Preconference Workshop Originally Presented at the 2022 Annual Conference on the First-Year Experience in Orlando, FL.

1. Designing Academic
Intervention Initiatives
to Enhance Student
Success and
Persistence
Mike Dial
University Advising Center
University of South Carolina
Paige McKeown
University Advising Center
University of South Carolina

2. Agenda for
Our Time Together
• Welcome and Introductions
• Defining Early Intervention
• History, Purpose, and Value of Early Intervention
• Early Intervention on the National Landscape
• Theoretical Underpinnings
• Mission and Goals
• Identifying Red Flags at Your Campus
• Drafting Intervention Plans
• Assessment
• Conclusions

3. Learning Outcomes
• Understand the history, purpose, and value of early alert programming
• Explore recent research/data on the national landscape of early alert
programming
• Identify key components for early intervention at their institutions
• Design and facilitate a systematic early alert program
• Develop and sustain a network of faculty and staff dedicated to
supporting students at various bottlenecks in the first-year experience.
• Prepare faculty to monitor student behaviors predictive of negative
academic consequences
• Prepare student support staff to respond and intervene with flagged
students
• Evaluate and assess early alert programs for continued improvement

4. Action Plan Workbook

5. Background
What do we mean by
“Early Alert” or “Early
Intervention”?

6. “A systematic method of recording
and communicating student
behaviors that contribute to student
attrition” and “effective
intervention at the first indication of
academic difficulty.” (Tampke, 2013)

7. More
Definitions
(Lynch-Holmes, Troy, and Ramos, 2012)
• “A formal, proactive feedback system
through which student-support agents are
alerted to ‘red flags’ regarding student
success as early as possible.”
Alerts
• “A strategic method of outreach to
positively respond to red flags or alerts in
order to provide intrusive and
individualized interventions to students in
need.”
Intervention:

8. RET = E ID + (E + IN + C) IV
(Seidman, 2012)

9. Brief History of Early Alert

10. Rationale
• Pushback against ”Academic Darwinism”
• Belief that intervention can make a
difference
• Monitor all students and not just those that
enter at-risk
• High-touch, high-impact interventions model
care promised in admissions and orientation

11. Causes
• What are the immediate
signs
Proximal
• What are the factors
behind the immediate signs
Distal
• Ask 5 “Whys”
• Build relationships of trust
Tips to get to
the root cause

12. Prior National Surveys

13. 2017 National Survey on The First-
Year Experience
• Administered Feb – Aug 2017
• 3,977 Institutions invited to participate
• 537 responses (13.5% response rate, lower than
anticipated)
• Often the VPSA or the person most responsible for first-year
programs
• Covers broad range of initiatives designed to support
success in the first college year
Young, D. (2019)

14. Most Common FYE Programs/Initiatives Freq. %
First-year academic advising (ADV) 422 80.4
Early alert systems (EA) 415 79.0
Pre-term orientation (OR) 396 75.4
First-year seminars (FYS) 386 73.5
Placement testing (PT) 346 65.9
Peer education (PE) 327 62.3
Student success center (SSC) 290 55.2
Developmental education (DEV) 286 54.5
General education (GE) 284 54.1
Convocation (CNV) 276 52.6
Notes: n = 525.
Young, D. (2019)

15. Prevalence
• Two Year: 64.2%
• Four Year: 83.6%
• Public: 77.2%
• Private: 82.0%
Young, D. (2019)

16. Students Targeted
Which types of first-year students are monitored through an early
warning/academic alert system? Freq. %
All first-year students 291 76.0%
Other, please specify 49 12.8%
Students on academic probation 26 6.8%
Student athletes 24 6.3%
Students enrolled in developmental or remedial courses 17 4.4%
Students with at-risk factors such as GED, low ACT scores, etc. 14 3.7%
Students eligible for federal or state equal opportunity programs (EOP) 11 2.9%
Provisionally admitted students 10 2.6%
First-generation students 7 1.8%
Learning community participants 7 1.8%
Science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) students 7 1.8%
Young, D. (2019)

17. Students
Targeted
• Differences by Institution
Characteristics
• Two-year: Developmental
education, Other
• Four-year: All first-year students
• Public: Student athletes, students
on probation, other
• Private: All first-year students,
students at risk

