0% 0 0%

Delaware (DE) 22 2% 13 2% 11 2%

Florida (FL) 3 0% 4 1% 1 0%

Georgia (GA) 3 0% 2 0% 3 0%

Hawaii (HI) 2 0% 0 0% 1 0%

Idaho (ID) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Illinois (IL) 2 0% 0 0% 2 0%

Indiana (IN) 1 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Iowa (IA) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Kansas (KS) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Kentucky (KY) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Louisiana (LA) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Maine (ME) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Maryland (MD) 800 79% 624 83% 492 81%

Massachusetts (MA) 1 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Michigan (MI) 0 0% 1 0% 0 0%

Minnesota (MN) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Mississippi (MS) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Missouri (MO) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Montana (MT) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Nebraska (NE) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Nevada (NV) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

New Hampshire (NH) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

New Jersey (NJ) 27 3% 12 2% 9 1%

New Mexico (NM) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

New York (NY) 13 1% 6 1% 6 1%

North Carolina (NC) 3 0% 7 1% 4 1%

North Dakota (ND) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0

Ohio (OH) 3 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Oklahoma (OK) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Oregon (OR) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Pennsylvania (PA) 16 2% 17 2% 14 2%


P a g e 7 | 73

Rhode Island (RI) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

South Carolina (SC) 0 0% 1 0% 1 0%

South Dakota (SD) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Tennessee (TN) 0 0% 1 0% 1 0%

Texas (TX) 0 0% 2 0% 2 0%

Utah (UT) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Vermont (VT) 0 0% 12 2% 0 0%

Virginia (VA) 29 3% 0 0% 17 3%

Washington (WA) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

West Virginia (WV) 0 0% 0 0% 1 0%

Wisconsin (WI) 0 0% 1 0% 0 0%

Wyoming (WY) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Commonwealth Territory

US Terr./Military Addresses 2 0% 0 0% 1 0%

Virgin Islands (VI) 2 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Washington, DC (DC) 71 7% 43 6% 26 4%

International Students 7 1% 3 0% 6 1%

Total 1011 100% 756 100% 604 100%

SAT Scores

Reading Fall 2015

Fall 2014

Fall 2013

Mean 425 435 442

Mathematics Fall 2015

Fall 2014

Fall 2013

Mean 419 425 438

Distribution Fall 2015 Fall 2014 Fall 2013

N % N % N %

<900 659 65% 481 64% 322 53%

900-990 148 15% 128 17% 141 23%

1000-1090 71 7% 45 6% 54 9%

1100-1190 19 2% 21 3% 20 3%

1200-1290 10 1% 8 1% 4 1%

1300+ 0 0% 4 1% 0 0%

Unknown 104 10% 69 9% 63 10%

Total 1011 100% 756 100% 604 100%


P a g e 8 | 73

Median Scores by Gender Fall 2015 Fall 2014

Reading Math Total Reading Math Total

Male 420 430 850 410 430 840

Female 460 410 870 420 400 820

All 880 840 1720 830 830 1660

ACT Scores

Fall 2015

Fall 2014

Fall 2013

Mean 17 27 17

Distribution Fall 2015 Fall 2014 Fall 2013

N % N % N %

<20 152 85% 112 82% 80 80%

20-21 10 6% 11 8% 12 12%

22-24 12 7% 9 7% 8 8%

25-27 4 2% 2 1% 0 0%

28-29 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

30+ 0 0% 2 1% 0 0%

All 178 100% 136 100% 100 100%

Median Scores by Gender Fall 2015

Fall 2014

Fall 2013

Male 17 17 17

Female 16 16 17

All 33 33 34

Classification Fall 2015 Fall 2014 Fall 2013

N % N % N %

Freshman 1008 100% 756 100% 604 100%

Sophomore 3 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Junior 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

ALL 1011 100% 756 100% 604 100%

Average Credits after 1 year

Fall 2015

Fall 2014

Fall 2013

N N N

Agriculture & Natural Sciences NA 24 24

Arts & Professions NA 25 25

Business & Technology NA 25 25

Pharmacy & Health Professions NA 25 25

Average Credits after 1 year - ALL NA 25 24


P a g e 9 | 73

Program of Study - Agriculture & Natural Sciences

Fall 2015 Fall 2014 Fall 2013

N % N % N %

Agriculture Business 1 0% 0 0% 1 1%

Agriculture Education 3 1% 2 1% 2 1%

Biochemistry 132 52% 7 4% 9 7%

Biology 5 2% 108 57% 78 57%

Biology Education 14 6% 0 0% 0 0%

Chemistry 16 6% 15 8% 15 11%

Environmental Science 11 4% 4 2% 5 4%

General Agriculture 23 9% 11 6% 5 4%

Human Ecology 49 19% 42 22% 23 17%

Urban Forestry 0 0% 1 1% 0 0%

Total 254 100% 190 100% 138 100%

Program of Study - Arts & Professions


N % N % N %

African American Studies 1 0% 1 0% 0 0%

Applied Design 4 1% 16 6% 9 4%

Art Education 23 7% 0 0% 8 4%

Criminal Justice 141 42% 94 35% 77 34%

English 19 6% 18 7% 11 5%

English Education 11 3% 1 0% 5 2%

General Studies 74 22% 80 30% 74 33%

History 3 1% 2 1% 2 1%

Jazz & Popular Music 1 0% 1 0% 0 0%

Music Education 6 2% 6 2% 5 2%

Social Studies Education 1 0% 1 0% 0 0%

Sociology 13 4% 27 10% 24 11%

Sociology/Social Work 31 9% 10 4% 4 2%

Special Education 11 3% 12 4% 5 2%

Total 339 100% 269 100% 224 100%

Program of Study - Business & Technology


N % N % N %

Accounting 19 6% 9 4% 15 9%

Aviation Science 9 3% 12 6% 6 4%

Business - Finance 6 2% 2 1% 4 2%

Business - General 53 18% 20 10% 13 8%

Business - Marketing 19 6% 10 5% 6 4%

Business Education 1 0% 0 0% 3 2%


P a g e 10 | 73

Computer Science 63 21% 43 21% 28 17% Construction Management Technology 6 2% 7 3% 1 1%

Electrical Engineering 9 3% 2 1% 1 1%

Electrical Electronic/Engin Tech 2 1% 0 0% 0 0%

Engineering 54 18% 44 21% 43 27%

Engineering Technology 17 6% 13 6% 5 3%

Hospitality & Tourism Management 30 10% 23 11% 17 11%

Mathematics 4 1% 1 0% 4 2%

Mathematics Education 3 1% 4 2% 5 3%

Mechanical Engineering Technology 0 0% 2 1% 2 1%

Professional Golf Management 6 2% 10 5% 6 4%

Technology & Engineering Education 1 0% 6 3% 2 1%

Total 302 100% 208 100% 161 100%

Program of Study - Pharmacy & Health Professions


N % N % N %

Exercise Science 67 58% 58 65% 42 52%

Rehabilitation Psychology 31 27% 20 22% 13 16%

Rehabilitation Services 18 16% 11 12% 26 32%

Total 116 100% 89 100% 81 100%

Withdrawals by School Fall 2015 Fall 2014 Fall 2013

N % N % N %

Agriculture & Natural Sciences 5 29% 2 67% 0 0%

Arts & Professions 3 18% 0 0% 2 40%

Business & Technology 5 29% 1 33% 0 0%

Pharmacy & Health Professions 4 24% 0 0% 3 60%

All 17 100% 3 100% 5 100%


P a g e 11 | 73

Withdrawal Reasons Fall 2015 Fall 2014 Fall 2013

N % N % N %

Family 5 29% 1 33% 1 20%

Financial 1 6% 0 0% 0 0%

Medical 4 24% 0 0% 0 0%

No answer 1 6% 0 0% 1 20%

Personal 1 6% 1 33% 0 0%

Safety 1 6% 0 0% 0 0%

Transferring 2 12% 0 0% 0 0%

Work 2 12% 0 0% 1 20%

Moving 0 0% 0 0% 2 40%

Major not offered 0 0% 1 33% 0 0%

Other 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

All 17 100% 3 100% 5 100%

Developmental Math 101 Fall 2015 Fall 2014 Fall 2013

N % N % N %

Placed into MATH 101 954 94% 709 94% 573 95%

Took MATH 101 - did not test 5 0% 2 0% 1 0%

No record 1 0% 2 0% 3 0%

Placed higher or transferred higher 51 5% 43 6% 27 4%

All 1011 100% 756 100% 604 100%

Sources of data: HawkEye, HawkWeb, Institutional Research, Accuplacer


P a g e 12 | 73

First-Year Assessment

Section II

During the Fall of 2015, freshmen enrolled in the First-Year Experience course were asked to participate in an incoming First-Year Assessment via SurveyMonkey. The survey gathered specific information from freshmen regarding their perceived academic and personal needs. Specifically, students were asked about their college expectations and how they see themselves as students. The survey also gathered information regarding family and high school experience. A total of 621 freshmen completed the survey: 52.5% female, and 47% male. Below are some major findings.

Figure 1. Fall 2015 freshmen gender.

Student Backgrounds

38% of respondents reported having at least one parent who received a high school diploma or equivalent, and 26% with some college or an associate’s degree.

8% of respondents reported a parent as having attended UMES for undergraduate or graduate studies.

70% of respondents reported before-tax income of parents as $74, 999 or less.


P a g e 13 | 73

High School Background

62% of respondents attended a public high school, 17% attended a public charter school, and 12% attended a public magnet school.

4% of respondents reported attending a high school outside of the United States.

50% reported taking at least one AP course, and 40% of respondents took at least one AP exam.

78% of respondents reported performing community service as part of a class or graduation requirement.

31% reported having taken a class for college credit (not necessarily at UMES) at a local college or university.

36% of respondents reported writing a long (e.g., 15 pages or more) research paper that combined information from many sources.

64% reported having a leadership role in a student group, club, or team, and 62% played one or more varsity sports.

In addition to the questions that elicited the data above, students were also asked additional questions as shown in Figure 2. Students reported that, during their last year in high school, they very often made a presentation in class (40%), participated in class discussions (36%), and discussed long-term plans and ambitions with a teacher (27%).

Figure 2. During your last year of high school, about how often did you...


P a g e 14 | 73

Preparation for College

46% reported taking the SAT twice, and 30% reported taking the SAT once. Fifty-three reported having completed an SAT test prep class. Nine percent took the ACT at least twice, and 14.5% completed an ACT test prep class.

75% applied to five or fewer colleges or universities including UMES, 87% were admitted to between one and five colleges including UMES, 61% indicated that they were accepted to their first choice school; however, 20% ranked UMES as their first-choice university.

34% identified the low cost of an education, and 23% noted educational experience/major as main reasons for attending UMES.

Expectations for College Students reported that they were most likely to major in the following: Biology (15%), Business (10%), and Computer Science (10%). Sixty-four percent were confident or very confident that the major they currently are planning to pursue would be the right major for them, and (46%) have a specific career in mind that they would like to pursue after college. Students were also asked three additional questions; the full set of questions and data are listed below in Figures 3-6. Students reported that it was essential for UMES to provide skills for lifelong learning (52%), opportunities to develop skills valuable in the workforce (47%), and opportunities to discover and pursue intellectual passion (43%). Similarly, students reported that they were very interested in getting a job to help pay for college expenses (62%), having an internship, and studying abroad. Further, students reported being well prepared to ask for help when needed (40%), function effectively as a member of a team (39%), and get along socially at UMES (38%) during their first year. Equally, during the first year at UMES, students reported that they were very well prepared to understand their abilities, interests, limitations, and personality (45%), function independently without supervision (45%), and understand the complexity of social problems (37%).

Figure 3. How important is it that UMES provide you with the following?


