Success of Conditionally Admitted Students 1

SUCCESS OF CONDITIONALLY ADMITTED STUDENTS 1

Student Success of Conditionally Admitted Students at Indiana State University

Sarah Naji and Emily Severeid

Indiana State University

SAHE 651- Program Evaluation

November 18, 2013

Table of Contents

Executive Summary3

Overview of Study4

Methods5

Participants5

Procedures7

Results7

Average GPA and Retention7

Ethnicity8

Residence Life14

LEAP v Conditionally Admitted Students17

Limitations19

Discussion and Conclusion19

References 22

Executive Summary

This program evaluation focuses on the success of conditionally admitted students at Indiana State University during the 2012-2013 academic year. We examined student success through assessing demographics of ethnicity, Pell Grant status, LEAP program participation, and living arrangements. Our findings suggest that LEAP students perform better than the overall conditionally admitted students on campus. We also suggest there to be more programming for conditionally admitted students between the fall and spring semesters since GPA’s dropped drastically during the spring semester.

Overview of Study

This paper will examine conditionally admitted first time, full time, bachelor’s degree seeking (FTFTBDS) students who entered Indiana State University (ISU) in the Fall of 2012. All of our assessment data will be based on conditionally admitted students who were apart of the Academic Opportunity Program (AOP), which is now called Sycamore Academy. These students are conditionally admitted to Indiana State for several reasons including low high school GPA, SAT/ACT scores, and other mitigating factors. Out of the conditionally admitted students there are a small percentage selected for the Learn Engage Achieve Persist (LEAP) Program. This program takes conditionally admitted students and brings them to ISU during the summer before their freshman year. This program enrolls them in ENG 101 and UNIV 101 and they must earn C’s in both classes in order to attend ISU during the fall semester.

We will look at all conditionally admitted students to see at what rates they are retained to the Spring of 2013 and to the Fall of 2013. We will also look at their overall GPA’s at the end of each semester. Within the factors of semester to semester retention and GPA we will be looking at varying demographics such as gender, ethnicity, Pell Grant status, 21st Century Scholar status, LEAP participation, and living arrangements. We will also be looking at some social factors including satisfaction with living arrangements and making connections with peers.

Interested parties for our evaluation include the Center for Student Success, who oversees the Academic Opportunity Program, as well as Enrollment Management who admits conditionally admitted students. Another interested party includes Residential Life who houses a great percentage of FTFTBDS conditionally admitted students and who has the ability to help facilitate academic programming and outreach within residence halls. Others interested parties may be identified at a later date.

This information will prove valuable in helping to evaluate what pre-determined factors help or hinder student success in conditionally admitted students. After evaluating which factors lead students to be the most successful we can better assess who our most at risk students are at Indiana State University and attempt to reach out to them in a campus wide effort to retain them.

Methods

Participants

Three hundred and thirty three undergraduates (157 female, 176 male) were pulled for this data assessment because they were conditionally admitted for the Fall of 2012 and a part of the Academic Opportunity Program at Indiana State University.

Gender / Count / Percent
Female / 157 / 47.1%
Male / 176 / 52.9%

Out of 333 students 149 were White, 141 were African American, 22 were Multiple Race/Ethnicity, 17 were Hispanic, 3 chose not to disclose, and 1 student was Asian. All of this data was self-reported by the students.

Race/Ethnicity / Count / Percent
African American / 141 / 42.3%
Asian / 1 / 0.3%
Hispanic / 17 / 5.1%
Multiple Race/Ethnicity / 22 / 6.6%
Not Reported / 3 / 0.9%
White / 149 / 44.7%
Total / 333 / 100.0%

Out of the 333 students 221 were Pell Grant recipients. Pell Grant recipients receive money from the federal government, which does not have to be repaid, in order to attend college. These students must meet certain financial criteria determined by a formula that the federal government produces in order to obtain Pell eligibility. This formula uses data from the student’s Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) and pulls data from the Expected Family Contribution (EFC), cost of attendance at desired school, enrollment status at school, and attendance for a full academic year (U.S. Department of Education, Federal Pell Grant Program, 2012).

