him "‘ WM‘}. V ‘J 3.: ' ‘ 7E; #33:" - ~— 1... .24.. -5? » 15—. ”agar ' g .. VJ. ‘e~ ’ “:4 ' V , 2’” 45¢ ; 4.3:: 397.1... . ‘ “Lgfil , 3:? A [E I: a} V h {3:2 F’: 23-. ~5 Eff 2"»‘3': A .2.- M235 '3’ I“ 1‘ new 1: Jigs: 4 w A I}. , 1 a; if 4 d l _ J A An "3315» . ., , 1:1 :2: i=3: ‘ ~ «3‘ L.’L.‘-‘ .4 . ‘ war-#2:. , I '| *~ I . z. #431: ‘ ' , ‘tat. v—gw '2, A ,3. A- ”£111 "h l l' mu mm 3:22:92 3 m 5m 0“; raw“ 2. ‘ "MAJ. r-‘ a .. “7 A4“. . ' '~. ». 94“.— A “35: Mifirfl-vzg .-.r-r J. - - A ~m§£¢ -_ .r A ‘~‘ If." " ‘ J fi‘—Lfim w- r,- ‘ .4 A 1.... 4" 4.1x ':.: ~13, , .... ..¢. . .. , fut—.73: . a. __ 43...» 1r~ i .v -43.; 5. 5-5 «2-3.— EA "5—3; ‘ 215$ng . it? 2§‘*'”” ”la. J n J 12‘: 1.191 ' ‘1]! we? . g; m M43311 » C5111 I, 3 , I,‘ .. w .1 Hfigfléflf We ‘ ’3‘ 1‘ ‘3 my? 2 ”W .Z-.‘. 1: .25 , .‘ "W. 731.. . "'-"’;';¢' 7 , '- .A 12:".2 A. $134.35 4%." '— . . -‘ '— -7...- KZ“ 4- ‘fltg..., A ;..,.- 1.45:“ H ’ 3:...” flu”? ”rt; . AA =__,A < .‘ ~ J“... 4- 251-525‘ 5: ‘ ....~;‘ 1. :‘ 1 us fl :3} 1 3' .2; ,3 95,1»? fig“; 41 :3 a j... "‘3‘“??? i m , 3 Aw .. 5;» z! ,1 . .1“ 4,61%: . r v‘ .‘afif‘m . “J ‘iflmifi‘r‘ fl .1 - '1 . ...... ‘ A ‘95:? W ...1::-" ,...- &” f : Ml 9% S a: 9 2 at. A “I ‘15" A (-24. in. .. u ‘ 11;“ i j .491 ,- ' L 1.9.. ‘71}Ffunts \l!‘ ’z‘x .. ' Mg; :m‘ ‘! , L “A; w 4 2 ML, , $381: *1” A mg “a3 ‘ . t ' WE}? $5: 134“ I If. .gl‘fl‘l‘ ‘_ £9 1 H ' f' I‘ \ l ' 3 if?» ‘1‘} u. a, v «"- I $ . 1’f‘ W1“). 3;. I {”13 Via up ' " fighhfiz“: :E' ‘1 P 1:33 I U > o ,. A. .15". 1 w: ,5 f? " w M 1!! (IE; 'T m3: ‘.. 1 h Ax i" W a p: 3: g .'4’ ; .u‘fi Wk 4198 .liifi I", j( d . g5:- 23:1 f" jut {IN 24%;" I" 11v; 9193?:9; m .4): I ‘. ”if“: 1 .. £3- 3. H‘ ...-1' «n4.»- 1.— 5 v 3r" 1555‘ a“? 7 Wm +1 3'} ' ‘1: WV A A?“ g {*3 w I :0. z: ‘ l‘i’lu A} [3432. «.,.‘..,....:.-'*~A- ~ 7 ‘ « ‘ v 'I :4 'a A. 51 x if {32333311}? gf‘fiu. “$2353: *‘ '7;,_ a ‘s‘f‘ i .2 “A; n ‘2 at? 1‘ LI“ M ”'1'— r3.“ \ ...- &~._"2:‘::'..tt ”mat—4 .. A A e . '2 ‘..._ I 21?! “ ‘ 2'2! M ‘ ‘3 G 14-" a: r? :I #3:- "o H, .21.. h: l‘isfir 1 1.“) .. 3’ ‘5 “ 1‘» buy” ;;- :3 WW. mm H I mm} A p45??? :‘fifigfi N 1 MW- ' cl“ 111332 7 kg; I r r. j} x «#1131 .3L up :1 , "’1? U < I ’A 1” ‘ 3:». 22:5: z~ ”as. 2* :23}? ;. 51:» A a .4 " 3T )5 fib‘hflfifi lb. . Ag ‘ "I 1?! it. 11‘ ' L.“ E . 1 3313225” V. ‘ lg, 1 I i 333 A“ 1- H1. 4% E” 9:31,. A! a 1k. ‘Ll‘dfi‘gfl J, w» H w ‘u‘ 7:11 ‘i? l :1) . m 5b 73 ”a fling: 4’ a; $2,333 @3513. "q 1 3 a m. ‘M l f; .I .. ' "Wt, ’32,}, r ,»1 1‘4 ”if H I 9 ,1: 355‘" Mr; 1’15 1. ) Mr 1.2 8!};ng "if“: ‘2 'u‘i“ .3 . ‘ aging”, “ l (A ( 9M“; ‘ '4‘ ”‘9' :44 ghfifififig‘ 4 t I Ln”; .3 "In H $53301 : 1 . m - .:"‘ ‘wzrfz gs” ”"5735 - ~13: ":1. 1:: ~—~ ~—-’vo ti)" «2'1 ltfi‘i‘w i W ttf‘ 3:) #1 _1 I z 4'". :5 .- 2 ”g 11$; 3 LICK"; A“ W: M 2:1 ‘ ‘r‘ J V- Y 3', I :3 A5; I”; , 1113}*!"~J #“W‘H’ , . l J: ignf, 31" WE :Atfm‘wt I . 331} H Fr: 33 ‘ ~ A «'3' £331;- . ‘ H $ 1»; ,mmgfijsfi“ ’ ‘H’fiE'i‘fW‘RL‘ ‘ 'v1§“’¥:; .1" ‘4: q, '5’ u 1‘ l 7%, ‘ "1251 F .. .-1 M! ’t. ‘ 2.111. - "h ,‘ WNW m. 4:1: , M33. Ag:‘iqfi‘iifi‘kgigfig‘g1233;};5‘1‘ 41:53 rem. w??? »;‘ {J ”J" ‘ ‘1 4 C - 41:1 :2“- B ., LA ”fr?! 1.? 4% 4?}!1 mm . {12m ,‘ , “an”? I: ., Wtifim m 3%,, .953ng “mks ‘3 W ' a? a. ‘ re; . l w i ‘« . 3 fl ”n. 'W’ , 1 «l. : M 4 g. a'r- ,. Wm ...... 9"" gang - -- :n’unia, s .3’. ..‘r‘ ”m. ,:._.tg,:v: 1.." 5;. gfi‘glfirgva: Wm. new. r m':.i..,,3u».a.l k): i 3; r ”:04 L , fl} ’i~ ". (‘1 ‘u‘, “LEE M if . . ‘ I § ‘ix‘ ' m3 -: Eig‘Jw 7&1- . ‘- - .. 555‘ » - g‘fiik‘ . x g.- 5'“ A ' ‘ ‘ " ‘ ‘_ ‘c- . ‘1 ‘3..- $9 ., ~ ' ‘3‘ ‘C'YVM' 5‘ A;- g 3 .9 ' FWJ‘S‘“? .: a—p LIBRARY Michigan State A University mama This is to certify that the dissertation entitled IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION OF AN I'EARLY WARNING SYSTEM": AN ACADEMIC MONITORING DEVICE FOR MINORITY SOPHOMORE, JUNIOR, AND SENIOR ENGINEERING STUDENTS presented by RUTH E. BENNS has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D degreein_CQLlNSELlNfi_, EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY AND SPECIAL EDUCATION ,7 @fl. Date FEBRUARY 2, 1987 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Eq ual Opportunity Institution 0-12771 Mil" lllllllfl'llllll l VE lll'lllllllllllll L 31293 00113 8340 MSU LIBRARIES m RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. ”I Rudy f” IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION OF AN 'EARLY WARNING SYSTEM": AN ACADEMIC MONITORIMS DEVICE FOR MINORITY SOPHOWRE, JUNIOR: AND SENIOR ENGINEERING STUIINTS By Ruth E. Benns A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirenents for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling. Educational Psychology, and Special Education 1987 I‘d 4 £3432ng Copyright by RUTH E. BENNS 1987 ABSTRACT IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION OF AN 'EARLY WARNING SYSTEM": AN ACADEMIC MONITORING DEVICE FOR MINORITY son-TOMORE. JUNIOR. ANO SENIOR ENGINEERING STUDENTS By Ruth E. Benns The present research prodect was undertaken to evaluate from a formative and swnmative perspective the effectiveness of an academic monitoring device. the Early Warning System (EMS). developed by this researcher and implemented in the College of Engineering at Michigan State University (MSU) for the Engineering Equal Opportunity Program (EEOP) with minority sophomore. Junior. and senior engineering stu- dents. The formative evaluation of the ENS entailed a detailed descrip- tion of what happened during the initial development and later imple- mentation phases of the project. The smnmative evaluation included an analysis of data compiled on the overall project and conclusions drawn from that analysis. Four groups of minority engineering sophomores.‘juniors, and seniors were included in the study. Spring Term l984 and Fall Term 1984 comprised the control groups. Spring Term l985 and Fall Term l985 comprised the experimental groups and were the groups of students Ruth E. Benns who received the ENS intervention strategy generated by the students' academic advisers. The EWS was implemented Spring Term 1985. and a partial repl ica- tion of the same study occurred Fall Term 1985. Results of the data- analysis process using the .t-test and chi-square procedures on the data indicated that during the fi rst implementation. final engineering course grades of minority engineering students were not significantly higher than those of the Spring Term l984 control group. Al so during the Spring Term 1985 implementation. the ENS did not significantly affect the bottom 25% of minority engineering students participating in the study. However. Spring Term 1985 participating students. at mid-point in the term. did choose to drop significantly more courses because of possible failure than did the Spring Term control group. During the Fall Term 1985 implementation. no statistically sig- nificant difference was found in final engineering course grades. although those grades improved. There was a significant increase in the engineering-course grades of the bottom 25% of students. Finally. significantly more engineering courses were dropped Fall 1985 than were dropped Fall Term l984. The results of the statistical analysis supported the premise that the program had an effect and that there was program improvement from the first to the second implementations. To my mother. Jane R. Benns. in loving appreciation of your support and faith in nus Your encouragement throughout the years established the foundation on which this entire experience was built. ACKNGYLEIEMENTS First and foremost. I want to express my deepest appreciation to the minority engineering students served by the Engineering Equal Opportunity Program (EEOP). whom I have had the privilege of working with throughout my tenure as academic adviser for the EEOP at Michigan State University. They have enriched my life beyond belief. To the members of my doctoral committee. Drs. Gloria Smith. John Schweitzer. Lee June. and Thomas Gunnings. I extend my heart- felt thanks for their support and guidance throughout my graduate program. I will forever be grateful for Dr. Smith's unwavering confi- dence that this task would be accomplished. Special thanks are due to Dr. Schweitzer for his invaluable assistance. support. and encourage- ment during the development. design. and statistical-analysis phases of this project. Appreciation is also extended to Dr. Richard Coelho. who assisted in the research phase of the project. My deepest gratitude is extended to Dr. George Van Dusen. Assistant Dean of the College of Engineering. and Gerald Thompkins. Director of the EEOP. for having the courage and the vision to under- take the implementation of this project in the College of Engineering. vi I am deeply indebted to the College of Engineering academic advisers who participated in this project. Without their input. support. and cooperation. this investigation would not have been possible. This journey toward my doctorate degree would have been hnpossible without the professional support and guidance of Drs. William Gardner and P. J. Kennedy. I am extremely thankful to Susan Cooley for her assistance in editing and typing this document. Last. to my family. friends. and professional colleagues. I shall be eternally grateful for your support. encouragement. understanding. and inspiration. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TMLES C O O O O C O O O O I O 0 LIST OF FIGURES O O C O O O O O O O C 0 Chapter I 0 THE meEM 0 O O O O O O O O 0 Background . . . . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem . . . Need for and Importance of Major Hypotheses . . . Research Design . . Definition of Terms Overview . . . . . . II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . Past and Present Status of Nationally . . . . . the Minorities in Study . Engineering History of the Minority Engineering Effort . . . . . Current Status of the National Minority Engineering Effort . . . . . . . . . . . Past and Present Status of Minorities in the College of Engineering at Michigan State University . . . The Engineering Equal Opportunity Program in the College of Engineering at Michigan State univer51ty O O O C O O O I O O O O O 0 Academic Performance and Attrition . Attrition and Special Populations Attrition and the Minority Attrition and the Minority Academic Monitoring Summary . . . . . . . III. £11400qu 0 O O O O 0 Introduction . . . . . Major Hypotheses . . . viii Student . . Engineering 0 Student Page xii 18 19 24 29 32 35 46 47 54 55 58 59 59 60 Page Research Design . . . . . 61 Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Unit of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Methodological Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Limitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Description of the Student Population . . . . . . . . 67 Description of Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Data Collection. Entry. and Processing . . . . . . . . 72 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 IV 0 IMH EENTATION O O O O I 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O 74 Overview . . . . . . . . . 74 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Discussion of Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Difficulties in Implementati n . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Analysis of Questionnaire Responses . . . . . . . . . 113 Summary of Questionnaire Results . . . . . . . . . . 129 v0 MNYSIS OF DATA 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 130 overVIW O O O O O O O O 130 Results of Data Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 smmary O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 138 VI. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 smmary O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 142 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 REFERENCES 0 O C O O O O O O 0 O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 153 APENDIES O O 0 O O ..... O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O 18] Table 1.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 3.1 3.2 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 L IST OF TABLES Nunerical Breakdown and Status of Minority Upper- Division Admissions to the College of Engineering at MSU O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O Undergraduate and Graduate Degrees in Engineering . . . Bachelor's Degrees Granted in Engineering. 1969-1984 . MSU College of Engineering Enrollment Figures (Freshman to Senior). 1974-1986 Academic Years . . . . . . . . Number of Minority Graduates of MSU's College of Engineering. by Year and Tenn: Academic Years 1973 Through 1986 O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O I O O O 0 Top 40 Institutions Graduating Black Engineers. 1983— 1984 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Number of Engineering-Coded Courses Broken Down by Student Classification and Term . . . . . . . . . . . Early Warning System Participants' Demographic Data. Combined for Spring/Fall 1984 and Spring/Fall 1985 . Canparison of Treatment Intervention: Spring Term 1984 and spring Term 1985 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Comparison of Models Used in the pre-EWS Period (Fall Term 1984) and the EWS Poriod (Fall Term 1985) . . . Canparison of the Two EWS Implementations: Spring 1985 and F611 1985 O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Frequency With Which Professors Forwarded Progress Cards and Academic Status of Minority Engineering Students in Engineering-Coded Courses . . . . . . . . Distribution of Student Population by Mid-Term GPA . . Page 19 20 30 30 31 65 70 91 94 97 102 102 4.6 4.7 4.8 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 Number and Types of Interventions by Academic Advisers. Spring Term 1985 and Fall Term 1985 .. .. .. .. . Breakdown of Adviser Interventions. Based on the 25th Percentile Cutoff Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Numerical Breakdown of Questionnaires Distributed to and Returned by EWS Participants. Spring Term 1985 Results Results Results Results Results Results of IETest for Hypothesis 1 . . . . . . . . . of IéTest for Hypothesis 2 . . . . . of Chi-Square Analysis for Hypothesis of I-Test for Hypothesis 4 . . . . . of I-Test for Hypothesis 5 . . . . . of Chi-Square Analysis for Hypothesis xi U.) 08 Page 103 104 112 131 132 133 134 135 136 Figure 3.1 4.] 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 LIST OF FIGURES Study Design Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Steps Considered Crucial in the Initial Planning Phase of the Early Warning System . . . . . . . . . . . . How Minority Engineering Students Are Served in the College of Engineering at MSU . . . . . . . . . . . Criteria for Selecting the Target Population . . . . . The Early Warning System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Early Warning System Planning Stages . . . . . . . Sample of Canputer Card Used to Key Punch Student Enro11ment Data 0 O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Activity Chart. Guided Learning Center. Spring Term 1985 O O I O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Activity Chart. Guided Learning Center. Fall Term 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adviser Update Sheet/EEOP Early Warning System . . . . Early Warning System Adviser Report Form . . . . . . . The Early Warning System Intervention Process . . . . Early Warning System Implementation Schedule. Spring Tam 1985 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Early Warning System Implenentation Schedule. Fall Term 1985 0 0 O O O O O 0 O O O O O O 0 I O 0 O O 0 Early Warning System Activity Flow Chart. Spring Term 1985 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Early Warning System Activity Flow Chart. Fall Term 1985 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O Page 62 76 77 78 79 81 82 83 84 86 100 107 108 109 110 CHAPTER I THE PRWLEM Backgmund The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology defined engineering as: The profession in which a knowledge of the mathematical and natu- ral sciences gained by study. experience and practice is applied with judgement to develop ways to utilize. economically and with concern for the environment and society. the materials and forces of nature for the benefit of mankind. (in Red. 1984. p. 3) Since the mid-19605. increased attention has focused on the underrep- resentation of minorities in the engineering professions (Kauffman. 1980; Minor. l985; Sloan. 1974; Stonewater. l981h From a historical perspective. national concern for minority representation in engineering really began to take shape in the early 19705. In 1973. the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) convened representatives from a cross-section of disciplines including educa- tion and industry. as well as engineering. At the conclusion of that conference. these representatives. pledged complete support to the goal of a tenfold increase in minority engineering graduates within a 10-year period. Later. in 1974. the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation published a definitive text on the subject. entitled Mdnnrities.1n.EngineefiingI.A Blueprint.ior.Action. According to Kauffman (1980). the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation would become one of the largest contributors to the minority engineering effort. tuning a period of approximately 5 to 6 years. this foundation contributed as much as $15 million nationwide. Because of the work already accomplished by the NAE. this organization was selected to develop the necessary mechanisms to accomplish the goal of increased minority representation in the colleges of engineer- ing and the engineering professions throughout the United States. Kauffman further indicated that when the national minority effort began in 1974. minorities (Blacks. Hispanics. and Native Americans) comprised only 2% of the total professional engineering population. Colleges of engineering were also experiencing the same depressed percentages. In a recent article. Penick (1983) concurred with Kauffman and indicated that in 1973 minority engineering enrollments were approxi- mately 9.600 (including the University of Puerto Rico). By 1982. that figure had grown to approximately 30.000. This was due largely to funds granted by United States corporations and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. Today. approximately 14 years later. noted improvements have taken place. Far more minority students are enrolled in engineering colleges and universities in the United States. The open-door admis- sion policy has allowed many more minority young people the opportu- nity to experience the wider variety of engineering options currently available. However. the goal of a tenfold increase in college gradu- ates has not been met. Although colleges and universities are continuing to admit minority youths. these students are not graduating from engineering programs. The attrition rate among these young people remains high. The College of Engineering at Michigan State University (MSU) has been at the vanguard of the minority engineering effort. But. like many other public institutions of higher education. MSU has also experienced problems in retaining minority engineering students. For this reason. MSU and the Engineering Equal Opportunity Program (EEOP) have developed an academic monitoring device. the Early Warning Sys- tem. whose primary objective is to follow the academic progress of minority sophomore. junior. and senior engineering students. This is accomplished by obtaining mid-term progress reports from engineering professors. with follow-up intervention by the student's major aca- demic adviser. A growing body of research has indicated that academic monitoring can be an effective method of improving the academic performance of and retention rates for minority engineering students (Landis. 1976; Minor. l985; Penick. 1983. 1985). In support of this view. Penick (1985) stated that academic monitoring is an essential factor in improving the number and quality of minority engineering graduates. The research literature has supported the notion that a relation- ship exists between grade point average (GPA). class rank in high school. and persistence in college (Blanchfiel d. 1971; Bragg. 1956; Chase. 1970; Little. 1959; Morrisey. 1971; Pantos & Astin. 1968; Scan- nell. 1960; Slocum. 1956; Summerskill. 1962; Waller. 1964). In an extensive review of literature on attrition. Pantages and Creedon (1978) found that. in a majority of the studies they reviewed. GPA and class rank in high school could be used to differentiate potential dropouts from persisters. Some educators have considered academic monitoring a viable tech- nique in improving the academic performance of students in institu- tions of higher education (Goodrich. 1979; Landis. 1985; Lenning. Sauer. & Beal. 1980; Minor. 1985; Penick. 1983; Simmons. Vienneau. & Simmcms. 1979L Since monitoring affects grades. it has been con- tended that monitoring can have an indirect effect on attrition. StatementJiJhLEmblem In a study conducted at the University of Alabama in 1971. Sloan (1974) found that academic problems were a major cause of attrition from engineering programs. Forty-five percent of the survey respond- ents indicated they had withdrawn from the College of Engineering because of academic problems. 40% indicated they had withdrawn because of discord with professors and courses. 10% had withdrawn because of personal and family problems. and only 10% had withdrawn because of financial difficulties. Sixty percent of the students who did drop out reported that after leaving engineering their grades either stayed the same or improved considerably. The present research was undertaken to evaluate an academic mcmi- toring device implemented in the College of Engineering at MSU by the Engineering Equal Opportunity Program with minority sophomore. junior. and senior engineering students. The national findings have indicated that a substantial number of minority engineering students have left engineering programs because of poor academic performance. From a local standpoint. Michigan State University (MSU) and the College of Engineering have had a somewhat similar experience. For this reason. the College of Engineering and the EEOP have chosen to take a closer look at factors affecting the academic success of the minority engi- neering student. During the first twc>years of academic matriculation (freshman and sophomore years). a student interested in declaring an engineering major is considered a pre-engineering student and is a part of the lower division. When the student has earned 85 credits and achieved junior standing. he/she must apply to MSU's College of Engineering for admission to upper division and a specific engineering major. Admis- sion to upper division is based on several factors. the most critical of which. from the student's perspective. is grade point average (GPA) at the time of application. In response to affirmative-action goals. minority pre-engineering students are afforded a .5 differential at the time of application. That is. if the chemical engineering program's admission requirement is a GPA of 2.5.. a minority engineering student would be required to have a 2.9. or better to be admitted to that major. The College of Engineering at MSU has contended that the lower GPA admission require- ment might attract more minority students to engineering. increase minority representation in upper-division engineering majors. and ultimately increase minority professional representation in the field of engineering. If a student meets the GPA admission requirement. other things being equal. he/she is admitted to upper division and to the chosen engineering major. However. if the student is refused admission. based on the criteria discussed earlier. he/she must then apply to another college at MSU with a lower GPA admission requirement. Table 1.1 details the number of minority pre-engineering students who applied to the College of Engineering from Winter Term 1984 through Fall Term 1986. upon earning 85 credits. These data do not include the number of pre-engineering minority students who were to reach 85 earned credits but changed majors before applying because of failure to meet GPA admission requirements. The term "appl ied" indi- cates the number of students who completed an application for review by the College of Engineering andlnet the minimum criteria for appli- cation to the college. "Refused" refers to the number of students who were denied admission to the College of Engineering's upper division and an engineering majcnu "Admitted" refers to the number of students who met the admission requirements of GPA. and so on. and were accepted into the College of Engineeringks upper division as engineer- ing majors. I From Winter Term 1984 through Fall Term 1986. the number of students who applied to the College of Engineering fluctuated. The largest number of students (17) applied Winter Term 1984. From Winter Term 1984 through Fall Term 1985. there was an increase in the percentage of minority students refused admission to upper division because of poor grades. as shown in Table 1.1. However. there was a slight reversal of this trend for the four terms included in 1986. In almost all cases during that period. the number of minority students admitted to the College of Engineering decreased. The one exception is the Fall Term 1986 application period. in which nine students were admitted to upper-divisi on engineering majors. Table 1.1.--Numerica1 Breakdown and Status of Minority Upper-Division Adnissi ons to the College of Engineering at MSU. Ref used Adn i tted Term Nunber Who Applied Nunber Percent Nunber Percent Winter 1984 17 2 11.8% 15 88.2% Winter 1985 13 3 23.0 10 77.0 Winter 1986 6 2 33.3 4 66.7 Spring 1984 11 4 36.4 7 63.6 Spring 1985 14 9 64.3 5 35.7 Spring 1986 10 6 60.0 4 40.0 Sunmer 1984 15 4 26.7 11 73.3 Sunmer 1985 15 6 40.0 9 60.0 Summer 1986 13 5 38.5 8 61.5 Fall 1984 1 O O 1 100.0 Fall 1985 3 2 66.7 1 33.3 Fall 1986 13 4 30.8 9 69.2 Total 1984 44 10 22.7 34 77.3 Total 1985 45 20 44.4 25 55.6 Total 1986 42 17 40.5 25 59.5 The EEOP became increasingly concerned about the growing rate of attrition among minority pre-engi neering students. as well as among those minority students already admitted to the engineering major. In an attempt to arrest the problem. the EEOP developed the Early Warning System. which was designed to serve the (transitional) sophomore. the junior (already in the engineering major). and the senior (about to graduate) minority engineering student. The EEOP viewed these at-risk students as needing special attention to ensure that they would ulti- matel y be graduated. W The field of engineering is currently receiving a great deal of attention. The accomplishments of the engineer are apparent in all aspects of life. In a recent newspaper article. Shiovitz (1985) pointed out that the work of engineers can be seen in a number of different ways. Engineering research has allowed for a safer. more prolonged life span. space travel. and pollution-free power plants. to name a few of the engi neers' accomplishments. From another perspective. Clarke (1979) indicated that the field of engineering offers enormous opportunity. Many of the top managers from major United States corporations have baccalaureate degrees in engineering. Clarke further contended that engineering students are offered handsome salaries upon graduation from an accredited engineer- ing program. If minority youths are ever to take a leadership role in cor- porate America. it is imperative that more of them enter accredited engineering programs. Perhaps it is even more crucial that. once they are accepted into these programs. minority students be graduated into the ranks of the professional engineer. Clark noted that. in 1979. Blacks comprised only 1.1% of the engineers in America. Yet. almost 55% of all managers in industry have engineering degrees. TOday these figures have improved. but perhaps this is part of the reason minori- ties run only a few of the major United States corporations. This research project is important because it could have an indirect effect on the upwardinobility of minority students currently involved in pursuing engineering as a career choice at Michigan State University. That effect might be felt by the student from both a personal and an economic standpoint. The major objective of the research project was to evaluate the Early Warning System's overall effectiveness. This was accomplished from a formative and a swnmative perspective. The formative evalua- tion of the Early Warning System involved an evaluation of the imple- mentation phase of this device by the EEOP and a description of what happened in that process. The summative phase of the evaluation included an examination of the data gathered during previous stages. Conclusions were drawn and recommendations made. based on data com- piled in the study. The structure for the formative and summative evaluation of the academic monitoring device. the Early Warning System (EWS). was derived from several general research questions that played a substantive role in the creation of the formal hypotheses generated. 10 The following questions were the guiding force that propelled this study: 1. Does the monitoring of a minority engineering studentks academic performance positively affect that student's ultimate success in an engineering course? 2. Does the transfer of accurate and timely computerized academic information to the appropriate College of Engineering personnel improve the minority engineering student's opportunity for academic success? 3. Does the Early Warning System have some effect. if only indirect. on the retention of minority engineering students in the College of Engineering? 4. Does the type of academic adviser intervention make a differ- enceein the ultimate academic performance of alninority engineering student in his/her engineering courses? From these general research questions. six fonnal testable hypotheses were tested. The statistical-analysis procedures used in this investigation to test the six hypotheses were the t-test and the chi-square procedure. For Hypotheses l. 2. 4. and 5. the.I-test statistic was used to test the differences in means. For Hypotheses 3 and 6. the nonparametric chi-square test statistic was used. 11 W Wham: There is no difference in the final engi- neering course grades of minority engineering sophomores. juniors. and seniors Spring Term 1985 who received the Early Warning System treatment intervention and those minority sophomore. junior. and senior engineering students Spring Term 1984 who did not receive the treatment. : The final engineering course grades of minority sophomores. juniors. and seniors Spring Term 1985 will be higher than those of minority engineering sophomores. juniors. and seniors Spring Term 1984 who did not receive the Early Warning System treatment. W: There is no difference in the engineering course grades of the bottom 25% of minority sophomore. junior. and senior engineering students in Spring Term 1984 and the engi- neering course grades of the bottom 25% of minority sophomore. junior. and senior engineering students Spring Term 1985. W: The engineering course grades of the bottom 25% of minority sophomore. junior. and senior engineering students at the end of Spring Term 1984 will be lower than the engineering course grades of the bottom 25% of minority sophomore. junior. and senior engineering students at the end of Spring Term 1985. Note: The Early Warning System was designed to anticipate the aca- demic problems of students. and since it was also designed to help lower-achieving students. any effect is likely to appear with the bottom 25% being evaluated. W: There is no difference in the number of courses dropped Spring Term 1985 by minority sophomore. junior. and senior engineering students who received the Early Warning System treatment intervention and the number of courses dropped Spring Term 1984 by minority saphomore. junior. and senior engi- neering students who did not receive the treatment. W: The number of courses dropped Spring Term 1985 by minority sophomore. junior. and senior engineering students who received the Early Warning System treatment interven- tion will be higher than the number of courses dropped Spring Term 1984 by minority sophomore. junior. and senior engineering stu- dents who did not receive the treatment. 12 Wham: There is no statistically significant differ- ence in the final engineering course grades of minority sopho- mores. juniors. and seniors Fall Term 1985 who received the Early Warning System treatment intervention and those of minority sopho- mores. juniors. and seniors Fall Term 1984 who did not receive the treatment. W51: The final engineering course grades of minority sophomores. juniors. and seniors Fall Term 1985 will be significantly higher than those of minority sophomores. juniors. and seniors Fall Term 1984 who did not receive the treatment. : There is no statistically significant differ- ence in the final engineering course grades of the bottom 25% of minority sophomores. juniors. and seniors Fall Term 1985 and those of the bottom 25% of minority sophomores. juniors. and seniors Fall Term 1984. The final engineering course grades of the bottom 25% of minority sophomores. juniors. and seniors Fall Term 1985 will be significantly higher than those of the bottom 25% of minority sophomores. juniors. and seniors Fall Term 1984. Wham: There is no statistically significant differ- ence in the number of courses dropped Fall Term 1985 by minority sophomores. juniors. and seniors who received the Early Warning System treatment intervention and the number of courses dropped Fall Term 1984 by minority sophomores. juniors. and seniors who did not receive the treatment. W: The number of courses dropped Fall Term 1985 by minority sophomores. juniors. and seniors who received the Early Warning System treatment intervention will be significantly higher than the number of courses dropped Fall Term 1984 by minor~ ity sophomores. juniors. and seniors who did not receive the treatment. War: A quasi-experimental research design was used to compare four nonrandomized populations of minority engineering sophomores. juniors. and seniors. Because random selection and assignment did not occur. a quasi-experimental design was most appropriate. 