Running head: USING INTRUSIVE ADVISING METHODS TO RETAIN

Using Intrusive Advising Methods to Retain At-Risk First Year Students

Mischelay Roberts
Western Michigan University

USING INTRUSIVE ADVISING METHODS TO RETAIN

Abstract
This study looks to use both cognitive and non-cognitive factors to identify at-risk first year
students in efforts to use intrusive advising methods to retain the students that often struggle to
succeed. The primary use of cognitive factors, such as grade point average (GPA) and
standardized test scores (ACT/SAT) has been proven to be ineffective, so including noncognitive factors, such as financial concern, outside support, and institutional commitment, will
better identify these at-risk students. This study will be conducted by survey taken on the second
day of orientation by all first time in any college (FTIAC) students. Students will be placed into
groups based on their answers and the top two at-risk groups, termed our R1/R2 students (Risk
and Retention, groups 1 and 2), will received the intrusive advising. Action research, used by
educational researchers to improve practices, will be used. Procedures will include identifying
students, using intrusive advising methods, and analyzing data to show retention rates. Retention
percentages will be calculated based on the number of advising appointments per semester and
per academic year of the at-risk students.

USING INTRUSIVE ADVISING METHODS TO RETAIN

Using Intrusive Advising Methods to Retain At-First Firs Year Students

Higher education has various issues that are faced by todays students, including retention. At
some universities, more than one-in-five undergraduates are failing to complete the first year of
their degree, (Parkinson, 2013, p. 75). Students come from various backgrounds and have
different factors that can affect their success in higher education. Primarily, grade point average
(GPA) and standardized tests (ACT/SAT) have been used to admit these students to their
respective colleges and universities. Some of these admitted students are not adequately prepared
to succeed, and often drop out after their first year, or even their first semester. This study looks
to use both cognitive and non-cognitive factors to identify at-risk first year students in efforts to
use intrusive advising methods to retain the students that often struggle to succeed.
Problem Statement
Retention is one of the biggest problems in todays higher education. Finding ways to
retain students to their degree completion has proven to be an issue (Barefoot, 2004), especially
for those identified as at-risk. In the past, only cognitive factors, such as GPA and ACT/SAT
scores were used to identify at-risk students, but research has shown that non-cognitive factors
should also be used (Sommerfield, 2011, p. 21). These factors include low socioeconomic status,
study habits, financial stability, and family support. Primary use of only cognitive factors have
been inaccurate indicators of student potential in higher education, especially if you take into
consideration the lack of resources some schools have based on their geographical location,
which in turn lower their cognitive factors being looked at for higher education entry, and also
impede their success.
Utilizing an at-risk survey during freshman orientation, using both cognitive and noncognitive factors can assist with the identification of at-risk students. Using this method,

USING INTRUSIVE ADVISING METHODS TO RETAIN

approaches to reach out to these students, such as intrusive advising, can lead to higher rates of
retention. Academic advising and the persistence and relationships of academic advisors has
been show to increase retention rates of at-risk students (Drake, 2011). My proposal is to use this
survey, identify a group of at-risk students, and use intrusive advising methods, such as emails,
phone calls, required advising appointments and relationship building to investigate if retention
rates of those first-year at-risk students increases from fall to spring semester and to sophomore
year. Using this method can fill the gap because different schools have different resources and
methods of assessment that can differentiate students in unequal ways. Using these methods can
level the playing field for these students.
Purpose of Study
As an academic advisor who knows the importance academic advisors play in higher
education, it is imperative to look at the methods that academic advisors can take to retain first
year at-risk students. According to Drake (2011), students who are the happiest and
academically the most successful have developed a solid relationship with an academic advisor, a
faculty member, or an administrator who can help them navigate the academic and social shoals
of the academy, (p. 10) The methods that academic advisors use are key to student persistence.
With the identification of at-risk students who have the highest risk of dropping out, using
various intrusive advising methods to assist with the navigation thought their higher education
experience should, in turn, increase their rate of retention. The findings of this student will assist
with the identification of a group of at-risk students and look at methods to retain them through
academic advising. The purpose of this study is to examine whether or not intrusive advising
methods implemented on at-risk students will increase retention rates.