18. Communication and
Intervention
Calendaring

19. Timing
• How “early” is “Early Alert”?
• Midterm?
• First signs of issues?
• Between terms?

20. Timing
Only before
midterm
Only at or after
midterm
Ongoing
throughout the
term
Ongoing
throughout the
first year
Other
Two-year 8.5% 1.4% 46.5% 38.0% 5.6%
Four-year 7.1% 6.7% 22.8% 57.4% 6.1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Percentage
of
Institutions
Timing of Monitoring or Response of Early-Warning or Academic Alert System
Young, D. (2019)

21. Timing
Only before
midterm
Only at or after
midterm
Ongoing
throughout the
term
Ongoing
throughout the
first year
Other
Public 9.3% 6.0% 28.2% 50.0% 6.5%
Private 4.8% 4.8% 25.5% 59.4% 5.5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Percentage
of
Institutions
Timing of Monitoring or Response of Early-Warning or Academic Alert System
Young, D. (2019)

22. No "Perfect"
Professional Home
• On Campus
• In the Professional Organizations
• NODA
• FYE
• NACADA*

23. 89.0%
89.0%
83.0%
74.0%
53.0%
52.0%
27.0%
11.0%
89.6%
88.3%
68.0%
54.8%
43.6%
41.8%
22.7%
15.1%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Faculty Academic
Advisors
Academic
Support
Personnel
Athletics
Department
Staff
Counseling Residence Life
Staff
Peers Information
Technology Staff
Types of Staff Participating in Early
Alert/Academic Warning Programs
2012 JNGI 2019 NRC
Barefoot, B. O., Griffin, B. Q., & Koch, A. K. (2012)
Young, D. (2019)

24. Relational Intervention
As effective intervention efforts
are scaled outreach should be
facilitated by institutional staff
with the closest relationships to
at-risk students.
At-Risk
Student
Academic
Advisor
Seminar
Instructor
Athletics
Advisor
Program
Advisor
Honors
Advisor

25. Academic Advisors and Early
Alert Academic advisors responding
to early alerts benefit students
by:
• Connecting them to
resources
• Ensuring they are in majors
and courses that align with
their strengths, values, and
goals
• Showcasing an institutional
ethic of care for students and
their success.
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA-NC

26. Using Peers
in Academic
Intervention
Benefits
• Cost-Efficient
• Scalable
• Peer relationships are in the literature as
predictive of success
Drawbacks
• FERPA
• Lack of specialized training
• No name recognition with at-risk students
• Potential to create problematic power
dynamics

27. Short
Break!

28. Recap
• “A systematic method of recording and communicating student behaviors that contribute to student attrition” and
“effective intervention at the first indication of academic difficulty.” (Tampke, 2013)
• RET = E ID + (E + IN + C) IV
• High quality early alert programs can improve equity on campus for students in “graduation gap” populations
• Best Practices
• Systematic, collaborative approaches
• Primary intervention agents = full-time staff with existing relationships to students (academic advisors, athletics
advisors, program advisors, seminar instructors, etc.)
• Referrals/alerts should be available throughout the academic year
• Early alert programs should target all students, not just those in specific populations/courses

29. Technology, Theory,
and Real-World
Interventions

30. Role of Technology

31. Role of Technology
Unable to
judge
1 - Entirely
technolog
y-based
2 3 4 5 6
7 -
Entirely
human-
based
Series1 3.1% 1.3% 5.2% 7.3% 24.0% 14.4% 14.1% 30.5%
3.1% 1.3%
5.2%
7.3%
24.0%
14.4% 14.1%
30.5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%

32. Data Collection
• Precollege Data
• Student Self Reports
• Survey Responses
• Faculty submitted grades and/or
attendance
• Learning Management System Analytics

33. Role of
Technology
In other words, sending up a red light isn’t likely
to influence retention. But if that red light leads
to advisers [or other student support personnel]
reaching out to students and providing targeted
support, we might see bigger impacts on student
outcomes.
(Karp, 2014)

35. Intrusive Advising
• Action-oriented
model
• Identification of
students at “crisis
points”
• Connections to
resources when
most appropriate
Earl, 1987

36. 3 Postulates of Intrusive Advising
1. Faculty and staff can be
trained to identify students
who need assistance
2. Students DO respond to direct
contact in which their
concerns are identified and
help is offered
3. Deficiencies in a student’s “fit”
can be treated
(Earl, 1987)

37. Choice Architecture
A choice architect has the responsibility for
organizing the context in which people make
decisions.
(Thaler and Sunstein, 2009)