13 W The following terms are defined in the context in which they are used in this dissertation. .Asndemis_ndxiser--The person designated by the Student Affairs Division of the College of Engineering and the specific engineering department to advise lower (pre-engineering) and upper (engineering) division undergraduate students regarding the educational program and career-planning options available in the College of Engineering at MSU. Academic djsmjssaI--As stated in AcademiLEmmleflflifl (MSU, 1985): Academic dismissal will result at the end of the term in which one or more of the following occurs: 1. Thirty-one or more credits have been repeated. 2. Total credits earned falls below the number required by the MAPS for total credits attempted. 3. All grades in the schedule of 12 orlnore credits attempted on the numerical system are OIL Instructional Physical Education. and 100 and 200 level Military Science and Aerospace Studies. are excluded. 4. Failure to comply with the conditions of readmission as specified at the time of readnission. Wume student's skills and abilities from an educational perspective. ldi: high school and college GPA and/or scholastic aptitude test scores. .Adyising--The exchange that occurs between the engineering stu- dent and his/her academic adviser. during which time information is shared relative to course selection and academic matriculation. 14 Attnjnon--A decrease in the number of students from higher education in general and from the colleges of engineering in particu- lar. WNW-An academic adviser whose special area of expertise is a specific department or program in the College of Engi- neering. i.e.. the chemical engineering academic adviser. Omar-One who leaves the institution and does not return for additional study at any time. ane programs or majors available to MSU students interested in pursuing a career in engineering. These majors are agricultural engineering. chemical engineering. civil engi- neering. computer science. electrical engineering. engineering arts. materials science. mechanical engineering. mechanics. and systems sci- ence. WW-Synonymous with academic adviser in terms of job function; however. this individual generally serves lower-divisi on and honors students. regardless of mai or. WuThe process through which the effectiveness of an academic monitoring device. the Early Warning System. was assessed from both a formative and a summative perspective. Wink-The process and/or procedures used by this researcher in developing the Early Warning System. WW-Jhe case in which a student is forced to leave the university. generally because of poor academic performance. 15 .LQK§L_d1¥1519n--According to the classification system used at MSU. any freshman or sophomore with fewer than 85 credits earned toward a bachelor's degree. .Mlfl:1§£m_9£nde_nepQ£t--An assessment and/or evaluation of a stu- dentfls academic performance in an engineering course by his/her pro- fessor at the mid-point in the term. .Minority_gnoups--Include. for the purposes of this study. Blacks. Hispanics. and Native Americans; however. MSU and the College of Engi- neering also include Asians and Pacific Islanders within this cate- gory. MgnjjonmguThe process by which the student's academic perform- ance is periodically evaluated in an attempt to alert the student and the appropriate university personnel to any impending obstacles to his/ her academic success. ‘Eersistence--The ability or capacity to be continuously enrolled at MSU without interruption. 14%. enrollment from freshman to sopho- more year or persistence until graduation. .BepliQnIIQn--"repetition of an experiment with a different sub- jects. and frequently with a different experimenter and different location. If any other aspect of the experiment is changed or if anything is added or omitted. the new experiment is called a partial replication" (Yaremko. Harari. Harrison. & Lynn. 1982). .BeienIIQn--The capacity or ability to retain students in institu- tions of higher education until graduation. or the ability to retain students from year to year. ————' T ‘ _ "PT "i 16 WnA categorization of students by the Office of the Registrar at the end of each term. based on the number of credits earned. as follows: Freshman Fewer than 40 credits earned Sophanore 40 to 84 credits earned Junior 85 to 129 credits earned Senior 130 and more credits earned WW-An academic adviser to freshman and sophomore nonpreference students at MSU. Wukcording to the classification system used at MSU. any junior or senior with 85 or more credits earned toward a bachelor's degree. Wume case in which a student decides of his/ her own volition to leave a college or university. We! Chapter I contained an introduction to the study. the problem investigated. purpose of the research project. major hypotheses. importance of the problem. justification for the study. and defini- ti ons of terms. Chapter 11 contains a review of related literature on the past and present status of minorities in engineering; a history of the minority engineering effort and its current status; past and present status of minorities in engineering at MSU; the Engineering Equal Opportunity Program at MSU; and academic performance. academic moni- tori ng. and attrition. 17 Chapter III includes an explanation of thelnethodology used in the research. major hypotheses. sampling design. population/sample data. and data-collection procedures. Chapter IV focuses on the implementation of the EWS and details the steps followed by this researcher in that process. Included in this chapter are the analysis. design. development. discussion of the treatment. advisinglnodels. results of the study. implementation difficulties. instrumentation. and an analysis of the questionnaire section. Chapter V contains a report and analysis of the data collected and analyzed relative to the major hypotheses formulated for the purpose of this investigation. Chapter VI includes a summary of the entire study and recommen- dations for further research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE WW WW In 1972. a major effort was undertaken to increase the represen- tation of minorities in the engineering profession. Perkins (1986) asserted that in 1972 less than 1% of minorities (Blacks. Hispanics. and Native Americans) were working in engineering professions and that only 3% of minorities were enrolled in engineering educational pro- grams. It was not until the late 19605 and early 19705 that accurate and current data were compiled on all minority groups. Statistics for minorities other than Blacks did not become available until 1973. What is known about the period from 1969 through 1973 is that minorities were underrepresented in the field of engineering because few such individuals received college degrees in engineering programs. Table 2:1 shows the breakdown of engineering degrees granted. by degree and ethnicity. Further. the table indicates that in all cases Blacks earned fewer degrees than their nonminority counterparts. From 1969 through 1973. Blacks and other minority groups were underrepre- sented in colleges of engineering; this explains why few of them were earning engineering degrees and becoming professional engineers. 19 Table 2.1: Undergraduate and Graduate Degrees in Engineering Total Engineering Degrees Black Year 8.5. M.S. Ph.D. 8.3. M. S. Ph.D. 1969 41.248 15.372 3.391 314 17 2 1970 44.479 15.723 3.691 378 50 1 1971 44.898 16.443 3.638 407 47 8 1972 45.870 17.400 3.690 579 78 13 1978 45.510 17.700 3.890 657 104 13 Source: NCES. HEW figures as extracted in Table 3 of John D. Alden. "Opportunities for Engineering Graduates 1974-1984." Engi; OW. April 1974. Since 1973 there has been a tremendous increase in the total number of Bachelor of Science degrees in engineering granted to minor- ity students. Table 2.2 indicates that from 1973 through 1984 the total number of bachelor's degrees granted to minorities more than tripled--from 1.255 to 3.817--obviously. a marked improvement in minority representation. H' | E II M' 1| E I . EEE | Minor (l985) contended that the social and political events of the mid-19605 and early 19705 relative to equal access for minorities provided a major impetus for later attempts to improve the representa- tion of minorities in colleges of engineering and the engineering profession throughout the United States. In 1974. the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation published MinofltieaningineeflngLA 81mm Action. in which it pointed out that in 1970 minorities (Blacks. 20 Chicanos [Mexican Americans]. Puerto Ricans. and American Indians) comprised only 2.8% of the total professional engineers in the United States. even though these groups constituted 14.4% of the total United States population. By 1973 the percentage of minority freshmen enrolled in United States engineering colleges had increased to 5.1%. an 80% increase since 1970. Table 2.2: Bachelor's Degrees Granted in Engineering. 1969-1984. American Total Total Year Black Hispanica Indian Minority Degreesa 1969 314 -— —- -- 39.972 1970 378 -- —- -- 42.673 1971 407 -— -- -— 42.856 1972 579 -- -— -- 44.190 1973 657 566 32 1.255 43.086 1974 756 636 31 1.423 41.010 1975 734 685 44 1.463 37.835 1976 777 658 41 1.476 37.609 1977 844 702 36 1.582 39.718 1978 894 748 37 1.679 45.753 1979 1.076 808 59 1.943 52.161 1980 1.320 1.003 60 2.383 58.413 1981 1.445 1.193 90 2.728 62.615 1982 1.646 1.270 91 3.007 66.652 1983 1.862 1.534 97 3.493 72.122 1984 2.022 1.683 112 3.817 76.576 Notes: Annual reports. bulletins. and publications of the Engineering Manpower Commission (EMC) were used as sources for these tables. EMC cautions information is subject to error. Statis- tics for minorities. other than Black. are not available before 1973. Also. the total undergraduate enrollment figures before 1973 may or may not include the University of Puerto Rico. aFigures do not include the University of Puerto Rico. 21 The Sloan Foundation delineated the activities of the Planning Commission Task Force. a group of individuals charged with designing and facilitating the mechanisms by which to achieve the goal of a tenfold increase in minority representation. It also discussed sev- eral important events that had shaped the minority engineering effort to that point The first such event occurred in July 1972. when J. Stanford Smith of the General Electric Company addressed the Engineering Educa- tion Conference in New York. He stated that in 1972. of the total 43.000 engineers graduated. only 407 were Black. other ethnic minori- ties. and women. These minority groups constituted only 1% of the total graduating engineering population. Smith encouraged conference participants to take bold action to increase the pool of qualified minority engineering graduates tenfold within the next 10 years. This drastic action. he assured them. was the only way to increase to acceptable proportions the number of minority people in top manage- ment. The organization of a task force known as the Minority Engineer- ing Education Effort (ME3) in December 1972 was a second major event that shaped the growing movement to increase minority representation in engineering. But it was not until 1973 that a truly national effort took shape. This effort actually began with the 1973 confer- ence of the National Academy of Engineering (NAE). At the conclusion of that conference. representatives from industry. education. and engineering pledged their support to the goal of a tenfold increase in 22 minority engineering graduates within 10 years. To help meet that goal. the NAE established the Committee on Minorities in Engineering. one of the outgrowths of this conference. This committee's task was to promote the development of minority engineering education activi- ties on all levels--national. regional. and local. Another by-product of this conference was the creation of the National Advisory Council of Minorities in Engineering (NACME). which comprised approximately 30 corporations. representatives of minority groups. and persons from the highest levels of industry. education. and government. The NACME acted as the funding source for the work done by the Committee on Minorities in Engineering Three events that occurred in 1974 gave a final shape to the growing minority engineering effort. The American Association for the Advancement of Science. at its annual conference that year. focused on the issues involved in training minorities in the sciences. Also. the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers devoted the February issue of its journal to the subject of minorities in engineering Finally. the Sloan Foundation published flDJuujjje§_in_Enginee£ingI_A Blueprint_£on_Action. which many consider the definitive document chronicling the minority engineering effort up to that time. As men- tioned earlier. that text described the minority engineering effort and offered recommendations for attaining a tenfold increase in the number of minority engineering graduates within 10 years. Minor (1985). in a historical review. listed several other fac- tors that helped shape the minority engineering movement. One was the 23 establishment of agencies whose task it was to study other aspects of the minority engineering education problem. With the creation of organizations such as the Minority Engineering Education Effort and the Minority Introduction to Engineering. resources were directed toward high school and summer motivational programs that identified promising youths for future undergraduate engineering programs. The National Fund for Minority Engineering Students. organized in 1975. provided scholarships to minority engineering students. Finally. to address the problem of enrolling and retaining minority graduate students. the National Consortium for Graduate Degrees for Minorities in Engineering was established. More recently. both local and regional directors on the precol- lege and college levels have created two organizations to address the issues of program and administrative effectiveness by conducting semi- nars and disseminating information. These organizations are the National Association of Pre-College Directors and the National Asso- ciation of Minority Engineering Program Administrators. All of the events discussed thus far. although separated to some degree by time. established the foundation upon which the national minority engineering effort was buihb Today. the status of minority representation in engineering has changed considerably; however. the goal of a tenfold increase in that representation has not been met. Although the organizations and personnel involved in the effort have made significant advances toward the original objective. a great deal of work must be done if parity is to be realized. 24 Perkins (1986) found that the Engineering Manpower Council reports for 1983-84 indicated that the enrollment of minorities in undergraduate engineering programs totaled approximately 736%. Of the Inore than 394.000 college students majoring in engineering that year. 30.000 were minority students. 18.000 of them Blacks and 12.000 His- panics. Today the problem of minority underrepresentation has improved; however. another problem faces higher education institutions: the retention of minority engineering students. Currently. large numbers of minority engineering students are not persisting through gradua-- tion. A growing body of research has indicated that academic monitoring can be an effective method of improving the academic performance and retention rates for minority engineering students (Landis. 1976; Minor. l985; Penick. 1983. 1985h The researcher with the cooperation and support of the Engineering Equal Opportunity Program (EEOP). formerly the Office of Minority Student Education. and MSU's College of Engineering developed such a system of monitoring. called the Early Warning System. The EEOP is discussed mcre fully later in this chapter. cmmmmmmimn W Currently the minority engineering effort is well under way. Programs have assumed many forms. depending on the unique charac- teristics of the individual institution. college. or university I—_i “21;; ' 25 implementing these programs. Most major colleges of engineering. however. have established some kind of special program to meet the needs of their minority students Landis (1976). a leading authority in the field of minority engineering education. as well as an engineer. concluded that the goal of increasing minority representation is probably the greatest chal- lenge facing engineering education. Preparation for engineering prOP grams must begin as early as elementary school; hence it will take a number of years to generate a pool of young people prepared to face the rigors of an undergraduate engineering program. Landis also found that schools of engineering have had increased enrollments of minority applicants. But. because these students often were inadequately pre- pared. engineering schools have had difficulty retaining them. These schools have experienced high attrition rates. particularly in the freshman year. Colleges and universities are attempting to address this problem and also to increase the output of minority graduates by establishing retention programs. Landis concluded that well-conceived programs can improve these minority engineering applicants chances of success. Simmons (1978) agreed with Landis that colleges of engineering must develop special programs to address the unique needs of minority engineering students. He wrote. Retention of minority and disadvantaged students has proved to be a difficult task at many engineering schools. Few educators would argue that disadvantaged students can perform well when academic support services are provided. However. without tutoring. coun- seling. financial aid. and a good organization disadvantaged stu- dents would fail miserably. It is unfair to expect that students 26 from educationally and economically disadvantaged backgrounds can compete with other students who have been prepared properly unless compensatory support is provided. It is proper to begin preparing disadvantaged youth by reaching into the elementary grades and continuing to give support throughout the completion of a given program. (p. 2) Realizing the need to retain minority engineering students. col- leges of engineering nationwide and specialists involved in this effort have recently invested a great deal of time. energy. and resources in determining what programmatic elements are necessary for effective minority engineering retention programs. Simmons (1978)cfited several important principles for university programs designed to increase the retention of minority engineering students. According to Simmons. these programs should serve those underrepresented groups who historically have not entered engineering disciplines. These support programs should establish an atmosphere of trust. safety. and openness in which the student is able to develop both socially and academically. Parents and students need a thorough understanding of what to expect from the support program. The respon- sibilities of all personnel involved should be clearly defined. Because the comnunfliy is an excellent recruitment resource. it is imperative that a relationship between institution and community be nurtured. Simmon further found that internal institutional support from administrators and faculty is an essential factor for program success; therefore. such backing must be strengthened. Simmons further noted that support programs must have specific components. such as counseling. that address the unique needs of this student population. Effective outreach. good staff training. and a 27 research component are also necessary for these support programs to survive. Excellent relations must be maintained with the university development office and other funding agencies if the program is to receive the necessary financial support. Finally. good programs must establish linkages between different university offices (i.eu career placement. student services. and financial aid) and/or personnel (i.eu dean and/or assistant dean of a college). Simmon concluded that organizing a successful support program for disadvantaged youths requires an innovative approach. one that links traditional and non- traditional educational methods. An example of one of these innovative approaches was the research conducted by Powers (1976). This researcher studied Black eighth- grade junior high school students with low socioeconomic status to assess these students' motivation toward engineering careers. Powers found that by using a mode of career-information presentation that was sensitive to the ethnicity of the student. minority youths might be more encouraged to select careers in engineering. Smith (1973) suggested that supportive-services programs that are both mathematics and science intensive would assist Black students in completing undergraduate engineering programs. In evaluating a number of programs across the United States. Simmons. Vienneau. and Simmons (1979) found that a variety of programs are provided for disadvantaged minority students in engineering These programs can be described as developmental. tutoring. academic- support. and compensatory-education programs. Developmental programs 28 generally provide transitional courses and support. TUtoring programs provide individualized instruction in academic problem areas. Academic-support programs furnish grade monitoring. an early warning system. counseling. and faculty-run review sessions. Compensatory- education programs provide supplemental courses for students who need additional educational assistance. Minor (l985)1asserted that support programs must address the specific needs of the minority student. She identified the major components of an effective minority engineering program. Such a pro- gram should provide advising and tutoring in addition to that already available. minority engineering organizations. career guidance. empl oyment-experience opportunities. precollege summer programs. fac- u1 ty involvement in the program. commitment of administration and faculty to the program. adequate financial aid/scholarships.lnerit awards. recognition banquets and awards. reduced course loads when appropriate. academic-year programs for high school students. diagnos- tic testing/effective placement procedures. effective recruiting and first-year curriculum. admission policies established to increase overall minority enrollment. minority professional engineer role models. and extensive personal contact with students by all personnel involved in this effort. Landis (1985) found that several key areas must be considered in developing an effective minority engineering program. In his view. these programs must develop components that are student focused and have a direct effect on their success. These programs should foster 29 an attitude of community to reduce students' sense of alienation and isolation. Finally. minority engineering programs must establish components that provide academic support. The 12 components Landis found to be most critical to effective minority engineering programs were recruitment. admissions. matriculation. academic support. fresh- man orientation. student study centers. academic advising and regis- tration. student organizations. tutoring. personal counseling. swnmer jobs. financial aid. and scholarships. WW2 WWW Since 1974. the College of Engineering at MSU has experienced a steady increase intninority enrollments. Such enrollments have grown from 88 in 1974 to 377 in 1985. more than a fourfold increase. Also. as Table 213 shows. minority groups now represent a larger percentage of the total College of Engineering enrollment. as well. Table 2.4 details the gravity of the attrition problem in the College of Engineering at MSU. In 1978-79. 201 minority students were enrolled in the College of Engineering; however. four years later. the College graduated only 24 minority students. It is difficult to pinpoint the exact reasons for the low graduation rates shown in Table 2.4. Any number of variables could be contributing to the high attrition among minority students in the College of Engineering. The higher GPA requirement for admission to upper division and the rigor- ous engineering curriculum are two obvious possibilities. In addi- tion. many individual and institutional factors might also contribute 30 Table 2.3: MSU College of Engineering Enrollment Figures (Freshman to Senior). 1974-1986 Academic Years Minoritya College Percentage Year Enrollment Enrollment Minority 1974-75 88 2.023 4.3 1975-76 140 2.407 5.8 1976-77 150 2.546 5.9 1977-78 185 2.874 6.4 1978-79 201 3.316 6.1 1979—80 251 3.713 6.8 1980-81 239 4.002 6.0 1981-82 334 4.152 8.0 1982-83 356 4.362 8.2 1983-84 384 4.384 8.8 1984-85 396 4.250 9.3 1985-86 377 4.052 9.3 aMinority includes all ethnic groups except Asians and Pacific Islanders. Table 2.4: Number of Minority Graduates of MSU's College of Engineer- ing. by Year and Tenm: Acadenic Years 1973 Through 1986 Year Fall Winter Spring Summer Total 1973-74 2 O 6 1 9 1974-75 0 3 5 1 9 1975—76 0 2 8 6 16 1976—77 3 3 8 6 20 1977-78 3 . 1 3 1 8 1978-79 0 2 7 3 12 1979-80 7 3 13 6 29 1980-81 0 1 ll 5 17 1981-82 5 2 15 4 26 1982—83 4 2 8 10 24 1983-84 2 6 8 4 20 1984-85 1 2 12 2 17 1985—86 6 3 14 10 33 LL) W w O ..a ..n (I) U" \0 N b 0 Total 31 to the attrition of minority engineering students. Such factors are discussed later in this chapter. in the review of literature on attri- tion. As Table 2.5 indicates. MSU is among the top-40 institutions graduating Black and other minority students from its engineering programs» However. MSU and the College of Engineering are interested in dramatically increasing the total number of minority engineering graduates. Table 2.5: Top 40 Institutions Graduating Black Engineers. 1983-1984 His- Native Total Institution Black panic American Minority Total Prairie View A & M 97 -- -- 97 (91.5%) 106 Georgia Inst. Tech. 81 26 2 109 ( 8.3%) 1.315 Tuskegee 74 -- -- 74 (85.1%) 87 Howard 74 -- -- 74 (68.5%) 108 CCNY 72 34 -- 106 (35.5%) 299 Southern University 57 -- -- 57 (37.3%) 153 N.C. A & T 56 -- -- 56 (57.7%) 97 U.S. Military Acad. 54 30 3 87 ( 8.8%) 987 Purdue U.. Lafayette 52 10 -- 62 ( 4.5%) 1.386 N.C. State 52 3 1 56 ( 5.7%) 974 M.I.T. 49 16 2 67 ( 8.5%) 789 Univ. of D.C. 40 10 -- 50 (63.3%) 79 Pratt 32 7 -- 39 (25.2%) 155 Univ. of Michigan 31 7 4 42 ( 3.6%) 1.162 Drexel 28 2 -- 3O ( 5.4%) 560 Univ. of Southern Cal. 26 28 -- 54 ( 8.1%) 666 Univ. of Alabama 26 2 2 30 (10.7%) 281 Tennessee State 25 -- -- 25 (49.0%) 51 Rensselaer Poly. 24 30 -- 54 ( 7.8%) 695 Stanford 24 20 l 45 (14.7%) 306 Poly. Inst. N.Y. 24 19 -- 43 ( 9.4%) 457 Mo. Rolla 22 8 1 31 ( 2.9%) 1.057 Tenn. Knoxville 22 12 -- 34 ( 6.2%) 552 N.J. Inst. Tech. 22 31 -- 53 (11.1%) 476 32 Table 2.5: Continued His- Native Total Institution Black panic American Minority Total GMI E & M Inst. 22 7 2 31 ( 8.8%) 351 Cornell 20 23 2 45 ( 7.9%) 573 VPI 18 4 -— 22 ( 2.0%) 1.091 Univ. of Arkansas 17 l 1 19 ( 6.3%) 304 Northeastern 17 ll -- 28 ( 3.9%) 717 Northwestern 16 4 -- 20 ( 6.7%) 298 Univ. of Pittsburgh 16 -- -- 16 ( 3.3%) 488 Rutgers 16 12 -- 28 ( 4.9%) 577 Texas Austin 16 67 3 86 ( 8.6%) 1.004 Wayne State 16 4 -- 20 ( 9.4%) 213 Michigan State 15 2 -- 17 ( 2.4%) 708 South Carolina 15 2 -- l7 ( 6.7%) 255 Ill. Inst. Tech. 15 6 -— 21 ( 6.3%) 332 Univ. of Florida 14 43 —- 57 ( 8.7%) 652 Tulane l4 9 -— 23 (11.1%) 207 USAF Academy 13 9 2 24 ( 5.6%) 431 Source: Special report: Minority engineering education. Black Issues inJJQhGLEducamm 3(16) (December 1986): 9. WW . Ill'll $11 I!' 11 During the early 19705. the College of Engineering at MSU. like many colleges of engineering. was concerned about the underrepresenta- tion of minorities in engineering. To this end. the College of Engi- neering submitted a proposal for funding to the Alfred P. Sloan Foun- dation in 1974. In response to that proposal. the Sloan Foundation funded a three-year program in the College to address the issue of the underrepresentation of minorities in engineering (Stonewater. 1977L This was done by developing a counseling program and designing a 33 curriculum that would emphasize the learning and developmental needs of the minority engineering student population. Landis (1976) asserted that the major objective in developing retention programs is to help freshmen and sophomores make the transition to the more competitive and academically demanding environ- ment experienced at the junior and senior levels in engineering. In attempting to fulfill this objective. the Engineering Equal Opportu- nity Program (EEOP) provides services in three key areas: college- level support functions. advisement to student organizations. and precollege activities. However. the EEOP is specifically charged with developing and implementing college-level support functions. The major goal of the EEOP is to offer academic. social. emo- tional. and financial support to minority engineering students enrolled in the College of Engineering at MSU. Several major com- ponents of the program focus special attention on freshmen and sopho- mores. To address the issue of academic preparedness. the EEOP mathe- matics component provides daily instruction in introductory mathe- matics to approximately 80% of the incoming freshmen who are required by College of Engineering standards to take remedial courses in mathe- matics. These courses include intermediate algebra. college algebra. and trigononetry. The purpose of these courses is to develop mastery of the rudimentary algebraic and trigonometric functions necessary for later success in calculus and more demanding engineering courses 34 A second major component of the EEOP is the tutorial-help room. The EEOP employs a number of upper-division minority engineering stu- dents to provide tutorial assistance in mathematics. chemistry. phys- ics. computer science. and other undergraduate engineering courses taken by first- and second-year students. Another component available to minority engineering students is advising/counseling. which addresses several important goals of the EEOP. An academic adviser meets with students periodically to chart an academic and career course unique to the College of Engineering The academic adviser acts as a conduit for the student. facilitating dialogue with faculty and administrators at MSU. in general. and within the College of Engineering. in particular. relative to advising-related concerns. The student-assistant program addresses the social. emotional. and cultural issues facing incoming freshmen. Upper-division engi- neering students are employed as peer counselors to help new students make the social-cultural transition during the freshman year. These young people also act as role models and tutors when necessary. Another important element assisting in the psycho-social adjustment of these students is the opportunity to participate with other minority engineering students in projects of mutual benefit undertaken by the student organization. The EEOP director acts as the faculty adviser to the student-run organization. Minority Students in Engineering (MSE). Each spring this organization sponsors an Awards 35 and Recognition Banquet at which companies. faculty. and staff are recognized for their support of the program and its students Finally. the precollege program includes the Conmittee for Insti- tutional Cooperation plus the Mid-West Program for Minorities in Engi- neering (CIC + MPME). Several collegiate institutions and the Detroit Public School System are jointly involved in the Detroit Area Pre-College Engineering Program. whose function is to increase the number of talented. qualified. and motivated high school students in preparation for future recruitment for engineering programs. The EEOP has recently expanded its administrative unit. The director coordinates overall program operations and focuses on recruitment and fund raising. An assistant director handles all personnel and financial responsibilities. The secretary. assistant director. and director are the only full-time EEOP employees. The academic adviser. tutorial coordinator. and student assistant coordi- nator are all Phil candidates who work half-time or quarter-time for the EEOP. E l . E E I Ell 'I' In recent years. higher education personnel have become increas- ingly concerned about student attrition. For many reasons. one of which is financial. it is imperative that college and university personnel understand the issues involved in attrition. in order to focus on improving university programs. The ultimate objective of higher education institutions must be to lower their attrition rates 36 In a review of the literature on retention. Pantages and Creedon (1978) described the gravity of the attrition problem in higher educa- tion: For every ten students who enter college in the United States. only four will graduate from that college four years laten One more will eventually graduate from the college at some point after those four years. Of the five students who dropped out of the college altogether. four will re-enroll at a different college. and of those four re-enrollees. only two will graduate. 