Pell Grant Recipient / Count / Percent
Yes / 221 / 66.4%
No / 112 / 33.6%

Out of 333 students, 133 were a part of the LEAP program. These students attended Indiana State during the summer before their first semester in college. These students took an ENG 101 and UNIV 101 course to help prepare for the college environment. They had to pass both courses with a C in order to attend Indiana State in the Fall of 2012.

LEAP / Count / Percent
Yes / 133 / 39.9%
No / 200 / 60.1%

Out of 333 students, 79 were a part of the 21st Century Scholars Program. This is a program for Indiana residents only. Students must sign up prior to attending high school and have qualifying factors such as both parents not earning a college degree. This program pays for tuition for four years at any public institution in the state of Indiana. Students must meet certain milestones of growth and achievement in GPA and credit hours each semester in order to continue to receive the scholarship.

21st Century Scholars / Count / Percent
Yes / 79 / 23.7%
No / 254 / 76.3%

The living environment for the 333 students used in our assessment can be seen in the table below.

Resident Hall / Count / Percent
Blumberg / 66 / 19.8%
Burford / 1 / 0.3%
Cromwell / 59 / 17.7%
Hines / 14 / 4.2%
Jones / 11 / 3.3%
Lincoln Quad / 19 / 5.7%
Mills / 79 / 23.7%
Pickerl / 1 / 0.3%
Rhoads / 45 / 13.5%
Sandison / 10 / 3.0%
Off-campus / 28 / 8.4%
Total / 333 / 100.0%

Procedures

For our assessment all the data has been pulled from ARGOS and BANNER which are the permanent record keeping systems for Indiana State University. All of this data had been uploaded previously and we enlisted the help of Christopher Childs, a Research Analyst in the Office of Student Success, to sort through the data and retrieve the information that we desired. We also utilized data from the Map-Works survey, from the Fall of 2012, again retrieved by Christopher Childs (Office of Student Success, 2013).

Results

Average GPA and Retention

Out of the 333 students analyzed the average GPA’s are as follows:

Fall GPA / Spring GPA / Cumulative GPA
2.098 / 1.88 / 2.02

Out of the 333 students analyzed the following table shows their academic standing at the end of the Fall semester of 2012.

Academic Standing / Count / Percent
Academic Dismissal / 43 / 12.9%
Good Standing / 183 / 55%
Probation / 77 / 23.1%
1st Semester Dismissal / 24 / 7.2%

Out of the 333 students analyzed the following table shows the retention rates of these students from the Fall of 2012 to the Spring of 2013 semester.

Retention / Count / Percent
Retained / 265 / 79.6%
Not Retained / 68 / 20.4%

Out of the 333 students analyzed, the following table shows the retention rates of these students from the Fall of 2012 to the Fall of 2013 semester. Overall, more half of these students (54.4%) were not retained to the Fall of 2013.

Retention / Count / Percent
Retained / 152 / 45.6%
Not Retained / 181 / 54.4%

Ethnicity

Below is the table that details the overall GPA averages by ethnicity that is broken down by Fall 2012, Spring 2013, and cumulative GPA’s. Looking at the cumulative GPA’s, students who chose not to report their ethnicity had the best overall cumulative GPA with a 2.7, followed by Hispanics with a cumulative GPA of 2.18. Overall, the two ethnicities with the lowest cumulative GPA’s include the Asian student with a 1.12 cumulative GPA and Multi Race/Ethnicity students with a 1.69 cumulative GPA.

The GPA’s for the Fall of 2012 and Spring of 2013 can be seen in the table below. When looking at the ethnicities with the most students, Whites and African Americans, the White students had the highest GPA’s each semester and overall. In addition to this data, there was an overall drop in GPA from the Fall of 2012 to the Spring of 2013 for every single ethnicity except for the students who chose not to report their ethnicity.

GPA Averages by Race and Ethnicity
Race/Ethnicity / Fall GPA / Spring GPA / Cumulative GPA
African American / 2.04 / 1.76 / 1.95
Asian / 1.54 / 0.18 / 1.12
Hispanic / 2.28 / 2.04 / 2.18
Multi Race/Ethnicity / 1.76 / 1.72 / 1.69
Not Reported / 2.01 / 2.64 / 2.70
White / 2.18 / 1.98 / 2.11

The table below lists the retention rates from the Fall of 2012 to the Spring of 2013 by ethnicity. Our findings suggest that Hispanics had the highest retention of any ethnic group, retaining 16 out of the 17 students that started. However, African Americans had the lowest retention rate, with only 110 students retuning out 141. The number of students that returned from the Fall of 2012 to the Spring of 2013 can be influenced by many factors including academic dismissal, financial ability to return, transferring out, or choosing to leave college.

Ethnicity * Official Spring 2013 Retention Crosstabulation
OfficialSpringRetention / Total
Not Retained / Retained
Ethnicity / Afri / Count / 31 / 110 / 141
% within Ethnicity / 22.0% / 78.0% / 100.0%
% within / 45.6% / 41.5% / 42.3%
% of Total / 9.3% / 33.0% / 42.3%
Asian / Count / 0 / 1 / 1
% within Ethnicity / .0% / 100.0% / 100.0%
% within / .0% / .4% / .3%
% of Total / .0% / .3% / .3%
Hispanic / Count / 1 / 16 / 17
% within Ethnicity / 5.9% / 94.1% / 100.0%
% within / 1.5% / 6.0% / 5.1%
% of Total / .3% / 4.8% / 5.1%
Multi / Count / 7 / 15 / 22
% within Ethnicity / 31.8% / 68.2% / 100.0%
% within / 10.3% / 5.7% / 6.6%
% of Total / 2.1% / 4.5% / 6.6%
Not Reported / Count / 0 / 3 / 3
% within Ethnicity / .0% / 100.0% / 100.0%
% within / .0% / 1.1% / .9%
% of Total / .0% / .9% / .9%
White / Count / 29 / 120 / 149
% within Ethnicity / 19.5% / 80.5% / 100.0%
% within / 42.6% / 45.3% / 44.7%
% of Total / 8.7% / 36.0% / 44.7%
Total / Count / 68 / 265 / 333
% within Ethnicity / 20.4% / 79.6% / 100.0%
% within / 100.0% / 100.0% / 100.0%
% of Total / 20.4% / 79.6% / 100.0%

Looking at the table below you can see the retention rates from the Spring of 2013 to the Fall of 2013. When looking at the numbers from Fall to Spring, Hispanics retained the most students, however they lost 7/17 students which is a drastic drop from their strong retention the semester prior. Even with this drop, Hispanics still retained the largest percentage of students within their ethnicity. Also, Whites had the biggest decrease in retention from the Spring of 2013 to Fall of 2013, losing an additional 50 students to bring their total to 79 students not retained. Overall both African American and White students were fairly equal in student population at the beginning of Fall 2012 and were found to retain at similar levels to the following Fall semester.

Ethnicity * OfficialFall2013Retention Crosstabulation
OfficialFall2013Retention / Total
Not Retained / Retained
Ethnicity / Afri / Count / 75 / 66 / 141
% within Ethnicity / 53.2% / 46.8% / 100.0%
% within / 41.4% / 43.4% / 42.3%
% of Total / 22.5% / 19.8% / 42.3%
Asian / Count / 1 / 0 / 1
% within Ethnicity / 100.0% / .0% / 100.0%
% within / .6% / .0% / .3%
% of Total / .3% / .0% / .3%
Hispanic / Count / 8 / 9 / 17
% within Ethnicity / 47.1% / 52.9% / 100.0%
% within / 4.4% / 5.9% / 5.1%
% of Total / 2.4% / 2.7% / 5.1%
Multi / Count / 16 / 6 / 22
% within Ethnicity / 72.7% / 27.3% / 100.0%
% within / 8.8% / 3.9% / 6.6%
% of Total / 4.8% / 1.8% / 6.6%
Not Reported / Count / 2 / 1 / 3
% within Ethnicity / 66.7% / 33.3% / 100.0%
% within / 1.1% / .7% / .9%
% of Total / .6% / .3% / .9%
White / Count / 79 / 70 / 149
% within Ethnicity / 53.0% / 47.0% / 100.0%
% within / 43.6% / 46.1% / 44.7%
% of Total / 23.7% / 21.0% / 44.7%
Total / Count / 181 / 152 / 333
% within Ethnicity / 54.4% / 45.6% / 100.0%
% within / 100.0% / 100.0% / 100.0%
% of Total / 54.4% / 45.6% / 100.0%