P a g e 15 | 73

Figure 4. How interested are you in doing the following during your undergraduate years at UMES?

Figure 5. How well prepared do you feel you are to do the following during your first year at UMES?


P a g e 16 | 73

Figure 6. How well prepared do you feel you are to do the following during your first year at UMES?

Paying for College

66% indicated having received financial aid from UMES, 43% reported having received a Pell Grant for the year, 52% reported that they will personally take out student loans to help finance the first year of college, and 84% indicated that they are concerned about their family’s ability to pay for their college education.


P a g e 17 | 73

Academic Advising/Coaching

Academic advising is an essential element in the success and persistence of postsecondary students (Klepfer & Hull, 2012). Specifically, advisors/coaches “help students become members of their higher education community, think critically about their roles and responsibilities as students, and prepare to be educated citizens of a democratic society and a global community” (National Academic Advising Association [NACADA], 2006. During the advising/coaching process, a five-stage method is utilized: (A) Active listening, (D) Determining the desire, dream, or problem, (V) eValuating what has been done so far, (I) Identifying options, (S) Selecting options, and (E) Engaging in and evaluating the plan. See Figure 7.

Figure 7. The Advising as Coaching Process Over a period of eight weeks, October 26–December 18, 2015 (forty days), CAAS staff, consisting of three Academic Coaches/Program Coordinators and one Academic Advisor, met with 499 students. Of those, 338 (68%) completed the Advising/Coaching survey for one or more of the following reasons:

D & F letters

Academic Advising

FOCUS one-on-ones

Early Alert referrals Students were asked to “Select the response that most closely expresses your views in rating your advisor/coach on the basic components of academic advising/coaching using a scale of I-5.”


P a g e 18 | 73

A rating of "I' indicates strong disagreement with the statement, while a rating of "5" indicates strong agreement with the statement. The survey respondents included 167 (49.4%) males, and 171 (50.5%) females. Classifications were as follows: 207 (61.2%) freshman, 101 (30%) sophomores, 24 (7.1%) juniors, and 6 (1.8%) seniors. Overwhelmingly, respondents indicated that they strongly agreed the advisor/coach was friendly and courteous (96%), that they were pleased with the overall experience of the advising/coaching appointments (92%), and that they were encouraged to ask questions and discuss concerns (90.5%).

Figure 8. Advising/Coaching Survey


P a g e 19 | 73

Supplemental Instruction (SI)

Sasha Cousins, Program Coordinator

Introduction Developed by Dr. Deanna Martin in 1973 at the Center for Academic Development at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, Supplemental Instruction (SI) is a peer-facilitated academic support program that increases student performance and retention. The SI model has been proven to be successful in institutions of varying size, location, and organizational structure. SI provides a series of review sessions for students taking historically difficult courses. Sessions are organized to allow students the opportunity to interact as they construct knowledge. More specifically, SI sessions provide a chance for students to get together with classmates to compare notes, discuss important concepts, and develop strategies for studying the subject. The sessions are facilitated by a trained SI leader, a student who has taken the class before and earned a high grade. The leader shares with the students what he or she has learned about how to study effectively for the course. The leader attends lecture every day, taking notes and listening closely to the professor. The leader does not re-lecture or give out his/her class notes but helps the students become independent learners by planning activities that encourage students to work together and process material themselves. Program goals for this semester include:

Improve student learning

Increase student retention within targeted historically difficult courses

Reduce D, F, W rates for each supported class below 30%

Improve student connections with faculty and other students

Various pieces of data for this report were collected throughout the semester to provide a comprehensive picture of student participation and academic performance. Data on SI attendance for sessions was gathered through participation sign-in sheets, which were then logged into Accutrack by our data assistant. Other information related to student and faculty perceptions of the program was derived from surveys via SurveyMonkey, and the culminating set of data came in the form of final course grades extracted from HawkWeb.

Implementation Evaluation Fall 2015 was the 2nd piloted semester for SI. Elements of the planning processes for this semester included these:

Early identification of new historically difficult courses to support and recruit new faculty partners; five additional courses were added to the list of courses that were currently being supported in the program pilot:


P a g e 20 | 73

Spring 2015 SI Courses New SI Courses Fall 2015

Math 102 Math 102 (an additional section)

Math 109 Math 110

Biol 111 Biol 111 (2 additional sections)

Econ 202 (2 sections) Chem 112

Chem 101

Recruitment and interviewing prospective SI leaders for new courses. SI leaders were recommended by faculty; five SI leaders were interviewed and hired.

Planning with the SI faculty of Salisbury University to have a collaborative two-day training session for new and returning SI leaders before the start of the semester.

During the Semester

SI introductions, surveys, and marketing for sessions were to be conducted the first week within the targeted classes, and SI sessions would commence the second week of class.

Once surveys were obtained and the data was analyzed to determined session times, classroom space were requested and confirmed through Academic Affairs for the facilitation of SI sessions.

Table 8. Fall 2015 Supplemental Instruction Summary Report

Summary of the Data

Course

Graded Class

Enrollment

Number

Attended

Percent

Attended

Number of

Sessions

Contact

Hours

Mean

Grade SI

Mean

Grade

non-SI

Diff in

Mean

Grade

SI/Non

#DFW-

participants

#SI -

participants

SI DFW

Rate #DWF # Non-SI

Non-SI

DWF Rate

BIOL 111-0101 54 14 26% 21 53 2.6 2.0 0.6 9 14 64% 22 40 55%

BIOL 111-0201 60 17 28% 37 96 1.5 1.6 -0.2 8 17 47% 25 43 58%

BIOL 111-0301 54 9 17% 20 30 2.3 1.6 0.7 2 9 22% 31 45 69%

Biological Sciences 168 40 24% 78 179 2.6 2.8 -0.2 19 40 48% 78 128 61%

CHEM 101-0101 63 29 46% 41 140 3.0 1.9 1.2 2 29 7% 12 34 35%

CHEM 112-0101 36 23 64% 38 205 1.4 0.9 0.5 14 23 61% 10 13 77%

Chemistry Total 99 52 53% 79 345 3.1 2.5 0.6 16 52 31% 22 47 47%

MATH 102-0101 20 9 45% 64 68 1.8 1.7 0.1 7 9 78% 10 13 77%

MATH 110-0401 25 11 44% 37 42 2.0 2.3 -0.3 5 11 45% 7 14 50%

Math Total 45 20 44% 101 110 2.5 2.7 -0.2 12 20 60% 17 27 63%

ECON 202-0201 22 2 9% 17 16 1.5 1.9 -0.4 1 2 50% 10 20 50%

ECON 202-0301 21 14 67% 27 76 2.9 2.7 0.2 0 14 0% 0 7 0%

Economics Total 43 16 37% 44 92 2.8 2.4 0.4 1 16 6% 10 27 37%

Grand Total 355 128 39.5% 302 726 2.7 2.6 0.1 48 128 38% 127 229 55%

UMES Supplemental Instruction Summary Report: Fall 2015


P a g e 21 | 73

Summary of Results During Fall 2015, the Center for Access and Academic Success provided Supplemental Instruction (SI) for the students in nine classes: Biology 111 (3 sections), Chemistry 101 and 112, Math 102 and 110, and Economics 202 (two sections). The final graded enrollment for these classes was 355 with 128 students participating in SI (35%). Participation rates ranged from nine 9 to 67 percent with a mean rate of 39%. The total number of session hours offered was 302. The student contact hours totaled 726. The combined mean course grade for the SI participants was 2.7 as compared to 2.6 for the non-participants. The rate of D’s, F’s, and W’s in the SI participant group (38%) was lower than for the non-participant group (55%). The data suggest that those who attend receive higher course grades than those who do not and that those who participate in SI have lower unsuccessful enrollment rates than those who do not attend. SI – Participant Student Feedback All SI participants were asked to complete a survey through SurveyMonkey. There were 14 items on the survey, and a Likert rating scale (Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, and Strongly Agree) was used for 12 out of the 14 items. Of the 128 SI participants, 49 respondents (38%) completed the survey. The following results were yielded. Overall, student participants had a positive experience. More than 87% of the participants surveyed attended more than 3+ SI sessions for Fall 2015 (see Figure 9). Survey feedback indicated that more than half (53%) of the participants “strongly agree” that SI sessions were helpful (See Figure 10), and about half (50%) of participants “strongly agree” that they will use SI again (see Figure 11). The majority of the students also “strongly agree” that they were treated with respect and more than half “agree” that they are more confident about doing well at the university than they were at the beginning of the course.

Figure 9. How many times did you attend a SI session?


P a g e 22 | 73

Figure 10. SI sessions were helpful. Figure 11. I will use SI again.

The following are some of the most intriguing and relevant comments made by students who participated in SI this Fall 2015 semester. Student comments were taken directly from the end-of-the term SI survey via SurveyMonkey the week of finals and were provided to all SI participants. The statements are in response to an open-ended question for all those who attended at least one SI session. The question asked was the final question in the survey: “In what ways might SI be improved to better meet your academic needs?” The following are the solicited student responses:

“Be more spoken in class.”

“By the teacher giving the SI more information about the test and quizzes so the SI session can be more effective.”

“Longer sessions. Maybe have sessions on weekends and maybe more days of the week to be available for each student that needs academic help.”

“Nothing he was perfect.”

“If they offered it for more classes & not just selected ones. My friend wanted to come a lot but felt like she'd be intruding if she came because she wasn't in the class.”

“More consistent throughout the semester.”

“I believe that our SI was awesome and doesn't need improvement anywhere.”

“Pay more attention to every complain made by a student concerning a particular topic.”

“Anything I said I was confused about he would explain instead of just ranting about stuff I may already know.”

“Provide a lesson plan as to what he is going to teacher rather than jumping topics. Provide more examples for students to solve during sessions to show.”

“The SI broke down the word problems and other chemistry problems for better understanding.”


P a g e 23 | 73

“He was great.”

“SI leaders should prepare mock quizzes to allow students to answer the questions then discuss the answers.”

“More study guides would help. But other than that, it was good.”

“Flexible hours.”

“For him/her to be more informed by the teacher in regards to what the teacher is testing and quizzing on.”

“Having more study materials for reference.”

“I think the Teacher of the class should open up the test and quizzes for the SI, so the study group can be more helping in regards to improving test scores.”

“Get more Sis.”

“Having a few more sessions during the week.”

Faculty Feedback Faculty were also given an opportunity to provide feedback via SurveyMonkey. Two (28%) out of seven instructors responded to the survey. When asked the open-ended question “In what ways might the task of the Supplemental Instruction leader of SI be improved to meet your instructional needs?” the following responses were given: “The students like having a peer to talk with, I think those that went had a great improvement in their grades over those that did not. I wish we would put an SI hour in their schedule during registration.”

“If the SI sessions can be arranged in such a way or time that many more students can attend. Not just for the SI leaders as an instructor I am finding ways in which I can help improve student's attendance at the SI sessions, maybe by my presence in these sessions in the coming semester.”

Impact Evaluation

SI support was provided for a total 10 courses this Fall 2015 semester (see summary of Supplemental Instruction Table 8). There were a total of 10 SI leaders; one SI leader supported two sections of Math 102, and a total of eight SI faculty partners. See chart below:

SI Supported Courses Fall 2015

Course Instructor Department Chair SI Leader

Biol 111-0101 Mary Ayuk Dr. Sauder Tiarra Washington

Biol 111-0201 M. Okulate Dr. Sauder Treyvon Bowen

Biol 111-0301 Mary Ayuk Dr. Sauder Aryka Johnson

Chem 101-0101 Amelia Potter Dr. Sauder David Ulysse

Chem 112-0101 Marcos Cheney Dr. Sauder Haileab Ghebrekiden


P a g e 24 | 73

Econ 201-0201 Stephen Tubene Dr. Schwarz Naa-Lamley Lamptey

Econ 201-0301 Stephen Tubene Dr. Schwarz Ife Akinwumi

Math 102-0101 Daniel Seaton Dr. Johnson Hannah Kennedy

Math 102-0301 Daniel Seaton Dr. Johnson Hannah Kennedy

Math 110-0301 Manal Elbeshir Dr. Johnson Shamie Green

The student enrollment for both sections of Math 102 was extremely low. Math 102-0101 had an enrollment of 12 students, and Math 102-0301 had an enrollment of 8 students. As a result of the low enrollment, data for both sections was combined in order to give a more statistically significant analysis. Table 8, therefore, reflects a combined total of both Math 102 sections.