0f the six students who dropped out. three did so during the first year. Two more dropped out during the second year. and the last one dropped out at some point after the second year. Three of the ten students who originally entered college will never obtain a col- lege degree (p. 49) These figures point to the stark reality of the problem facing higher education today. Newlon and Gaither (1980) focused on the subject of attrition at one institution. California State University. Northridge (CSUN). and that university's attempt to address the attri- tion problem. This research supported the general notion that most attrition occurs during the first year of academic matriculation. The longer a student attended CSUN. the greater the likelihood of persist- ence for four academic years. The CSUN study also found that. as serious as the outlook appears for new freshmen. attrition among junior-level transfer students was far worse. Institutions of higher education can no longer ignore the problem of attrition. Colleges and universities across the United States must design programs to address this problem. Newlon and Gaither (1980) found that attrition has gained increased attention because colleges and universities' enrollment-driven budgets and program operations are seriously affected by the loss of large numbers of students through 37 attrition. Since the outlook for the l980s is for further enrollment declines. attrition will remain a pressing issue for higher education. Many factors influence college and university attrition. In a review of the literature on attrition. Gekowski and Schwartz (l96l) identified several key limitations of attrition research. They found that most studies had focused on only one or two factors the“ scholastic aptitude or sex) when exploring the causes of attrition. Gekowski and Schwartz concluded that multiple factors occur simul- taneously to cause attrition. Early attrition researchers did not consider this fact and therefore tended to shed little light on this complex subject. Later research by Chickering and Hannah (l969). Demitroff (1974). Demos (1968). and Max (1969) also supported the premise that multiple factors influence attrition. Still more recently. Tinto (1975) indicated that many attrition researchers have failed to delineate clearly the multidimensionality of attrition because they paid inadequate attention to questions of definition and failed to move beyond mere descriptions of the withdrawal process. In an important monograph on attrition. Lenning. Beal. and Sauer (l980) identified l08 factors that are "possibly involved in reten- tionJ' The researchers divided these factors into 20 institutional characteristics (14%: institutional type. affiliation. size. institu- tional image. affluence. selectivity. prestige. instruction. and aca- demic programs) and 88 individual characteristics (14%. age. sex. socioeconomic status. goals. and degree aspirations). 0f the 88 individual characteristics discussed. only four were of an academic 38 nature; they were academic aptitude. college grades. high school grades. and high school class rank. As Lenning et al. indicated. academic performance is an important part of the attrition picture. but it is just a small part of that picture. The Early Warning System developed by the EEOP is an attempt to address one aspect of academic performance. i.ea college grades. It is contended that. by monitoring students' engineering course grades. the Early Warning System will have an indirect influence on student retentiom Most attrition research has focused on ability. as demonstrated by academic performance in high school (Blanchfield. l97l; Chase. 1970; Coker. 1968; Jaffe & Adams. 1970; Lavin. 1965; Lawhorn. l97l; Panos & Astin. l968; Smith. l97l; Taylor & Hanson. l970; Tinto. l975L This research further indicated that a relationship exists between high school academic performance and college persistence. Astin (l972) stated that previous academic performance is one of the best indicators of persistence because the studenvs high school experi- ences will generally parallel the academic and social requirements in college. Pervin. Reik. and Dalrymple (l966) concluded that ability is an important individual characteristic. They also found significant personality and attitudinal differences between persisters and nonper- sisters. High school GPA and class rank have been found to differentiate potential dropouts fran persisters (Blanchfield. 197l; Bragg. 1956; Chase. 1970; Little. 1959; Morrisey. 197l; Panos & Astin. 1968; 39 Scannell. 1960; Slocum 1956; Summerskill. 1962; Waller. 1964). In a study of high school class rank. Iffert (1955) found that students in the top fifth of their high school classes were twice as likely to graduate as were students in the bottom fifth of their classes. Bertrand (1955) found that of those students who dropped out for academic reasons. 73% were in the lowest quartile of their high school classes. and 75% of those on official probation were also in the lowest quartile Several researchers. however. have detected no significant dif- ferences in high school GPA or class rank between dropouts and per- sisters (Blanchfield. 1971; Munger. 1956; Rossman & Kirk. 1970; Scannell. 1960). This may be due. in part. to a problem of definition because these researchers did not distinguish between temporary and permanent dropouts. Attrition researchers have supported the premise that there is a relationship between academic performance and persistence in college Demitroff (1974) asserted that academic factors are the most reliable predictors of attrition. In a comprehensive review of the literature on attrition. Pantages and Creedon (1978) concluded that academic variables are still the strongest single predictors of persistence but that academic variables are not the only factors that contribute to attrition. Fullmer (1956). Iffert (1957). Morrisey (1971). and Sexton (1965) found. however. that high school grades do not necessarily predict persistence in college. especially for the student who is stronger 4O academically. Pantages and Creedon (1978).also found that high school rank. high school grades and GPA. and scholastic aptitude indices are effective in predicting college achievement but are less effective in predicting college persistence. Critical to this analysis is the fact that although academic measures are the most significant predictors of attrition. they account for only a small proportion of the students who do drop out. These researchers also concluded that. to achieve significantly stronger results. attrition researchers must consider other factors in addition to the academic variables previously dis- cussed. According to Tinto (1975). the lack of clear definitions is a serious drawback in the attrition research. especially as it concerns voluntary versus nonvoluntary withdrawal. Tinto indicated that researchers too often have viewed characteristically different forms of leaving behavior as the same thing. Vet students leave school for many different reasons. Tinto contended that it is not unusual to find attrition research that fails to distinguish between attrition resulting from poor academic perfonnance (nonvoluntary) and that occurring as a result of the studentfis desire to leave school (volun- tary). Coker (l968). Hackman and Dysinger (1970). Hanson and Taylor (1970). Sexton (1965). and Vaughn (1968) agreed with Tinto about the need to distinguish between dropouts who are academic failures and those who withdraw voluntarily. Tinto (1975) concluded that although academic dismissal isunost related to academic performance. voluntary 41 withdrawal is generally not related to grades. According to Tinto. voluntary withdrawal often results from a lack of congruence between the student and the intellectual and social milieu of the college or university. Tinto viewed the lack of fit between the student and the institution as a major cause of voluntary withdrawal. A number of researchers studying attrition have devoted special attention to such academic indices as high school GPA. high school class rank. first-semester college grades. and scholastic aptitude performance in an attempt to analyze their effect on student attri- tion. Researchers have found that these factors seem closely related to persistence in college. The following paragraphs contain a detailed review of the literature on some of these academic indices An important indicator of academic performance is the freshman's first-semester college grades. Much of the research to date has supported the notion that first-semester college grades are a good indicator of a student's ability to persist in college. Summerskill (1962) reviewed 35 studies on attrition and found a highly significant relationship between attrition and first-semester college grades. Earlier studies by Bragg (1956» Conner (1968b Fullmer (1956). Little (1959). Morrisey (1971). Slocum (1956). and Suddarth (1957) also supported Summerskill's conclusions regarding this relationship. Holmes (1959) compared persisters and voluntary withdrawers and found no significant differences between the two groups in terms of first-semester grades or the other academic indices evaluated. 42 However. he found that these two groups were more alike on academic performance than on other indices of student attrition. such as moti- vational level. Summerskill (1962) also found that poor grades are a far more stable predictor of attitude than good grades are a predictor of retention because successful students drop out of school in larger numbers than would be expected. When the academically talented stu- dent withdraws from school. the reasons for doing so are other than poor academic performance. Still another indicator of academic performance related to per— sistence in college is academic aptitude. i.eu SAT/ACT scores. Pantages and Creedon (1978) discovered that. in a majority of studies they reviewed. a significant difference existed between dropouts and nondropouts in terms of scholastic aptitude. A number of other researchers studying scholastic aptitude have drawn the same conclu- sion (Sewell & Shah. 1967; Slocum. 1956; Summerskill. 1962L However. Astin (1973) and Iffert (1957) found that scholastic aptitude is only half as stable a predictor as high school class rank Many investigators have found nonsignificant differences in apti- tude test scores between dropouts and nondropouts (Blanchfield. 1971; Schmid & Reed. 1966; Williams. 1966L In one notable study. Johansson and Rossmann (1973) distinguished between types of dropouts and found no significant difference in high school performance and scholastic aptitude between nondropouts and voluntary withdrawers. Their find- ings concerning the two groups' first—semester grades were consistent 43 with those of other researchers. One conclusion that can be drawn from this research is that voluntary withdrawers and persisters are alike academically. In contrast. the nonvol untary withdrawer is dis- missed from the major and/or the college or university because of poor academic performance. The Early Warning System was developed to address the needs of a high-risk population of minority engineering students who might gen- erally fall into the category of nonvoluntary withdrawer. Although the engineering student generally presents a profile that is somewhat similar to that of the typical college student. because of the unique demands of the engineering discipline the engineering student often responds somewhat differently from students in otherlnajors. lhus the issue of academic discipline may be a factor that increases the proba- bility of attrition. Demitroff (1974) discovered that dropouts were more dissatisfied with their major field of study than nondropouts. thtages and Creedon (1978) found. however. that educational interest and voca- tional goals had inconclusive predictive value. Newlon and Gaither%5(1980) research at California State Univer- sity. Northridge (CSUN). showed that educational interests and choice of major did have a statistically significant influence on retention at that institution. Further. they found that students entering CSUN with a mad or in business. computer science. engineering. communica- tions. professional studies. or a scientifically oriented area (sci- ence and mathematics) had a higher probability of persisting than did 44 those who selected majors in the arts. behavioral and social sciences. and humanities. Students who were undecided about a major also had a high probability of dropping out. Therefore. it was not just declar- ing a major. but declaring a particular major. that contributed most to the probability of retention at CSUN. Newlon and Gaither concluded that perhaps the reason for the stronger persistence rates in the School of Engineering and Computer Science was a shift in interest of scientifically oriented students into more applied fields and out of the purely theoretical areas. These researchers contended that students are following the job market and are motivated to persist in certain areas because of better‘job prospects after graduation. Most engineering schools and colleges are currently enjoying an enrollment boom. Large numbers of young people are preparing for careers as engineers by entering engineering programs. In an attempt to ensure a cadre of technical graduates. it is critical that engi- neering personnel maintain high enrollments. By gaining a better understanding of attrition. especially in relation to engineering students. universities can attempt to retain a higher percentage of students. In a comprehensive study of engineering students. Van Erdewyk (1967) found that freshman persisters had significantly higher ACT mathematics subscores than did freshman dropouts. Freshman persisters also had higher ACT composite scores than did transfers and dropouts. Van Erdewyk also found that freshman persisters had significantly 45 higher mean high school grades than freshman transfers and dropouts. Sophomore persisters and transfers had significantly higher mean high school grades than sophomore dropouts. Likewise. junior persisters had significantly higher mean grades than junior dropouts. In gen- eral. students with less than a 2.8 high school GPA on a four-point scale tended to transfer or drop out of engineering programs. Van Erdewyk further found that persisters performed significantly better academically than transfers and dropouts. regardless of classi- fication. Freshman persisters had significantly higher mean first- semester grades than freshman transfers and dropouts. Also. the cumulative GPA for sophomores and juniors was higher than that for dropouts. Some of the major conclusions drawn from this research were that freshmen receiving less than a 2.0 in their first college chemistry and mathematics courses were inclined to transfer or drop out of engineering programs. Also. freshmen receiving less than a 2x5 first-semester GPA tended to transfer or drop out of engineering. A higher proportion of persisters. as compared with dropouts and trans- fers. took analytic geometry and calculus as their first college mathematics course Van Erdewyk also examined several nonacademic variables consid- ered important in attrition among engineering students. These stu- dents expressed concern about the quality of service delivery. They suggested having orientation programs that would provide information on careers in engineering 46 Thus far. the discussion of academic performance and attrition has focused on college students in general. with sane special atten- tion to attrition among engineering students. Although most college students have been found to have similar attrition patterns. a few important distinctions exist with regard to special student popula- tions such as minority students and. more specifically. minority engineering students. The literature on these special populations is reviewed in the following sections mmjmndipeciaLEmulatims This section contains a review of literature related to attrition with a focus on special populations. l.&n the ethnic minority student and the ethnic minority engineering student Special populations require unique and innovative strategies if they are to survive in the academic arena. In a recent text. Lenning. Sauer and Beal (1980) delineated strategies that can be used to retain students. They also supported the notion that monitoring student progress can be an effec- tive means of diminishing the attrition of students from higher educa- tion. These researchers contended that attrition can be reduced when early warning and prediction techniques are used in combination with other strategies to focus on potential dropouts In a study conducted at Middlesex Community College. Lee (1974) identified several characteristics that were unique to academically disadvantaged students. He found that these students tended to be poorly motivated or had unrealistic motives and goals. They also 47 tended to be unrealistic about the time required to complete degree programs. These students were often overwhelmed with emotional prob- lems. which directly and indirectly affected their self-confidence and academic performance. The students were poor readers and tended to have problems thinking abstractly and using deductive reasoning. Finally. most of these young people and their parents tended to be suspicious of intellectuals. Equally important are the academic factors used to identify propensity to drop out of school. Lenning. Sauer. and Beal (1980) indicated that college grades earned during the first semester are the best predictors of attrition due to poor academic performance. Pedrini and Pedrini (1976) found that college grades were the only significant predictor of attrition for Black students at the Univer- sity of Nebraska at Omaha. whereas ACT scores and financial aid receipt. regardless of income level. were significant predictors for non-Black students. AmII1I1Qn_nnfi_1he_MinQ£1I¥_§InflenI A number of investigators have suggested that Black students experience higher attrition rates on predominantly white campuses. Suen (1983) and Braddock (1981) found that Black college students on predominantly white campuses had substantially higher attrition rates than their white counterparts. Astin (1977) found that the Black student attrition rate was 49.5% as compared to only 41.4% for white males and 30.9% for white females on predominantly white campuses Cortina (1980) indicated that the Black student dropout rate was 48 73A%. while the rate for the overall student population was 47.7%. The United States Bureau of Census (1975) reported similar findings. Suen noted that earlier attrition research focused primarily on academic factors. which were able to account for approximately half of the variance in attrition. More recently. however. researchers have suggested that other psycho-social factors also contribute to the higher dropout rate among Black students. One such factor that has been linked to Black student attrition is alienation. Astin (1977) suggested that Black militance and white backlash might have fostered strong feelings of alienation among Black students on white campuses. causing them to drop out. Other writers have also suggested aliena- tion is a significant factor in Black student attrition (Corina. 1980; Goodrich. 1980L Using the University Alienation Scale. Suen (1983) found that Black students felt more alienated on predominantly white campuses than did their white classmates. He also discovered that signifi- cantly more Black than white students dropped out of school. These results were consistent with those of Astin (1977) and Cortina (1980). Finally. the Suen study supported previous research concerning the significance of academic variables as major factors in college attrition. Suen found that GPA was significantly related to attrition for both Black and white students In a comprehensive study. Fleming (1984) reviewed a wealth of literature on Black students in colleges. He concluded that white males do best in white college settings and Black males do best in 49 Black college settings. Women of both races experienced difficulties in college. regardless of institutional make-up. because they lacked assertiveness. A number of researchers have found that minority-group membership is a factor in attrition. All else being equal. the ethnic minority student has a lower probability than a nonminority student of being retained to graduation. Beal. Sauer. and Lenning (1980) found that most minority groups. including Blacks and Native Americans. had a lower probability of graduating than whites. When high school class rank and scholastic aptitude were controlled. retention probability was similar for Native Nuericans and whites. Astin's (1972) research supported the premise that minority groups differ from nonminorities in terms of retention and academic performance. Overall retention rates were lower for Black college students than for white students on four different measures. When academic aptitude and high school grades were controlled. the reten- tion rates for Blacks were as high as for the non-Blacks studied. Walton (1979) offered several explanations for the different results for minority and nonminority students. He contended that many disad- vantaged minority students excel academically at a rate different from their sometimes more advantaged counterparts. Walton asserted that institutions of higher education must use techniques such as mentoring to provide appropriate role models in an effort to reduce attrition among minority students 50 Astin (l975) found that Black and white students responded dif- ferently when asked their reasons for leaving college. Whites often cited boredom. dissatisfaction with requirements and regulations. and changes in career paths as reasons for leaving school. On the other hand. Blacks cited financial and marital reasons for leaving college. Whites tended to check several reasons for leaving; Blacksunore often checked only one. Simmons et a1. (1979) postulated a nunber of reasons for Black student attrition. Some of those reasons were lack of study. unfamiliarity with responsibilities. lack of ability. lack of interest and motivation. nonacademic factors. personal problems. financial difficulties. and family problems. Based on a review of the literature on attrition. Tinto»(1975) developed a conceptual frmnework of processes leading to attrition. He argued that it is the individual's integration into the social and academic environment of the college that. in the final analysis. determines retention. Ti nto further stated that integration into the institution and commitment to the institution's goals and to college completion will increase the student's retention probability. Tinto contended. therefore. that a "fit"lnust exist between the student and the institution if the student is to be retained. As previously noted. Blacks have experienced higher attrition rates from higher education at traditionally white institutions than have white students at the same institutions (Braddock. 1981; Burback &Thompson. 1973; Fleming. 1984; Suen. 1973). One possible 51 explanation for this high attrition rate might be the lack of fit or congruence between the student and the institution. It has been noted that Black students in predominantly white institutions behave differently from their white counterparts because of the college setting (Fleming. 1984; Gibbs. 1974). How a student adapts to an educational setting can become a critical factor in the ultimate fit or lack thereof between the student and the institution. Gibbs (1974) studied the coping patterns of Black students seek- ing therapy at Stanford University. a predominantly white school. He found that Black students used four modes of adaptation strategies: affinnation. assimilation. separation. and withdrawal--in coping with identity conflicts exacerbated by a predominantly white educational setting. The affirmation mode. which Gibbs viewed as the most desirable yet least used one. was characterized by self-acceptance. high achievement motivation. and self-actualizing behavior. Students using this adaptation strategy attempted to merge the Black and white cul- tural patterns that were congruent with their own goals and personali- ties. The assimilation mode was characterized by an alteration of the self to meet the needs of the situation Rather than merging Black and white cultural patterns. these students relinquished their own patterns for those of the white cultural experience. The separation mode was distinguished by anger. hostility. and conflicts in interpersonal relationships. These students expressed 52 such attitudes as contempt for white-middle-class values and behavi- oral patterns. They actively protested against white institutions and customs. This mode of adaptation response was the second most preva- lent one; it was found most often among non-middle—class students and was viewed by others as the most noticeable. probably because of the politics involved. This mode was also characterized by feelings of inadequacy. Gunnings (1972) found that hostility and deviant behavior are exhibited by disadvantaged youths. who view the schools as unrespon- sive and uninterested in these students' intellectual development. Finally. the withdrawal mode was the adaptation style used by a majority (51%) of students in the study. This behavior was character— ized by apathy. depression. alienation. depersonalization. feelings of hopelessness. and a wish to avoid contact with the conflict-producing situation. Withdrawal was associated with academic failure. feelings of inadequacy. low socioeconomic status. and segregated high schools Gibbs contended that students who used the withdrawal mode of adapta- tion lacked a tolerance for academic and social stress and were more vulnerable to attrition from college If Tinto's conceptual model is correct. colleges must provide a wide range of supportive services. exposure to integration. and an environment that fosters interaction with white classmates. To reduce the probability of academic failure and to raise self-esteem on the part of minority students. colleges and universities must address the 53 problem of adaptation if the goal of higher retention rates is to be met. Stikes (1984) supported Tinto's theory. stating that institu- tional integration has a direct effect on the retention of Black students in higher education. In his recent text on Blacks in college. Stikes pointed to two major factors that influence Black student attrition: institutional involvement and academic perform- ance. Further. he noted that there is a greater probability of retaining students when institutional programming is directed toward involving students in the life of the institution and enhancing their academic performance. Suen (1983) also found institutional involvement and academic performance to be important to minority students' ultimate success in higher education. He identified several components of institutional involvement that might impede students' progress on a number of levels. Those components were alienation. social estrangement. and feelings of meaningless and hopelessness. Suen believed institutional programming should be directed toward reducing the obstacles to stu- dent success. by generating such programs as peer counseling. planned group activities. tutorial services. orientation. and career guidance. in an effort to increase retention rates. 54 WW Engineenmgfludent The national retention rate for Blacks in engineering is indeed low. Kaufman (1977) evaluated surveys administered by the American Council on Education from 1968 through 1972. He found that: Of those blacks who expected to major in engineering. only 39 percent actually did so. compared to 55 percent among white engi- neering aspirants . . . Of those who were engineering aspirants. a freshman. or transferred into the field later on. only 14 per- cent of the blacks completed their engineering degrees within four years; 29 percent of the white students finished within four years. (p. 34) Kaufman also found that the retention rate for students who actually completed four-year engineering programs was noteworthy. as well. For Blacks the retention figure was 3%. while for white students it was 46%. The total number of Blacks surveyed in Kaufman's study was 162. The comparison group of white students numbered 3.147. One-third of the total Black engineering student population in Kaufman's study eventually dropped out of school. Most (44%) reported that they had left engineering because of poor academic performance. and 35% reported that they had left school because of financial diffi- cul ties. One student in five reported a change in career objectives as a rationale for dropping out of school. Further. Kaufman found that SAT scores were highly correlated with success in engineering. The SAT scores of Black and white stu- dents who completed or were close to completing engineering degrees were almost identical. Black noncompl eters. however. generally had poorer high school grades and SAT scores than completers. The research conducted by Kaufman further supported the premise that 55 grades are an important factor to be considered with reference to attrition. Kaufman found that any student who had been inadequately prepared in mathematics and physical science in high school had a very poor chance of completing the engineering curriculum. Because many minority engineering students drop out each term due to poor academic performance. the EEOP in the College of Engineering at MSU has implemented an academic monitoring device. the Early Warn- ing System. The EEOP has contended that obtaining mid-term progress reports on high-risk minority students will alert engineering faculty and/or staff to the existence of a problem before the student receives a failing grade and is dismissed from the engineering program. If minority engineering students are to be retained. it is of paramount importance that their academic problems and deficiencies be addressed immediately. in an attempt to build confidence and a desire for suc- CGSS. AcademiLMcnrcoLing A number of educators have contended that some form of an early- alert system that monitors student progress will have an influence on final retention rates (Bogen. 1982; Goodrich. 1979; Landis. Lenning. Sauer. 8. Beal. 1980; Minor. 1985; Penick. 1983. 1985; Simmons et al.. 1979). Recent research conducted by Kramer. Moss. Taylor. and Hendrix (1985) indicated that institutional retention rates are higher when students have confidence in their ability to succeed academically. To build that confidence. students need to be exposed to a variety of 56 experiences such as academic skill building. career planning. and the social/educational milieu of the institution. It is critical that all personnel. faculty. counselors. advisers. and other supportrservice personnel involved with students work together to monitor students' academic progress. Although the research by Kramer et al. focused on informal moni- toring by university personnel. researchers increasingly are support- ing the need for some formal mechanism of academic monitoring. A number of researchers and educators have stated that academic inonitoring can be an effective technique for improving the academic performance and retention rates of minority engineering students (Landis. 1976; Minor. 1985; Penick. 1983. 1985). More andlnore edu- cators working with special populations are supporting the notion of academic monitoring (Bogen. 1982; Lenning et al.. 1980; Walton. 1979). In a national survey for the American College Testing (ACT) program. Noel and Levitz (1982) found that many university programs (federally funded [Trio] and nonfederally funded [general]) have made a special effort to identify and reach students who were admitted to institutions in good standing but subsequently experienced academic difficulty. Most of these programs (43% Trio. 34% general) relied on student referrals from faculty and support personnel. The at-risk students generally received personal notifications or telephone calls (18% Trio. 19% generalh A number of programs reviewed grades. tran- scripts. and probation lists as a means of monitoring student progress 57 (34% Trio. 25% general). Other approaches used in these university programs were counseling intervention and/or advising (16% Trio. 33% general) to help students address academic deficiencies. Neverthe- less. only 18% of both types of institutions reported having a fonnalized early alert warning system as an integral part of that institution's mechanism for reaching students. Noel. Levitz. and Kaufmann (1982) found that of those institu- tions reporting some monitoring mechanism. only 63% Trio and 44% general evaluated student progress at the end of each term. Trio programs reviewed the status of students regularly throughout the term and more frequently than general institutions (35% Trio. 26% generalL General institutions reviewed mid-term grades more frequently than did Trio institutions (29% Trio. 40% general). Finally. Noel et al. found that although some institutions indicated grade lists were computer- ized. few institutions of either type reported having a computerized tracking mechanism similar to the EEOP's Early Warning System. The literature reviewed failed to specify the best time to intro- duce academic monitoring into the educational and academic life of the at-risk student. However. researchers have found that most students are lost through attrition during the first semester or the first year of academic matriculation (Gather & Newlon. 