38. Choice Architecture
Poor Choices
• Inexperienced
• Poorly Informed
• Slow or Infrequent
Feedback
Good Choices
• Experience
• Good information
• Prompt Feedback
(Thaler and Sunstein, 2009)

39. Transtheoretical Model (TTM) of Intentional
Human Behavior Change
(Miller and Rollnik, 2012)
Pre-contemplation
Contemplation
Preparation
Action
Maintenance
Relapse

40. Types of Pre-Contemplators
Precontemplator Type Hallmarks Intervention/Motivation
Strategies
Reluctant Lack of Knowledge
Do not want to consider change
Be patient
Listen and provide empathic feedback
Rebellious Aware of the problem
Often invested in the problem/problem behavior
Invested in making their own decisions – “don’t
tell me what to do”
Provide options and allow them to choose for
themselves.
Redirect rebellious energy into positive energy
focused on change.
Resigned Lack of energy or investment
Given up on the possibility of change
Overwhelmed by the problem
Instill hope and help them explore and identify
the barriers to their change.
Accentuate their positive steps – acknowledging
their successes will help build self-efficacy.
Assure them that relapse is common and does
not have to be final.
Rationalizing Appears to have all the answers
Not considering change because of personal risk
May believe their problems are someone else’s
fault
Empathy and reflective listening.
Help the student lay out a decisional balance of
pros and cons to remaining the course and/or
behavior change.

41. Table Talk
• What theories or approaches currently guide
your early intervention initiatives?
• What from today’s session do you want to
learn more about?
• What theories or approaches discussed
today do you see yourself wanting to
incorporate in your early intervention
planning/facilitation?

42. Ideas? Thoughts? Considerations?

43. Signals for Early Alert
• Academic performance
• Behavior
• Disruption in class
• Skipping class
• Conduct
• Affect
• Others?

44. Red Flags
• Formal, proactive feedback systems
that alert students and staff to red
flags.
• (Cuseo, n.d.)

45. A Possible Model for Intervention/Communication
Active
Passive
Negative
(Punitive)
Informational
(Just the Facts)
Positive
(Motivational)
(Dial and McKeown, 2022)

46. Early
Intervention
Red Flags at
Carolina
Non-registration in upcoming term
Faculty submitted “at-risk” progress reports and alerts to advisors
Scholarship Risk
Ensuring Degree Applicable Credit
Bursar Drop for Non-Payment
Holds

47. Class Attendance = Highly Predictive of
Persistence
1.98
2.96
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Average First-Year GPA
More Than Three Absences in One Classs No Attendance Problems
64%
89%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Retention to Sophomore Year
More Than Three Absences in One Class No Attendance Problems
http://www.pathfinders.msstate.edu/findings.html

48. The Non-Registered Initiative
Advisors are assigned Cases in EAB Navigate for all their students who are eligible to return in the upcoming
semester but aren’t registered, graduating, or suspended
Advisors conduct outreach to support students in registration barriers
Advisors encourage the student to register and document reasons students are
not returning in the case close reason (if known)

49. & Fall 2021

50. Holds prevent students from
registering on time
Student resolves hold but
misses first choice classes
Failure to sequence classes correctly
increases time to degree
Student in classes in which
they are less likely to succeed
academically
Additional semesters
increase college cost,
academic difficulty
decreases GPA
Student resources, perseverance, and
academic self-efficacy exhausted before
degree completion
Hold “Death Spiral”
(Venit, Mason, & Hlavac, 2009)

51. A Possible Model for Intervention/Communication
Active
Schedule Advising
Global Communications
Registration Holds Outreach
Ensuring Degree-Applicable Credit
Non-Registered Initiative
At-Risk Progress Reports
Passive
Registration Holds Probation Outreach Student Kudos
Negative
(Punitive)
Informational
(Just the Facts)
Positive
(Motivational)
(Dial and McKeown, 2022)

52. The Water Cooler
• Questions
• Comments
• Thoughts

53. Making Academic Intervention
Reality

54. Developing Goals for Your Early Intervention
• Starting with the end in mind helps create
cohesiveness and buy-in
• Lean on your institutional and/or unit mission
statement
• Starting with an established mission helps
define vision-inspired goals, value, and
impact
• Goals should…
• Detail how the program aligns with the
mission
• Detail overarching expectations
• Reflect the operation efforts of early
intervention

55. Questions as
You Develop
Goals
• What’s the purpose of
your program?
• What need are you
trying to fill on your
campus?
• What are your intended
outcomes?
• Who is your student
population
(institutional,
departmental, or
program)?
• Who are your
stakeholders?
• How will your program
impact those
stakeholders?
• When are monitoring of
students and
interventions going to
occur?

56. Proactive vs.
Reactive
• Both are valid!
• Must serve your target population(s) and
identified red flags/crisis points
• Proactive interventions may be geared towards
“historically” at-risk populations
• Help to preempt and support students
through acclimation challenges
• Most early interventions ARE reactive
• Based on a referral/alert or concerning
behavior

57. Drafting the Intervention
Plan – Who?
WHAT RESOURCES ARE
AVAILABLE TO YOU AT
YOUR CAMPUS?
WHO ARE YOUR
STAKEHOLDERS/
COLLABORATORS?
WHO WILL BE YOUR
ALLIES?
BIGGEST
CHALLENGERS?
WHO DO YOU NEED
BUY-IN FROM?

58. Winning Buy-In
Top Down
President
Provost
Deans
Chairs
Faculty
Grassroots
Faculty
Chairs
Deans

59. Return on
Investment
Low Medium High
Two-year 26.7% 18.3% 42.2%
Four-year 13.2% 18.3% 58.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Percentage
of
Institutions
Return on Investment
Young, D. (2019)

60. Drafting the
Intervention
Plan – Campus
Culture
• How do students engage with existing services
on campus?
• How do offices engage with each other?
• Who has existing, “assigned” relationships with
students?
• What services address the “red flags” on your
campus?
• How are students funneled to those services?
• What communication are students receiving
about these services?

61. Collaboration and Communication
• Who is involved?
• Who should be involved?
• What systems exist to allow
communication
Advising
Student
Success
Centers
Housing
Financial Aid
Emergency
Aid Programs
Peer Mentors
First-Year
Seminars
Gateway
Courses
Orientation
Writing
Intensive
Courses
Career Centers Counseling

62. Avoid Duplication and Overlap

63. Multimodal Contact
• Email
• Letter
• Text Message
• Phone
• Face-to-face
• Social media

64. Student Reaction
If students perceive early warnings
as a reprimand rather than an
opportunity to get help, they may
ignore the signals or avoid efforts
of college personnel to contact
them (Karp, 2014)

65. Psychologically Attuned Communication
Describe academic challenges as a process of learning, not a label
Describe
Acknowledge factors that contribute to academic difficulty
Acknowledge
Communicate that is it not uncommon to face academic difficulty
Communicate
Offer hope and support
Offer
Waltenbury, M., Brady, S., Gallo, M., Redmond, N., Draper, S. & Fricker, T. (2018). Academic Probation: Evaluating the Impact of Academic Standing Notification Letters on Students.

66. Drafting Intervention
Plan - Technology
What does it need to
do?
•Pie-in-the-sky:
given your goals,
what would it
ideally do?
Would this
technology enhance
workflow, or
overcomplicate?
Do you have a
platform on campus
with this capability?
If so, how can
existing technology
be utilized
effectively?
If not – how can
existing technology
be used to fit your
needs?
Is piloting or scaling
an option if the
current tech doesn’t
fit your needs/goals?
Who are your
collaborators in
technology?

67. All the Choices!
• Complexity of modern colleges and
universities
• Proliferation of products
• Philosophy of student support staff
• Sources of information
• Modes of communication

68. •Strengths
S
•Weaknesses
W
•Opportunities
O
•Threats
T

69. Training Staff for Early
Intervention
Engage staff to be the subject
matter experts in their setting
Academic support
Counseling
Housing
Career services
Advising
Faculty
What training do staff need to
respond to the red flags?
Depends on which staff are
responding

70. Increasing
Faculty
Participation
Messaging during faculty orientation
Focus on first-year courses
Make the case with data
Encouragement from the provost
Periodic email prompts
Close the loop on reporting
Effective early alert has an opportunity
to be a great “equalizer”
Align faculty and staff in the
collaborative work of supporting
student success
(Venit, Mason, & Hlavac, 2009)

71. Referral Matrices
• Alerts staff to appropriate referral
• May go beyond traditional early
intervention to include student well-being

72. Assessing Early
Intervention
“Assessment is the process of gathering and discussing
information from multiple and diverse sources in
order to develop a deep understanding of what
students know, understand, and can do with their
knowledge as a result of educational experiences; the
process culminates when assessment results are used
to improve subsequent learning”
- Huba and Freed, 2000
https://www.northwestern.edu/searle/assessment-of-student-
learning/assessment-process/index.html

73. