The Solid Foundation to a Successful College Career Eric Davis, Chad - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

The Solid Foundation to a Successful College Career Eric Davis, Chad S. Briggs, Amy Fehr-Davis, Sara Malek, & Kathie Lorentz Academic Initiatives University Housing – Residence Life

 Freshman Interest Groups (FIGs) are designed to help freshmen:  T ransition to college,  Get connected socially and academically,  Earn higher grades,  Persist longer at the university and  Graduate

 How Students Get Involved • New, fjrst-time freshmen volunteer for a FIG that best aligns with their academic track • Between 16 and 23 FIGs have been ofgered annually since the program’s inception in 2001  Living-Learning Component  FIG students live on the same residence hall fmoor, and  T ake 2 to 4 curriculum classes together  Extra Perks  Guaranteed registration spots for high-demand courses  Early Move-in

Architecture & Interior Design FIG  Living:  Living:  Thompson Point, 2 nd Floor  Brush T owers, 10th & 11 th Steagall Hall Floors, Mae Smith Hall  Learning:  Learning:  SOC 108: Intro to  ARC 101: Intro to Design I Sociology  ARC 121: Design Comm I  PHIL 104: Ethics  HIST 101: Hist of World  UNIV 101: New Student Civ I Seminar  SPCM 101: Intro to Oral Comm

 Archival Data (2001 – 2005)  Archival GPA & retention data were collected from fall 2001 through spring 2006 for the 2001-2005 cohorts  Quasi-Experiment (2005)  GPA & retention data were collected from fall 2005 through spring 2006 for 3 program groups and a comparison group in the 2005 cohort  Focus Groups (2005 – 2006)  Qualitative data were collected from FIG students in the 2005 & 2006 cohorts who participated in a series of focus groups conducted during the fall & spring semesters of their fjrst year.

Analytical Procedure  1. FIG Students in the  GPA 2001 to 2005 cohorts (N  Z-tests conducted each Semester (Fall ‘01-Spring ‘06) = 1,270)  Hochberg’s sequential  56% Male, 44% Female method was used to control  78% White, 22% African for family-wise error American  Retention & Graduation  2. All SIUC Students in Rates matched cohorts (N =  Chi-Squares conducted for the following: 14,458)  Persisted to Year 2, 3, 4, 5  58% Male, 42% Female and 6  66% White, 22% African  Graduated by Year 4 and 5 American

Quasi-Experimental Groups Freshman Interest FIGs Nested on AEFs 1. 3. Groups (FIGs)  All FIG students living  All FIG students (N = 234) on an AEF (N=51)  53% Male, 47% Female  82% Male, 18% Female  62% White, 30% African  78% White, 12% African American American Academic Emphasis 2. Comparison Group 4. Floors (AEFs)  Random sample of SIUC  Random sample of AEF students (N=237) students (N=147)  54% Male, 46% Female  67% Male, 33% Female  57 % White, 33%  64% White, 22% African African American American

Analytical Procedure  GPA  Retention Rates  Repeated measures  Logistic Regression ANCOVA with Post-  DV = Persistence to Year 2 hoc single-semester  IVs = 4 Quasi- ANCOVAs and LSD experimental Groups tests (dummy-coded)  DV = semester GPAs  CVs = ACT, HS Rank, (fall ‘05, spring ‘06) Gender, Ethnicity  IVs = 4 Quasi- experimental Groups  CVs = ACT, HS Rank, Gender, Ethnicity

Analytical Procedure  2005: Analyzed all  2005: 11 focus groups (8 in fall, 3 in spring) data  Demographics not collected  2006: Analyzed data  2006: 9 Focus Groups (6 from 6 representative in fall, 3 in spring) groups  N=114 (53% Female, 73%  N=67 (54% Female, White, 24% African 76% White, 21% African American) American)  Script  A thematic open-  2005: 11 Q’s in fall; 13 in coding technique was spring used to analyze  2006: 14 Q’s in fall; 15 in students’ statements spring

 Living  Learning  Can go next door to get  Eat, walk to class help with homework Q’s together  Study groups easily  Feel more comfortable formed participating in class,  See others working; especially in speech reminded of, and class motivated to do own  Perception that grades homework are better as a result  Wake up others in the of their participation in morning to go to the FIG program class(accountability)  Get notes/assignments for those who miss class

 Early-Move-In  Social Involvement  Avoid crowds on  Network provides regular Move-In Day; opportunities for get oriented to getting involved in campus with others in campus activities and FIG events  Network provides  Social Network opportunities to “hang Development out”, go out to eat, go  Meet people, form shopping and other bonds and make fun social activities friends quickly

 FIG students have signifjcantly higher GPAs during the 1 st year & 4 th semester, but have lower GPAs than Comparison students in the 4 th year.  African American and Male students tend to benefjt more from the program during the fjrst year than White & female students, respectively, but the GPA advantages persist longer for the latter two groups.  There were no signifjcant difgerences between FIG and non- FIG students in terms of their respective persistence and graduation rates.  Caveat: Complete data were available only for the pilot program cohort (2001), and even the GPA difgerences were small for this cohort. Thus, more data are needed before arriving at a conclusion regarding the FIG program’s efgect on persistence and graduation rates at SIUC.

 Although there were large difgerences in 1 st and 2 nd semester GPAs between FIG students (i.e., those in the FIG or FIG-AEF groups) and Comparison students, the introduction of controls (ACT, HS Rank, Gender and Ethnicity) eliminated these difgerences, suggesting that the initial difgerences were due to difgerential program selection (i.e., students more likely to perform well in school were also more likely to join a FIG).  The longitudinal trends observed in the archival data (i.e., high initial GPAs, subsequent GPA decreases in 2 nd and 3 rd semesters, and then gradual increases in GPA through year 4), however, suggest that the FIG program is effjcacious even if there difgerential selection exists.  Further research is needed to determine how much of the initial GPA difgerences are due to the program and difgerential selection, respectively.

 The 2001-2005 archival data suggest that the FIG program yields considerable benefjts for participating students, and that these difgerences are initially largest for African Americans and males, but persist longer for Whites and females.  Yet, the introduction of controls in the 2005 Quasi-Experiment wipes out these GPA “benefjts,” and calls the archival results into question (i.e., Are initial GPA difgerences due to the program or difgerential selection?).  The longitudinal GPA patterns for the 2001-2005 cohorts, however, add plausibility to the contention that the FIG program is ofgering academic benefjts to SIUC students.  Furthermore, results from the focus groups support this contention with the majority of students citing academic (and social) advantages of participating in a FIG.  Finally, there appears to be no persistence or graduation rate benefjts associated with the FIG program at SIUC, but the data are limited, and further research will be needed before these questions can be adequately answered.

 Davis, E., Briggs, C. S., Fehr-Davis, A. N., Malek, S., & Lorentz, K. (2009). Freshman Interest Groups: The solid foundation to a successful college career . Poster presented at the annual conference on The First-Year Experience, Orlando, Fl.

 For further information, please contact:  Chad Briggs (briggs@siu.edu, 618-453-7535)  Eric Davis (endavis@siu.edu, 618-453-7535)  Kathie Lorentz (klorentz@siu.edu 618-453- 7993)