USING INTRUSIVE ADVISING METHODS TO RETAIN

Research Questions
1. To what extent can intrusive advising methods increase at-risk students retention rates?
2. How do these methods retain at-risk students?
3. Based on an intrusive advising protocol and the number of advising meetings, what is the
retention of the at-risk students at the end of each semester and year?
Literature Review
At-Risk Students
Students who enter college under prepared are often considered at-risk student. At-risk
students may have difficulties other than lack of basic skills. For example, at risk students may
lack the motivation to purpose a college degree, (Hetzel & Laskey, 2011, p. 31-32). This
sentence here defines who at-risk students are. In relation to my study, knowing what an at-risk
student is and why they are considered at-risk, makes it much easier to understand the obstacles
they face while in higher education. You have to know whom you are trying to help before you
can help them.
Cognitive and Non-Cognitive Factors
In an article by Sommerfield (2011), it is said considering non-cognitive factors in
assessments of college readiness was, therefore, seen as a way to improve the accuracy of
selection criteria, casting light on students abilities to navigate the multiple demands of the
college environment so that they may have been better able to persist to graduation, (p. 19). In
her article, non-cognitive factors are defined as non-academic factors. This term is used because
it defines these factors in a way that more accurately defines them, as they are dependent on
cognitive processes. Sommerfield (2011) goes on to create Table 1: Factors in College Readiness
and Success (p. 21), which shows academic factors, such as high school grade point average and
standardized tests, but also goes on to create large groups for non-academic factors, such as

USING INTRUSIVE ADVISING METHODS TO RETAIN

habits of mind and external knowledge, to name a few. These larger groups then are broken down
to show what they include, such as financial stability, study habits, attitudes, and values. This
article relates to my study because it mentions the consideration of using non-cognitive, or nonacademic, factors when looking at student persistence in higher education. It also goes on to list
these factors in large groups then break them down. It makes it easy to categorize these important
factors, and give you a look into what other factors that are often overlooked, are important in
college student persistence and retention.
The ACT Policy Report (Lotkowski, Robbins, & Noeth, 2004) shows the relationship of
academic and non-academic factors and how retention and performance are different at
institutions. It is important to take into consideration all of these factors when designing effective
retention programs. Non-academic, or non-cognitive, factors are important to look at. Table 1 in
the document shows these factors and gives working definitions of what they are. In relation to
my study, the relationship of these factors can be important because many at-risk students may
not have only one factor, but an array of the factors that can apply to them.
The evidence presented by Hoang (2011), says that a blended approach should be used
meaning that non-cognitive factors should be used to predict academic performance along with
the traditional use of GPA and test scores when predicting students academic performance
outcomes and attrition risk. It supports the idea of using non-cognitive and cognitive, or
academic performance, when looking at student attrition and their performance in colleges and
universities. Identifying these factors will lead to the other sources of how to assist students with
being successful.

Advisor Roles, Advising Methods, and Their Effectiveness

USING INTRUSIVE ADVISING METHODS TO RETAIN

According to Drake (2011), academic advising is key is student retention and persistence
because of the relationships built with students. Academic advising helps students with both
academic and life goals, which makes students want to stay in school. In relation to my study,
this is a way that institutions can assist with student retention. Academic advisors and their role
to increase student retention and persistence is very important. They are there to build
relationships with students and make them feel more welcomed. For me, this is my field and one
of the key aspects of the survey is to identify these students and following up with intrusive
advising methods to retain them.
Vivian (2005) found that mentoring, in a short-term and non-intensive strategy, results in
improvement in student achievement. Mentoring is not as likely with at-risk students as it is with
their high-performing peers, but mentoring has been acknowledged to be of particular benefit to
college students at-risk for failure or withdrawal, (Vivian, 2005, p. 336). As advisors, we can
mentor out students, building relationships to keep them actively wanting to be in the college
setting. The article says, good mentoring should give students opportunities to understand their
current positions, reflect on present and future actions, and make sound choices throughout their
lives, (Vivian, 2005, p. 349). This is one thing method that advisors can use mentoring.
Methods
My study is to identify a group of at-risk first year students and see if intrusive advising
methods will increase the retention rates of these students. The following information is my
methodology.
Subject
The subjects of my research study will include all incoming first time in any college
(FTIAC) students. All of these incoming students will take a survey during orientation and of