Of the 333 students in our analysis, 133 of them were a part of the LEAP Program. You can see the distribution of LEAP students by ethnicities in the table below. The percentage of African American to White students is consistent with the overall demographics of the conditionally admitted student population.

LEAP * Ethnicity Crosstabulation
Ethnicity / Total
African American / Asian / Hispanic / Multi / Not Reported / White
LEAP / N / Count / 84 / 1 / 9 / 11 / 2 / 93 / 200
% within LEAP / 42.0% / .5% / 4.5% / 5.5% / 1.0% / 46.5% / 100.0%
% within Ethnicity / 59.6% / 100.0% / 52.9% / 50.0% / 66.7% / 62.4% / 60.1%
% of Total / 25.2% / .3% / 2.7% / 3.3% / .6% / 27.9% / 60.1%
Y / Count / 57 / 0 / 8 / 11 / 1 / 56 / 133
% within LEAP / 42.9% / .0% / 6.0% / 8.3% / .8% / 42.1% / 100.0%
% within Ethnicity / 40.4% / .0% / 47.1% / 50.0% / 33.3% / 37.6% / 39.9%
% of Total / 17.1% / .0% / 2.4% / 3.3% / .3% / 16.8% / 39.9%
Total / Count / 141 / 1 / 17 / 22 / 3 / 149 / 333
% within LEAP / 42.3% / .3% / 5.1% / 6.6% / .9% / 44.7% / 100.0%
% within Ethnicity / 100.0% / 100.0% / 100.0% / 100.0% / 100.0% / 100.0% / 100.0%
% of Total / 42.3% / .3% / 5.1% / 6.6% / .9% / 44.7% / 100.0%

Of the 333 students we analyzed, 221 are Pell Grand eligible. The table below will show the Pell Grant status broken down by ethnicities. From these results we observe that the majority of Pell Grant receiving students are African American making up for 51.1% of all Pell Grant students. While only half of White students received Pell Grant status, over 88% of Hispanic students received the status.

Ethnicity * Pell Crosstabulation
Pell / Total
N / Y
Ethnicity / Afri / Count / 28 / 113 / 141
% within Ethnicity / 19.9% / 80.1% / 100.0%
% within Pell / 25.0% / 51.1% / 42.3%
% of Total / 8.4% / 33.9% / 42.3%
Asian / Count / 0 / 1 / 1
% within Ethnicity / .0% / 100.0% / 100.0%
% within Pell / .0% / .5% / .3%
% of Total / .0% / .3% / .3%
Hispanic / Count / 2 / 15 / 17
% within Ethnicity / 11.8% / 88.2% / 100.0%
% within Pell / 1.8% / 6.8% / 5.1%
% of Total / .6% / 4.5% / 5.1%
Multi / Count / 5 / 17 / 22
% within Ethnicity / 22.7% / 77.3% / 100.0%
% within Pell / 4.5% / 7.7% / 6.6%
% of Total / 1.5% / 5.1% / 6.6%
Not Reported / Count / 1 / 2 / 3
% within Ethnicity / 33.3% / 66.7% / 100.0%
% within Pell / .9% / .9% / .9%
% of Total / .3% / .6% / .9%
White / Count / 76 / 73 / 149
% within Ethnicity / 51.0% / 49.0% / 100.0%
% within Pell / 67.9% / 33.0% / 44.7%
% of Total / 22.8% / 21.9% / 44.7%
Total / Count / 112 / 221 / 333
% within Ethnicity / 33.6% / 66.4% / 100.0%
% within Pell / 100.0% / 100.0% / 100.0%
% of Total / 33.6% / 66.4% / 100.0%

Of the students who were Pell Grant eligible we have looked at their retention rates and average GPA by ethnicities. Looking at White and African Americans you can see that there were nearly equal percentages retained at the end of the Fall semester and there was just a slight difference in retention at the end of the Spring semester, with White students losing 4% of the total students retained. Also, the average GPA’s are nearly identical for the Fall of 2012 and they are identical for the Spring of 2013.