1980L Given the high attrition evidenced during the freshman year. it seems appropriate to begin academic monitoring of the new student before problems emerge. In a discussion of minority engineering programs. McLaughlin (1981) advised that since support services are an investment in human 58 potential. it is crucial that monitoring students begin early. with follow-up throughout the students' academic experience. The literature reviewed in this section has shown that more and more program administrators serving high-risk populations view moni- toring as a means of addressing attrition problems. One such moni- toring system was developed by this researcher for the EEOP in the College of Engineering at MSU. Summanx This research project primarily involved a formative and a summa- tive evaluation of an academic monitoring device. the Early Warning System. developed by the EEOP in the College of Engineering at Michigan State University. The objective of the literature review was to place this monitoring program within the context of several impor- tant factors. These factors are the minority engineering effort in general. the attrition of minority and minority engineering students from higher education. and the role of academic monitoring in address- ing the problem of college-student attrition. CHAPTER II I NETHODOLCBY Winn The major objective of this research project was to assess and evaluate the overall effectiveness of the Early Warning System (EWS). This was accomplished through both a formative and a summative eval ua- tion. The formative evaluation of the EWS entailed a detailed descri ption of what happened during the initial development and later implementation phases of the project. The summative evaluation included an analysis of data compiled on the overall project and con- clusions drawn from that analysis. The methodology used in the inves- tigation is explained in this chapter. Some researchers have considered academic monitoring a viable mechanism with which to address the problem of academic failure among minority engineering students (Landis. 1976; Minor. 1985; Penick. 1983. 1985). However. little formalized research has supported that premise. The present study was undertaken in the belief that academic monitoring could improve the academic performance of students in the College of Engineering at Michigan State University (MSU). The evalu- ation of the EWS monitoring device was an attempt to test that belief with data from the project. 59 60 The major research hypotheses that follow were formulated after an extensive review of the literature. taking into consideration the specific factors and parameters deemed important in the EWS design. mm KW: There is no difference in the final engi- neering course grades of minority engineering sophomores. juniors. and seniOrs Spring Term 1985 who received the Early Warning System treatment intervention and those minority sophomore. junior. and senior engineering students Spring Term 1984 who did not receive the treatment. W: The final engineering course grades of minority sophomores. juniors. and seniors Spring Term 1985 will be higher than those of minority engineering sophomores. juniors. and seniors Spring Term 1984 who did not receive the Early Warning System treatment. Wham: There is no difference in the engineering course grades of the bottom 25% of minority sophomore. junior. and senior engineering students in Spring Term 1984 and the engi- neering course grades of the bottom 25% of minority sophomore. junior. and senior engineering students Spring Term 1985. W: The engineering course grades of the bottom 25% of minority sophomore. junior. and senior engineering students at the end of Spring Term 1984 will be lower than the engineering course grades of the bottom 25% of minority sophomore. junior. and senior engineering students at the end of Spring Term 1985. W: There is no difference in the number of courses dropped Spring Term 1985 by minority sophomore. junior. and senior engineering students who received the Early Warning System treatment intervention and the number of courses dropped Spring Term 1984 by minority sophomore. junior. and senior engi- neering students who did not receive the treatment. The number of courses dropped Spring Term 1985 by minority sophomore. junior. and senior engineering students who received the Early Warning System treatment interven- tion will be higher than the number of courses dropped Spring Term 1984 by minority sophomore. junior. and senior engineering stu- dents who did not receive the treatment. 61 : There is no statistically significant differ- ence in the final engineering course grades of minority sopho- tnores. juniors. and seniors Fall Term 1985 who received the Early Warning System treatment intervention and those of minority sopho- mores. juniors. and seniors Fall Term 1984 who did not receive the treatment. W: The final engineering course grades of minority sophomores. juniors. and seniors Fall Term 1985 will be significantly higher than those of minority sophomores. juniors. and seniors Fall Term 1984 who did not receive the treatment. W: There is no statistically significant differ- ence in the final engineering course grades of the bottom 25% of minority sophomores. juniors. and seniors Fall Term 1985 and those of the bottom 25% of minority sophomores. juniors. and seniors Fall Term 1984. : The final engineering course grades of the bottom 25% of minority sophomores. juniors. and seniors Fall Term 1985 will be significantly higher than those of the bottom 25% of minority sophomores. juniors. and seniors Fall Term 1984. W: There is no statistically significant differ- ence in the number of courses dropped Fall Term 1985 by minority sophomores. juniors. and seniors who received the Early Warning System treatment intervention and the number of courses dropped Fall Term 1984 by minority sophomores. juniors. and seniors who did not receive the treatment. W: The nunber of courses dropped Fall Term 1985 by minority sophomores. juniors. and seniors who received the Early Warning System treatment intervention will be significantly higher than the number of courses dropped Fall Term 1984 by minor- ity sophomores. juniors. and seniors who did not receive the treatment. ReseancLDesign A quasi-experimental research design was used to compare four nonrandomized populations of minority engineering sophomores. juniors. and seniors Because random selection and assignment did not occur. a quasi-experimental design was most appropriate. 62 The treatment groups comprised all minority engineering sopho- Inores. juniors. and seniors enrolled in engineering-coded courses Spring Term 1985 and Fall Term 1985 who received the EWS intervention strategy. The control groups comprised all minority engineering sophomores. juniors. and seniors enrolled in engineering-coded courses Spring Term 1984 and Fall Term 1984 who did not receive the treatment intervention. Spring Term 1984 and Fall Term 1984 were comparable control groups. respectively. for Spring Term 1985 and Fall Term 1985 because as a result of student matriculation in some cases these students acted as their own control group. In addition. these selected groups were comparable because no grade inflation or deflation was evidenced. and no College of Engineering or Admissions Office policy was insti- tuted that altered these groups of students over the same 2-year period. The Nonequivalent Control Group Design 10 (Campbell & Stanley. 1963) was the design matrix used used in this investigation. This design was modified for the present study as no protesting took place. Using Campbell and Stanley's symbols. the design can be depicted as shown in Figure 3.L Figure 3.1: Study design matrix. 63 There were two major aspects to the design in the present study. The first aspect included the investigation. which encompassed all minority engineering sophomores. juniors. and seniors participating in the study. The second included only the bottom 25% of the participat- ing students The EWS was desi gned to impact those students who were at the greatest risk of academic failure; those students were found in the bottom 25% of all minority students participating in the study. lactabjes The independent variable used in evaluating the EWS was the presence or absence of the treatment intervention used by the EEOP academic adviser and upper-divisi on engineering program academic advisers Adviser intervention may have taken a number of forms. Students enrolled in engi neering-coded courses Spring Term 1985 and Fall Term 1985 received the treatment. while students enrolled Spring Term 1984 and Fall Term 1984 did not receive the treatment. Two dependent variables were considered crucial to this study. Because the primary objective of the EWS was to improve the student's academic performance in engineering courses. the final engineering course grades of students participating in the study were included as a dependent variable. In Hypotheses l and 4. it was generally assumed that if the EWS was effective in improving the academic performance of minority engineering students who participated in the project. the final engineering course grade was an appropriate dependent or outcome variable. 64 In Hypotheses 2 and 5. the final overall engineering course grade point average (GPA) for the bottom 25% of the total population was studied The EWS was designed to benefit students who were at the greatest risk of failure. The researcher assumed those students were most likely to be found in the bottom 25% of the total group. The second dependent variable. used for Hypotheses 3 and 6. was the number of engineering-coded courses dropped for the four terms (Spring and Fall Tenns 1984 and Spring and Fall Terms 1985) in ques- tion. Although engineering faculty members and advisers did not encourage students to drop courses impetuously. dropping courses is one way to avoid failing a course. UfliI_Qi_Aflfil¥§i§ The unit of analysis for in this research was the engineering- coded course taken by the minority engineering sophomores. juniors. and seniors during any of the four terms under investigation. It was possible. in a given term. for a single student to be enrolled in more than one engineering course. The unit of analysis was therefore not the student. but the course. Spring and Fall Terms 1984 represented the control group. During Spring Term 1984. minority sophomores. juniors. and seniors took 224 engineering-coded courses. Fall Term 1984. minority sophomores. juniors. and seniors took 275 engineering-coded courses. Spring and Fall Terms 1985 represented the experimental group. or the tenns in which the EWS was implemented Spring Term 1985. minor- ity sophomores. juniors. and seniors took 293 engineering-coded 65 courses. Fall Term 1985. minority sophomores. juniors. and seniors took 258 engineering-coded courses. The number of courses per student varied from as low as one course in any one of the four terms under investigation to a high of seven courses taken by a student Spring Term 1985. It should be noted that in this case the additional courses represented required labora- tory classes taken in conjunction with engineering courses. In total. minority sophomores. juniors. and seniors enrolled in 1.050 engineering-coded courses during the four terms under investiga- tion. Table 3.1 shows a breakdown of the total number of engineering- coded courses enrolled in by minority engineering students for each of the four term 5. Table 3.1: Nunber of Engineering-Coded Courses Broken Down by Student Classification and Term Spring Fall Spring Fall Row Cl assificati on 1984 1984 1985 1985 Totals Sophomore 42 62 40 39 183 J uni or 84 106 120 90 400 Senior 98 107 133 129 467 Col unn total 224 275 293 258 1.050 MethodologJMssumptjcns The methodological assumptions underlying this research took two forms. First. a major theoretical assumption was made regarding the 66 nature of the four populations included in the study. The researcher assumed that although these four groups of students (Spring 1984. Fall 1984. Spring 1985. and Fall 1985) were not randomly assigned. there was no reason to believe that minority engineering sophomores. juniors. and seniors would vary greatly from year to year. That is. it was assumed that the students enrolled in 1984 would be comparable to those enrolled in 1985. The other methodological assumptions considered important to the statistical analysis were those underlying the j-test and the chi- square analysis. For Hypotheses 1. 2. 4. and 5. the t-test was used to analyze the differences in means for the four courses used as the unit of analysis. The three methodological assumptions underlying the t-test are that (a) the distributions of observations in both popula- tions are normal. (b) the variances of the observations in both popu- lations are equal. and (c) the observations in both populations are independent of each other. For Hypotheses 3 and 6. the nonparametric chi-square procedure was used. The primary assumption underlying this technique is that the level of measurement is nominal or ordinal. Limiiaiinn One of the assumptions underlying the i-test is the independence of the units of analysis. Again. the unit of analysis in this inves- tigation was the engineering-coded courses in which minority engineer- ing students were enrolled. A number of students took more than one 67 engineering-coded course in a particular term (Spring 1984. Fall 1984. Spring 1985. or Fall l985L Hence the independence assumption was violated. However. given the structure of the study. no other viable unit of analysis was available. and the researcher believed that selecting the engineering-coded course as the unit of analysis would not produce systematic bias DessLipIi9n_cI.the.StudenIaEnnulation The EEOP serves all minority pre-engineering (freshman and sopho- more) students who have expressed an interest in majoring in engineer- ing at MSU. Support services available to this pre-engineering student population include academic advisement/counseling; tutoring in English. engineering. and technical-related courses; a student assist- ant/peer-counseling program; and mathematics courses focusing on intermediate algebra. college algebra. and trigonometry. Although not directly responsible for minority students in upper- division engineering programs (junior and senior levels). the EEOP has a strong commitment to retaining minority engineering students until they graduate. The EEOP provides services to upper-division (junior and senior) minority engineering students in the areas of job place~ ment. scholarship. and financial aid. The EEOP has attempted to address the problem of attrition among upper-division minority engineering students by developing the EWS. an academic monitoring device designed to improve the performance of minority engineering sophomores. juniors. and seniors in engineering- coded courses. The EWS was designed to focus on this group because 68 the attrition problem is especially serious at the sophomore..junior. and senior levels. Both this researcher and the EEOP believe that forwarding accu- rate and timely information regarding a minority engineering studentfis academic performance in an engineering-coded course to appropriate support personnel can directly affect the student's ultimate survival in that course. Also. if the EWS is effective in helping at-risk students avoid academic failure. it might help increase the retention of minority engineering students in engineering programs at MSU. Participation in the EWS by minority engineering sophomcwes. juniors. and seniors was voluntary. In both the Spring and Fall Term 1985 implementations of the EWS. two students asked to be excluded from the academic monitoring process. These students could be cate- gorized academically as being part of the low-risk group and were not considered primary targets for whom the EWS was designed. All minority engineering students were eligible to participate in the Spring and Fall Term 1985 implementations of the EWS; However. evaluation and investigation of the systenfls effectiveness focused only on those minority engineering sophomores. juniors. and seniors enrolled in engineering-coded courses Spring Term 1984. Fall Term 1984. Spring Term 1985. and Fall Term 1985. The Spring and Fall Term 1984 cohorts constituted the control group. whereas the Spring and Fall Term 1985 cohorts made up the experimental group. Freshmen were excluded from this investigation because few freshmen typically are enrolled in engi neering-coded courses. 69 Because all sophomore. junior. and senior minority engineering students enrolled in engineering-coded courses for each of the four terms in question were included in the study. no sampling procedures were necessary. In addition. no random selection or assignment occurred. Table 3.2 contains demographic data on the 235 student partici- pants for each of the four terms included in the study. The demo~ graphic data available for these students were limited to those shown in the table for several reasons. First. the College of Engineering has only recently begun to maintain historical data on minority engi- neering students. Second. minority engineering students drop in and out of academic programs more often than do nonminority students This type of behavior has made it difficult to track and maintain information on minority engineering students. Finally. the College of Engineering Student Affairs Office maintains folders for all minority engineering students who are currently enrolled in engineering. That office also maintains an inactive file on students who were at one time coded pre-engineering or engineering. but information in the file is limited primarily to the reason for the studenfls inactive status Descniptjcmoflneatment Recently. the College of Engineering and the EEOP at Michigan State University became increasingly concerned about the higher attri- tion rate among minority engineering students as compared to their nonminority counterparts After some consideration. it was concluded 70 mm m— NN mN mm— @N o— .muOP oococosoeu oz oo:o_om mEoum>m mc_cooc_m:o >Lmu_cmm ouco_6m m_m_Loumz >mcs__muoz mu_:m;uoz mc_Looc_mco .mu.cm;uoz muse mc_Looc_mcm m:_Loo:_mco _~u_Luoc_m coco—om LeuaaeoQ mc_soo:_mco __>_u mc_Looc_mco _mu_Eo;u m:_soo:_mco _~L:u_:o_cm< _mu0h cmu_LoE< o>_umz o_:mnm_: ocmo_;o sum—n cacao o_:;uw >n mo_mEou .mUop cmosaoe< a o>_umz u_:m m_I ocmu_cu xum_m nacho u_c;um >a mo_mz Loam: mc_coo:_mcm mam. ..wsxm:_cnm can :mm. __ms\mc_asw Les u0c_nscu .MHmo u_;omcmoEoo .mucma_u_ucms soum>m mc_ch3 >_me “~.m o_nmh 71 that many minority students were leaving the College of Engineering because of poor academic performance. These withdrawals were involun- tary because the at-risk students most often were dismissed because of poor academic performance rather than leaving voluntarily. The director of the EEOP contended that academic monitoring of at-risk minority engineering students might help the EEOP and the College of Engineering retain students In addition. it was believed that intervention by relevant and competent personnel into students' academic affairs could improve student performance. The present researcher devel oped the EWS. a computerized alert and referral system that allows the EEOP to monitor the academic performance and progress of minority engineering sophomores. juniors. and seniors in engineering-coded courses The major objective of the monitoring process and the EWS was the early identification of academically at-risk students in engineering-coded courses This procedure was accomplished by having the student's engineering professor complete a mid-term progress report that detailed the student's academic performance and attendance in the professor's course to date. All completed cards were then forwarded to the EEOP (before the last day for withdrawal from or dropping of courses with no grade reported) by the engineering professor teaching the course. The EWS cards were reviewed and coded. and the academic status of the minority engineering students involved was then forwarded to the appropriate academic adviser. The academic adviser contacted all those participating students who were below a 2.0 at mid-term in any 72 engineering-coded course that term. The adviser and the student defined the nature of the problem. explored possible options. and worked toward problem resolution. The follow-up was infonmal. initiated by either the adviser or the student. The EWS was formally implemented Spring Term 1985. and a partial replication of the same study occurred Fall Term 1985. The latter was designated a partial replication because a structural change took place between Spring and Fall Terms. which altered the adviser/advisee service-delivery linkage. The treatment is discussed more extensively in Chapter IV. A synopsis of the treatment was included in this chapter to help the reader place the methodology within the context of the EWS treatment intervention. Wm Sources of information used in the project were the folders of students participating in the EWS program and computerized data com- piled on the same population. The required infonmation was trans- ferred to data-collection sheets. Because the unit of analysis was the engineering-coded course. a total of 1.050 data-collection sheets were created. These were forwarded to the Data Entry Department in the Computer Center at MSU. where a Control Data Corporation (CDC) 750 system performed the required statistical analyses. An extensive discussion of the results of the data analysis is contained in Chapter IV. 73 31mm The methodological approach used in the research was explained in this chapter. The population was described. and research hypotheses were stated. The primary objective of the study was the formative and summative evaluation of an academic—monitoring device. the EWS. which this researcher developed for the EEOP and the College of Engineering at MSU. The formative phase of the research project was briefly dis- cussed. In Giapter IV that phase is examined in greater detail. and the procedures used in implementing the EWS are described. MAHERIV IMPLEMENTATION Wow This chapter focuses on the formative or implementation phase of this project. The system-development stages followed by the researcher in developing and coordinating the project are discussed in detail. For some time. the MSU Athletic Department has used computerized academic monitoring hian attempt to maximize student athletes poten- tial for academic success and to insure that national association guidelines are met The Athletic Departmenvs model became a proto- type for the EEOP's Early Warning System (EWS). The present researcher designed. developed. and modified that prototype to meet the specific needs of EEOP students. EWS personnel. and the College of Engineering. The most important difference between the two monitoring systems relates to program evaluation. Evaluation of the athletic progranfls monitoring system has been informal. No formal documenta- tion has been generated that focuses on the effectiveness of that department's academic-monitoring effort. In the following sections of this chapter. the implementation of the EWS is discussed. 71+ 75 Annuals Before developing the EWS for the EEOP in the College of Engi- neering. it was vital to obtain an accurate assessment of the dynamics of the environment in which this system would operate. Such analysis generally included defining the problem and assessing organization and participant needs. given the nature of the problem. Figure 4.1 shows the five steps that were considered crucial in assessing the environment during the initial planning phase of the EWS project. The five major steps were covered before the formal request was made for support from College of Engineering faculty and adminis- trative staff. The College of Engineering dean and assistant dean and the EEOP director did. however. play an intricate role in the informal strategic planning that occurred before the EWS project was formally presented to College of Engineering department Chairpersons and stu- dent affairs/EEOP personnel. The existing form of service delivery to the target population was assessed to gain additional information about the academic envi- ronment. Some of the information gathered from the needs-assessment process was then incorporated into the EWS design. Finally. the needs-assessment process helped ensure that no duplication of services occurred. 76 * Identify monitoring system coordinator * Establish goals. objectives. and desired outcomes * Analyze current system of service delivery to at-risk population * Develop monitoring-system parameters *- * 3k 1k 3k * * Obtain Figure 4.1: Population Courses Support services Personnel Materials Cost Time administrative support Steps considered crucial in the initial planning phase of the Early Warning System. Figure 4.2 shows how minority engineering students are currently served in the College of Engineering at MSU. Note that students who are freshmen or sophomores are designated pre-engineering Upon for- mal application. when the student reaches 85 credits. he/she is admit- ted to the College of Engineering and a specific engineering major if he/she meets the minimum grade point average (GPA) admission require— ment for that majon Figure 4.3 indicates the rationale used in selecting the EWS target population. 77 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING How Is target population currently serviced? lower Division upper Division Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior (0-39) (40-84] [85-129) (Ian-up] credits credits credits credits Pro-Engineering Engineering EEDP Academic Departmental Adivser Academic Advisers ~ tudent Assistants Engineering Program h Professors Tutorial Services Teaching Assistants Introductory Math Dourses Tau Beta Pi ' Application to college at 85 credits Figure 4.2: How minority engineering students are served in the College of Engineering at MSU. 78 * Pilot project started in house (within the College of Engineering) * Information transfer expedited * Closer existing relations with engineering professors * Most dramatic attrition occurred between the sophomore and junior years * Upper-level students in engineering-coded courses Figure 4.3: Criteria for selecting the target population. The researcher supports the notion that the greatest attrition in higher education occurs during the freshman and sophomore years and that most students drop out within the first year. Therefore. the best way to reduce attrition might be to develop programs targeted at freshmen and sophomores. The EEOP was established to assist students in these first two critical years of college. It was necessary. however. given the experimental nature of the EWS. to restrict the target population to sophomore. junior. and senior minority engineer— ing students. This particular population was used to insure program- matic manageability and control. In summary. during the analysis phase of implementing the EWS. all known factors that appeared to affect service delivery to the target population were reviewed. The EWS was then developed to fit the context of the College of Engineering student affairs adviser service—delivery model that was already in use. This model is 79 discussed in greater detail in the Discussion of Treatment section of this chapter. Design This section focuses on the design of this project. The researcher defined "design" to mean the framework. structure. and/or objectives used as a foundation on which the actual EWS program was developed. Figure 4.4 lists the factors considered inherent in the EWS. * Systematic. computerized academic alert system * Systematic referral source *Student-referral source * Transfers accurate and timely academic infonma- tion (engineering mid-term course grades) on minority engineering students * Alerts appropriate engineering personnel to the existence of a problem * May alert the student to the problem * Encourages dialogue and communication between the student and appropriate personnel Figure 4.4: The Early Warning System It was necessary to develop a systematic. computerized alert system that would transfer accurate and up-to-date information on the minority engineering sophomores. juniors. and seniors who participated in the program. It was assumed that early problem identification by 80 the EWS would precipitate immediate intervention by relevant person- nel. which would facilitate rapid resolution of the problem. Figure 4.5. which is directly related to Figure 4.1. gives an overview of the entire strategic planning process. Note that the last step in Figure 4.1 is the first step in Figure 4.5. in which the focus is on obtaining administrative support. After the basic structure of the EWS. including goals. objectives. and outcomes. had been developed from the needs-analysis and design phases. it was necessary to obtain administrative guidance and support. With the assistance and coopera- tion of the College of Engineering dean. assistant dean. and depart- ment Chairpersons. specific elements of the planning process were facilitated. Figure 45 illustrates the approximate sequence of events that preceded the actual project. W The researcher defined development as the creation and/or pro- duction of the materials necessary in implementing the EWS. These materials included the computer cards onto which student enrollment data were key punched. an example of which is shown in Figure 4.6. 81 The Early Warning System (EWS) Planning Stages EWS Coordinator Dhtaln MSU Sessions/ — Administrative —- Registrar Dept. Chairs, Fac. Support Support I Identify EWS ‘ Participating Personnel I identify Students/ Courses Monitored Dept. Chairs, Fac. Design Computerized Infor- Drientation _ Computer Card — mation Transfer Session for EWS Procedures Develop Activity Registrar/Univer- Flow Chart — sity Academic Calendar Determine Start Up Date Notification to All Participants tart Project Figure 4.5: The Early Warning System planning stages. 82 The above named student is in your class this term. The Engineering Equal Opportunity Program in the College of Engineering is interested in his/her academic program and would appreciate receiving a progress report regarding his/her current status in your class. If there is no basis for evaluation at this time. please hold until an assessment can be made. Thank you for your cooperation. Has the student been absent from class? Yes___ If so. how many times? No ___, Present Grade ___ comments: Please return to: College of Engineering Engineering Equal Opportunity Program G-54 Wilson Hall Signature Date Figure 4.6: Sample of computer card used to key punch student enrollment data. Figures 4.7 and 4.8 show forms generated to collect data on student use of the Guided Learning Center during Spring and Fall Terms 1985. These data were collected to ascertain whether students identified by the EWS. who had fallen below a 2.0 at mid-term in an engineering-coded course. were using the EEOP tutorial services in the Guided Learning Center. Another objective was to determine. if these students were indeed using the tutorial services. whether there was a relationship between use of the center and an above-2J3 final engi- neering course grade. A further example of the material-development phase is detailed in Figures 4.9 and 4.10. These figures show the forms used in con- junction with the adviser notification and intervention process. 83 mmm— Etch m:_cam .Loucou mcwcsmoo voc_:u..usm;u >uw>wuo< "N.: oc:m_s Lasso mow >Lum_Eo:u mu_m>;s msu new: coma scam I s .c.es.m can: m.ucou:um ecumoaoos mc_50u:u so coco >s_uoam\cmL30u "so xooz 84 mmm. Esoh __ms .Loucou m:_ccm04 cov_:u .usmcu >u_>_uo< "m.: ocsm_s Losuo mum >sum_eozu mu_m>:s msu sum: use c. coma scam: * ucovaum oEmz m.ucoo:um >s_uoam "memL30u os_h "so x003 "osmz m.ccu:h 85 Ecum>m mc_ccm3 >_me soum\uoocm cameo: com_>c< "m.: oc:m_s mc_eou soucoaoom co_uoom omL30u .uaoo o_u_h omL20u mmm_u Lcmmz .Lcau s acousum cEmz ucovaum "coma 86 Date: Adviser: Curriculum: Student Name: Type of Contact: Please check one Student Number: Personal: Student's Major: Telephone:_____ Letter: Classification: Number of Contacts: Course below 2.0: Name of Professor: Statement of Problem: (Academic, Financial, Social, or Other, Specify) Early Warning System Intervention Strategy: Figure A.IO: Early Warning System Adviser Report Form 87 Figure 4.9 is the Adviser Update Sheet. which was regularly forwarded to the upper-division academic adviser with a report of his/her advisee's status in the engineering-coded course(s) attempted that term. Figure 4.10 is the Adviser Narrative RepOrt Form. on which the adviser recorded the method of student contact. nature of the stu- dent's problem. and the probl em-resol ution strategy developed by the adviser and the student. William: 11194513. The EWS is a computerized alert and referral system that the EEOP used to monitor the academic progress of minority engi- neering sophomores. juniors. and seniors in engineering-coded courses Spring and Fall Terms 1985. This monitoring process was begun by having the students' engineering professors complete mid-term progress cards on the students' academic performance and attendance in the course to date. The professors forwarded all completed cards to the EEOP before the last day for withdrawing from the course or dropping it with no grade reported. The EWS cards were reviewed and coded. and reports of the academic status of the minority engineering students involved were given to the appropriate academic advisers. The aca- demic advisers contacted all of the participating students who were below a 2.0 at mid-term in any engineering-coded course. The adviser and student defined the nature of the problem. explored possible options. and worked toward problem resolution. The follow-up was infonmal. initiated by either the adviser or the student. 