USING INTRUSIVE ADVISING METHODS TO RETAIN

these students; we will find our group of at-risk students. The top two groups, based on the
survey results, are deemed most at-risk, which we will call R1/R2 (risk and retention, groups 1
and 2), will be placed into our intrusive advising protocol. In Fall 2013, initially 145 students
were flagged. Of that 145, 108 left after summer melt, and 12 more left The College of Arts and
Sciences (CAS) early in the semester. Our final population for this study was 98 students.
Design
Action research will be used in this study, as the primary purpose of action research is to
increase the quality, impact, and justice of educational professionals practice, (Gall, Gall, &
Borg, 2007, p. 597). Action research is done to achieve a goal in current practice, in this case
increased retention rates, and is done by convenience sampling of your own students. The
sampling method in this study will be convenience, since we are using students at our own
university that are attending our specified college orientation. We would identify individuals who
are at risk, then use the intrusive advising methods to see if there is any effect on the retention
rates of these students. Since this is the second round of this study, the current retention rates will
be able to be compared to the first year results.
Measures or Outcomes
The information for the study prior to the intrusive advising would be found by the use of
a homegrown survey. The measures being looked at in the study are cognitive factors, including
GPA and ACT/SAT. Non-cognitive factors would also be looked at, such as academic selfefficacy, social support, financial concerns, commitments to education, institution, etc.). Rank
scores could be used for the cognitive factors and categories could be used for the non-cognitive
factors to give them values since they do not fall on a nominal scale. Retention would be the
final measure taken into consideration.

USING INTRUSIVE ADVISING METHODS TO RETAIN

Procedures
1. Take Action: Create homegrown survey of approximately 100 questions designed to
measure cognitive traits and non-cognitive traits.
2. Collecting Data: All FTIAC students take online survey through GoWMU at the end of
day 2 of orientation. Survey should take approximately 15-20 minutes to complete.
3. Analyzing Data: Students are placed into groups based on results, with the top two
groups (R1s and R2s) deemed most at-risk are placed into intrusive advising protocol.
4. Taking Action: Each advisor in our office is assigned a group of R1/R2 students to advise
(approximately 10-15 students).
5. Taking Action: R1/R2 protocol includes 5 contacts (phone, letter, email, etc.) and 4
advising appointments at specific time frames throughout each semester. Assigned
advisor will do contacts but other advisors, if more convenient for students, may do
appointments.
6. Taking Action: Student Success Hold is placed on R1/R2 students account and can be
taken off during first advising appointment. This is explained in second contact email.
7. Analyzing Data: At the end of each semester, percentages will be calculated to see the
effect of the intrusive advising on retention rates.
8. Reporting Action Research: Research results will be shared with colleagues at the
conclusion of each semester and academic year. They will also be reported at Assessment
in Action Day at the university.
9. Continuing or Modifying Action and Reflection: After results are shared, advisors will
reflect on their actions and make modifications, if needed, to the advising methods use to
better serve the students in hopes to continuously increasing retention rates.
Proposed Analysis
Data analysis of this research report will be strictly quantitative. The first thing that needs
to be done is to look at the number of advising meetings each student has had. This can range
from zero to four meetings. We then want to find the percentage of students that fall into each of

USING INTRUSIVE ADVISING METHODS TO RETAIN

10

those groups. After, the retention rates of the students in those groups, and as a whole, should be
found on a semester and yearly basis. The yearly basis will give us insights on the overall
retention rates, and whether they increased, decreased, or remained constant.