The impact of SI was positively reflected in some courses more than others. For example, In Chemistry 101, almost half of the students enrolled in that course attended SI. There was a difference of 1.2 in the mean course grade for SI participants (3.0) and non-participants (1.9). The difference in the D, F, W rate was also significantly different for SI participants (7%) and non-participants (35%). Economics 202-0301 had more than half (67%) of the total student enrollment participate in SI sessions. There was a difference of 0.2 in the mean course grade between SI participants (2.9) and non-participants (2.7). The D, F, W rate was 0% for both participants and non-participants.

Although we have entered our 2nd semester, SI is still a new initiative for the University. The data demonstrates that we have made an impact on student learning, and the feedback from students and faculty emphasizes the need for supplemental support. Strategizing how to increase participation and establishing a culture of SI among students and faculty is on-going; however, all indications are that this very worthwhile program will continue to grow and blossom in the coming semesters. With continued rigorous on-going training and the recruitment of highly competent, well-rounded SI leaders, along with the support of enthusiastic faculty members and other departments, SI will positively impact student retention.

SI leaders have discussed and strategized ways to promote SI for the upcoming semesters. Promotional and marketing strategies include some of the following:

Poster advertisements in classrooms, residence halls, CAAS website

Donning SI paraphernalia

Recruiting for potential SI leaders

Attending campus open-house events, and other available opportunities to inform students about SI

Creating and uploading an SI video commercial to YouTube


P a g e 25 | 73

Strengths for SI include:

Expansion of the program for the Spring 2016 semester includes the addition of two courses: English 101 and Chemistry 111. We teamed up with an English instructor who already had a previous working relationship with the Center for Access and Academic Success through the DREAM program. This instructor expressed a need for additional support in her classes and was more than excited to partner up with SI.

Additional qualified SI leaders have been hired for most of the courses.

Collaboration has continued with the assistant director for the Center of Student Achievement from Salisbury University to strengthen the training program for SI leaders and to provide additional support for our new initiative.

The department website for SI is current and has the latest data and information for students, faculty, and staff.

Areas of concern include:

Finding space for SI sessions has been and will continue to be a challenge unless there is a predetermined number of classroom spaces that can be reserved strictly for SI. Reserving space for SI will be more time efficient in that we can allocate space without having to wait for confirmation, and SI sessions can begin promptly the 2nd week of the semester.

Funding is needed to purchase course books for each SI leader to make planning for sessions more effective.

Finding space for training and office hours within our department for SI leaders continues to be a challenge. Our department provides a variety of services, and often times there is not sufficient space to accommodate students who visit to receive services, student employees to render services (i.e. tutoring and SI sessions), and hosting workshops.


P a g e 26 | 73

Tutoring Center

Mrs. Andrea Taylor, Academic Coordinator & Tutor Supervisor

Introduction

The mission of the Center for Access & Academic Success’ (CAAS), Tutoring Center is to provide

a free service to students who may require academic assistance outside of the classroom. In the

Tutoring Center we provide high-achieving tutors who are willing to serve the students’ needs.

The Tutoring Center provides service to the entire undergraduate campus, making the Center a

hub for student activity. The diverse group of student tutors and course selections offered for

tutorial services make the Center a viable campus resource.

Goals to Accomplish

To establish a College Readiness and Learning Association (CRLA) Tutoring Certification

Tutors to host two workshops on self-confidence and the importance of networking

Increase Center usage from spring to spring and fall to fall

To implement appointment scheduling

Implementation Evaluation

All populations of undergraduate students are targeted. However, we mandate the probation

students (FOCUS) to take full advantage of the tutorial services in order to improve their current

academic standing. These students have less than a 2.0 GPA, and we require them to have at

least 6 hours of tutoring within the probationary semester. There are 38 course subjects offered

for tutorial services. The highest demand of tutorial services was for math. Intermediate Algebra

(Math 101) to Calculus I (Math 112) received the highest number of visits. Although math

received the highest number of visits per subject for tutoring, other subject areas were utilized,

such as accounting, biology, business, chemistry, economics, engineering, English, finance,

physics, psychology, sociology, and Spanish just to name a few.

Tutor Hiring & Training

The hiring process for the tutors is as follows:

Announcement posted on the student job board through Human Resources

Applications reviewed and 3.0 cumulative GPA qualifications are confirmed

Students who have taken course subjects needed for the upcoming semester and

completed the course with an A or B grade are offered an interview

Committee interviews and finalizes the candidates for hire

Contracts are drawn for the newly hired tutors


P a g e 27 | 73

Once hired, the tutors are to provide the supervisor a schedule of hours according to their

contract. Most tutors work 10 hours per week with the Center being open from 9:00 am to 9:00

pm Monday through Thursday and 9:00 am to 3:00 pm on Friday. Once schedules are finalized,

they are sent to the UMES News and placed on the CAAS website. Large posters are created at

the university print shop and advertised in the dorms and main campus buildings. They are also

printed for personal handouts in the office. These efforts increase and maintain awareness of the

tutorial services on the campus.

Tutors are required to view The Tutor’s Guide training videos. They also have a group discussion

on what they gained from the videos and strategies of how to be productive tutors. These videos

provide basic principles of peer tutoring and practical strategies for a successful tutoring session.

The tutors have monthly meetings to assess goals completed from the previous month and

review plans for the upcoming months. They also attend at least 2 skills workshops as part of

their training. In the workshops they receive information on realistic expectations in college,

emotional intelligence, sharpening their study skills, and managing test anxiety. These workshops

also give the tutors insight on how the tutees may feel when they obtain services, and they count

towards their training experience.

Collaborative Efforts

Classroom visitations

Cafeteria visitations

Math faculty instructors tutorial sessions

Housing/residential coordination

In the aforementioned collaborative efforts, the Tutoring Center uses cafeteria and classroom

visits for the peer tutors to interact with the instructors and students, inviting them to the Center

for support. Additionally, collaborating with the math instructors was a great success. The faculty

instructors offered tutorial sessions in the Center by volunteering office hours in our location.

This supportive effort illustrate to students that they could receive help not only from their peers,

but also from the faculty. The Center also collaborates with the Residence Life staff who

demonstrations concern for their student employees as well. By tracking student workers who

did not make a 2.0 semester GPA, they require those students to complete 5 hours of tutorial

sessions per month. At the end of each month, a report is sent to the Residence Life coordinator

who then uses this information for their progress reports.

Statistical Analysis

One of the Tutoring Center goals is to increase student visitations for peer and instructor tutoring

from spring to spring and fall to fall. Table 9 provides data of visitation for consecutive semesters

beginning in fall 2012. The students who visited the Tutoring Center were to receive assistance

with course concepts, individualized instruction, and study skills.


P a g e 28 | 73

Table 9: Summary of Tutoring Service.

Peer Tutoring Instructor Tutoring Study Time

Fall 2012 1625 852 X

Spring 2013 2223 479 X

Fall 2013 2270 872 219

Spring 2014 1890 280 606

Fall 2014 1851 342 626

Spring 2015 1180 318 378

Fall 2015 1377 327 483

Table 9 figures were consistent in comparison of Fall 2012 (1625) to fall 2013 (2270)

visitations. More visits were made although, from Fall 2013 (2270) to Fall 2014 (1851),

there was a minor decline in services received from peer tutoring and, ultimately, they

declined again from fall 2014 (1851) to Fall 2015 (1377). This was also true for the spring

semesters, which only leaves room for improvement in Fall 2016 and spring 2017.

The math instructors tutoring increased from fall 2012 (852) to fall 2013 (872), but

declined fall 2014 (342) and Fall 2015 (327). The spring 2013 (479) visitations dropped in

spring 2014 (280), then increased slightly in spring 2015 (318).

A benefit of the centralized tutoring program is the increase of students who arrived for

study time. Although they are not classified as seeking tutorial services, they were in the

Center utilizing the resources and reaping the benefits of being in a productive learning

academic environment.

Impact Evaluation

Table 10. Spring 2015 GPA Impact

Peer Tutoring % Peer Instructor Tutoring % Instructor

1.99 and below 28 10% 14 9%

2.00 – 2.99 174 62% 87 59%

3.00 – 4.00 79 28% 47 32%

Total Students 281 100% 148 100%

Average GPA 2.7 2.7

Table 10 highlights the results of students who received tutorial services and how they ended

their semester academically by GPA. The average cumulative GPA was 2.7 for those who

attended peer tutoring and 2.7 for instructor tutoring. The combined average GPA for tutoring

overall was 2.7.


P a g e 29 | 73

When adding total peer tutoring (281) and instructor tutoring (148), the outcome was 429. Ninety

percent (387) of the students who received tutoring ended the spring 2015 semester/academic

year in good standing.

Table 11. Fall 2015 GPA Impact

Peer Tutoring % Peer Instructor Tutoring % Instructor

1.99 and below 47 13% 17 10%

2.00 – 2.99 201 57% 92 56%

3.00 – 4.00 104 30% 55 34%

Total Students 352 100% 164 100%

Average GPA 2.6 2.7

Table 11, highlights the average cumulative GPA of 2.6 for those who attended peer tutoring and

2.7 for instructor tutoring. The combined average GPA for tutoring overall was 2.7.

When adding total peer tutoring (352) and instructor tutoring (164), the outcome was 516. Eight-

eight percent (452) of the students who received tutoring ended the Fall 2015 semester in good

standing.

Surveys were given to the students who received tutorial assistance. The survey consisted of 15

questions. The results the tutors received was an overall 93% satisfaction from their peers in

spring 2015 and 87% in Fall 2015. This survey was converted from paper to electronic use through

surveymonkey beginning Fall 2015.

The chart below represents a small cohort of 55 students who took the peer tutoring survey

during Fall 2015 to evaluate their experience with the tutoring program. As indicated below their

overall experience was above average. The tutors were able to explain their points clearly,

identify concepts that were potentially difficult, and suggest methods of problem-solving. The

tutors were well-prepared and on time for sessions. The students who were surveyed would most

likely recommend their tutor to a friend and reflected their tutor was considerate and

personable.


P a g e 30 | 73

Table 12: Fall 2015 Tutorial Services Survey Results

Above Average

Average Below

Average Total

The tutor explains points clearly.

87.27% 48

12.73% 7

0.00% 0

55

The tutor identifies concepts that are potentially difficult.

85.45% 47

14.55% 8

0.00% 0

55

The tutor suggests methods of problem-solving. 85.45% 47

12.73% 7

1.82% 1

55

The tutor is considerate and personable. 90.91% 50

9.09% 5

0.00% 0

55

My tutor was always there and on time. 92.73% 51

7.27% 4

0.00% 0

55

My tutor was well prepared for each session. 87.27% 48

10.91% 6

1.82% 1

55

I would recommend this tutor to a friend. 89.09% 49

10.91% 6

0.00% 0

55

Source: SurveyMonkey Fall 2015

The tutors were also given a survey and made comments on their experiences as well. Overall,

the tutors felt the tutoring program was effective; see comments below.