Race/Ethnicity by Pell Grant GPA and Retention
Race/Ethnicity / Count and % within Race/Ethnicity with Pell / FA GPA / SP GPA / Cum GPA / FA to SP Enrollment / FA to FA Enrollment
African American / 113 / 80% / 2.00 / 1.74 / 1.94 / 78% / 45%
Asian / 1 / 100% / 1.54 / 0.17 / 1.12 / 100% / 0%
Hispanic / 15 / 88% / 2.18 / 1.91 / 2.08 / 93% / 53%
Multi-Race / 17 / 77% / 1.67 / 1.77 / 1.57 / 65% / 29%
White / 73 / 49% / 2.02 / 1.74 / 1.95 / 79% / 41%

Residence Life

Out of the 333 students analyzed, 305 of them lived in some type of on-campus housing. On campus housing varies between traditional first years halls, mixed halls with first year students and upperclassmen, and halls with only upperclassmen. Some halls are also themed, such as Honors or by major. The table below details the retention by residence hall from the Fall of 2012 to the Fall of 2013.

Overall, we can see the retention rates of conditionally admitted students in upper-class halls are lower than the rates of students living in first year halls. Specifically the retention in Jones hall, where 9/11 conditionally admitted students were not retained. In Lincoln Quad 13/19 students were not retained there as well. Both of these halls lack Academic Peer Advocates (APA’s) which are placed in first year halls as an academic support service.

ResHall * OfficialFall2013Retention Crosstabulation
OfficialFall2013Retention / Total
Not Retained / Retained
ResHall / Blumberg Hall / Count / 29 / 37 / 66
% within ResHall / 43.9% / 56.1% / 100.0%
% within / 16.0% / 24.3% / 19.8%
% of Total / 8.7% / 11.1% / 19.8%
Burford Hall / Count / 0 / 1 / 1
% within ResHall / .0% / 100.0% / 100.0%
% within / .0% / .7% / .3%
% of Total / .0% / .3% / .3%
Cromwell Hall / Count / 35 / 24 / 59
% within ResHall / 59.3% / 40.7% / 100.0%
% within / 19.3% / 15.8% / 17.7%
% of Total / 10.5% / 7.2% / 17.7%
Hines Hall / Count / 7 / 7 / 14
% within ResHall / 50.0% / 50.0% / 100.0%
% within / 3.9% / 4.6% / 4.2%
% of Total / 2.1% / 2.1% / 4.2%
Jones Hall / Count / 9 / 2 / 11
% within ResHall / 81.8% / 18.2% / 100.0%
% within / 5.0% / 1.3% / 3.3%
% of Total / 2.7% / .6% / 3.3%
Lincoln Quad Hall / Count / 13 / 6 / 19
% within ResHall / 68.4% / 31.6% / 100.0%
% within / 7.2% / 3.9% / 5.7%
% of Total / 3.9% / 1.8% / 5.7%
Mills Hall / Count / 36 / 43 / 79
% within ResHall / 45.6% / 54.4% / 100.0%
% within / 19.9% / 28.3% / 23.7%
% of Total / 10.8% / 12.9% / 23.7%
NONResHall / Count / 16 / 12 / 28
% within ResHall / 57.1% / 42.9% / 100.0%
% within / 8.8% / 7.9% / 8.4%
% of Total / 4.8% / 3.6% / 8.4%
Pickerl Hall / Count / 0 / 1 / 1
% within ResHall / .0% / 100.0% / 100.0%
% within / .0% / .7% / .3%
% of Total / .0% / .3% / .3%
Rhoads Hall / Count / 30 / 15 / 45
% within ResHall / 66.7% / 33.3% / 100.0%
% within / 16.6% / 9.9% / 13.5%
% of Total / 9.0% / 4.5% / 13.5%
Sandison Hall / Count / 6 / 4 / 10
% within ResHall / 60.0% / 40.0% / 100.0%
% within / 3.3% / 2.6% / 3.0%
% of Total / 1.8% / 1.2% / 3.0%
Total / Count / 181 / 152 / 333
% within ResHall / 54.4% / 45.6% / 100.0%
% within / 100.0% / 100.0% / 100.0%
% of Total / 54.4% / 45.6% / 100.0%