88 WW- Four types of advising models were used in the College of Engineering Spring and Fall Terms 1985. These were the professional-adviser model. the graduate-assistant-adviser model. the facul ty-adviser model. and the Undergraduate University Division adviser model. The number of engi- neering departments using the facul ty-adviser model changed from two to one Fall Term 1985 because the Computer Science Department shifted from a facul ty-adviser model to a professional-adviser model. The professional-adviser model comprised personnel who generally possessed a master's degree in counseling. educational administration. and/or student personnel. These full-time workers served upper- division (j unior/senior) students with majors in the following depart- ments: Agricultural Engineering; Chemical Engineering; Mechanical Engineering; and Metallurgy. Mechanics. and Materials Science. Agri- cultural. Chemical. and Engineering Arts advisers also serve sophomore nonminority students. As mentioned earlier. the Computer Science Department began using the professional-adviser model Fall Term 1985. The graduate-assistant-adviser model included master's and Ph.D. degree candidates Spring Term 1985. the Electrical Engineering Department employed two part-time master's degree candidates who were majoring in electrical engineering. Fall Term 1985. that department employed a master's and a Ph.D. degree candidate who were majoring in electrical engineering. These part-time advisers served upper- division (junior/senior) electrical engineering students Both Spring and Fall Terms 1985 the EEOP employed a Ph.D. candidate majoring in 89 counseling and educational psychology. who served all lower-division (freshman/sophomore) pre-engineering minority students The faculty-adviser model comprised individuals who generally possessed a Pth degree in the engineering discipline of the depart- ment providing the advisory service. The two departments in the College of Engineering that used this model were Civil Engineering and Computer Science. Faculty members from these departments advised upper-division (junior/senior) students in those majors. In the Civil Engineering Department. juniors and seniors majoring in civil engi- neering were assigned alphabetically to a faculty adviser. In the Computer Science Department Spring Term 1985. a room was designated for advising. and a rotating faculty-advising service was provided for junior and senior students majoring in that discipline. As noted earlier. this department changed to the professional-adviser model Fall Term 1985. The Undergraduate University Division advising model functioned in the College of Engineering Spring and Fall Terms 1985. This model is not discussed further in this dissertation because: 1. The EWS was designed to monitor the academic perfonmance of minority engineering sophomores. juniors. and seniors. and the Under- graduate University Division serves only freshman engineering students for the first two terms or until they have earned 24 credits 2. The EEOP employs a graduate assistant as an academic adviser to serve freshman and sophomore minority engineering students. 90 Minority engineering sophomores who participated in the EWS were served by this adviser. mummmmmmsmmumm. Table 4L1 delineates a number of important aspects of the treatment inter- vention used during the pre-EWS period (Spring Term 1984) as well as during the period when the EWS was in effect (Spring Term 1985L The EWS was initially implemented by the EEOP in the College of Engineering Spring Term 1985. A partial replication of the original system was implemented Fall Term 1985. Table 4.2 is a comparison of models used in the pre-EWS period (Fall Term 1984) and the EWS period (Fall Term: 1985). One objective of program evaluation is to identify ways to improve the delivery of interventions to a given population. With this in mind. at the end of the Spring Term 1985 EWS implementation. several changes were discussed with EEOP and Engineering Student Affairs personnel and the departmental academic advisers who had participated in the project. It.was thought these changes might improve the overall effect of the academic monitoring device. A number of the proposed changes were incorporated into the system during the Fall Term 1985 implementation. Table 4.3 illustrates the differences between the Spring and Fall Term 1985 implementations. Table 4.1: and Spring Term 1985. Comparison of Treatment Intervention: Spring Term 1984 Spring Tenn 1984 Spring Tenm 1985 Advising occurred as a result of a student-generated referral sys- tem in which the student identi- fied the problem and contacted the appropriate personnel (aca- demic adviser. professor. EEOP. engineering administration). Sill-£115 1. Student received failing grade on first and/or mid-tenm exam. The student might have reacted in a number of different ways: a. The student might have con- tacted the professor of the failed engineering course. an EEOP administrator. and/ or other relevant MSU fac- ulty or staff. b. The student might also have contacted one or more of his peers to obtain a stu- dent perspective on the problem. c. The student might have failed to contact anyone. The student might simply have ignored the problem and done nothing. 0. o 2. If. the student contacted the professor. student and profes— sor might have discussed a number of factors that might have a bearing on the problem: Advising occurred as a result of a computer-generated referral system in which the EWS generated academic information about the student (mid-term grades). This information was then automati- cally forwarded to the appropri- ate department and personnel (i.e.. academic adviser. EEOP personnel. engineering adminis- tration). 519.95 1. Engineering professors received computerized cards from EEOP which identified minority engi- neering sophomores. juniors. and seniors enrolled in their courses Spring Term 1985. 2. The professors were then asked to forward mid-term grade reports on those students in their courses within a specified time period. That time was before the last day for with- drawal or dropping with no grade reported. *3. A coding system was developed. and numbers were assigned to each card/student in each engi- neering course. A code of 0 indicated that there was no response from the engineering professor. A code of 1 indi- cated that the student was at or abnxe a 2.0 on the date the card was forwarded. A code of 2 Table 4.1: 92 Continued Spring Term 1984 Spring Term 1985 a. grading scale b. previous academic prepa- ration c. motivation d. professional/career goals e. course content f. instructor expectations g. other specific problem areas 11 contact with made with aca- demic adviser. student and adviser might have discussed: a. study skills b. preparation for course c. test anxiety d. course/credit load 9. motivation f. goals/objectives 9. need to discuss failure with professor h... drooping W i. time-management techniques j. tutoring k. aptitude l. attitude m. performance/aptitude con- gruence Once the problem was identi- fied by the student in conjunc- tion with the professor or other professional personnel. a plan for problem resolution was developed. First. the student needed a clear picture of the options that were available. given the nature of the presenting prob- lem. *4. *5. *6. indicated that the student was .helnw a 2.0 on the date for- warded. A code of 3 on the EWS card indicated that the profes- sor had no basis for a grade as of the date forwarded. Departmental/academic advisers were then forwarded a master list of all minority sophomore. junior. and senior engineering students enrolled in their spe- cific engineering department's courses Spring Term 1985. At that time the departmental/ academic adviser was also for- warded the coding disposition of those students in the ndxisenls departmental courses. regardless of the student's major. Here the advising linkage was identified. and occurred between the departmental adviser and the departmental professor. For example. a mechanical engineering adviser served students in a mechanical engineering course regardless of whether the student was majoring in mechanical engi- neering. Therefore. the adviser may not have been advising his/her mechanical engineering advisees. Table 4.1: 93 Continued Spring Term 1984 Spring Term 1985 6. The student must respond to the problem (receiving a mid- tenm grade of below 2.0 in an engineering course) in a man- ner that addressed the problem and ultimately resolved the failure. The stated options offer the student a road map toward problem resolution. Follow-up. whether fonmal or informal. was generally ini- tiated by the student. *7. TO. The departmental/academic adviser was then asked to con- tact the students (personally. by telephone. or by letter) who had received a code of 2. which indicated they were below a 2.0 on the date the cards were forwarded. The students were then asked to visit the adviser's office to discuss the problem further. The adviser and the student identified the problem areas. discussed options. and worked toward problem resolution. based on the elements of the presenting problem. Follow-up. both formal and infonmal. was initiated by the student and/or the adviser. *Starred items indicate a significant change in the EWS treatment implementation from Spring Term 1985 to Fall Term 1985. Table 4.2: Comparison of Models Used in the Pre-EWS Period (Fall Term 1984) and the EWS Period (Fall Term 1985). Fall Term 1984 Fall Term 1985 Advising occurred as a result of a student—generated referral sys- tem in which the student identi- fied the problem and contacted the appropriate personnel (aca- demic adviser. professor. EEOP. and engineering administration). SEC: 1. Student received a failing grade on the first and/or mid- term exam. The student might have reacted in a number of different ways as a result of this failure: a. The student might have con- tacted the engineering pro- fessor teaching the course. b. The student might have con- tacted the EEOP adminis- tration. engineering stu- dent affairs personnel. and/or other MSU faculty or staff. c. The student might have contacted another peer majoring in engineering. d. The student might not have contacted anyone. but instead attempted to solve the problem alone. e. The student might simply have ignored the problem and done nothing. Advising occurred as a result of a computer-generated referral system in which the EWS generated information about the student's academic performance (mid-term grades). which was automatically referred to the student's depart- mental adviser. EEOP personnel. and/or engineering administra- tion. Slaps 1. Engineering professors received computerized cards from EEOP that identified minority engi- neering sophomores. juniors. and seniors enrolled in their courses Fall Term 1985. 2. The professors were than asked to forward mid-term grade reports on those students in their courses within a speci- fied time period (before the last day for withdrawal or dropping with no grade reported). *3. A coding was developed and assigned to each card/student in an engineering course Fall Term 1985. A code of 0 indi- cated that there was no response from the engineering professor. A code of 1 indicated that the student was halal a 2.0 on the date the card was forwarded. A code of 2 indicated that the student was at or abnxe a 2.0 Ta bl e 4.2: Conti n ue d. 95 Fall Term 1984 Fall Term 1985 2. If contact was made with the professor. the student and the professor might have discussed a number of factors that had a bearing on the problem: a. b. C. d. e. f. g. grading scale previous academic prepara- tion course-content-generated question and answer session instructor expectations motivation professional/career goals specific course academic problem areas If the student contacted the academic adviser. the student and the adviser might have dis- cussed a number of factors that had some bearing on the problem: a. b. C. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. 1. previous academic prepara- tion for course course/credit load study skills motivation goals/objectives contact professor to dis- cuss failure dropping timetable/proce- dures time-management skills overall academic perform- ance tutoring aptitude performance/aptitude con- gruence *4. *5. *6. on the date forwarded. and a code of 3 indicated the pro- fessor had no basis for a grade as of the date forwarded. Departmental lacademic advisers were then forwarded a master list of the enrollment status of all their minority advisees. Here the departmental lacademic adviser was serving his/her own advisees. For example. a mechan- ical engineering adviser served all students majoring in mechan- ical engineering. regardless of the engineering course below 2.0. The linkage here occurred between the departmental aca- demic adviser and the student majoring in that same depart- ment. regardless of the engi- neering course the student was enrolled in. At that time the departmental/ academic advisers were also forwarded the coding disposi- tion of their advisees in engi— neering courses. which detailed the grades their students had received to date. The departmental/academic adviser was then asked to con- tact the students who had received a code of l. which indicated the student was below a 2.0 on the date the cards were forwarded. Table 4.2: 96 Continued. Fall Term 1984 Fall Term 1985 4. U1 0 Once the problem had been 8. identified by the student in conjunction with the profes- sor or other professional personnel. a plan for problem resolution was developed. 9 First the student needed a clear picture of the options that were available. given the nature of the presenting problem. The student must respond to the problem (receiving a mid- term grade of below 2.0 in an engineering course) in a man- ner that addressed the prob- lem and ultimately resolved the failure. The stated options offer the student a road map toward problem reso- lution. Follow-up. whether formal or informal. was generally ini- tiated by the student. The students were then asked to visit their departmental/ academic adviser's office to discus the problem further. The departmental/academic adviser and the student iden- tified the problem areas. dis- cussed possible options. and worked toward problem resolu- tion. based on the elements of the presenting problem. Follow-up was both formal and informal and was initiated by the student and/or the adviser. *Starred items indicate a significant change in the EWS treatment implementation from Spring Term 1985 to Fall Term 1985. 97 Table 4.3: Fall 1985. Comparison of the Two EWS Implementations: Spring 1985 and Spring Term 1985 Fall Term 1985 Advising occurred as a result of a system-generated referral system in which the EWS generated aca- demic information about the stu- dent (mid-tenn grades). This information was automatically referred to the appropriate per- sonnel (EEOP. departmental aca- demic adviser. engineering administration). 39.115 1. EEOP received an EWS card from the engineering professor indicating the academic status of the student in the engi— neering course to date. *2 EEOP coded the card and indi- cated that status on a master list. 0 = no response from the engineering professor a 2.0 and ange mid-term grade in the engineering course taken that tenm below a 2.0 mid-term grade in the engineering course taken that tenm no basis for grade 1: U) ll 1. *2 $1395 EEOP received an EWS card from the engineering professor indi- cating the academic status of the student in the engineering course to date. EEOP coded the card and indi- cated that status on a master list. 0 = no response from the engi- neering professor 1 = below a 2.0 mid-tenm grade in the engineering course taken by the student that term a 2.0 and aboye mid-tenm grade in the engineering course taken that tenm 98 Table 4.3: Continued. Spring Term 1985 Fall Tenm 1985 *3. The departmental/academic *3. The departnental academic adviser received a master adviser received a master list list of all minority students of all his/her junior and enrolled in his/her deparmen- senior minority advisees. tal courses.regardless of the student's major. *4. The departmental/academic adviser contacted all his/her 4. The departmental/academic advisees listed who received adviser contacted all stu- codes of l in any engineering dents with codes of 2. course attempted that term. regardless of the student's For example. the mechanical major. and requested a visit engineering academic adviser by the student to discuss contacted a minority mechani- the problem further. For cal engineering major who had example. a mechanical engi- received a code of l in MMM160 neering adviser contacted a offered by the Metallurgy. civil engineering student Mechanics. and Materials Sci- because that student was ence Department. enrolled in a mechanical engineering course Spring *5. Here the linkage occurred Term 1985 and was below 2.0 at mid-term. The student in this case was not a mechani- cal engineering major. nor was this the student's major departmental adviser. *5. Here the linkage occurred between the departmental aca- demic adviser and the identi- cal department instructor of the engineering course. between the departmental aca- demic adviser and the student. regardless of the specific engineering department offer- ing the course. . This linkage allowed for freer flow of infonmation; the adviser had the student's academic record. It also facilitated an open discussion because this was the student's assigned adviser. 99 Table 4 .3: Continued. Spring Term 1985 Fall Term 1985 6. This linkage was problematic 7. The adviser and the student because the mechanical engi- then identified the problem neering adviser had only the areas. discussed options. and academic records/folders of worked toward problem resol u- those juniors and seniors tion. based on the elements majoring in mechanical engi- of the presenting problem. neering. 8. Follow-up was both formal and 7. The adviser and the student informal and was initiated by identified the problem areas. the student and/or the discussed options. and worked adviser. toward problem resolution. based on the elements of the presenting problem. 8. Follow-up was both formal and informal and was initiated by the student and/or the adviser. *Starred items indicate a significant change in the EWS treatment implementation from Spring Term to Fall Term 1985. Thus far. the discussion of treatment has focused primarily on the advising models used in the College of Engineering and on compari- sons of treatment and control groups by term and year. The following sections examine the Spring Term 1985 implementation of the EWS and the Fall Term 1985 partial replication of that treatment. Figure 4.11 is a flow chart that details the intervention process used by personnel participating in the EWS during the Spring and Fall Term 1985 implementations of the EWS. After these personnel had been 100 - Identify I _ I EWS Personnel Weekly EWS MeetIngs _ I I I _ EGR Professors/ I Mid-term IReports I Information Sharing I l I Identification of I AdVIsers/ Master Studelnt List New Approaches Grades Adviser Contact/ Below 2. O Adviser/Student Conference Nature of the Problem I Adviser/ Student Conference Generate Avail Options 1 Adviser/Student/ Administration Follow-up I Advisers/Mid- term Figure 4.11: The Early Warning System intervention process. 101 identified and oriented to the intervention process. weekly meetings were scheduled with them to ensure that problems were quickly resolved. W. A primary focus of the EWS is the inter- vention strategy used by the student's academic adviser. The EWS's effectiveness was evaluated statistically and is discussed in Chapter IV. However. this section on results is included here rather than in Chapter V because it bears directly on the treatment differences discussed earlier. The EWS was designed to help those students who most need aca- demic support. In general. those at-risk students are in the bottom 25% of the population. as determined by GPA. A review of the data from this population of students indicated that a 2.42 GPA was at the 25th percentile. Therefore. students with a GPA of 2.42 or below were in the bottom 25% of the EWS population. whereas those with a GPA higher than 2.42 were above the 25th percentile of minority engineer- ing sophomores. juniors. and seniors participating in this project. Table 4.4 shows the frequency with which professors forwarded EWS mid-tenm progress cards and the academic status of minority engineer ing students in engineering-coded courses at mid-point in the given terms Note that 35 students were below 2.0 at mid-term Spring 1985 and 36 students were below 2.0 at mid-term Fall 1985. Of the total number of cases in the study (N = 1.050). adviser intervention would have occurred in only 35 cases Spring Term 1985 and 36 cases Fall Term 1985. primarily because these were the below-2.0 cases 102 Table 4.4: Frequency With Which Professors Forwarded Progress Cards and Academic Status of Minority Engineering Students in Engineering-Coded Courses. Student Mid-Term Status Spring Term 1985 Fall Term 1985 No response 111 113 Yes < 2.0 35 36 Yes > 2.0 114 90 Yes. no basis for grade 32 17 Yes. course drapped 1 2 Total 293 258 Table 4.5 details how the student population was split between the above- and below-2.42 GPA or the 25th percentile criterion. Note that of the 71 students who would have received the treatment inter- vention by the academic adviser. 25 or 35% had below a 2.42 GPA at the end of the term. Table 4.5: Distribution of Student Population by Mi d-Term GPA Student Mid-Term Status GPA Below 2.42 GPA Above 2.42 No response 54 170 Yes < 2.0 25 46 Yes > 2.0 56 148 Yes. no basis for grade 16 33 Yes. course dropped 1 2 Total 152 399 103 Table 4.6 shows the types of interventions by academic advisers In Fall Term 1985. contact on the part of the academic adviser increased in almost every category. This may have been because advis- ers had begun to serve their own advisees. The number of contacts jumped from 11 in Spring Term 1985 to 35 in Fall Term 1985. Table 4.6: Number and Types of Interventions by Academic Advisers. Spring Term 1985 and Fall Term 1985 Type of Intervention Spring Term 1985 Fall Term 1986 Personal contact 3 9 Telephone contact 3 16 Letter only 3 3 Personal contact & telephone 0 2 Personal contact and letter 4 0 Telephone and letter O 2 Personal contact. telephone. 1 3 & letter Total 11 35 Table 4.7 shows a breakdown of adviser interventions for both tenms. based on the 25th percentile cutoff point. Of the 71 students who had below a 2.0 at mid-term. only 46 or 65% were actually con- tacted by an academic adviser. 104 Table 4.7: Breakdown of Adviser Interventions. Based on the 25th Percentile Cutoff Point Type of Intervention GPA Below 2.42 GPA Above 2.42 Personal contact Telephone contact Letter Personal contact a telephone Personal contact & letter Telephone & letter Personal contact. telephone. a letter d-JOOWNUJ W-‘bNOV'D Total 1 O 3 6 Warm Several factors presented some difficulty in implementing the EWSL These difficulties occurred primarily during the first implemen- tation. By the partial replication of this study. most of the prob- lems had been resolved. During the first implementation the advising link was between the professor teaching the course and the academic adviser of that same department. regardless of the student's major. Therefore. advisers might have been serving students who were not their own advisees Under these circumstances. the first implementation was more difficult than the second because advisers did not have hmmediate access to the students' academic histories. which are contained in their records. An incident that occurred during the first EWS implementation made evaluation of the chemical engineering component impossible. Due to a clerical error. chemical engineering professors never received 105 EWS cards for minority engineering sophomores. juniors. and seniors enrolled in chemical engineering courses The chemical engineering adviser performed no intervention with students receiving below a 2.0 in these courses Therefore. an evaluation of the EWS's effectiveness with the students enrolled in chemical engineering courses was impos- si bl e. During Spring Term 1985. several engineering professors expressed concern about the value and effectiveness of an educational device such as the EWS. Faculty frequently discussed the EWS with the dean and assistant dean of the College of Engineering. That same term. students in an engineering course. Systems 411. generated and distributed a questionnaire to the College of Engineer ing facul ty; the questionnaire focused on the recruitment and reten- tion of minority engineering students This project was unrelated to the EWS and the EEOP. However. the ensuing confusion caused several engineering professors to contact the assistant dean of the College of Engineering concerning both projects Some faculty questioned the necessity of forwarding EWS cards Confusion engendered by the stu- dent project and resistance on the part of some engineering faculty thus hindered the full implementation of the EWS. A major factor that made implementation more complex was MSU's academic calendar. The university functions on a lO-week quarter system. rather than the longer semester configuration used by some colleges and universities A major implementation problem concerned the actual amount of time available for all individuals involved in 106 the program to complete the required tasks Another factor was the actual time allotment for instruction and examination. Because of time constraints. professors often scheduled only mid-term and final examinations Therefore. professors may have had no measure of eval u- ation available on students by the scheduled deadline for forwarding EWS cards. This may. in part. explain why approximately 10% of the ENS cards were returned with the notation "no basis for grade." One of the primary objectives of the EWS involved the transfer of accurate and timely academic-performance information on minority engi- neering sophomores. juniors. and seniors participating in the project. A delay during any phase of service delivery made implementation difficult. Figures 4.12 and 4.13. respectively. show the schedule followed during the Spring and Fall Term 1985 implementations of the EWS. Figures 4.14 and 4.15 show the activity flow charts used in these implementations After the EWS cards were picked up from the Regis- trar's Office. there were 21 days for the Spring Term and 23 days for the Fall Term implementations of the EWS. The "1 ast day to drop with 25% refund" was used as a cutoff point for full intervention for two reasons First. according to the uni- versity's academic calendar. this is the approximate midpoint in the term. Second. one of the objectives of the EWS was to help students avoid failure in an engineering course. The role of the academic adviser was to help resolve the impending failure by exploring .Actillties Registration Cl asses begin 1/10 Registrar's report period Card run completed (April 8. 1985) Last day to drop with 25% refund (April 29. 1985) Final Exam Week: Spring Tenm 107 calendan (one-week increments) March 25-29 April 1-5 April 8-12 April 15-19 Early Warning System Activities April 22-26 April 29-May 3 May 6-10 May 13-17 May 20-24 May 27-31 June 3-7 Note: Fourteen-day time period available for full implementation of the Early Warning System. Figure 4.12: Early Warning System implementation schedule. Spring Term 1985 Aciiflfles Registration Cl asses begin l/lO Registrar's report period Card run completed October 7. 1985 Last day to drop with 25% refund October 30. 1985 Final Exam Week: Fall Term 108 Calendar: (one-week increments) September 23-27 September 30-October 4 October 7-11 October 14-18 Early Warning System October 21-25 activities October 28-November 1 November 4-8 November 11-15 November 18-22 November 25-27 Decem be r 2-6 December 9—13 Note: Seventeen-day time period available for full implementation of the Early Warning System. Figure 4.13: Early Warning System implementation schedule. Fall Term 1985. April 89 1985 April 9. 1985 April 11. 1985 April 18. 1985 April 19. 1985 April 22. 1985 April 29. 1985 April 29. 1985- June 7. 1985 Figure 4.14: 109 *Pick up cards from Registrar's Office *Development of master list of student names. etc. *Sort by engineering (EGR) *Obtain professor's name for engineering-coded courses only *Sort by professor/course *Forward directly to engineering professors *Professor returns all cards to Ruth Benns in EB 144 by April 18. 1985 *Separate cards of students with grades above 2.0 from those of students with grades below 2.0 *Forward to respective major adviser *Early Warning System intervention (in letter and/ or telephone contact. appointment. discussion. and follow-up) *Last date to drop with 25% refund *Final follow-up Early Warning System Activity Flow Chart. Spring Term 1985. 110 October 7. 1985 *Pick up cards from Registrar's Office October 8. 1985 *Sort by engineering (EGR) *Sort by professor/course October 10. 1985 *Forward directly to engineering professors October 21. 1985 *Professor returns all cards to Ruth Benns in G-56 Wilson Hall by October 21. 1985 October 22. 1985 *Separate cards of students with grades above 2.0 from those of students with grades below 2.0 *Code results on master list *Forward to respective major adviser October 23. 1985 *Early Warning System intervention (in letter and/or telephone contact appointment. discus- seen. and follow-up) October 30. 1985 *Last date to drop with 25% refund October 30. 1985- *Final follow-up December 13. 1985 Figure 4.15: Early Warning System activity flow chart. Fall Term 1985. available options with the student. 'The student was then to act on the options discussed with the academic adviser. When all other alternatives had been exhausted and failure in the engineering course appeared imminent. a final course of action available to the student was to drop the class. 'The EEOP staff and the EWS personnel did not encourage students to drop courses without due cause. but they did 111 encourage students to view the procedure as one of several available options that might help them resolve the problem. .Insinnmentatinn Questionnaires were designed to elicit the attitudes. feelings. and perceptions of advisers. professors. and students who participated in this project in an attempt to assess the overall effectiveness of the EWS. Questionnaires were distributed to all of the academic advisers participating in the study. (See Appendix for a copy of the academic adviser questionnaired All College of Engineering fac- ulty members who were teaching engineering-coded courses Spring Term 1985 and had minority sophomores. juniors. and seniors in their classes also received questionnaires. (See AppendixJ The Appendix contains a copy of the questionnaire distributed to students who participated in the study. The questionnaires were distributed at the end of the Spring Term 1985 implementation of the EWS. Two weeks after the first distribution of questionnaires. another mailing was Imade in an effort to increase the overall response rate. No ques- tionnaires were distributed during the Fall Term 1985 implementation of the EWS. Questionnaires were divided into four parts. Questions in Parts I and IV were identical for all respondents. Questions in Parts 11 and III were role specific. ids. adviser. professor. or student. Participants used a five-point. Likert-type scale in responding to each questionnaire item. 112 As shown in Tabler4.8. all seven (100%) academic advisers returned completed questionnaires. Of the 81 professors to whom questionnaires were distributed. 29 (36%) returned completed question- naires. Just 14 (12%) of the 121 students who were sent question- naires returned them. The total number of returned questionnaires was 50 (24%) out of a possible 209. This below-average response may have been a result of several factors discussed earlier in the implementation-difficulties section. Time restrictions inherent in the MSU academic calendar may have contributed to the lack of response. Also. questionnaires were dis- tributed shortly before the final examination period. Participants might have viewed other academic matters as having greater priority. Finally. a lack of motivation and/or apathy on the part of partici- pants may also have contributed to the low response rate. Table 4.8: Numerical Breakdown of Questionnaires Distributed to and Returned by EWS Participants. Spring Term 1985 No. of Questionnaires Participants N Returned to EEOP Advisers 7 7 (100%) Professors 81 29 ( 36%) Students 121 14 ( 12%) Total 209 50 ( 24%) 113 AnalxsiuLQuesflonnajLLBesoonses The analysis of questionnaire responses is divided into three sections. The first section contains responses to Part I of the questionnaire. which was identical for all participants. Included are the combdned responses of the advisers. professors. and students who returned the questionnaire. The responses to each statement follow. 