USING INTRUSIVE ADVISING METHODS TO RETAIN

11

References
Barefoot, B. O. (2004). Higher educations revolving door: confronting the problem of student
drop out in US colleges and universities. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance
and e-Learning, 19(1), 9-18. doi: 10.1080/0268051042000177818
Drake, J. K. (2011). The role of academic advising in student retention and persistence. About
Campus, 16(3), 8-12. doi: 10.1002/abc.20062
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Educational research: An introduction, (8th ed.).
Boston: Pearson. Publication manual of the American Psychological Association, (5th
ed.). New York: Author.
Hetzel, C. J., & Laskey, M. L. (2011). Investigating factors related to retention of at-risk college
students. The Learning Assistance Review, 16(1), 31-43. Retrieved from
http://go.galegroup.com.libproxy.library.wmich.edu/ps/i.do?id=GALE
%7CA259842056&v=2.1&u=lom_wmichu&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=d3b2913bab7
ce0e29a827cab5d69c901
Huang, S. (2011). Predicting students' academic performance in college using a new noncognitive measure: An instrument design and a structural equation exploration of some
non-cognitive attributes and academic performance. (Order No. 3493314, The Ohio State
University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 212. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/919705698?accountid=15099
Lotkowski, V. A., Robbins, S. B., & Noeth, R. J. (2004). The role of academic and non-academic
factors in improving college retention. ACT Policy Report. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED485476.pdf

USING INTRUSIVE ADVISING METHODS TO RETAIN

12

OKeeffe, P. (2013). A sense of belonging: Improving student retention. College Student Journal
47 (4), 605-613.
Parkinson, J. (2013). Being smart about student retention. Credit Control, 34(2), 75-77.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1368906866?accountid=15099
Schreiner, L.A., Noel, P., Anderson, E., & Cantwell, L. (2011). The impact of faculty and staff on
high-risk college student persistence. Journal of College Student Development 52(3),
321-338.
Schwebel, D. C., Walburn, N. C., Kylce, K., & Jerrolds, K. L. (2012). Efficacy of advising
outreach on student retention, academic progress and achievement, and frequency of
advising contacts: A longitudinal randomized trail. NACADA Journal, 32(2), 36-43. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.12930/0271-9517-32.2.36
Sommerfield, A. (2011). Recasting non-cognitive factors in college readiness as what they truly
are: Non-academic factors. Journal of College Admission, 213, 18-22. Retrieved from
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ962511.
Vivian, C. (2005). Advising the at-risk college student. The Educational Forum, 69(4), 336-351.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/220696416?accountid=15099

USING INTRUSIVE ADVISING METHODS TO RETAIN

Appendix A
Academic and Non-Academic Factors with Descriptions

13

USING INTRUSIVE ADVISING METHODS TO RETAIN

14

Appendix B
Cyclical Nature of Action Research
(Found in Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007, p. 601)

Select a
Focus

Continue
/Modify

Collect
Data

Reflect

Analyze
and
Interpret
Data
Take
Action

Source: Figure 1.10 on p. 27 in: Glanz, J. (1998). Action research: An educational leaders guide to school
improvement. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon. Permission granted by the publisher.

Action research for educational practitioners is likely to be ongoing and cyclical. Researchers do
not always carry it out in the same order, may return to an earlier step in the process, and may
continue to go through the steps instead of ending the process.

USING INTRUSIVE ADVISING METHODS TO RETAIN

15

Appendix C
Examples of Survey Questions
(Survey consists of approximately 100 questions these are examples of the types of questions
that may be asked on the survey)
1. What was your final high school GPA?
2. How many hours did you spend studying every week in high school?
3. How many hours do you plan on studying in college?
4. Do you view yourself as a good student?
5. Do you want to be at college?
6. Do you want to be at this institution?
7. Was this institution your first pick? Second pick? Third or greater pick?
8. Do you have financial concerns?
9. What is your family expected income contribution?
10. Do you plan on working while attending college? If so, how many hours?
11. Are you a first generation college student?