Tutors indicated that they considered a measure of success when providing tutorial services:

“Seeing students pass their tests and come back”

“Promoting understanding of concepts”

“Receptive and willing to learn”

“Students tutored went to class with a better understanding of the material”

Tutors perception of student tutees:

“Positive and wanted to be there”

“Willing to learn new ways for tackling questions and exams”

“Sometimes a little stressed”


P a g e 31 | 73

Strengths and Limitations of the Tutoring Program

Strengths

Collaboration with academic departments in marketing tutorial services

Math instructor tutorial services

Constant inquiries for tutorial positions

Wide range of mathematics covered

Centralized location

Limitations

Need for additional tutors

Subject areas of concern

Accutrack system having proper usage of signing in and out

Appointment scheduling – not automated

Availability of current books for sessions


P a g e 32 | 73

FOCUS

Future Outstanding Cohort of University Students

Sasha Cousins, Juliana Reagan, Andrea Taylor Program Coordinators

Introduction Description of Program Components This comprehensive program is an extension of retention programs and services that are offered

in the department. The components that are offered in the FOCUS program are as follow:

Academic coaching/advising provides students with the chance to work individually with a CAAS

coach to enhance their academic skills, gain confidence, discover motivation, and improve

performance. Students schedule 30-minute block appointments with a CAAS coach at least

twice each semester.

Facilitating workshops designed to expand students’ knowledge in areas related to study skills,

note taking, test anxiety, learning styles, time management, and relationship building.

Providing services such as tutoring and mentoring – Tutoring is free for all students who may

need additional assistance outside of the classroom. Approved tutors who have demonstrated

mastery of certain subject areas assist students with questions and study skills. Hawk mentors

serve as role models and are a resource for first-year students.

Description of Special Issues Relevant to Target Population FOCUS students are identified as being on academic probation when their performance falls below the minimum 2.0 grade-point average. The special issues relevant to this group are,

Lack of financial resources to pay for book/codes

Personal health issues/concerns

Family issues/concerns/crisis

Judicial concerns

Lack of awareness and underutilization of campus resources

Apathy towards attending classes consistently and completing assignments in a timely fashion

Motivation for attending college is more parent-driven than student-driven. Description of Collaborative Efforts The members of the CAAS team collaboratively plan to identify how best to monitor student

progress, assist students with goal development, and ways for them to reach their goals. In

addition to team planning, additional assistance is required by others outside of the department

to assist the FOCUS students. Other collaborative efforts include:


P a g e 33 | 73

The Registrar’s Office: The lists of probation and reinstated students are provided by the

registrar’s office.

The Director of the Center for Instructional Technology assists in establishing the FOCUS

cohort via Blackboard in which various communications and program assignments are

given.

Various individuals outside the CAAS department help facilitate CAAS workshops that are

designed to help strengthen the academic performance of FOCUS students.

o Counseling Services’ large group workshops were provided and facilitated by Dr.

Melanie Davenport: “De-Stigmatizing Counseling” and “De-Stress 4 Midterms”

Revisions to FOCUS Academic Retention Success Strategies Course (ARSS) 188

Beginning Fall 2015, the FOCUS program was revised to include a mandatory course in which all students on academic probation would have to enroll and successfully complete. ARSS 188 is designed to empower students who are not in good academic standing to attain success in their academic, personal, and professional lives. This course, through established approaches of self-assessment, guided journaling, assignments, and examinations provide necessary tools for proficiency development in essential study skills of reading, note-taking, test-taking, time management, writing, and other skills needed to ensure student success. Students also gain an understanding of university policies, procedures, and regulations.

Implementation Evaluation Description of Implementation Objectives The objectives for the FOCUS program are:

To meet with all FOCUS students both individually and in small group settings.

To have each student complete an Academic Improvement Plan (AIP) and discuss areas

of concerns that were problematic for them in the previous semester.

To assist students with course selections for the next semester by suggesting

recommended courses to be approved by their departmental advisors.

To provide updates of academic standing as indicated by mid-term grades and make

suggestions on how to make improvements by the end of the semester.

To provide students with a list of their specific milestones according to their classification.

To ensure that all FOCUS students are abreast of department and campus resources, such

as tutoring.

To enroll in and successfully complete the Academic Retention Success Strategies (ARSS)

188 course.


P a g e 34 | 73

FOCUS Outreach

Probation students were identified by the Registrar’s Office

Communication was sent to all probation and reinstated (315) students via mail and student email, informing them of their academic status and requirements for the new semester

FOCUS Orientation Workshop

Three FOCUS workshops were provided prior to the start of the semester to orient probationary students to university policies regarding academic probation, course credit restrictions, and the addition of ARSS 188 as a mandatory course.

o According to university policy, probationary students cannot exceed 13 credit hours.

Students were also advised to meet with their department academic advisors to ensure they were meeting program requirements.

Students were asked to sign a FOCUS contract that would ensure they understood and would plan to meet all FOCUS requirements.

Academic Retention Success Strategies Course (ARSS) 188

4 sections of ARSS 188 were added to the HawkWeb system.

3 academic coaches and the director of CAAS served as instructors.

Students were advised to enroll in the course as well as modify their course schedules to reflect no more than 13 credits.

ARSS 188 Planning

Extensive planning went into creating a FOCUS curriculum that would equip students to become more engaged in pursuit of their educational goals and address any difficulties that resulted in probation. A few of the course objective goals for ARSS included:

o To connect students to key university resources such as the Center for Access and

Academic Success, the Writing Center, Counseling Services, and the Career and

Professional Development Center.

o To encourage students to reflect on and set their current and future goals through

guided journaling and goal planning.

o To expose students to methods of time management and organizational skills.

FOCUS students were required to fulfill several course requirements:

o Meet with academic coaches twice during the semester for individual meetings

o Attend 6 mandatory CAAS workshops: 3 predetermined by ARSS instructors and 3

student selected

o Attend 6 30-minute tutoring sessions in the CAAS department

o Complete an Academic Improvement Plan (AIP) that would be discussed in

individual meetings with CAAS Academic Coaches

o Complete entrance and exit FOCUS surveys via SurveyMonkey


P a g e 35 | 73

CAAS Data: There were a total of 315 probation/dismissed students that were identified at the end of the spring 2015 semester for the following Fall 2015 semester:

Probation: 154

Dismissed: 161 The actual enrollment of probation/reinstated students for the Fall 2015 semester was 141 students:

Probation: 107

Reinstated: 34

A report was generated from Accutrack to highlight services provided to the FOCUS students

from August 31, 2015 – December 18, 2015. There were a total number of 723 visits by the FOCUS

students for the Fall 2015 semester. There were 110 individual students who participated in the

FOCUS services of the 141 (107 probation and 34 dismissed) that remained in the cohort

throughout the semester. 78% of the registered students in FOCUS received the following CAAS

services:

Table 13. Services Provided to FOCUS Students

The total enrollment for the ARSS 188 course began with 99 students. Five students withdrew from the university, leaving a total enrollment of 94 students for the ARSS 188 course. As indicated in the table below, those students who received a satisfactory in the course received a higher cumulative GPA than those who did not receive a satisfactory. Table 14. Enrollment Grade and GPA Outcome

Services By Visits

Services Received # of Student Visits # Percentage of Student Visits

Academic Coaching 354 49%

Instructors Math Tutoring/ Peer Tutoring

169 23%

Workshops 147 41%

Study Time 38 .05%

Supplemental Instruction (SI) 15 .02%

ARSS 188 Enrollment Grade/GPA Outcome

Course Grade Outcome # of Students Percentage Cumulative GPA

Satisfactory 37 39% 2.0

Unsatisfactory 57 60% 1.85

Grand Total 94 Average Cumulative GPA 1.9


P a g e 36 | 73

The table below highlights the average cumulative GPA for students who were enrolled in the

ARSS course and for those not enrolled.

Table 15. Average Cumulative GPA

The table below highlights the academic standing of students enrolled in the ARSS 188 course and those not enrolled. The data suggests that those who participated had a more favorable outcome of achieving good academic standing than those who did not participate. Table 16. Number of Students Who Received Satisfactory Academic Standing

The table below highlights the cumulative GPA range for all FOCUS students. This includes those

enrolled and not enrolled in the ARSS 118 course.

Table 17. Cumulative GPA for All Students

There were a total of 141 probationary students who were identified as FOCUS students at the beginning of the Fall 2015 semester; however, five students withdrew from the university.

End-Term Cumulative GPA

# of Students Average Cumulative GPA

Participants 94 1.91

Non-participants 42 1.95

Satisfactory Academic Standing

# of Students

Participants (94) 44

Non-Participants (42) 22

Cumulative GPA for All

Cumulative GPA Range # of Students Percentage of Students

1.99 & Below 70 50%

2.00 – 2.99 66 47%

3.0 – 4.0 0 0


P a g e 37 | 73

Table 18. Final Semester Academic Standing

End-of-Term Standing for All

Academic Standing # of Students Percentage

Good 66 47%

Probation 37 26%

Dismissed 33 23%

Withdrawn 5 4%

ARSS 188 Data Analysis

FOCUS Entrance Survey

Surveys were administered to the FOCUS students through SurveyMonkey at the start and close of the semester. The surveys sought to gain insight into demographics, utilization of campus resources, self-regulated learning, the FOCUS program, and the ARSS 188 course.

In the FOCUS-Entrance Fall 2015 survey, which took place prior to the completion of the Academic Retention Success Strategies (ARSS 188) course, there were 85 respondents: 77.65% identified as having attended UMES for 2-4 semesters. Fifty-five percent identified that they have been on academic probation for one semester, 36.47% for two semesters, and 8.24% had been on probation for three or more semesters. When asked if attending UMES was their idea, 22.62% of the students strongly agreed, and 44.05% agreed that it was their idea to attend the university. Figures 12, 13 and 14 below represent the responses to the above background questions.

Figure 12. How many semesters have you attended UMES?


P a g e 38 | 73

Figure 13. How many semesters have you been on academic probation?

Figure 14. Attending UMES was my idea.

As illustrated in the Figures 15 and 16 below, in response to utilizing tutoring services in CAAS three or more times a week, only 3.57% answered that they attended tutoring in CAAS three or more times a week, 41.67% disagreed with the statement, and 29.76% were neutral, which suggested that the service was underutilized by the probation students and is accurately targeted by the FOCUS program as an objective for growth. Responses varied when asked if they regularly seek services recommended by a CAAS Academic Coach: 32.14% disagreed, 25% were neutral, and 27.38% agreed. The varying responses spoke to the level of impact the academic coaching sessions and the utilization of services had on the probation students in semesters prior to the FOCUS program and ARSS 188.


P a g e 39 | 73

Figure 15. Students seeking tutoring services three or more times.

Figure 16. Students regularly seeking services recommended by academic coach.

One of the FOCUS program goals was to facilitate the utilization of services such as tutoring, academic coaching, and workshops. The low percentage of students utilizing the tutoring and recommended services prior to the completion of the ARSS 188 course supported the objective of the course to facilitate the usage of services to encourage academic growth. In the area of self-regulated learning, when responding to the statement, “I always ask questions to gain a better understanding about my studies, the registration process, my financial aid and academic status, and other important issues,” 19.05% of students responded that they strongly agreed, 46.43% agreed, 25% were


P a g e 40 | 73

neutral, and only 7.14% disagreed, and 2.38% strongly disagreed. When responding to another statement regarding self-regulated learning, “I make appointments to meet with my instructor to get additional help outside of the classroom instructional time,” the highest percentage of responses was neutral at 44.05%, 23.81% disagreed with the statement, 15% agreed, and 13% strongly agreed.

Figure 17. Students’ response to asking important questions.

Figure 18. Students’ response to scheduling appointments with instructors.