1. The Early Warning System is an effective mechanism for monitoring the academic progress of minority sophomores. juniors. and seniors. 6 Strongly agree l9 Agree 15 Not sure 6 Disagree 2 Strongly disagree 2 Missing data 2. The Early Warning System is an appropriate device for addressing the retention problem of minority engineering students in the College of Engineering. 8 Strongly agree 18 Agree 16 Not sure 5 Disagree 2 Strongly disagree 1 Missing data 3. The Early Warning System should be expanded to service the nonminority engineering student population in the College of Engineering. 6 Strongly agree 11 Agree 14 Not sure 13 Disagree 5 Strongly disagree 1 Missing data 114 4. Academic monitoring of students' progress should be continued but should involve freshman and sophomore minority students rather than sophomore. junior. and senior minority students. 6 Strongly agree 4 Agree 14 Not sure 13 Disagree 5 Strongly disagree 1 Missing data The second section contains responses to Parts II and III of the questionnaire. The response analysis is role specific and details the attitudes of the participating EWS personnel. All seven academic advisers returned questionnaires. Their responses to statements in Parts II and III follow. Part II. Academic Advisers 1. As an adviser. it would be helpful in my intervention strategy with students if the student had some specific measure of evaluation prior to the last day to drop and add courses. 5 Strongly agree 1 Agree 1 Not sure 0 Disagree 0 Strongly disagree 2. It is a reasonable expectation for professors to provide some specific measure of evaluation by the fifth week of the term. 5 Strongly agree 2 Agree 0 Not sure 0 Disagree 0 Strongly disagree 3. 115 Receiving mid-term grade reports is an appropriate way to determine how the student is progressing academically. Strongly agree Agree Not sure Disagree Strongly disagree ONNN-J The sophomore. junior. and senior level engineering students should be disciplined and serious enough not to require administrative surveillance. 2 Strongly agree 1 Agree 0 Not sure 0 Disagree 4 Strongly disagree Part III. Academic Advisers 1. During the adviser-intervention phase of the Early Warning System. I contacted (14%. letter. telephone. or personally) more than ten students who were below 2.0 by the fifth week of the term. Strongly agree Agree Not sure Disagree Strongly disagree (”#000 The majority of those students contacted (i.e.. below 2.0) were pleased by my interest and concern regarding their academic performance. 0 Strongly agree 2 Agree 5 Not sure 0 Disagree 0 Strongly disagree 116 3. As an adviser. I view the Early Warning System as an intrusion into the privacy of those students monitored. 1 Strongly agree 2 Agree 0 Not sure 2 Disagree 2 Strongly disagree 4. The minority engineering student should receive additional support and guidance in an attempt to address the problems of retention in the College of Engineering. 2 Strongly agree 3 Agree 0 Not sure 1 Disagree 1 Strongly disagree Twenty-nine out of 31 professors responded to the question- naire. Their responses to items in Parts II and III of the question- naire follow. Part II. Professors 1. It is a reasonable expectation for professors to provide some specific measure of evaluation by the fifth week of the term. 8 Strongly agree 14 Agree 2 Not sure 3 Disagree 1 Strongly disagree 1 Missing data 117 2. I usually structure my course to allow my students some meas- ure of evaluation prior to the last day to drop and add cl asses. 8 Strongly agree 16 Agree 0 Not sure 3 Disagree 1 Strongly disagree 1 Missing data 3. Receiving mid-term grade reports is an appropriate way to determine at what level a student is progressing academically. 3 Strongly agree 16 Agree 4 Not sure 3 Disagree 2 Strongly disagree 1 Missing data 4. The sophomore. junior. and senior level engineering student should be disciplined and serious enough not to require administrative surveillance. Strongly disagree Missing data 3 Strongly agree 5 Agree 10 Not sure 7 Disagree 3 l 5. Although I consider class attendance an important factor in determining ultimate academic success. because of large class size. I do not normally take class attendance. 16 Strongly agree 7 Agree 1 Not sure 1 Disagree 1 Strongly disagree 3 Missing data 118 Part III. Professors 1. The structure of my grading system prohibits student evaluations prior to the end of the tenm 2 Strongly agree 1 Agree 1 Not sure 14 Disagree 11 Strongly disagree 2. The minority engineering student should receive additional support and guidance in an attempt to address the problems of retention in the College of Engineering. Strongly disagree Missing data 7 Strongly agree l4 Agree . 5 Not sure 1 Disagree 1 1 3. The process of the gathering of information in the Early Warning System is illegal. O Strongly agree 1 Agree 12 Not sure 5 Disagree 10 Strongly disagree 1 Missing data Fourteen out of 121 students responded to the EWS question- naire. Their responses to statements in Parts II and III of the questionnaire follow. 119 Part II. Students 1. As a student. I need some specific measure of evaluation in my engineering courses prior to the last day to drop and add cl asses. 4 Strongly agree 3 Agree 0 Not sure 5 Disagree 2 Strongly disagree 2. Receiving mid-term grade reports is an appropriate way to determine how I am progressing academically. 2 Strongly agree 7 Agree 0 Not sure 3 disagree 2 Strongly disagree 3. As a sophomore. junior. or senior minority engineering student. I feel I do not require surveillance or intervention offered by the Early Warning System. Strongly agree Agree Not sure Disagree Strongly disagree -'U'TOU‘|U) 4. As a minority engineering student. I view the Early Warning System as an intrusion into my privacy. 2 Strongly agree 1 Agree 4 Not sure 6 Disagree 1 Strongly disagree 120 Part III. Students 1. I am pleased that the Office of Minority Student Education is attempting to address the problem of retention with the Early Warning System 4 Strongly agree 10 Agree 0 Not sure 0 Disagree 0 Strongly disagree 2. Discussions with my engineering professors regarding my academic performance in their courses occurred with the greatest respect for my privacy. 0 Strongly agree 6 Agree 5 Not sure 2 Disagree 1 Strongly disagree 3. Class attendance is an important factor in ultimate academic success. For this reason. class attendance is a priority to me. 6 Strongly agree 7 Agree 1 Not sure 0 Disagree 0 Strongly disagree 4. The minority engineering student should receive additional support and guidance in an attempt to address the problems of retention in the College of Engineering. 2 Strongly agree 6 Agree 4 Not sure 1 Disagree 1 Strongly disagree Part IV of the EWS questionnaire required essay and/or short- answer responses to four questions/statements. The items in Part IV were the same for all respondents. 121 Part IV. Essay/Short Answer 1. What do you believe are the major factors affecting minority student retention in the College of Engineering at Michigan State University? Responses to this question were categorized into three areas: academic. psychological. and social factors that EWS participants viewed as affecting minority student retention in the College of Engineering. Somezoverlapping of the academic. psychological. and social categories may be observed. However. these major categories were used to better elucidate the EWS participants' responses. .Academic: The factors respondents most often mentioned as major issues in minority engineering students' academic survival were aca- demic background. 14%. high school GPA; mathematics. science. and language arts competencies; problem-solving ability; academic perform- ance in college. 14%. college GPA; study skills; time management; and GPA at time of admission to upper division in the College of Engineer- ing. .Esycnologioalz The term "psychological" refers to those char- acteristics that distinguish one individual from another--that is. personality factors. Also included in the psychological category are the attitudes. perceptions. and behavioral manifestations of the self. as expressed within the context of the educational milieu. EWS per- sonnel identified such individual qualities as self-motivation. disci- pline. perseverance. and confidence as characteristics necessary to academic survival. However. a number of participants suggested that minority students who feel insecure. inferior. apart. or different; 122 have low sel f-esteem; fear success or failure; have a don't-care or you-owe-me attitude; adopt a "watch" rather than "do" mode of behav- icnq and/or have a confused value system tend to have less survival potential in engineering than other students. Some factors mentioned in the psychological category were classi- fied as "personal problems" Some of these difficulties were identi- fied as health. financial. and/or family related. 5.09.111: The researcher defined the term "social " as a function of the student's performance in the social and academic milieu of the institution. in conjunction with others. A major portion of the three participant groups viewed academic-group interaction. ids. study groups. as a major factor in succeeding academically in the College of Engineering. Respondents generally agreed that students should be willing to seek help. guidance. and direction from engineering professors and teaching assistants. Students should make every effort to study in groups with brighter students; generate an academic network; get peer support; and interact more with students. professors. and teaching assistants. Several respondents suggested that group segregation and the failure of some'minority students to interact within the larger academic culture might negatively affect their ultimate survival potential. 123 2. The Early Warning System is generally a fine attempt at addressing the problem of retention; however. I would imple- ment the following changes in the current system should it be continued. Responses to this statement were not categorized by domain because they were so varied and role specific. Therefore. the follow- ing discussion of responses is categorized by role: advisers. profes- sors. and students. .Adxisers: Several academic advisers indicated that they would hmprove the first implementation of the EWS by insuring that each adviser served his/her own advisees One adviser believed it was a good system and should be expanded to include all engineering stu- dents. regardless of ethnicity or classification. Still another wanted to insure that all professors received the EWS computer cards and to stress to the faculty that the system would work only if there was "a basis for a grade" being reported and forwarded to the EEOP and the upper-division academic adviser. .Etoiessors: Responses to this statement were quite varied. Although there was some congruence with advisers' answers. in general professors' responses were specific to their roles The issues that concerned them were program improvements that might expedite profes- sors' involvement Several professors said they knew very little about the EWS and suggested that the EWS coordinator and/or the EEOP director present an overview of the project to the faculty to gain additional support. A few professors contended that the system was a good idea and should be expanded to serve nonminority students in the College of 124 Engineering. Concerning the operational ization of the system. one professor wrote that the system was bureaucratic. The time period used for grade reporting was touched on by sev- eral professors. who felt that grade reporting should occur after rather than before mid-terms One professor indicated that cards should be forwarded after the last day to drop because the process of dropping a course offers the student an easy way out of the class Another professor indicated that a range of grades would be more useful than a specific grade because the grade is tentative at this point in the term. Professors seemed most divided in their attitudes toward student identification. Several professors said the system should be less obvious to students. whereas another indicated that. with large engi- neering classes being the rule. students should identify themselves as EWS participants This professor said that. with so many students. the student's col or is often used to determine program affiliation but that such identification is inappropriate. Professors generally agreed that students should be encouraged to contact professors and to evaluate themselves One professor said that counseling and other forms of problem resolution should be an integral part of high school. Another indicated that the EWS would be more effective at the high school and freshman levels Students: Students' responses to this statement. like those of advisers and professors. were varied and role specific. Students said that participation in the EWS program should be voluntary and that the 125 EWS should focus on freshmen and sophomores rather than sophomores. juniors. and seniors Sorme noted that they should be kept well informed. One indicated that the student's right to privacy and confidentiality should be enforced and respected by all EWS partici- pating personnel. Another student concluded that the system should focus on undercl assmen because uppercl assmen should not require hand- holding. Concerning the EWS operational ization. some students said the system should be implemented before mid-terms; professors should con- tact students rather than the EEOP regarding failures; the system should focus on helping a student pass the course rather than dropping it; and better counseling should be provided for juniors and seniors One student said it would be helpful to generate a description of a successful engineering student. Another said the system might positively reinforce students with letters of praise when they improve their academic performance in engineering courses 3. If you believe that the Early Warning System should not be continued. what suggestions do you have for improving the retention of minority engineering students in the College of Engineering? mums: Advisers had few criticisms of the current system. However. several of them said that although it would be difficult to teach skills like perseverance. which influence survival in engineer- ing. seminars and workshops might be used to instruct and orient students in other areas 126 ELQIBSSQLS: Professors viewed the EWS and retention of minority engineering students in somewhat different ways; One professor indi- cated that the College of Engineering should treat minority students the same as nonminority students. regardless of the higher attrition rate among minority students Another said that having higher stand- ards for accepting students into engineering programs would improve retention. Still another responded that assessment of students in the mathematics. science. and probl em-solving areas might be implemented to insure academic survival in engineering programs. One professor wrote that faculty mentors and black faculty role ‘ models should be invited to conduct seminars and workshops to offer minority engineering students additional incentive to persist in and complete engineering programs. Another professor said that students should be encouraged to contact their engineering professors early in the term to insure that problems are resolved immediately. jfluuuuua; Students as a group said that it would be helpful if they had upperclass-student and engineering faculty mentors; access to study groups; classes that focused on the development of reading and writing skills; open. nonthreatening discussions with engineering professors; methods and procedures for each subject; and files con- taining mid-term and final examinations and laboratory reports. 127 Part IV. Essay/Short Answer 4. In this questionnaire we have attempted to address many of the conceptual and operational issues surrounding the implementation of the Early Warning System. Please utilize the space below to include any additional comments and/or recommendations not previously discussed. Madam: Only three of the seven academic advisers responded to this statement. The advisers focused on several topics; there were no recurring comments One response concerned the university calendar. which uses a fixed course-drop deadline procedure. This deadline. the adviser concluded. occurred before the engineering professors could make a realistic assessment of minority engineering students' academic performance. Consequently. when the student received a poor academic evaluation. the deadline for dropping the course had already passed. Another issue was the grading system used by most MSU professors One adviser contended that the normal curve is an artificial index of academic ability and that use of this grading structure could nega- tively affect the academic performance of students being evaluated. One academic adviser voiced concern about possible expectations of others while working with these students. The adviser indicated that assistance by EWS and other academic-support personnel might assist in bridging this gap. in an effort to increase the adviser's beneficial influence. W: Just 9 of the 29 professors who returned question- naires responded to this question. They expressed the following concerns not discussed elsewhere in the questionnaire. Several pro- fessors asserted that it is important for students to seek out 128 professors for advice and guidance. Another concern to professors was EWS feedback. Professors wanted feedback on what transpired after they forwarded EWS cards to the EEOP office. One professor emphasized that students must learn how to obtain information and resources in making full use of what is available at MSU. Another professor indicated that the EEOP should consult minor- ity engineering graduate students and faculty for guidance and advice in working with minority engineering majors This professor said that the development and implementation of new programs and changes in existing programs affect the whole College; therefore. faculty input is invaluable. One professor mentioned that the involuntary nature of some elements of the system failed to instill in students motivation or commitment to succeed in the course. .Siufients: Four of the 14 students who returned questionnaires responded to this question. One student thought a pre-freshman summer program might prepare students academically for the rigors of the engineering discipline. Another stressed that teaching students how to study and/or where to seek resources would help retain minority engineering students. Yet another student said that the system should be continued and expanded to serve all students in the College of Engineering. The fourth student noted that the contact used within the EWS mechanism should be between the professor and the student. rather than between the advisor and the student. 129 We. Several points must be reiterated at the outset of this discus- sion. First. the questionnaires were distributed during the first (Spring Term 1985) implementation of the EWS. No questionnaire- distribution procedure was initiated during the partial replication of the EWS in Fall Term 1985. ‘Therefore. responses concerning the imple- mentation process referred solely to the initial implementation. Most respondents thought that minority engineering students should be afforded additional academic support and that action should be taken to address the problem of attrition among these students. Some respondents. however. were unsure of the form that academic support should take. They were also uncertain whether the EWS is an effective way to reduce attrition among minority engineering students in the College of Engineering. Respondents suggested few appropriate alternatives to the EWS. Because of the low (24%) nesponse rate. it must be noted that any broad conclusions based on these data are tentative. at best. OiAPTER V ANALYS IS OF DATA (Mention Chapter V includes a report and analysis of the data collected. as described in the Methodology section of this dissertation. The chapter is devoted to a restatement of the hypotheses formulated for the investigation and a discussion of the results of the data analyses for those hypotheses. BesulisoLQataJnalees In this section. the results of the data analysis are discussed and swmmarized in tabular form. Each hypothesis is restated. followed by the results for that hypothesis. Null Hypothesis I: There is no difference in the final engi- neering course grades of minority engineering sophomores.,juniors. and seniors Spring Term 1985 who received the Early Warning System treatment intervention and thoserminority sophomore..junior. and senior engineering students Spring Term 1984 who did not receive the treatment .Alternatjye_flypothesis_l: The final engineering course grades of minority sophomores. juniors. and seniors Spring Term 1985 will be higher than those of minority engineering sophomores. juniors. and seniors Spring Term 1984 who did not receive the Early Warning System treatment. Table 5.1 presents the results of the.t-test that was conducted to determine if the final engineering course grades of minority engi- neering sophomores. juniors. and seniors would be significantly higher 130 131 Spring Term 1985 than they were Spring Term 1984. The analysis indi- cated that the :t-value was significant at the .05 level; thus the null hypothesis was not rejected. This result indicates that there was a statistically significant difference between the final engineering course grades Spring Term 1985 and Spring Term 1984; however. this difference was not in the hypothesized direction. Table 5.1: Results of .t-test for Hypothesis 1. Term Mean SD .1: .di 12 Spring Term 1984 2.47 1.00 2.5 470 .012* Spring Term 1985 2.23 1.10 *Significant at the .05 level. WW: There is no difference in the engineering course grades of the bottom 25% of minority sophomore. junior. and senior engineering students in Spring Term 1984 and the engi- neering course grades of the bottom 25% of minority sophomore. junior. and senior engineering students Spring Term 1985. AliennailmflxpflibesiLZ: The engineering course grades of the bottom 25% of minority sophomore. junior. and senior engineering students at the end of Spring Term 1984 will be lower than the engineering course grades of the bottom 25% of minority sophomore. junior. and senior engineering students at the end of Spring Term 1985. Table 5.2 presents the results of the .t-test that was performed to determine if the final engineering course grades of the bottom 25% of minority engineering sophomores. juniors. and seniors Spring Term 1985 would be significantly higher than those Spring Term 1984. The 132 analysis indicated that the .t-value was not statistically significant at the .05 level; thus the null hypothesis was not rejected. No statistically significant difference was found between the final engi- neering course grades Spring Term 1985 and Spring Term 1984. Table 5.2: Results of .t-test for Hypothesis 2. Term Mean SD :1: .df. 12 Spring Term 1984 1.88 1.13 1.10 113 .272 Spring Term 1985 1.65 1.03 W: There is no difference in the number of courses dropped Spring Term 1985 by minority sophomore. junior. and senior engineering students who received the Early Warning System treatment intervention and the number of courses dropped Spring Term 1984 by minority sophomore. junior. and senior engi- neering students who did not receive the treatment. : The number of courses dropped Spring Term 1985 by minority sophomore. junior. and senior engineering students who received the Early Warning System treatment interven- tion will be higher than the number of courses dropped Spring Term 1984 by minority sophomore. junior. and senior engineering stu- dents who did not receive the treatment. Table 5.3 details the results of the chi-square test to determine if significantly more courses were dropped Spring Term 1985 by minor- ity engineering sophomores. juniors. and seniors than were dropped Spring Term 1984. The analysis indicated that the chi-square value was statistically significant at the .05 level; therefore. the null hypothesis was rejected. The number of courses dropped Spring Term 1985 was significantly greater than the number of courses dropped 133 Spring Term 1984. This result was therefore in the hypothesized direction. Table 5.3: Results of Chi-Square Analysis for Hypothesis 3. Term Total Number Courses Dropped Chi- of Courses .N % Square d1 9 Spring Term 1984 224 l .4 17.4 1 .000* Spring Tenm 1985 293 27 9.2 Nul] Hypothesis 4: There is no statistically significant differ- ence in the final engineering course grades of minority sopho- mores. juniors. and seniors Fall Term 1985 who received the Early Warning System treatment intervention and those of minority sopho- mores. juniors. and seniors Fall Term 1984 who did not receive the treatment. .Altennatixe_flxpothesis_£: The final engineering course grades of minority sophomores. juniors. and seniors Fall Term 1985 will be significantly higher than those of minority sophomores. juniors. and seniors Fall Term 1984 who did not receive the treatment. Table 5.4 presents the results of the.t-test performed to deter- mine if the final engineering course grades of minority engineering students participating in the study would be significantly higher Fall Term 1985 than they were Fall Term 1984. This analysis indicated that the t-value was not significant at the .05 level; thus the null hypothesis was not rejected. No statistically significant difference was found between the final engineering course grades Fall Term 1985 and Fall Term 1984. iiowever. as indicated by a Fall Term 1984 group 134 mean GPA of 2.26 and a Fall Term 1985 group mean GPA of 2.31. the results showed an improved GPA from Fall 1984 to Fall 1985 that was in the hypothesized direction. Table 5.4: Results of.I-test for Hypothesis 4. Term Mean .50 .I if .D Fall Term 1984 2.26 1.11 -.56 484 .289 Fall Term 1985 2.31 .94 .Null_flxpothesis_5: There is no statistically significant differ- ence in the final engineering course grades of the bottom 25% of minority sophomores. juniors. and seniors Fall Term 1985 and those of the bottom 25% of minority sophomores. juniors. and seniors Fall Term 1984. The final engineering course grades of the bottom 25% of minority sophomores. juniors. and seniors Fall Term 1985 will be significantly higher than those of the bottom 25% of minority sophomores. juniors. and seniors Fall Term 1984. Table 5.5 presents the results of the.t-test undertaken to deter- mine if the final engineering course grades of the bottom 25% of the minority engineering sophomores. juniors. and seniors Fall Term 1985 would be significantly higher than those Fall Term 1984. This analy- sis indicated that the t-value was significant at the .05 level; thus the null hypothesis was rejected. A statistically significant difference was found between the final engineering course grades Fall Term 1985 and Fall Term 1984. This difference was in the hypothesized direction. 135 Table 5.5: Results of _t-test for Hypothesis 5 Term Mean .50 :1: .di .0 Fall Term 1984 1.48 1.15 -1.89 117 .03* Fall Term 1985 1.86 1.00 *Significant at the .05 level. NuJLbeoIbeslsJ: There is no statistically significant differ- ence in the number of courses dropped Fall Term 1985 by minority sophomores. juniors. and seniors who received the Early Warning System treatment intervention and the number of courses dropped Fall Term 1984 by minority sophomores. juniors. and seniors who did not receive the treatment. W: The number of courses dropped Fall Term 1985 by minority sophomores. juniors. and seniors who received the Early Warning System treatment intervention will be significantly higher than the number of courses dropped Fall Term 1984 by minor- ity sophomores. juniors. and seniors who did not receive the treatment. Table 5.6 shows the results of the chi-square test to determine if significantly more courses were dropped Fall Term 1985 by minority engineering sophomores. juniors. and seniors than were dropped Fall Term 1984. The results indicated that the chi-square value was sta- ti stically significant at the .001 level; thus the null hypothesis was rejected. A statistically significant difference was found between the number of courses dropped Fall Term 1985 and the number dropped Fall Term 1984. This difference was in the hypothesized direction. 136 Table 5.6: Results of Chi-Square Analysis of Hypothesis 6 Tenn Total Number Courses DrOpped Chi- of Courses N, % Square .di p Fall Term 1984 275 4 1.5 10.9 1 .001* Fall Term 1985 258 20 7.8 *Significant at the .001 level. Discussion The primary objective of this section is to swmmarize and inter- pret the results of the data-collection and analysis procedures. This section contains a discussion of the results of the data analysis in the context of the factors relevant to this study. Hypotheses 3 and 6 were supported. Statistically significant differences were found between the number of courses dropped Spring 1985 and Spring 1984 (Hypothesis 3) and Fall 1985 and Fall 1985 (Hypothesis 6% These differences were in the hypothesized direction. In both the Spring Term 1985 and Fall Term 1985 implementations. minority engineering sophomores. juniors. and seniors dropped signifi- cantly more engineering-coded courses than they had done the previous year (Spring and Fall Terms 1984). As a consequence of being alerted by EWS personnel to an academic failure in an engineering-coded course. the students clearly viewed dropping the course as a viable alternative to an academic failure. It might be argued that this was 137 a positive result. but that assertion goes beyond the scope of this investigation. Hypothesis 2. which focused on the final engineering course grades for the bottom 25% of minority engineering students who par- ticipated in the study. was not supported. The final grades in engineering-coded courses of the bottom 25% of minority engineering students were not significantly higher Spring'Term 1985 than they were Spring Term 1984. This result seemSIreasonable because service deliv- ery to EWS-participating minority engineering students was less rig- orous During the Spring Term 1985 implementation. advisers served any minority sophomore. junior. or senior enrolled in their depart- ment's courses Those academic advisers had no available historical data. such as students' files. that might assist them in appropriate academic planning. Hypothesis 5 was accepted. The final engineering course grades of the bottom 25% of minority sophomores. juniors. and seniors Fall Term 1985 were significantly higher than those Fall Term 1984. This difference was in the hypothesized direction. The result was under- standable because. during the Fall Term 1985 implementation. the partial replication of the EWS. the advising linkage was altered to reflect a relationship between the academic adviser and his/her advisee. During that implementation. the linkage was rigorous. and all parties were closely involved in the relationship. Hypothesis 1 focused on the final engineering course grades received by the minority engineering students participating in the 138 study. It was hypothesized that the final engineering course grades of minority engineering sophomores. juniors. and seniors Spring Term 1985 who received the EWS would be higher than those of minority engineering students Spring Term 1984 who did not receive the treat- ment strategy. The results revealed that there was no significant treatment effect. In fact. there was a significant difference in the opposite direction. However. Hypotheses 3 and 6. concerning the number of courses dropped. were not supported. Apparently students assessed the likelihood of succeeding in an identified course and often chose to drop the course to avoid academic failure. Hypothesis 4 focused on the final engineering course grades received by the minority engineering sophomores. juniors. and seniors Fall Term 1985 versus Fall Term 1984. In this case. the null hypothe- sis was not rejected. There was GPA improvement. but the difference was not statistically significant Summarx The overall objective of this research was to conduct a formative and summative evaluation of an academic monitoring device. the EWS. developed by this researcher for the EEOP and the College of Engineer- ing at MSU. The formative component of this document focused primar- ily on the implementation process used to install the deVice within the student affairs mechanism of the College of Engineering. The theoretical foundation for this study was based on what has occurred as a result of current practice in universities that have 139 implemented similar devices Theoretical constructs were excluded from this investigation. Rather. the broader factors of academic monitoring. academic performance. and the attrition of minority engineering students from higher education were key elements explored in the study. The EWS was implemented Spring'Term 1985. and a partial replica- tion of the same study occurred Fall Term 1985. Results of the data analysis indicated that. during the first implementation. final engi- neering grades of minority engineering students were not significantly higher than those of the Spring Term 1984 control group. In addition. the EWS was primarily designed to help the high-risk population of students identified in this study as the bottom 25% academically. It was concluded that if an effect was to be noted it would be with this population. However. during the Spring Term 1985 implementation. the EWS did not significantly affect this population of minority engineer- ing sophomores. juniors. and seniors. Therefore. the null hypothesis of no difference was accepted. Only one of the three hypotheses that related to the Spring Term 1985 implementation offered evidence of significant program effect. During the first (Spring Term 1985) implementation of the EWS. minor- ity engineering students at mid-point in the term chose to drop sig- nificantly more courses than did the Spring Term 1984 control group. During the second implementation (Fall Term 1985) of the EWS. there was noted program improvement; results were in the hypothesized direction. No statistically significant difference was found in 140 final engineering course grades. although those grades did improve. There was a significant increase in the engineering-course grades of the lowest 25% of the students Finally. significantly more engineering courses were dropped during the EWS treatment period. These findings should not indicate that the EWS was not effective because so few students actually received any form of the treatment. One possible explanation for this result is grade deflation. but there have been no major shifts in grading policy or practice by College of Engineering faculty. nor did MSU institute a new grading policy in the relevant years of the study. Perhaps a Type I error occurred. which is the rejection of the null hypothesis when it actually is true. There are several plausible explanations for these results A critical part of program evaluation is the element of change. One of the goals of evaluation is program improvement It is not surprising that improvement was noted between the Spring Term 1985 implementation and the Fall Term 1985 partial replication of the same monitoring device. After the first implementation of the EWS. relevant personnel suggested changes that might improve service delivery. At that point the adviser/advisee linkage was altered to reflect the current model. in which the academic adviser was serving his/her advisee. This new linkage allowed already established adviser/advisee relationships to grow. creating new levels of trust and openness. In this atmosphere. dialogue focusing on problem resolution was generated. Given this 141 atmosphere. perhaps minority engineering sophomores. juniors. and seniors who»were experiencing academic difficulty were better able to assess alternatives that were more appropriate to the situation. In conclusion. the results of the statistical analysis supported the premise that the program had an effect and that there was program improvement from the first to the second implementation of the EWS. This result was made more apparent by the fact that all of the observed results were in the hypothesized direction. Chapter'VI is a review and summary of preceding chapters. with a focus on the implications of this study for future research. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summers: According to Minor (1985). the minority engineering effort had its inception in the politically turbulent 19605. when increased attention was focused on the civil rights of minority-group members. Others have contended that it was at the conclusion of the 1973 National Academy of Engineeringfls conference. where conference attend- ees pledged to support the goal of a tenfold increase in minority engineering graduates within 10 years. that this activity began to grow. Still others have indicated that it was the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation's publication of a definitive text entitled mm W EMBLEM that gave this movement its final shape. As with most other global activities orImovements. a combination of all these pertinent events. including the political climate of the times. probably contributed to and therefore shaped the this movement known as the minority engineering effort. However. regardless of the movement's catalyst. by 1974 the effort to increase minority-group (Black. Hispanic. and Native American) representation in university engineering programs and the engineering profession was well under way. 142 143 Kauffman (1980) found that. in 1974 minorities (Blacks. Hispan- ics. and Native Americans) comprised only 2% of the total professional engineering population. Clark (1979) indicated that. in 1979. Blacks comprised only 1.1% of the total membership in the professional engi- neering population. Whereas they comprised the largest ethnic group of professional engineers in the minority-group category. this 1.1% figure was still below parity representation. Nationally. the number of minority-group members participating in university engineering programs and the engineering professions increased from approximately 9.600 in 1973 to approximately 30.000 by 1982. As a result of the work begun by a number of pioneering faculty members in 1973. and with a grant sponsored by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. the Engineering Equal Opportunity Program (EEOP). formerly called the Office of Minority Student Education. was conceived. The early objective of this program was much the same as it is today: to address the problem of the underrepresentation of minorities in the College of Engineering at MSU. Today that goal has been expanded to encompass not only the recruitment but also the retention of minority engineering students The EEOP has attempted to address the problem of the retention of minority engineering students by creating and developing several components that respond to the unique problems faced by those students The thrust of these programmatic components can be divided into four major areas--academic. social. emotional. and 144 financial--of a studentfis life in college. within which the student must perform. To address the issue of academic preparedness. the EEOPImathe- matics component provides daily instruction in introductory mathe- matics to approximately 80% of the incoming freshmen who are required. because of MSU math placement test results. to take remedial courses in mathematics. These courses include intermediate algebra. college algebra. and trigonometry. The purpose of these courses is to develop mastery of the rudimentary algebraic and trigonometric functions necessary for later success in calculus andImore demanding engineering courses. A second major component of the EEOP is the tutorial-help room. The EEOP employs a number of upper-division minority engineering students to provide tutorial assistance. primarily to minority pre- engineering students. in mathematics. chemistry. physics. computer science. and other undergraduate engineering courses taken during the first two years of academic matriculation. Another component available to minority engineering students is an advising and counseling service. which addresses several important goals of the EEOP: An academic adviser meets with students at pre- scribed intervals to chart an academic and career path that is unique to the College of Engineering educational experience. The academic adviser acts as a liaison for the student. facilitating dialogue with faculty and administrators at MSU. The adviser also acts as a mentor for the student with reference to advising-related concerns. 145 The student-assistant program focuses on the social. emotional. and cultural issues facing incoming freshmen. Upper-division engi- neering students are employed as peer counselors to help new students make a smooth social-cultural transition from high school to college during their freshman year at MSU. 'The peer-counselor also acts as mentor or tutor when necessary. Fall Term 1985 the EEOP implemented a freshman and transfer student orientation course designed to facilitate the transition of a new minority engineering student from high school to the MSU college environment. This seminar course focuses on increasing the studentHs overall awareness of the academic. social. financial. psychological. and political factors that will affect his/her survival potential in the College of Engineering. as well as the engineering profession. Another important element assisting in the psychosocial adjust- ment of minority students is the opportunity to participate with other minority engineering students in projects of mutual benefit undertaken by the minority engineering student organization. The EEOP director acts as the faculty adviser to this student-run organization. Minority Students in Engineering. Officers and members of this organization meet regularly throughout the year to share information on engineering-career-related issues of all types. For the last few years. the organization has produced a book of resumes. which is used by a wide cross-section of companies interested in employing engineer- ing students. Members have planned trips to national conferences. which have given students an opportunity to obtain a broader 146 perspective of the engineering profession. Each spring this organiza- tion sponsors an awards and recognition banquet that is organized. developed. and presented solely by the student membership. During the proceedings. students recognize outstanding contributions that com- panies. EEOP staff. faculty. and students have made throughout the year. Industry representatives have also used this event as a forum to acknowledge outstanding students by offering company-sponsored scholarships. Although several other important activities are under the juris- diction of the EEOP. such as the Detroit Area Pre-College Engineering Program and the Flint. Michigan. Project. these activities are ancil- 1ary to the EEOP's internal function within the College of Engineer- ing. One of the missions of the MSU College of Engineering adminis- trators. staff. and faculty that also includes the EEOP program is the recruitment and retention of talented and capable students. regardless of ethnic-grouprmembership. Related to that mission is an increased concern for the recruitment and retention of minority engineering students. Although large numbers of minority students are increasingly expressing an interest in engineering. MSU. the College of Engineer- ing. and the EEOP are experiencing difficulty in retaining these students. The attrition of minority students from higher education is a complex problem. not confined to MSU or the College of Engineering. In fact.Imost institutions of higher education currently face such 147 problems; As it gains a better understanding of the recruitment and retention challenges confronting MSU relative to the minority engi- neering student. the EEOP should be better equipped to serve this population. Student attrition has been identified as the greatest single problem facing higher education today. It has been difficult. however. for professionals to isolate the causes of attrition because institutions vary greatly. and it has been difficult to generalize conclusions to individual educational settings. In addition. the increased diversity of individual characteristics of students affecting the educational setting has further complicated the educational exchange. A review of research on attrition indicated that attrition can be caused by any number of factors or combinations of factors. These factors are generally subdivided into two types--individual- or student-oriented characteristics and institutional characteristics. Several researchers have identified 108 factors as "possibly involved in retentionfl' The researchers divided these factors into 20 institu- tional characteristics (ids. institutional type. affiliation. size. image. prestige) and 88 individual characteristics (tea. age. gender. socioeconomic status. goals). Of the 88 individual characteristics discussed. only four were of an academic nature. These included academic aptitude. college grades. high school grades. and high school class rank. It is apparent. given this breakdown. that academic 148 performance is only part of the larger. more complex attrition problem facing colleges and universities today. Spring Term 1985. the EEOP with the support and guidance of the College of Engineering implemented an academic monitoring device. the Early Warning System. designed to improve the academic performance of a high-risk population of minority engineering sophomcres.,juniors. and seniors enrolled in engineering-coded courses that term. A par- tial replication of the program occurred Fall Term 1985. The primary objective for implementing the system was tormonitor the academic progress of minority engineering sophomores. juniors. and seniors in engineering-coded courses. The rationale for the procedure was that if all relevant personnel were involved soon enough in the academic life of these students. failure might be averted. It was contended that a major aim of the EWS was to have a direct positive influence on students' academic performance and ultimately an indirect effect on the retention of those students. The purpose of the present research was the formative and swmma- tive evaluation of the academic monitoring device (the EWS) imple- mented by the EEOP in the College of Engineering at MSU. Six research hypotheses were formulated. and data were gathered. collected. and analyzed to test the overall effectiveness of the EWS. A detailed discussion of those results was presented in Chapter V. The results indicated that the EWS alerted students to possible failure in engineering-coded courses at mid-point in the term» Fur- ther. for both the Spring and Fall Term 1985 implementations. once 149 they were alerted to that failure. students generally chose to drop the course within the appropriate time period. rather than risk a failure. The highest-risk students. those at the bottom 25% academically. were served more effectively Fall Term 1985 than they were Spring Term 1985. as judged by final engineering course grades The results also indicated that the EWS was not effective in increasing students' final engineering course grades for either of the two terms under investiga- tion. This does not. however. categorically indicate that the EWS was not effective because in those terms very few students received treat- ment of any kind. Finally. significant differences on two of the three hypotheses used for the Fall Term 1985 implementation indicated that changes implemented between Spring Term 1985 (first implementation) and Fall Term 1985 (second implementation) may have had some effect on the results for Fall Term 1985. Recommendations The EWS was designed to help a high-risk population of engi- neering students who were prone to drop out of engineering programs at MSU because of poor academic performance. Therefore. one of the indirect objectives of the EWS was to address the high attrition rate of these students from MSU and the College of Engineering. The fol- lowing recommendations are offered in an attempt to address the prob- lem of attrition among minority engineering students at MSU. 150 1. Because an attrition study requires a longitudinal or at least a cross-sectional statistical analysis of data over a substan- ti a1 period of time. it is recommended that the EEOP and the College of Engineering establish a formal tracking system. which would include an exit-interviewing procedure specifically intended to identify the causes for minority engineering students' attrition. Compilation of historical and demographic data should be an integral part of this process. Attrition research should then be conducted using these data. 2. It is recommended that academic monitoring be continued. but it should include all minority engineering students. including fresh- Imen. Thus. all classes that influence academic success in engineering (ids. mathematics. chemistry. and physics) should also be evaluated. 3. The current system emphasizes the identification of "nigh- risk students." that is. minority engineering sephomores. juniors. and seniors; however. from this investigation. it was apparent that there were also "high-risk courses" in engineering with which students consistently had difficulty. Perhaps identifying and using resources such as tutorial and instructional aides might positively influence ultimate student survival in these types of courses. 4. The EWS was first implemented Spring Term 1985. The second implementation. in a revised form. occurred Fall Term 1985. The EWS has been implemented in this revised form each consecutive term since that first implementation. Additional comparison data do exist and 151 should be used to test the effectiveness of the EWS in the two terms following those examined in the current investigation. 5. Because most engineering faculty members have daily and/or weekly contact with students and are in a good position to evaluate student perfonmance. they should be encouraged to have an on-going dialogue with advisers and EEOP representatives in an attempt to alert these professionals to promising and/or troubled students. 6. Further. it is recommended that all engineering faculty get involved in the process of monitoring by forwarding the EWS cards to the EEOP. [hujng both the Spring and Fall Term 1985 implementations. small numbers of students actually received the treatment because cards indicating the academic status of students had not been for- warded. 73 Faculty members may wish to establish formal and informal study groups to encourage a more ethnically heterogeneous study-group environment. This new grouping approach might foster academic under- standing among all group members. 8. Alienation has been identified as a reason students drop out of college. Therefore. a formalized peer and/or faculty mentoring system might be established to help ease the student's transition from lower-division to upper-division programs in the College of Engineer- ing. 9. Academic advisers are in an ideal position to influence student behavior. It is suggested that research be conducted with engineering advisers and students that generates a better 152 understanding of that dynamic relationship. The objective of such research should be the development of specific tools and techniques that. when used by the academic adviser. will ensure a positive student-retention outcome. 10. In both the Spring Term and Fall Term 1985 implementations. final follow-up on the part of advisers was informal. A formalized follow-up is proposed. which would track the student through the stages of behavioral change rather than solely relying on chance. 11. Finally. further research is necessary to examine the causes of attrition among minority engineering students. specifically the MSU student. Original survey work. reanalysis of existing data. estab- lishment of and access to new data sources. and case studies that examine both individual attrition characteristics and institutional characteristics are but a few of the research approaches that should be undertaken to meet the retention challenge of the 19805 and beyond. APPENDIX 153 March 21, 1985 MEMORANDUM TO: Dr. Gloria Smith, Chairperson Director, Urban Counseling Psychology Program FROM: Ms. Ruth Benns, Doctoral Candidate “”6. Counseling and Educational Psychology Program RE: Meeting with Dr. Bredeck on March 14, 1985 to discuss proposed dissert- ation topic " The Early Warning System ". In preparation for the piloting of the research study for my dissertation and at your suggestion, I met with Dr. Henry Bredeck Assistant Vice President for Research, and Graduate Studies Vice President regarding approval of using human subjects for the study. I shared with him the materials accumulated to date on the Early Warning System for the College of Engineering, and discussed it's implications relative to the issue of research with human subjects. In a conference call during that meeting on March 14,1985 with Dr. George Van Dusen. Assistant Dean of the College of Engineering, Dr. Bredeck discussed a few minor concerns. As a result of that discussion we agreed that the Early Warning System was a job related activity and assignment and posed no threat. Dr. Bredeck concluded that it was not necessary to submit my proposal to his formal committee, for approval to conduct this study. Should you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact me at 35598310 or 337-7422. ISA MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE Of ENGINEERING EAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 48824-1226 OFFICE OF MINORITY STUDENT EDUCATION ENGINEERING BUILDING 0 (5171 355-8310 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 15, 1985 7 T0: College of Engineering Professors FROM: Ms . Ruth Benns *6 Academic Adviser, OMSE ' RE: Early Warning System Evaluation Spring Term 1985, the Office of Minority Student Education implemented an academic monitoring mechanism. The Early Warning System, which followed the academic progress of sophomore. junior and senior minority engineering students in engineering-coded courses. Our office is currently interested in evaluating this system's effectiveness and would appreciate your feedback on the enclosed questionnaire. A similar questionnaire is also being distributed to students and academic advisers. The number in the top right hand corner of the questionnaire is strictly for follow-up purposes. You will not be identified individually in our results, and your participation is voluntary. . Your responses will assist us in our efforts to improve current services and address the problem of retention of the minority engineering student. Please return your completed questionnaire to me, Ruth Benns, in Room 144 Engineering Building as soon as possible. RB/jj cc:. Dr. . W. Von Tersch . VanDusem . Thompkins . Roach 3 1 $696)?“ Enclosure MSU III on Allin-slim Adina/Equal Opportunity Inuit-(io- 155 Early Warning System Questionnaire Professors Instructions Please respond to the following statements by placing an "X" next to the answer which best expresses your attitude. Part I l. The Early Warning System is an effective mechanism for monitoring the academic progress of minority engineering sophomores, juniors and seniors. strongly agree agree not sure _____ disagree .____ strongly disagree 2. The Early Warning System is an appropriate device for addressing the retention problem of minority engineering students in the College of Engineering. ____ strongly agree _____agree _____ not sure ____ disagree ____ strongly disagree 3. The Early Warning System should be expanded to service the non-minority engineering student population in the College of Engineering. '____ strongly agree _____ agree ____ not sure _____disagree ____ strongly disagree 4. Academic monitoring of students' progress should be continued but should involve freshmen and sophomore minority students rather than sophomore, junior and senior minority students. .____ strongly agree _____agree ____ not sure _____disagree ____ strongly disagree 156 Part II - Professors 1. It is a reasonable expectation for professors to provide some specific measure of evaluation by the fifth week of the term. _____strongly agree __ agree _____not sure _____ disagree _____strongly disagree 2. I usually structure my course to allow my students some measure of evaluation prior to the last day to drop and add classes. ____ strongly agree _____agree ____ not sure __ disagree _____strongly disagree 3. Receiving mid-term grade reports is an appropriate way to determine at what level a student is progressing academically. ____ strongly agree __ agree ____ not sure _____disagree _____strongly disagree 4. The sophomore, junior and senior level engineering student should be disciplined and serious enough not to require administrative surveillance or intervention. .____ strongly agree _ agree _ not sure _____disagree _____strongly disagree 5. Although I consider class attendance an important factor in determining ultimate academic success, because of large class size. I do not normally take class attendance. ____ strongly agree agree _____ not sure _____disagree .____ strongly disagree 157 Part III. - Professors l. The structure of my grading system prohibits student evaluations prior to the end of the term. _____strongly agree _____agree _____not sure _____disagree _____ strongly disagree 2. The minority engineering student should receive additional support and guidance in an attempt to address the problems of retention in the College of Engineering. _____strongly agree _ agree ____ not sure ____ disagree _____ strongly disagree 3. The process of the gathering of information in the Early Warning System is illegal. _____strongly agree _____ agree ____ not sure _____disagree _____strongly disagree 158 Part IV - Professors Instructions Write your responses to the following questions in the space provided below. Attach additional sheets where necessary. l. What do you believe are the major factors affecting minority student retention in the College of Engineering at Michigan State University? 2. The Early Warning System is generally a fine attempt at addressing the problem of retention. however I would implement the following changes in the current system should it be continued. 159 Part IV (cont.) Professors 3. If you believe that the Early Warning System should not be continued, what suggestions do you have for improving the retention of minority engineering students in the College of Engineering. 4. In this questionnaire we have attempted to address many of the con- ceptual and operational issues surrounding the implementation of the Early Warning System. Please utilize the space below to include any additional comments and/or recommendations not previously discussed. I60 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE Of ENGINEERING EAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 «8244216 OFFICE OF MINORITY STUDENT EDUCATION ENGINEERING BUILDING 0 (917) 35543") MEMORANDUM DATE: May 15, 1985 TO: Sophomore, Junior and Senior Office of Minority Student Education Students FROM: ‘ Ms. Ruth Benns “96. Academic Adviser. Office of Minority Student Education RE: Early Warning System Evaluation Spring Term 1985, the Office of Minority Student Education implemented an academic monitoring mechanism, The Early Warning System, which followed your academic progress in engineering-coded courses this term. We are currently interested in evaluating its effectiveness and would appre- ciate your feedback on the enclosed questionnaire. A similar questionnaire is also being distributed to professors and academic advisers. The number in the t0p right hand corner of the questionnaire is strictly for follow-up purposes. You will not be identified individually in our results. and your participation is voluntary. Your responses will assist us in our efforts to improve current services and address the problem of retention of the minority engineering student. Please return your completed questionnaire to me, Ruth Benns in Room l44 Engineering Building as soon as possible. RB/jj cc: Dr. L.W. Von Tersch Dr. G. VanDusen Mr. G. Thompkins ‘Ms. B. Roach Enclosure MS! I is an Al/imariw Adina/Equal Opportunity lun‘mh'nn I6] Early Warning System Questionnaire Students I Instructions Please respond to the following statements by placing an "X" next to the answer which best expresses your attitude. Part I l. The Early Warning System is an effective mechanism for monitoring the academic progress of minority engineering sophomores, juniors and seniors. strongly agree agree not sure disagree strongly disagree 2. The Early Warning System is an appropriate device for addressing the retention problem of minority engineering students in the College of Engineering. strongly agree agree not sure disagree strongly disagree 3. The Early Warning System should be expanded to service the non-minority engineering student population in the College of Engineering. strongly agree agree not sure disagree strongly disagree 4. Academic monitoring of students' progress should be continued but should involve freshmen and sophomore minority students rather than sophomore, junior and senior minority students. .____ strongly agree agree not sure disagree strongly disagree I62 Part II - Students l. As a student. I need some specific measure of evaluation in my engi- neering courses prior to the last day to drop and add classes. strongly agree ____ agree not sure disagree strongly disagree 2. Receiving mid-term grade reports is an appropriate way to determine how I am progressing academically. strongly agree agree not sure disagree _____strongly disagree 3. As a sophomore. junior and senior minority engineering student, I feel I do not require the surveillance or intervention offered by the Early Warning System. strongly agree agree not sure disagree _____ strongly disagree 4. As a minority engineering student I view the Early Warning System as an intrusion into my privacy. strongly agree agree not sure disagree strongly disagree 163 Part III - Students 1. I am pleased that the Office of Minority Student Education is attempting to address the problem of retention with the Early Warning System. strongly agree agree not sure disagree strongly disagree Discussions with my engineering professors regarding my academic performance in their courses occurred with the greatest respect for my privacy. _____strongly agree .____ agree ____ not sure _____disagree- ‘____ strongly disagree Class attendance is an important factor in ultimate academic success. For this reason, class attendance is a priority to me. ____ strongly agree _____agree ____ no: sure _____disagree _____strongly disagree The minority engineering student should receive additional support and guidance in an attempt to address the problems of retention in the College of Engineering. strongly agree agree not sure disagree strongly disagree 164 Part IV - Students Instructions Write your responses to the following questions in the space provided below. Attach additional sheets where necessary. 1. What do you believe are the major factors affecting minority student retention in the College of Engineering at Michigan State University? 2. The Early Warning System is generally a fine attempt at addressing the problem of retention, however I would implement the following changes in the current system should it be continued. 165 Part IV (cont.) Students 3. If you believe that the Early Warning System should ngt_be continued, what suggestions do you have for improving the retention of minority engineering students in the College of Engineering. 4. In this questionnaire we have attempted to address many of the con- ceptual and operational issues surrounding the implementation of the Early Warning System. Please utilize the space below to include any additional comments and/or recommendations not previously discussed. 166 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING EAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 «824-1226 OFFICE OF MINORITY STUDENT EDUCATION ENGINEERING BUILDING 0 (5”) 555-8310 ‘MEMORANDUM DATE: ‘ May l5. l985 T0: College of Engineering Academic Advisers FROMz. Ms. Ruth Benns Academic Adviser OMSE RE: Early Warning System Evaluation Spring Term l985, the Office of Minority Student Education implemented an academic monitoring mechanism, The Early Warning System, which followed the academic progress of sophomore, junior and senior minority students in engi- neering-coded courses. Our office is currently interested in evaluating its effectiveness and would appreciate your feedback on the enclosed questionnaire. A similar questionnaire is also being distributed to prOfessors and students. The number in the top right hand corner of the questionnaire is strictly for follow—up purposes. You will not be identified individually in our results, and your participation is voluntary. Your responses will assist us in our efforts to improve current services and address the problem of retention of the minority engineering students. Please return your completed questionnaire to me, Ruth Benns, in Room 144 Engineering Building as soon as possible. RB/jmj cc: Dr. L. W. Von Tersch Dr. G. VanDusen Mr. G. Thompkins Ms. B. Roach Enclosure MSU is an Al/irnutiw Action/Equal Opportunity Institution I67 Early Warning System Questionnaire Advisers Instructions Please respond to the following statements by placing an "X" next to the answer which best expresses your attitude. Part I l. The Early Warning System is an effective mechanism for monitoring the academic progress of minority engineering sophomores, juniors_and seniors. ____ strongly agree _____agree ____ not sure _____disagree _____strongly disagree 2. The Early Warning System is an appropriate device for addressing the retention problem of minority engineering students in the College of Engineering. _____ strongly agree ____ agree .____ not sure _____disagree ____ strongly disagree 3. The Early Warning System should be expanded to service the non-minority engineering student population in the College of Engineering. _____strongly agree __ agree ____ not sure ____ disagree _____strongly disagree 4. Academic monitoring of students' progress should be continued but should involve freshmen and sophomore minority students rather than sophomore, junior and senior minority students. _____strongly agree ____.agree _____ not sure _____disagree ____ strongly disagree 168 Part II. - Advisers I. As an adviser, it would be helpful in my intervention strategy with students if the student had some specific measure of evaluation prior to the last day to drop and add classes. _ strongly agree __ agree _ not sure _ disagree __ strongly disagree It is a reasonable expectation for professors to provide some specific measure of evaluation by the fifth week of the term. __ strongly agree __ agree _ not sure __ disagree _ strongly disagree Receiving mid-term grade reports is an appropriate way to determine how the student is progressing academically. _ strongly agree I _ agree _ not sure _ disagree _ strongly disagree The sophomore, junior and senior level engineering student should be disciplined and serious enough not to require administrative surveillance or intervention. _ strongly agree _ agree _ not sure _ disagree _ strongly disagree I69 Part III. - Advisers l. During the adviser intervention phase of the Early Warning System, I contacted (i.e. letter, telephone or personally) more than tgn_(l0) students who were below 2.0 by the fifth week of the term. _____ strongly agree ____ agree " ____ not sure ____.disagree _____strongly disagree The majority of those students contacted (i.e below 2.0) were pleased by my interest and concern regarding their academic performance. ____ strongly agree _____agree not sure disagree I strongly disagree As an adviser, I view the Early Warning System as an intrusion into the privacy of those students monitored. strongly agree agree not sure disagree HH strongly disagree The minority engineering student should receive additional support and guidance in an attempt to address the problems of retention in the College of Engineering. strongly agree agree not sure Ill disagree strongly disagree 170 Part IV - Advisers Instructions Write your responses to the following questions in the space provided below. Attach additional sheets where necessary. 1. What do you believe are the major factors affecting minority student retention in the College of Engineering at Michigan State University? 2. The Early Warning System is generally a fine attempt at addressing the problem of retention. however I would implement the following changes in the current system should it be continued. 171 Part IV (cont.)Advisers If you believe that the Early Warning System should apt be continued, 3. what suggestions do you have for improving the retention of minority engineering students in the College of Engineering. 4. In this questionnaire we have attempted to address many of the con- ceptual and operational issues surrounding the implementation of the Early Warning System. Please utilize the space below to include any additional comments and/or recommendations not previously discussed. I72 mun: Inesc memos and other materials on tile U‘IDI‘. narlv warning System were prepared and distributed by Ruth Benns, counselor/advisur for the Office of Minority Student Education, College of Engineering for the March 7, 1983 Student Affairs Adviser's Staff Nevtinfl. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OI ENGINEERING 0 0”“ E ()I STUDENT AHAIRS EAST LANSINh 0 MICHIGAN 0 410‘.” Ill(. ENGINEERING BUILDING MEMORANDUM TO: Engineering & U.U.D. Advisers FROM: Ruth Benns, Adviser \# Office of Minority Student ducation RE: Office of Minority Student Education Early Warning System Approximately 3 year ago Mr. Gerald Tompkins, director of the Office of Minority Student Education, College of Engineering, discussed with the Chairpersons a new retention strategy called "The Early Warning System." The objective of this procedure is to closely monitor the academic progress of minority engineering students by asking professors in Engineering coded courses to submit a mid-term progress report to our office. The rationale being that if we (all offices, services and personnel that impact on a student's success) are involved soon enough some failures might be averted. Once a possible failure is identified (below 2.0 at mid-term reporting) the respective major adviser will be asked to intervene by meeting with the student and/or professor to discuss possible alternatives (i.e. tutoring) to a failure in the course. The adviser will follow up on the student throughout the term to assess how the student is progressing. Although records of the student/adviser interaction will be maintained by the adviser, this process will be conducted with the greatest respect for the student's privacy. Only those personnel immediately involved should be made aware of details regarding a student's academic progress or performance, in a given course. I would like to thank you in advance for assisting our office in this effort. Should you have any further questions regarding any facet of the OMSE Early Warning System, please feel free to contact my office at 355-8310. Again many thanks. Enclosure cc: Dr. Von Tersch Dr. Van Dusen Mr. Gerald Thompkins Ms. Bertha Roach 173 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING EAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 48824-1208 OFFICE OF MINORITY STUDENT EDUCATION WILSON HALL G55 (517) 355-8310 October II, 1985 MEMORANDUM TO: Upper Division Academic Advisors College of Engineering FROM: Ruth Benns, Academic Advisor Office of Minority Student Education RE: OMSE Early Warning System, Fall Term 1985 Spring Term l985 the Office of Minority Student Education, College of Engineering formally instituted an academic monitoring device called "The Early Warning System". Fall Term 1985 we will again implement the same monitoring device with a few minor changes. The objective of the Early Warning System is to follow the academic progress of our sophomores, juniors, and seniors in engineering - coded courses. The rationale for this procedure is that if all relevant personnel are involved soon enough, we might together avert some of these students failures. If one of your advisees is below a 2.0 in any engineering - coded course, as identified by the instructor, you will then be asked to meet with that student to map out a strategy for the successful resolution of that problem. The process of the reporting and the sharing of information relative to students‘ academic progress should be conducted with the greatest respect for their privacy. Although records of student/advisor interaction will be main- tained by you, only those personnel immediately involved will be made aware of details regarding any individual case. The Office of Minority Student Education is very concerned about the survival of the minority engineering student. It is hoped that the closer monitoring of students' academic performances will better enable us to address the problem of attrition of the minority engineering student. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you in advance for assisting us in this effort. Should you have any further questions regarding any facet of the OMSE Early Warning System, please feel free to contact my office at 355-83l0. /imi cc: Dr. Lawrence Von Tersch Mr. Gerald D. Thompkins Dr. George VanDusen Ms. Bertha Roach MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution I74 MICIH(h\N SLATE UNIVERSITY IHIHM HI I\i.l\HRI\(. EAST LANSING - MICHIGAN - «nu—nut. HHIII (II WIVJMIH \ll IIIVI IIIH \IIH.\ F.\(.l.\‘HWI.\(. Ml IIIII.\(. 0 (81‘) SSS-RH" May 29, I985 MEMORANDUM TO: College of Engineering - Students, Professors and Advisers FROM: Ms. Ruth Benns, Academic Adviser - OMSE “TQHEEZ RE: Early Warning System Evaluation Recently a questionnaire was forwarded to you requesting your feedback regarding the Early Warning System. For those of you who have already responded we would like to thank you. Our office is very eager to assess the Early Warning Systems' effectiveness and would very much like to hear from you. So regardless of your view, we need to know what you are thinking. Remember, your responses will assist us in our efforts to improve current services and address the problem of retention of the minority engineering student. So please drop your completed questionnaire in the mail today! Should you need another questionnaire or have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 355-8310. RB/jmj cc: Dr. L.W. Von Tersth Dr. G. VanDusen Mr. G. Thompkins Ms. B. Roach "\I u an {flirt-Dal"? S. hull Iquallflvfurlunih ’QD'lFtllco. I75 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING EAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 48824-1126 OFFICE OF MINORITY S'IUDENT EDUCATION BWGINEERING BUILDING 0 (517) 355-8310 March 27, 1985 MEMORANDUM TO: College of Engineering Department Chairpersons FROM: Ruth Benns, Academic Adviser “IQ-b Office of Minority Student Education RE: Office of Minority Student Education - Early Warning System Approximately a year ago Mr. Gerald O. Thompkins, director of the Office of Minority Student Education, College of Engineering, discussed with you a new retention strategy called the "Early Warning System." The objective of the Early Warning System is the same now as it was then, to follow the academic progress of minority engineering sophomores, juniors and seniors in engineering- coded courses. Our rationale is that if we (all offices, services and per- sonnel that have an impact on a student's success) are involved soon enough, some of those failures might be averted. During the week of April 8th your faculty will be receiving mid-term report- ing grade cards from our office. We ask that you encourage your faculty to fill them out as completely and quickly as possible and return them to me in Room 144, Engineering Building, by April 18, regardless of the grade being reported. The respective major adviser will be following up on these students throughout the term to assess student progress. It is imperative that the process of reporting and sharing information relative to a student's academic progress be conducted with the greatest respect for each student's privacy. Although records of student/adviser interaction will be maintained by the adviser, only personnel immediately involved should ever be aware of details regarding any individual case. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you in advance for assisting us in this effort. Should you have any further questions regarding any aspect of the OMSE Early Warning System, please feel free to contact my office at 355-8310. RB/klk cc: Dr. Lawrence Von Tersch Dr. George VanDusen Mr. Gerald D. Thompkins Ms. Bertha Roach MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution I76 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 0 OFFICE OF STUDENT AFFAIRS EAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 48824-1226 ENGINEERING BUILDING MEMORANDUM TO: Course Instructor FROM: Ruth Benns, Academic Adviser Office of Minority Student Education RE: Office of Minority Student Education Early Warning System The Office of Minority Student Education, College of Engineering, has instituted a new monitoring system called "The Early Warning System". The objective of the Early Warning System is to follow the academic progress of our sophomores, juniors and seniors in your classes, Spring Term, 1985. The rationale being that if we (all offices, services, and personnel that impact a student's success) are involved soon enough in their learning process, we may together avert some of their failures. On the enclosed card please indicate the student's academic progress in your course to date and return the card to my office by April 18, 1985. The respective major adviser will be following up on these students throughout the term, to assess how they are progressing. It is imperative that the process of reporting and sharing of information relative to a student's academic progress be conducted with the greatest respect for each student's privacy. Although records of student/adviser interaction will be maintained by the adviser, only those personnel immediately involved should be made aware of details regarding any individual case. I would like to take this Opportunity to thank you in advance for assisting us in this effort. Should you have any further question regarding any facets of the OMSE Early Warning System please feel free to contact my office at 355-8310. Enclosure cc: Dr. Von Tersch Dr. Van Dusen Mr. Gerald Thompkins Ms. Bertha Roach MSU it an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution I77 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING FAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 48824-1226 OFFICE OF MINOR"? STUDENT EDUCATION ENGINEERING BUILDING 0 (517) 355-8310 March l3, l985 Dear All across the country programs such as ours are attempting to develop new and innovative approaches to assist you in meeting the rigors of your respective major in the College of Engineering. To this end the Office of Minority Student Education has developed an "Early Warning System". The objective of this procedure is to closely monitor the academic progress of minority engineering students by asking professors in engineering-coded courses to submit a mid-term progress report to our office. The rationale being that if we (all offices, services and personnel that impact on a student's success) are involved soon enough some failures might be averted. Spring Term l985, Ruth Benns and the upper division advising staff will receive the mid-term academic performance records of their advisees. The process of reporting and the sharing of information relative to your academic progress will be conducted with the greatest respect for your privacy. Although records of student/advisor interaction will be maintained by the advisor, only those personnel immediately involved will be made aware of details regarding any individual case. If you are below a 2.0 in any engineering-coded course at mid-term your professor is being asked to forward that information to our office. You will then be asked to meet with your academic advisor to map out a strategy for the successful resolution of that problem. It is hoped that the closer monitoring of students' academic performances will enable us to address problem areas before they escalate into major stumbling blocks to your survival in the College of Engineering. We welcome your comments, questions and/or suggestions. Please feel free to contact me at (5l7) 355-83l0. Thank you, Ruth Benns cc: Dr. Von Tersch Counselor/Advisor, OMSE Dr. VanDusen . . Mr. Gerald Thompkins RB/jmj Ms. Bertha Roach MSU it u- Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution I78 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING EAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 48824-1226 OFHCE OF MINORITY STUDENT EDUCATION ENGINEERING BUILDING 0 (517) 355-8310 September IS, 1985 MEMORANDUM: TO: College of Engineering Department Chairpersons FROM: Ruth Benns, Academic Advisor ‘96. Office of Minority Student Education RE: OMSE Early Warning System, Fall Term 1985 Spring term 1985, the Office of Minority Student Education formally instituted an academic monitoring device called "The Early Warning System." Fall term l985 we will again implement the same monitoring device with a few minor changes. The Objective of the Early Warning System is to follow the academic progress of our sophomores, juniors, and seniors in engineering - coded courses. The rationale for this procedure is that if all personnel are involved soon enough, we might, together avert some of these students failures. A most crucial aspect of the Early Warning System's effectiveness depends upon your instructors providing some measure of the student's academic performance, however informal, by October 21, I985. This process will better facilitate the major advisor's intervention and follow-up strategies. Again, it is imperative that the process of the reporting and the sharing of information relative to a student's academic progress be conducted with the greatest respect for each student's privacy. Although records of student advisor interaction will be maintained by the advisor, only personnel immediately involved should ever be aware of details regarding any individual case. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you in advance for assisting us in this effort. Should you have any further questions regarding any facet of the OMSE Early Warning System, please feel free to contact my office at 355-8310. cc: Dr. Lawrence Von Tersch Dr. George VanDusen Mr. Gerald D. Thompkins Ms. Bertha Roach MSU it an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution I79 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINERING EAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 48824-1226 OFFICE OF MINORITY STUDENT EDUCATION momma BUILDING 0 (517) 355-8310 September l6, l985 MEMORANDUM: TO: College of Engineering Course Instructor FROM: Ruth Benns, Academic Advisor “‘T‘EE Office of Minority Student Education RE: OMSE Early Warning System, Fall Term 1985 Spring term l985 the Office of Minority Student Education, College of Engineering formally instituted an academic monitoring device called "The Early Warning System". Fall term 1985 we will again implement the same monitoring device with a few minor changes. The objective of the Early Warning System is to follow the academic progress of our sophomores, juniors, and seniors in engineering - coded courses. The rationale for this procedure is that if all relevant personnel are involved soon enough, we might together avert some of these students failures. A most crucial part of the Early Warning System's effectiveness is dependent upon the instructor providing some measure of evaluation, however informal, of the student's academic performence in his/her course. It is therefore hoped, that you will take an extra moment to complete the enclosed card indicating the student's academic progress in your course to date, and return all cards to me in room G-56 Wilson Hall Lower Level by October 2l, l985. The respective major advisor will be following up on these students throughout the fall term to assess student progress. Again, it is imperative that the process of the reporting and the sharing of information relative to a student's academic progress be conducted with the greatest respect for each student's privacy. Although records of student/advisgr inter- action will be maintained by the adviser only personnel immediately involved should ever be aware of details regarding any individual case. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you in advance for assisting us in this effort. Should you have any further questions regarding any facet of the OMSE Early Warning System, please feel free to contact my office at 355-8310. cc: Dr. Lawrence Von Tersch Mr. Gerald Thompkins Dr. George VanDusen Ms. Bertha Roach MSU it an Allin-tutu Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 180 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING EAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 48824-1226 OFFICE OF MINORITY STUDENT EDUCATION ENGINEERING BUILDING 0 (517) 355-8310 September l6, 1985 Dear Spring term l985, the Office of Minority Student Education, College of Engineering formally instituted an academic monitoring device called "The Early Warning System". Fall term l985 we will again implement the same monitoring system with a few minor changes. The objective of this procedure is to closely monitor the academic progress of minority engineering students by asking professors in engineering - coded courses to submit a mid-term progress report to our office. The rationale being that if all personnel are involved soon enough, we might together avert some of your failures. If you are below a 2.0 in any engineering coded course, as identified by the instructor, you will then be asked to meet with your academic advisor to map out a strategy for the successful resolution of that problem. The process of the reporting and the sharing of information relative to your academic progress will be conducted with the greatest respect for your privacy. Although records of student/advisor interaction will be maintained by the advisor, only those personnel immediately involved will be made aware of details regarding any individual case. The Office of Minority Student Education is very concerned about the survival of the minority engineering student. It is hoped that the closer monitoring of students' academic performances will better enable us to address the problem of the attrition of the minority engineering student. Your participation in this project is strictly voluntary. Should you choose not to participate, or just have a few questions and concerns, please contact me personally at 5l7-355-83l0. Ruth E. Benns Counselor/Advisor OMSE Thank you. cc: Dr. Lawrence Von Tersch Dr. George VanDusen Mr. Gerald Thompkins Ms. Bertha Roach REB/ard MSU it an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution REFERENCES REFERENCES Astin. A. W. (l972). College dropouts: A national profile. ACE Research Reports. .1. 1-71. Astin. A. W. (I973). Student persistence: Some stay. some don't-- why? .CclJece and Unixersjix. 48. 298-306. Astin. A. W. (1975). Erexeniingsiudentsimmdmnningcui. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Astin. A- W. (1977). Emu: critical mars; Effects of. college cn heJchst. attitudes and 1alues. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bertrand. J. R. (1955). Relation between high school average grade and academic achievement. College and Unmsity. 3_.Q. l66-lBl. Blanchfield. W. C. (1971). College dropout identification: A case study. .Icurnal cf Experimental Educaticn. 40. 1-4. Bogen. J. R. (l982). Retention up-date spring 198l. _C_Q_]_Le_gean_d Unicersjiy. 51. 289-292. Braddock. J. H. (l981). Desegregation and black student attrition. Urban Educatjcn. 15(4). 403-4l8. Bragg. E. W. (l956). A study of student withdrawal at "LU." laurnal cf Educatjcnal Esxchclch. 41. 199-202. Burbach. H. J.. 8. Thompson. M. A. (1973). Note on alienation. race. and college attrition. Esyghgjcgjcal Reports. 33.. 273-274. Chase. C. I. (1970). The college dropout: His high school prologue. EuJJeIinciiheNaticnalAsschaflcncifieccndarxficboclErincJ: M1553. 66-7l. Chickering. A. w.. 8. Hannah. W. (l969). The process of withdrawal. Liberal Educaticn. 55.. 551-558. Clarke. G. E. (1979. May). Engineering. a profession of opportunity. Iheflt‘lsls. pp. l55-l57. l8l 182 Coker. D. (1968). Dirersltx of. intelligence and nonzinteldeccire characteristics heiueen persisting students and homoersisting students among muses. Washington. DC: Office of Education. BR—6-2728. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 033 646) Conner. J. D. (l968). The relationship between college environmental press and freshman attrition at Southern Methodist University. College and Uniuarsity. 43.. 265-273. Cortina. R. J. (1980). From educational access .to academic success; A design for imoroctng oooortuniiies for minorltx persons in Ilisccnsln higher educaflcn in the 12591.5. Madison: University of Wisconsin System Committee. Demitroff. J. F. (1974). Student persistence. Collegeand Unjxersitx. 4.9.. 553-567. Demos. G. D. (1968). Analysis of college dropouts--Some manifest and covert reasons. Eersonnel and Guidance Journal. 45.: 68l-684. Fleming. J. (1984). ELacksiocoJJegethcomoaratiresiudxoi siudentslsuccessiohlackanduhjieinsinutjcns. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Fullmer. D. W. (l956). Success and perseverance of university students. Journal .of higher Education. 21. 445-447. Gekowski. N.. 8 Schwartz. S. (l96l). Student mortality and related factors. Journal of Educational Research. 54. 192-194. Gibbs. J. T. (1974). Patterns of adaptation among black students at a predominantly white university. American Journal of .Qrthcosy; W! M, 728-740. Goodrich. A. H979). Adatadcixenretentionmodeliorjmororiog minorjixsiudentoersistenceinhjghereducatjcniosriiuncns- Chicago: University of Illinois. Gunnings. T. 5.. 8 Simpkins. G. A. (1972). A systemic approach to counseling disadvantaged youth. Journal of We Concerns in Eersonnel and Guidance. .1. 4-8. Hackman. J. R.. 8 Dysinger. W. S. (1970). Commitment to college as a factor in student attrition. Mil—1.9.9! Qf mm, fl, 3]]. 324. Hanson. G.. 8 Taylor. T. (1970). Interaction of ability and person- ality: Another look at the drop out problem in an institute of technology. Journal of Counseling Esrchologx. .11. 540-545. 183 Holmes. C. H. (I959). Why they left college. .College and Mailer; my. 14.. 295-300. Iffert. R. E. (l955). The student retention and withdrawal study. College and Unjuersitx. 3.0. 406-511. Iffert. R. E. (I957). Retention and uithdraual of college students (Bulletin 1958. #l). Washington. DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Jaffe. A.. 8. Adams. W. (1970). Academic and socio-economic factors related to entrance and retention at two and four year colleges in the late 1960's. Eroceedingsoi the American Association. Social Statistics Section. Johansson. C. 8.. 8. Rossmann. J. E. (1973). Persistence at a liberal arts college: A replicated. five-year longitudinal study. JournaloiCounseJdogEsuchochu. 29.1-9. Kaufman. H. (1977). Black engineering students: Why the poor retention rate. Next Engineer. 1(4). 33-37. Kauffman. H. C. (1980). Minorities in engineering: The national effort. Engineering Education. 10(4). 331-334. Kramer, G. L.) MOSS: Re Do, Tay1 OI": Lo To, & HendrIX: Ln Jo (1985). Why students persist in college: A categorical analysis. NAQAQA Journal. 5(2). l-l7. Landis. R. 8. (I976). Improving the retention of minority engineering students. Engineering Education. 66(7). 737-739. Landis. R. 8. (I985). A model retention program. In R. B. Landis (Ed.). Handhookonjmororingihereieniionandgraduationoi minorities in engineering (p. 5). New York: The National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering. Lavin. D. (1965). Iheoredjcncnofacademjcoerformance. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Lawhorn. J. (197l). Astudxoioersjsiersanddroooutsjoihe secretarialscienceorogramatfliamdenadeJunjchouege. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Miami. Lee. G. E. (1974). A comoaratire study of .the consistence and academic achieuement oi L'Eroieci: so! and regular]; enrolled students at Middlesex .Qommunm College (Bedford. MA: Middlesex Community College). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 100 48l) 184 Lenning. O. T.. Sauer. K.. 8Beal. P. (l980). WW strategies. Washington. D.C.: American Association for Higher Education. Lenning. O. T.. Beal. P.. 8 Sauer. K. (l980). Betenijeneng attritiom Eeidence tor action and research. Boulder: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. Little. J. K. (1959). The persistence of academically talented youth in university studies. Educational Record. 4.9.. 237-241. Max. P. (1969). How many graduate? .CoJlegeandanixensitx. .45.. 63- 76. McLaughlin. B. W. (l98l). Career access models: Ihe Ehiiadelohia minorities in engineering consortium. (ERIC Document Reproduc- tion Service No. ED 203 780) Michigan State University. (l985). Amemic nnogname 125216, East Lansing: Michigan State University Publication Office. Minor. D. (l985). The case for retention programs. In R. B. Landis (Ed.).handbookonimoroyingtheretentionandgraduationot minorities in engineering (p. 3). New York: The National Action Ocuncil for Minorities in Engineering. Morrisey. R. J. (l97l). Attrition in probationary freshmen. Jeannal of. College Student Eersonnel. 279-285. Munger. P. (1956). Student persistence in college. Eersonnel and Guidance Journal. 35.. 241-243. Newton. L. L.. 8. Gaither. G. H. (l980). Factors contributing to attrition: An analysis of program impact on persistence patterns. .QoJJege and Unixersitx. 55.. 237-251. Noel. L.. 8. Levitz. R. (Eds.). (l982). mum 11th menses. Iowa: American College Testing Program. Pantages. T. J.. 8. Creedon. C. F. (l978). Studies of college attri- tion: 1950-1975. RefleuoIEducational Research. 45(1). 49-101. Panos. R. J.. 8. Astin. A. W. (1968). Attrition among college students. American Educational Research Journal. 5.. 57-72. 185 Pedrini. B. C.. 8 Pedrini. D. T. (l976). Iheneeiuineesejfifl scoresinoredicting achierementandattritionamongdisadran: tagedandregularcoliegeireshmemnsurrexandstudx (Omaha: University of Nebraska at OmahaL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED l28 429) Penick. B. E. (l985). Strategies for monitoring student progress and maintaining retention data. In R. B. Landis (Ed.)..Handhook.on improringtheretentionandgraduationoiminoritiesinengineer: ing. p. 1. New York: The National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering. Penick. B. E.. 8 Morning. C. (l983). .Retention.tor.minorit¥.engi: .neening.etngenis,(Report on the l98l-l982 NACME Retention Research Program. National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering). New York: The National Action Ocuncil for Minorities in Engineer- ing. Perkins. W. (1986). Salute to the minority engineering education effort. .Black.£ollegian. 153-l6l. Pervin. L.. Reik. L.. 8. Dal rympl e. W. (1966). Ineeqliege dropout and the utilization of talent. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Powers. W. H. (1976) Acomoarisonstudxofthedegreetonhich innards engineering cereers. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Michigan State University. Red. W. E. (1984). Careers in engineering and technology. California: Wadsworth. Rossman. J. E.. 8. Kirk. B. A. (l970). Factors related to persistence and withdrawal among university students. .lournal.oi.Counseling Esxchologx. 11. 56-62. Scannell. D. D. (l960). Prediction of college success from elemen- tary school performance. .lonrnal,ef.Enneetienal.Eeyenelegy. 5_1. l30-l34. Schmid. J.. 8. Reed. S. R. (l966). Factors in retention of residence hall freshmen. Journal of Experimental Education. 35.. 28-36. Sewell. W.. 8 Shah. V. (l967). Socioeconomic status. intelligence. and the attainment of higher education. .Sociolog¥.ef.Education. AQ’ 1-23 0 186 Sexton. V. S. (1965). Factors contributing to attrition in college populations: Twenty-five years of research. .lournal of General Esxchologx. 12. 301-326. Shiovitz. N. (l985. July 14). An introduction to careers in engineer- ing. IheDetroitEreeEress. p. l. Simmons. R.. 8. Simmons. C. (1978). Erineipies of success in programs tor minority students. (ERIC Docunent Reproduction Service No. ED 152 917) Simmons. R.. Vienneau. D.. 8 Simmons. C. (l979). .Ieaening.the.gis: in engineering. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 180 356) Sloan. A. P. (1974). Minoriflesinengineeringtbhlueorinttor notion. New York: The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. Slocum. W. L. (l956). Social factors involved in academic mortality. College and Uniuersitx. 3.2. 53-64. Smith. G. S.. Kearney. A.. 8. Scales. A. (1973). Rising opportunities in the field of engineering: Implications for counselors. woiflonrflhiteConcernsinEersonnelandfiuidance. 3.0). l-l . Smith. J. A. (l97l). Amultixariatecomeinationofacademicandnon: academiciactorsrelatedtostudentattrition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pittsburgh. Stikes. G. S. (1984). Black students in higher education. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Stonewater. J. K. (l977). An experimental engineering student deuelopment for ethnic minority students; Einal Reoort: Bert 1 (Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Grant 74-9-2). Michigan State University. Stonewater. J. K. (1981). Strategies for increasing minority engi- neering enrollment and retention. ,Engineering.Education. 12(2). 175-177. Suddarth. B. M. (1962). Factors influencing the graduation of freshmen who enroll at Purdue University. Unpublished report. June l957. Cited in N. Sanford (Ed.). Ine American ooiiege. New York: Wiley. Suen. H. K. (1983). Alienation and attrition of black college students on a predominantly white campus. Journal of _C_Q_]_1_ege Student Eersonnel. 2M2). ll7-l21. 187 Sunmerskill. J. (1962). Dropouts fran college. In N. Sanford (Ed.). Ihe American college. New York: Wiley. Taylor. R.. 8 Hanson. G. (1970). Interest and persistence. Journal of Counseling Rsxchologx. .11. 506-509. Tinto. V. (l975). Dropouts from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Reader of Educational Research. 4.5. 89-125. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1975). School enrollment--Social and economic characteristics of students: October. 1974. Current population reports series 2.29.. No. 25a. Washington. DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Van Erdewyk. Z. M. (l967). Mariobiesrelatedto persistence. transfer and attrition of. engineering students. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED Ol6 O99) Vaughn. R. (1968). College dropouts: Dismissed vs. withdrew. Eersonnel and Guidance Journal. .46.. 685-689. Waller. C. (1964). Research related to college persistence. College and Unitersitx. 9.9.. 281-294. Walton. J. M. (1979). Retention. role modeling. and academic readiness: A perspective on the ethnic minority student in higher education. Personnel and Guidance Journal. 5.. 124-127. William. V. (l966). Difficulties in identifying relatively permanent characteristics related to persistence in college. Journal of Counseling Esuchologx. 13.. l08. Yaremko. R. M.. Harari. H.. Harrison. R. C.. 8. Lynn. E. (l982). Reference handbook of research and statistical methods in psuchologr: for students and protessionals. New York: Harper 8 Row Publishers. ‘lICHIGQN STQTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES llHlllWlHHllHllHHHIWIHIWNHHIHIHHIHIHIIHI 3129301138340