We examined the Map-Works survey in regards to three key factors, social aspects, environment, and roommate relationships. All of these factors were rated by the students on a 1-7 Likert scale with 1 being “Bad” and 7 being “Good.” The table below lists the student satisfaction with the preceding factors for each residence hall on campus.

We can conclude that residence living in upper-class hall including Hines, Jones, Lincoln Quads, and Mills have the highest satisfaction with roommate relationships. Out of the other factors measured, social aspects and environment, we were unable to find any patterns that suggest a relationship between a hall and certain level of satisfaction.

LEAP v Conditionally Admitted Students

The table below shows the comparison of GPA and retention rates between the overall conditionally admitted students and LEAP students. It appears as if both performed around the same level during the fall semester but the overall conditional admitted students performed better than LEAP during the spring semester. However the LEAP students out-performed conditional admits in retention rates. It is also important to note that the LEAP students cumulative GPA includes the two summer courses they took. The LEAP program requires students to receive a C or higher in their courses over the summer in order to continue with enrollment at the institution. Based on this data it appears beneficial to have conditionally admitted students take courses over the summer.

Conditional Admit vs. LEAP Comparison GPA and Retention
Group / Count / FA GPA / SP GPA / Cum GPA / FA to SP Enroll / FA to FA Enroll
Conditional Admits / 200 / 2.10 / 1.97 / 1.99 / 77% / 43%
LEAP / 133 / 2.09 / 1.76 / 2.07 / 83% / 49%

*Office of Student Success includes LEAP in Total conditional Admit group in comparisons

*LEAP Students completed 2 courses in the summer which is calculated in Cum GPA

When looking at the 333 students surveyed, it is prevalent that the LEAP students had a higher percentage in good standing. With that being stated, LEAP also had a higher percentage of students who were academically dismissed after the first and second semesters at Indiana State. LEAP also had a higher percentage of students who were on academic probation, which entails earning below a 2.0 GPA their first semester.

Conditional Admit vs. LEAP Comparison Academic Standing
Group / Count / Good Standing / Probation / Student Dismissed / Academic Dismissal
Count % / Count % / Count % / Count %
Conditional Admits / 200 / 108 / 54% / 45 / 23% / 17 / 8% / 24 / 12%
LEAP / 133 / 75 / 56% / 32 / 25% / 7 / 5% / 19 / 14%

*Office of Student Success includes LEAP in Total conditional Admit group in comparisons

*Student Dismissed represents students who are academically dismissed after the first semester

*Students who withdrew before grading do not have an academic standing n=6

When comparing MAP-Works factors between conditionally admitted students and LEAP students their overall scores are similar. LEAP students show a lower level of commitment to the institution which is notable since they have spent more time on campus. It should not be surprising that LEAP students scored higher in peer connections as they had more time to develop relationships with their peers over the summer during the LEAP program. There is a difference in satisfaction between both groups with conditional admits scoring higher satisfaction.

Limitations

Some limitations of this study include time, enrollment factors, and cross referencing data with other schools. Due to the time restraints of a short-term project we did not have a lot of time to gather data from multiple years. As student enrollment rates have increased each year the conditionally admitted students may be coming in with different expectations, various ethnicities, more first generation students, and different academic rigors. For future research we would recommend examining these same characteristics for multiple years to verify the predictors of student success and also work with the admissions office to gather any changes to the admission criteria from each year. We would also recommend examining the students’ level of involvement throughout the year with program attendance and organizational membership. Students that are more involved on campus are more likely to be retained and it would be beneficial to examine conditionally admitted students involvement rates. In order to gain a more collective perspective we would also recommend comparing ISU’s student success factors to similar schools and programs.