P a g e 41 | 73

The responses to statements that encouraged them to reflect on their habits of self-advocacy and self-regulated learning illustrated that there was a degree of these characteristics present, but with a large percentage of the responses being “neutral,” it could be inferred that the students did not know the appropriate questions to ask in a situation where advocating for themselves was necessary. This frequent neutrality is not only present in regard to self-regulated learning, but, when reviewing the survey in its entirety, in a majority of the 50 questions, the “neutral” response column is at 20% or higher. This may represent general indifference to the statements posed to them or their lack of previous experience of the strategies which prevents them from having an opinion on the topic. An objective of the FOCUS program and ARSS 188 is to promote accountability, self-advocacy, and emphasize the importance of the students themselves being aware of their academic standing in regard to GPA and credit hours. Since the results above reflect responses from the FOCUS students upon entrance to the FOCUS program and the ARSS 188 course, they illustrate the accuracy of the program’s objectives and student outcomes. At the close of the semester, after completion of the FOCUS requirements and ARSS 188 course, the probation students were expected to be better equipped with more productive study strategies, increased awareness of campus resources, and more consistent utilization of services.

FOCUS Exit Survey All FOCUS students enrolled in an ARSS class were asked to complete an exit survey pertaining to the FOCUS program and the ARSS 188 course. There were a total of 11 items: 3 items pertained to student demographics; 7 items utilized a Likert rating scale, and the final item was an open-ended question. The survey was categorized in a way that addresses the FOCUS program, the ARSS 188 course, and the ARSS instructors. The FOCUS exit survey yielded the following results:

138 FOCUS students were enrolled in the ARSS 188 course for the Fall 2015

semester

73 (52%) of the FOCUS students responded to the exit survey for ARSS 188

59 (81%) of the respondents were enrolled for 13 credit hours or fewer.

FOCUS Program Data

69% of the respondents rated the FOCUS program as “Excellent” to “Very Good” (see Figure 19)

Over 50% of the respondents “Agree” to “Strongly Agree” on the following: o The FOCUS criteria were made clear as they were outlined in their contract

o They completed most or all of the requirements

o The requirements were relevant and appropriate to their current academic

standing

o They felt valued


P a g e 42 | 73

Figure 19. Students’ response to overall rating of the FOCUS program.

ARSS 188 Course

65% of the respondents rated the ARSS course as “Excellent” to “Very Good” (see Figure 20)

Over 50% of the respondent “Agree” to “Strongly Agree” to the following:

o The course objectives were made clear

o The assignments were appropriate for the level of this class

o The course helped them achieve some or all of the personal goals

o Their current academic standing will improve because of this course

o They are more confident now about doing well at the university than they

were at the beginning of the course

Figure 20. Students’ response to overall rating of the ARSS course.


P a g e 43 | 73

ARSS 188 Instructor

92% of the respondents rated the ARSS instructors as “Excellent” to “Very Good” (see

Figure 21)

Over 50% of the respondents “Agree” to “Strongly Agree” to the following:

o The instructor was effective in communicating the content of this course

o The instructor encouraged feedback from the class

o The instructor showed genuine concern and respect for the students

o The instructor made class and online materials accessible through

Blackboard

o The instructor was readily available to meet outside of class time

Figure 21. Students’ response to overall rating of the ARSS instructors.

The last item on the survey was an open-ended question that allowed students to

provide feedback based on their experience in the ARSS course. Students were asked “In

what ways might the FOCUS program be improved to better meet your academic

needs?” The responses given reflected a variety of opinions; however, what was most

consistent among the responses was that students felt the program was beneficial.

Other feedback responses were highlighted to show areas where consideration could be

given to improve the program and the course. These responses are listed below:

“The workshops offered were OK, but if the subject were more class oriented like

ways to be successful in math or Spanish. These type of workshops along with the

tutoring can help a lot.”

“I wish the FOCUS program didn't involve doing actually assignments. I think it

would be better if we just learned about different resources to get help, and better


P a g e 44 | 73

understanding of how to pick your classes to graduate if your advisor is not so

helpful.”

“…it would have been nice if they could appoint our study hours in other place on

campus being that with most courses that we take require that also.”

“…the time spent doing focus activities could be spent on mandatory work

provided by my scheduled credit classes.”

“Require participants to dedicate less time toward FOCUS and more time focusing

on their individual duties and or responsibilities. P.S. More diversity amongst

workshop topics would also be nice.”

“One way that the FOCUS program may be improved, is if the academic coaches

did personal check-ins with students about academic improvement.”

“Instead of being an actual class, I think it should be a group that meets on certain

days every week. It kind of seemed like a waste of a class to me. We could have

been taking another class towards our major.”

Impact Evaluation At the beginning of the Fall 2015 semester, there were a total of 141 FOCUS students identified. By the end of the semester, the number of registered students reduced to 136 due to 5 withdrawals from the university. As indicated in Table 13. Services Provided to FOCUS Students, academic coaching was the most utilized service by the FOCUS students in CAAS. Out of 723 visits, 354 (49%) of the visits by the FOCUS students were primarily for academic coaching. Twenty-three percent (169) of the visits by FOCUS students were for both instructor math and peer tutoring, and fourth-one percent (147) of the FOCUS visits were for workshops. Fewer than half of the students enrolled in ARSS 188 received a satisfactory for the course outcome; however, those who fulfilled the majority of the course requirements received a higher cumulative GPA than those who did not. This is an indication that the ARSS 188 course can be effective providing that students show up for class and complete required assignments. The average cumulative GPA for ARSS 188 participants and non-participants were not significantly different; however, comparing the students who achieved academic standing both in and out of the ARSS course, the ARSS students fared better than the non-participants. There was a slight difference in the cumulative GPA of all identified probationary students. At the

end of the Fall 2015 semester, 70 (50%) FOCUS students had a cumulative GPA that fell below

2.0 while there were 66 (47%) of the FOCUS students whose GPA were 2.0 and above.

The Center’s goal was to have 100% of the FOCUS students meet satisfactory academic standing.

Although this goal was not achieved, we did accomplish having more than half (78%) of the

FOCUS students visiting our office for academic coaching and other Center services. The

implication is that we were able to meet with students individually to examine the root of their

academic decline. Meeting with the FOCUS students individually enabled the coaches to identify

strategies that would redirect students on a path to academic success. Additionally, augmenting


P a g e 45 | 73

the academic coaching component with the ARSS 188 course allowed us to interact with the

students in a group dynamic, thus providing additional support via fun and engaging activities.

The FOCUS program is still in its infant stage with plenty of room for revision and growth. Valuable

student feedback was given and considered for Spring 2016. In order to make FOCUS a more

comprehensive outreach program for probationary students, we are hoping to address the

following concerns:

Providing an alternative program for students who received a “satisfactory” in the course

but did not quite achieve good academic standing

Finding a more efficient and effective way to identify probation students early on

Providing more leverage for the Center to have impact on student responses (i.e. holds

on student accounts) to increase student accountability

Finding a more efficient way to monitor students who are not enrolled in ARSS

Hiring more ARSS instructors to reduce class overload

Updating the HawkWeb system for grade accuracy

Strengths of the FOCUS program include the following:

Team collaboration in identifying strategies and best practices to assist students

Operating in a Center that is the main hub for student support and resources

A team that is fully committed and passionate about student success

Evaluation, modification, and growth opportunities

The addition of the Academic Retention Success Strategies (ARSS) 188 course

Collaboration with other campus departments that enables the CAAS team to better assist students

The utilization of Blackboard as a means to collect data, send communication and program updates, and monitor student progress

Areas of Concern include the following:

Center lacks the space to accommodate the FOCUS students for workshops and other group activities

Adequately addressing the concerns that may impact student success, such as financial

needs for books, adequate advising to ensure students are repeating the right courses for

their major, and making sure there are enough available classes for students to repeat in

order to improve their GPA

As a campus community being truly committed to student success

Eliminating the “Hawk Shuffle” by directing students to the right resource the first time

Having adequate funding to hire additional qualified staff

Lack of campus-wide awareness of the role and function of the Center for Access and

Academic Success


P a g e 46 | 73

Recommendations for the FOCUS program are as follows:

The Center would benefit by having more space to accommodate the growing number of students served

Having the staff to adequately assist students

The Academic Retention Success Strategies (ARSS 188) course will enable us to better address

and monitor student progress and troubleshoot concerns that may prevent students from

reaching academic student progress.


P a g e 47 | 73

DREAM (Dare to be Resilient, Accountable & Motivated)

Summer Bridge Program

Mrs. Juliana Reagan, Program Coordinator

Introduction

The DREAM Summer Bridge Program was a five-week residential program that gave 24 students

the opportunity to earn admission to the University of Maryland Eastern Shore. The summer

program consisted of a rigorous curriculum that included intrusive instruction in mathematics,

reading, writing, critical thinking, and study skills. The focus of the DREAM Summer Bridge

Program was to prepare the students to be successful on the collegiate level as incoming

freshman. The students were given the opportunity to acclimate to the campus and to utilize its

valuable resources, such as the Tutoring Center and Academic Coaches in the Center for Access

and Academic Success, the Career and Professional Development Center, and Residence Life. The

program featured the following:

MATH 101 worth 3 credits

A Fundamental English course

3 trained tutors: two for MATH 101 and one for Fundamentals of English

2 peer mentors

A program coordinator Both courses, a fundamental English course and MATH 101, had assigned tutors who held

tutoring/study hours throughout the day and evening. There were two peer mentors assigned to

the group who were always on site to account for all of the students, provide additional academic

support if needed, and to answer any general day-to-day questions or concerns for the

participants. The DREAM program was coordinated by the Director of Retention and an Academic

Coordinator who would continue the support in the Fall 2015 semester. The CAAS staff was also

available if necessary.

The participants’ daily schedule included 4 hours of instruction, 3 hours of study/tutoring hours,

and an hour break for lunch and dinner. The students had the option to stay an extra hour in the

evening for tutoring.

Description of special issues relevant to target population, such as demographics are as follows:

Eleven (45%) of the students attended high schools in Prince George’s county, seven (29%)

attended high schools in Baltimore county, two attended high schools in Montgomery county,

one attended high school in Calvert county, and one attended high school in Harford county. Two

students were from out of state—Pennsylvania and Georgia. All of the students identified

themselves as African American and ranged from 17-20 years of age.


P a g e 48 | 73

There are incomplete high school transcripts for six of the students, but, excluding those

students, the average SAT Math score for the DREAM participants was 343. In comparison, the

average SAT score for the Fall 2015 freshman class was 419. Thirteen of the participants had

completed a math course in their senior year of high school, seven had not completed a math

course since their junior year, and one had not completed a math course since his sophomore

year of high school. Those numbers do not include the students who have missing final high

school transcripts. Seven of the students had passed their last recorded high school math course

with a “D.”

The participants struggled with test-taking in Math 101 and required several opportunities to

take the AST. None of the participants received a grade of “F” in Math 101, and 15 (62%) passed

with a “C” or higher. Nine (37%) participants received a “D” and had to retake the course in the

Fall 2015 semester. All of the students received a Satisfactory (S) grade in the Fundamentals of

English course. There was one student with excessive absences and attitude issues who required

sit-down meetings with both coordinators. This student was admitted at the close of the program

based on meeting the requirements of the program. Lateness, accountability, and student

responsibility were addressed several times with the entire group. As a whole, entering the

program they were not prepared for the expectations of college faculty or the level of

responsibility. However, according to the response from the participants on the exit survey at the

close of the program, when asked about their level of preparedness for college as a result of the

DREAM program, four (16%) answered “very prepared,” 19 (79%) answered “prepared,” and one

answered “somewhat prepared.”

Description of Collaborative Efforts

Every Friday the students attended a workshop that was facilitated by a department on campus

or a CAAS Coordinator—Financial Literacy from the Office of Financial Aid, Career and

Professional Development from Office of Career and Professional Development, Time

Management & Study Skills from a Faculty Advisor, and Transitioning to College from their

program coordinator. The participants also completed a career self-assessment with the Career

and Professional Development Center staff and then met to discuss the results. The participants

and the coordinators met to discuss selecting their major, and all of the students selected a major

program of study to follow for the Fall 2015 semester.

The Office of Residence Life also held workshops and social activities for the DREAM students.


Description of implementation objectives:

Students will increase their confidence and ability to navigate their first semester at

UMES.

o As DREAM participants, the students were familiarized with a wide range of

campus resources, such as the Tutoring Center for peer tutoring, academic

coaching, and peer mentoring; the Career and Professional Development Center;


P a g e 49 | 73

and the Frederick Douglass Library for study hours, to build a strong foundation of

academic support as they entered their freshman year.

Students will complete a minimum of three workshops, including topics such as career

explorations, coping skills, and balancing student life.

DREAM participants completed six workshops during the five-week program:

o The Career and Professional Development Center:

Career and Education Planning

Career Self-Assessment

o Office of Financial Aid:

Financial Literacy

o Center for Access and Academic Success (CAAS):

Time Management and Study Skills

Transition from High School to College

o HAWK Mentors:

“Real Talk”

Students will demonstrate an increased understanding of what they must accomplish to

stay in good academic standing and make timely progress toward a degree.

o DREAM Participants attended group advising sessions with their program

coordinator/academic coach and a faculty advisor to declare a major, reviewed

their program of study, and registered for their first semester of courses.

o In the advising sessions and the transition workshop, the UMES Policies regarding

Academic Standing (Probation vs. Dismissal) and the 15 credit per semester goal

to graduate in 4 years were emphasized.

Students will learn academic services and vigorously participate in tutorial, math and

writing labs, and mentoring activities.

o DREAM Participants developed a routine within the Center for Access and

Academic Success for tutoring services, academic coaching, and peer mentoring.

o The participants were also familiarized with the library services for study hours,

computer check-out, and tutoring sessions.

o Blackboard, Math Lab and various online writing resources were utilized

throughout the program on a frequent and consistent basis.


P a g e 50 | 73

Student Outcomes

Total number of students 24

Retention rate from SU15-FA15 100%

MATH 101 Pass Rate 62%

Fundamentals of English Pass Rate 100%

Average GPA after MATH 101 entering

FA15

1.750

At the close of the summer bridge program, all 24 of the participants were admitted as UMES

students, two students received scholarships for exceptional performance, and all became a

part of the freshman class of 2019.

Review of final grades (cumulative GPA breakout): The DREAM students took one course for

credit, MATH 101 (3 credits), which contributed to their cumulative GPA going into the Fall

2015 semester.

1.99 & below 9 2.00 – 2.99 12 3.0 – 4.00 3

Group Average GPA: 1.750

Academic status (good standing, probation, dismissed)

Good standing 24 Probation 0 Dismissed 0

Impact Evaluation

Stated in qualitative and quantitative measurable terms o 9 students fell in the below-average range for cumulative GPA. o 12 students fell in the middle range for cumulative GPA. o 3 students fell in the above average range for cumulative GPA.

Surveys – data collection methods, data sources, analysis procedures, results o Data was collected through HawkWeb to review GPA and Academic Standing. o A survey was administered through Blackboard at the close of the program and the

results are attached as a spreadsheet.

Discussion of results: what changes were students expected to demonstrate as a result of services provided, and what were the outcomes.

o Expectations


P a g e 51 | 73

Students were expected to utilize the skills learned in the workshops, tutoring sessions, and courses to more effectively learn and communicate in their courses and with their professors.

Students were expected to gain admission into UMES by meeting all of the DREAM requirements.

o Results All DREAM participants passed Fundamentals of English with a Satisfactory,

62% of the participants passed MATH 101 with a “C” or higher to earn credit, and 100% passed MATH 101 with a “D” or better to meet the DREAM requirement.

100% of the DREAM participants earned admission into UMES.

Student survey responses at the close of the program: o What made you want to participate in the DREAM Program?

“I felt although that in high school i didn't do as well as i wanted to do and this was like a second chance for me to succeed and redeem myself, come back stronger than ever.”

“I wanted to get accepted into the University of Maryland Eastern Shore. This was my only way of getting in so i jumped at the opportunity.”

“Honestly it was one of my last options. I choose to come to UMES instead of the other one is because i was to get a bit of the college experience. Which definitely is a benefits for us in the end, and the other schools did not offer me the same. So now coming into UMES i have a better feel of being in college versus being blindsided.”

o Is there anything else you would like to share with us regarding the DREAM Summer Bridge Program?

“The dream program is very helpful. It prepared me for the fall, allowed me to meet new people, and gained relationships with helpful tutors.”

“THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY. I AM TRUELY THANKFUL.” o How do you think the overall program could be improved?

“I think overall the program is a very great opportunity for incoming freshman’s it helps with that transition from high school to college. The only thing that needs to be improved is extending the program us the students could excel in math because 5 weeks is short to cover math.”

“A few more tutors to help out students who have a harder time learning.”

Strengths, Limitations, Recommendations

Strengths o Low student to tutor ratios allowed for tutoring sessions to provide personalized

support o Numerous workshops provided exposure to new learning strategies, locations of

important campus resources, and the roles of different departments on campus o Peer mentoring program o Blackboard site with resources they can access 24/7

The DREAM handbook


P a g e 52 | 73

A list of campus resources Important contact information Important announcements Survey distribution

o Intrusive advising and academic coaching from their program coordinator o A close and well-bonded learning community established on a common goal o All instruction and tutoring held in a centralized location in the Center for Access

and Academic Success, and students had access to the center’s other resources o The students had the opportunity to acclimate to the campus environment prior

to starting a semester with a full-load of classes

Limitations o Short time period of only 5 weeks, which included a holiday and final exams o Lack of gender diversity in mentoring program o Extremely low level of academic preparedness on the part of the participants

Future Programing Projections

Hold the program for students who have met the UMES admission criteria.

Extend the program to 6-8 weeks of instruction

Have a revised mentoring program o Include some past Summer Bridge students o Female mentors assigned to female students in dorms and vice versa o Have a lead mentor that reports daily, takes attendance, and tracks student

location o Ensure the RA is responsible and that the social aspect outside of the program is

kept to a minimum

Two math tutors, 2 English tutors and an SI component (depending on the number of students

Enrollment goal of 50 students (Max 60)

Have students, mentors, and tutors sign up for the text reminder program

Have one central advisor for all students in the program Accomplishments

100% of DREAM participants gained admission into the University of Maryland Eastern Shore

There was a 100% retention rate of DREAM students attending from the summer program to the Fall 2015 semester

Two students earned scholarships based on high GPA and leadership qualities


P a g e 53 | 73

DREAM Summer Bridge Follow-Up Program

Fall 2015

Mrs. Juliana Reagan, Program Coordinator

Introduction

Description of program components

o The DREAM Summer Bridge Program was a five-week residential program that gave 24 students the opportunity to earn admission to the University of Maryland Eastern Shore. The summer program consisted of a rigorous curriculum that included intrusive instruction in mathematics, reading, writing, critical thinking, and study skills. The focus of the DREAM Summer Bridge Program was to prepare the students to be successful on the collegiate level as incoming freshman. The students were given the opportunity to acclimate to the campus and to utilize its valuable resources, such as, the Tutoring Center and Academic Coaches in the Center for Access and Academic Success, the Career and Professional Development Center, and Residence Life. The program featured

MATH 101 worth 3 credits A Fundamental English course

3 trained tutors: two for MATH 101 and one for English

2 peer mentors

A program coordinator

Prior to the end of the summer program, the students registered for their courses in a group

advising setting and signed up for an academic coaching appointment with Mrs. Reagan for the

start of the semester before drop/add period ended.

o The purpose of the DREAM Summer Bridge Follow-Up program is to provide intrusive advising and academic coaching support to the DREAM students to track their progress, collaborate with their departmental advisors to assist with course scheduling, connect them to appropriate resources such as tutoring, workshops, mentoring, and counseling services. Structure for the follow-up program for Freshman and Sophomore years:

Three scheduled academic coaching appointments

o First week of the semester prior to the end of drop/add period

Review course schedule

Review cumulative GPA and goal for the end of the semester

Set goals for midterm grades

Books

Tutoring schedule and workshop schedule

Survey

o After midterm grades have been posted

Review midterm grades and goals set at first meeting


P a g e 54 | 73

Discuss milestones

Advisor information to schedule meeting

Look over degree course sequence

Review tutoring attendance

Feedback from students

Survey

o Final week of classes prior to final exams

Confirm return/registered for courses

Tutoring schedule for finals

Feedback from students about semester

Survey

Surveys

o Three surveys after each academic coaching session

Assess their acclimation to the campus

Feedback on campus resources they have utilized

Future academic plans

Reasons for attending UMES

Background information

Track students’ academic progress

o Pull midterm & final grades each semester

o Review schedules for each semester

Correct courses, number of credits taken (at least 15), retaking any

necessary courses

o Payment confirmation completed

o Contact them directly with any revisions to their schedule that need to be made,

steps that need to be taken to return (payment confirmation, any holds on their

account)

o Connect them to any necessary resources on campus

Communication

o E-mail & Blackboard

Reminders about appointments, deadlines on the academic

calendar, follow-up e-mails after appointments regarding items

discussed or responsibilities

Description of special issues relevant to target population, such as demographics o As stated in the DREAM Summer Bridge Program 2015 report, 11 (45%) of the students

attended high schools in Prince George’s county, 7 (29%) attended high schools in Baltimore county, 2 attended high schools in Montgomery county, 1 attended high school in Calvert county and 1 attended high school in Harford county. Two students were from out of state—Pennsylvania and Georgia. All of the students identified themselves as African American and range from 17-20 years of age.


P a g e 55 | 73

o There are incomplete high school transcripts for six of the students, but excluding those students, the average SAT Math score for the DREAM participants was 343. Thirteen of the participants had completed a math course in the senior year of high school, seven had not completed a math course since their junior year, and one had not completed a math course since his sophomore year of high school. Those numbers do not include the students who have missing final high school transcripts. Seven of the students passed their last recorded high school math course with a “D.”

o At the start of the Fall 2015 semester, the DREAM students were asked to select any factors that may impact their academic success: 50% selected “Financial concerns,” 33% selected “Emotional/mental health concerns.” The level of financial and mental/emotional unpreparedness was high in this cohort of students who were coming to UMES from schools in Prince George's county (11 students) and Baltimore County (7 students) that left them ill-equipped for the academic and financial pressures of college. Many of them required accommodations from Student Disability Services and struggled to know when to ask for help. The two figures below reflect these responses:

Figure 22. Factors that impact student academic success.


P a g e 56 | 73

What factors may impact your academic success? Select all that apply:

Answer Options Response Percent Response Count

Lack of family support 16.7% 4

Financial concerns 50.0% 12

Personal health concerns 12.5% 3

Family health concerns 8.3% 2

Job commitment 0.0% 0

Emotional/mental health concerns 33.3% 8

Substance abuse/drug related issues 0.0% 0

Judicial matters 4.2% 1

Death 8.3% 2

Lack of financial resources for books 16.7% 4

Other (please specify) 8.3% 2

answered question 24

skipped question 0

Figure 23. Factors that impact student academic success in percentages.

Description of collaborative efforts o The DREAM program coordinator collaborated with the students’ departmental advisors

during drop/add period, advising week, and if a student needed to withdraw from a course.

o There were several collaborative efforts with individual students and their professors and when referring them to other departments such as Financial Aid and counseling services.

o The DREAM students participated in the Advocate to Educate (A2E) Retention Initiative. This created more opportunities for them to meet as a group with their A2E leader and program coordinator and foster the learning community environment.


Description of implementation objectives o Students will increase their confidence and ability to navigate their first semester at

UMES. o DREAM students were able to adapt at a more rapid pace than other incoming freshman

as a result of their experience in the summer bridge program. They already had an


P a g e 57 | 73

established support system in CAAS and had an outlet for questions or concerns through their coordinator.

Students will participate in the retention initiative “Advocate to Educate” in order to stay connected as a learning community and to build a stronger connection to the university.

The “DREAM Team” A2E group met three times during the Fall 2015 semester, and will continue to meet Spring 2016.

Students will learn academic services and vigorously participate in tutorial, math and writing labs, and mentoring activities.

There were a total of 226 DREAM student visits for Fall 2015 in the Center for Access and Academic Success; these visits were dispersed between academic coaching with their program coordinator, peer tutoring, math instructor tutoring, study time, and supplemental instruction.

Total number of students seen o 226 DREAM student visits according to Accutrack for the Fall 2015 semester

Purpose for visit o Academic Coaching (142 visits):

Review course schedule prior to drop/add ending for schedule changes Set midterm grade goals and goal GPA Identify tutors for current courses Review midterm grades Discuss freshman milestones, degree progress, and course sequence Respond to surveys to evaluate usage of campus resources, demographic

information, academic goals, future plans. Discuss any issues with courses, professors, or campus life.

o Peer Tutoring (37 visits) o Math Instructor Tutoring (12 visits) o Study Time (33 visits) o Supplemental Instruction Sessions (2 visits)

Student Outcomes

Total number of students 24

Persistence rate from Fall 2015-

Spring 2016

79.00%

Good Academic Standing 29.16%

Probation 70.8%

Average GPA 1.628


P a g e 58 | 73

o Persistence from the Fall 2015 semester to the Spring 2016 semester was 79%. Five

students did not return for the SPRING 2016: one due to transfer to another institution and four due to inability to pay/financial instability.

o 70.80% of the DREAM students fell below a 2.0 cumulative GPA. 29.16% are in good

academic standing.

o The average cumulative GPA is 1.628.

o Review of final grades (cumulative GPA breakout): During the summer bridge program, the DREAM students took one course for credit, MATH 101 (3 credits), which contributed to their cumulative GPA going into the Fall 2015 semester; because they struggled in MATH 101 in the summer, they began the Fall 2015 semester with a low cumulative GPA instead of a 0.000 baseline as an new incoming freshman would.

1.99 & below 17 2.00 – 2.99 7 3.0 – 4.00 0

o Group Average GPA o Fall 2015: Cumulative 1.663; Term 1.628 o As a reference, the DREAM students began the Fall 2015 semester with an

average cumulative GPA of 1.750, which contributed to their lack of success in regard to their average GPA and academic standing since they did not start at a 0.000 baseline as an incoming freshmen.

o Academic status (good standing, probation, dismissed)

Good standing 7

Probation 17

Dismissed 0

Impact Evaluation

Stated in qualitative and quantitative measurable terms o 17 students fell in the below-average range for cumulative GPA. o 7 students fell in the middle range for cumulative GPA. o 0 students fell in the above-average range for cumulative GPA.

Surveys – data collection methods, data sources, analysis procedures, results o Utilization of the CAAS services by the DREAM students was monitored through

Accutrack, with which data could be pulled on a regular basis. o HawkWeb was used to collect data on term/cumulative GPA, credit hours, academic

standing, and demographic information.


P a g e 59 | 73

o Surveys were administered through SurveyMonkey following each scheduled academic coaching session at the start of the semester, after midterm exams, and at the end of the semester. The data, charts, and verbal summaries are attached in spreadsheets.

Discussion of results – what changes were students expected to demonstrate as a result of services provided, and what were the outcomes.

o Expectations Students were expected to utilize the skills learned in the workshops, tutoring

sessions, and courses to more effectively learn and communicate in their courses and with their professors.

Students were expected to adapt at a more rapid pace to the university’s campus and learning environment.

Students were expected to be more prepared for ENGL 101 and their math course as a result of their Fundamentals of English and Math 101 course.

o Results After taking a Fundamental English course during the summer program, 20 of

the DREAM students passed their ENGL 101 course with a ‘C’ or better. Four are retaking it in the Spring 2016 semester.

After taking MATH 101 during the summer program in which 15 passed and nine had to retake it Fall 2015, out of the nine who had to retake MATH 101, two passed; five failed, two withdrew and are retaking it Spring 2016.

Out of the 15 who passed MATH 101 in the summer: o Five passed their math course (MATH 102 or 109) with a “C” or

better o Two withdrew from MATH 102 o Seven failed MATH 109 and one withdrew

From the above results it should be concluded that the DREAM students, who did not initially meet admissions criteria, would have benefited from a fundamental math course in the summer program instead of a college-level MATH 101 course. The low pass rate also started the DREAM students off with a below average cumulative GPA (1.750) for the Fall 2015 semester and made it more difficult to remain in good academic standing. The high passing rate for ENGL 101 for the DREAM students further illustrates the point that they benefited from a fundamental level course to help them build a strong foundation in the subject.

50% of the DREAM students identified "Time Management" as their biggest challenge for their first semester, and 41.7% identified "A specific course" as their biggest challenge as illustrated by the two charts below. Their ability to reflect and identify those specific challenges speaks to time they spent in the workshops in the summer program and their level of self-awareness in regard to their specific challenges.


P a g e 60 | 73

Figure 24. Students’ response to biggest challenge in percentages.

Figure 25. Students’ response to biggest challenge.

Strengths, Weaknesses, Recommendations

Strengths o Established support system in CAAS in the form of academic coaching and tutoring o Pre-scheduled progress update meetings throughout the semester o Extensive data on the student cohort o DREAM students who are in good academic standing are ahead of the average

freshman. o Blackboard site with resources they can access 24/7

The DREAM handbook A list of campus resources Important contact information

Re sp o nse

Pe rce nt

Re sp o nse

Co unt

41.7% 10

8.3% 2

50.0% 12

0.0% 0

24

0

Wha t d o yo u v ie w a s yo ur b ig g e st cha lle ng e this se me ste r?

Other (please specify)

A specific course(s)

sk ip p e d q ue stio n

Time management

Answe r Op tio ns

a nswe re d q ue stio n

Family and/or employment obligations


P a g e 61 | 73

Important announcements Survey distribution

o Intrusive advising and academic coaching from their program coordinator o A close and well-bonded learning community established on a common goal o All instruction and tutoring held in a centralized location in the Center for Access

and Academic Success, and students have access to the center’s other resources o The students had the opportunity to acclimate to the campus environment prior

to starting a semester with a full load of classes

Weaknesses o Students were underprepared when admitted to the DREAM program, and the

short time span was not adequate for them to catch up o There is not a central academic advisor; the program coordinator does not have

the authority to activate them and officially advise them o Low GPA’s first semester o 70% of students on probation o Lack of student replies to e-mails; poor accountability and initiative

Future Programing Projections

Cumulative GPA’s for the cohort will improve due to higher attendance in tutoring, an increased level of experience, and, for the probation students, the FOCUS group and its components.

Hold a group session during the first week of classes to review progress, tutoring schedule. Have them identify tutors to meet their needs, campus resources (hours etc.), milestones for the semester, emphasize accountability, communication and advocating for themselves

Introduce a strong student mentor for the DREAM students

Monitor the students who are in the FOCUS program closely for tutoring hours and workshops

Empower the students to calculate GPA, monetary consequences of poor academic performance, perform the basic actions to keep themselves on track and accountable

Have students, mentors, and tutors sign up for the text reminder program

Have one central advisor for all students in the program Accomplishments

83% of the DREAM students passed ENGL 101 with a “C” or better

There was a 79% progression rate of DREAM students attending from the Fall 2015 semester to Spring 2016.

142 academic coaching sessions for the DREAM students for the Fall 2015 semester


P a g e 62 | 73

General Studies

Mrs. Tselate Talley, Academic Advising Coordinator/Coach

Introduction General Studies/Undeclared Academic Advising The General Studies/Undeclared Academic Advising is based on the following objectives: to provide advising services and programs to facilitate students’ academic and professional planning, exploration, and informed decision-making; to maintain a student-centered learning environment to positively impact students’ academic success, retention, degree progression, and graduation. In so doing, one group of students is appropriately equipped to declare a major, while the other group can meet the Business department’s admission requirements and progress toward their degree program.

There are two groups of students that are served under General Studies/Undeclared Academic Advising: Group I – General Studies: comprised of students who plan to major in business but have not met departmental requirements. Academic advising for these students entails helping them select the relevant general education requirements for admission to their Business degree program. Other support provided to this group of students involves referral to resources such as CAAS tutoring services, Writing Center assistance, and the Counseling Center, as needed. Group II – Undeclared: comprised of students who have not declared a major and require guidance in doing so. Advisement for this group entails providing them with appropriate information, based on their personal and professional aspirations that would help them decide on the appropriate degree program. Referral to resources aimed at helping students declare a major is also provided to this group. The resources for this group are similar to those for group I and also include referral to the Career and Professional Development center.

Commitment to advising outcomes, best practices, and innovation for both of these groups involves collaboration with various campus personnel and peers. Students are also empowered to connect with their academic environment to positively contribute to their college experience through peer mentoring. Advising activities for all students include: course planning, registration, campus resource referrals, major career exploration, academic policies, regulations, and petitions awareness. Special Issues Description of special issues is based on student-identification and is as follows: personal, financial, and family problems presented a challenge to the successful accomplishment of their academic goals; financial issues range from inability to purchase necessary books/course materials to tuition payment. For others, lack of financial and emotion support from parents also


P a g e 63 | 73

played a role; a parent’s sudden illness presented emotional and financial challenges, and health holds prevented on-time enrollment or continuance for others. Collaborative Efforts In order to meet academic advising goals for student success, students are connected with the Career and Professional Development Center, faculty in their appropriate department, and CAAS tutors. Collaborative effort with Residence Life involved the coordination of reaching out to RAs and area directors when students were non-responsive to phone calls and email communication. Implementation Evaluation Implementation evaluation objectives include ensuring that the personal and academic needs of students are met based on issues they have identified; addressing academic and attendance deficiencies as identified by faculty and academic advisor‘s observation of students’ grade report with a view to improve academic outcome and prevent academic probation. In focusing advisement on utilizing the most appropriate remedies for students’ deficiencies/challenges, it is anticipated that students’ academic status would reflect the final outcome of such effort. Total Number of Students Seen A total of 135 students were seen. Purpose for Visit Purpose of visit includes academic advising, review of midterm grades, completing change of major forms. Student Outcomes 1.99 & below 27 students 2.00 – 2.99 52 students 3.00 – 4.00 27 students Average GPA 2.46 Academic status: 79 students were in good standing; 27 on probation Impact Evaluation 74% of students seen are in good academic standing i.e. have >=2.00 Cum GPA. Of the 135 General Students/Undeclared students seen, 61 declared majors. Surveys – Data Collection Methods, Data Sources, Analysis Procedures, Results


P a g e 64 | 73

Data sources are Accutrack, HawkWeb and Microsoft Office Excel Discussion of Results Undeclared students were expected to declare a major within a specific timeframe while General Studies students were expected to meet the Business department admission requirements for acceptance into their specific degree programs. Of the 135 students seen, 43 of them declared majors, while 18 met the Business department’s admission requirements. Strength, Limitations, Recommendations Strengths: Students receive personal and holistic advisement. The academic advisor was able to provide students with the relevant assistance/referrals to positively affect their overall outcome. Limitations: Limited financial resources--students are unable to complete their academic careers due to lack of funds; students’ inability to pay back bills and/or pass their courses results in drop out/stop out or academic probation. Recommendations: All incoming freshmen should be mandated to utilize the Career and Professional Development Center’s Career Software and Development Tools to help them see the relationship between their professional aspirations and their academic pursuits. This awareness may decrease the number of undecided students and make them more goal-oriented. Accomplishments 61 students declared a major; 79 students are in good standing Future Programming Projections Improve the current status of the 21 students currently on academic probation to impact retention goal. Decrease the number of students in the General Studies major by encouraging them to utilize math tutoring at the beginning of the semester instead of waiting until midterm. This approach can result in early placement in their Business majors. For undecided students and incoming freshmen, refer them early in the semester to the Career and Professional Development Center website’s Career Software and development tools prior to Enrollment 101, to help them decide on a major.


P a g e 65 | 73

Early Alert Program

The Early Alert program is a retention tool to improve students’ persistence and promote survival

skills. It is defined as a formal, proactive, feedback system through which students and student-

support agents (Coaches/Advisors) are alerted to early warnings. Faculty are asked to use the

“Early Alert Referral Form” in an effort to be proactive, supportive, and involved in facilitating

the academic components of student retention. Faculty awareness of potential student problems

constitutes the backbone of an early alert program. Through the Early Alert program, faculty

contribute directly to retention by assisting with the early detection and intervention of students

who are doing poorly in class, chronically absent from class, or experiencing other kinds of

problems that affect academic performance. These are students who need additional guidance

or academic support services to assist them towards a successful completion of their classes.

Such behaviors could serve as signals for detecting students who are at risk for academic failure

or who intend to withdraw from the institution:

Class attendance (never attended, tardiness, excessive absenteeism, sudden drop in

attendance)

Academic performance (academic difficulty, failed exam, missing assignments, low

test/quiz scores, class percentages at or below 70)

Tutoring needs

Behavioral (disruptive, failing to respect the rights of other students, lack of

participation/motivation)

Initiated Fall 2015, the process encompassed

CAAS acknowledging submission within two workdays

CAAS making initial contact with the student via email

Faculty members copied on the initial email to students

Coaches/Advisors meeting with students to address critical concerns, create a success

plan, and engage students in the use of pertinent campus resources

It is imperative to note the Early Alert Program does not serve as a replacement for good

classroom management, nor are we disciplinary in nature. We have developed a set of best

practices for using the Early Alert Program to help students be successful.

The Early Alert Program works best when used early! Submissions in the first few weeks

of class are most likely to result in a successful outcome for students.

We encourage faculty to inform the student(s) of the nature of their concern(s) and that

they will be submitting an Early Alert Referral.

The Early Alert Program should be included on the syllabus.


P a g e 66 | 73

During the fall of 2015, 17 students were seen as a result of 171 student referrals made by 35

faculty members, comprising 39 academic courses. It is important to note that three faculty

members sent a complete class roster, and students’ failure to respond to multiple

communication attempts resulted in the low response rate of students seen. The analysis by

academic schools is as follows:

School of Agriculture & Natural Sciences 22 student referrals: ANPT 223 BIOL 103 BIOL 111 CHEM 101

CHEM 111 CHEM 498 FMCT 203 FMCT 321

School of Arts & Professions 106 student referrals:

ART 101 ENGL 101 ENGL 102 ENGL 206

ENGL 302 ENGL 325 FREN 101 HIST 201

HIST 350 SOCI 101 SOSC 100 TELC 214

School of Business & Technology 27 student referrals:

ACCT 201 AVSC 112 AVSC 131 CMTE 201

CMTE 205 CSDP221 CSDP222 EDTE 111

EDTE 211 EDTE 216 ETEE 288 MATH 101

MATH 109

School of Pharmacy & Health Professions 16 student referrals:

EXSC 111 EXSC 222 EXSC 322 EXSC 332

EXSC 355 EXSC 360

While there were numerous reasons for referral submission, the issues below indicate the most

frequently received reasons.

Excessive absenteeism

Missing assignment

Poor study skills

Poor performances on tests/quizzes

Tutoring


P a g e 67 | 73

Hawk Mentoring

The mission of the Hawk Mentoring program is to facilitate first-year students with a successful transition

into the University of Maryland Eastern Shore. Mentoring encourages and promotes the personal success

of first-year students at the university by establishing collaborative partnerships between new and upper-

class students. The Hawk Mentoring program is designed to encourage social and cultural integration,

personal growth, and academic skills development through a supportive network of experienced and

informed mentors.

During Fall 2015, 20 Hawk Mentors were assigned to 41 First-Year Experience (FYE) sections. Mentors provided 1092 contact hours with first-year students in the form of (individual and group emails, text messages/phone calls, visits/meetings, and referrals). At the conclusion of the semester, first-year students, as well as faculty teaching the FYE course, were asked to complete an evaluation of the program. The results of 416 student surveys indicated that (93%) of the respondents considered the Hawk Mentors added value to the First-Year Experience class, and (92%) would recommend the mentor program. In addition, 15 First-Year Experience instructors completed an online assessment of five questions via SurveyMonkey of the Hawk Mentor Program. Respondents reported that they strongly agreed or agreed that mentors acted as role-models to first-year students (67%), mentors provided valuable university information to students (74%), mentors contributed time and effort to students’ needs (67%), mentors added value to the first-year experience class (67%), and that they would recommend the mentor program (66%). Instructors were also asked two-open ended questions: “what did you like most about the Hawk Mentor Program” and “what recommendations would benefit the program.” Below are some representative quotes from instructor responses.

What did you like most about the Hawk Mentor Program?

“Great Liaison with the students. Useful information added to lecture from a successful upper classman's

view.”

“The mentor was always extremely pleasant, helpful, and a great resource for the class.”

“It allowed upperclassmen students the opportunity to interact with incoming freshmen as a leader in a

classroom setting.”

“The bond that Hawk Mentors will build with the students inside and outside of the classroom.”

“The ability of the Mentor to provide advice from a student's perspective and also on issues like the housing

deposit.”

“My mentor was always present. In addition, she provided my students with some very useful remainders

of key activities, such as: registration, drop/add period, and cultural events.”

What recommendations would benefit the program?

“Provide communication for contact early in semester. Select mentors from the same major for the

freshman class so that they can share their experiences about their field and help to tutor these new

students in undergraduate major courses. This is a need which we could not meet this semester.”


P a g e 68 | 73

“I would recommend this student to train future mentors.”

“I would recommend the hawk mentor be from the discipline of the first year experience class, such as an

art major for an art class.”

“Have two in each class! It would be great if they met once a week with the faculty and once a week with

the mentor.”

Table 19. UMES Hawk Mentor Program-STUDENT Survey Results-Fall 2015

UMES Hawk Mentor Program Students Survey Strongly

Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree N/A Total

The mentors made themselves available 216 181 6 4 9 416

The mentors provided valuable University information 232 168 5 1 10 416

The mentors hold a positive image 224 165 1 1 25 416

The mentors added value to the first-year-experience class 190 196 11 4 15 416

I would recommend the mentor program 222 164 4 5 21 416

UMES Hawk Mentor Program Students Survey Strongly


The mentors were available to answer your questions 52% 44% 1% 1% 2% 100%

The mentors provided valuable University information to students 56% 40% 1% 0% 2% 100%

The mentors hold a positive image 54% 40% 0% 0% 6% 100%

The mentors added value to the first-year-experience class 46% 47% 3% 1% 4% 100%

I would recommend the mentor program 53% 39% 1% 1% 5% 100%

UMES Hawk Mentor Program-FACULTY Survey Results-Fall 2014

UMES Hawk Mentor Program Faculty Survey Strongly


The mentors acted as role-models to first year students. 7 3 1 3 1 15

The mentors provided valuable University information to students. 7 4 1 2 1 15

The mentors contributed time and effort to students' needs. 6 4 1 3 1 15

The mentors added value to the first-year-experience class. 7 3 1 3 1 15

I would recommend the mentor program. 5 5 1 3 1 15

UMES Hawk Mentor Program Faculty Survey Strongly


The mentors acted as role-models to first year students. 47% 20% 7% 20% 7% 100%

The mentors provided valuable University information to students. 47% 27% 7% 13% 7% 100%

The mentors contributed time and effort to students' needs. 40% 27% 7% 20% 7% 100%

The mentors added value to the first-year-experience class. 47% 20% 7% 20% 7% 100%

I would recommend the mentor program. 33% 33% 7% 20% 7% 100%


P a g e 69 | 73

Workshops Series

This section presents a summary of the results of the evaluation forms completed by student

participants of the Fall 2015 workshop series.

As a snapshot:

10 workshops were provided covering various topics:

Critical Reading Strategies

Goal Setting

Sharpening Your Study Skills/Time Management

Overcoming Test Anxiety

Emotional Intelligence

What is Considered a Man

Career Planning

A Successful End to Things

Overcoming Test Anxiety

“Hands Up, Don’t Shoot”

281 students participated in the workshops series

245 student evaluations were completed

Using a three-point Likert scale, students significantly agreed that the workshops were well

organized; the facilitators were very friendly and respectful; the material covered was meaningful

and useful; their overall experience was favorable; and that they would recommend the

workshops to a friend.

Fall 2015 Workshop Participation Evaluations

Critical Reading Strategies 9-28/6 pm Mari-jo Ulbricht There were 8 Total Participants; 7 Completed Evaluations

1 Eval Subject Agree 7 100% Agree Neutral 0 0% Neutral 86% of

participants Identified one learning point

2 Eval Subject Agree 7 100% Agree Neutral 0 0% Neutral 29% of participants

commented and commented favorably to the workshop


disagreed with any item of the workshop

4 Eval Subject Agree 7 100% Agree Neutral 0 0% Neutral



P a g e 70 | 73

Goal Setting 10-20/11 am Michael Taylor There were 23 Total Participants; All Completed Evaluations


Identified one learning point


commented and commented favorably to the workshop; 4% responded unfavorably





Sharpening Your Study Skills/Time Management 11-03/11 am Angela L. Williams There were 35 Total Participants; All Completed Evaluations









Overcoming Test Anxiety 11-5/11 am Lakeshia Harris There were 31 Total Participants; 30 Completed Evaluations









P a g e 71 | 73


Emotional Intelligence 11-12/11 am Cousins, Reagan, Taylor There were 51 Total Participants; 44 Completed Evaluations 1 Eval Subject Agree 40 91% Agree Neutral 4 9% Neutral Disagree 0

Disagree 0% 75% of participants Identified one learning point

2 Eval Subject Agree 44 100% Agree Neutral 0 0% Neutral Disagree 0

Disagree 0% 30% of participants commented and commented favorably to the

workshop


Disagree 0%


Disagree 0%


Disagree 2%

What is Considered a Man 11-12/11 am Andrew Webb There were 11 Total Participants; 10 Completed Evaluations




commented to the workshop






P a g e 72 | 73

Career Planning 11-19/11 am Juliana Reagan There were 39 Total Participants; 33 Completed Evaluations









A Successful End to Things 12-01/11 am Angela L. Williams There were 20 Total Participants; 16 Completed Evaluations

1 Eval Subject Agree 11 69% Agree Neutral 3 19% Neutral Disagree 2 12%

Disagree 100% of participants Identified one learning point

2 Eval Subject Agree 16 100% Agree Neutral 0 0% Neutral 25% of

participants commented positively to the workshop




Overcoming Test Anxiety 12-03/11 am Jonathan Blackmon There were 45 Total Participants; 34 Completed Evaluations









P a g e 73 | 73

"Hands Up, Don’t Shoot" 12-10/11 am Myles Banks There were 18 Total Participants; 13 Completed Evaluations









Center for access and academic success Reports... · CENTER FOR ACCESS AND ACADEMIC SUCCESS...

Documents

Transcript of Center for access and academic success Reports... · CENTER FOR ACCESS AND ACADEMIC SUCCESS...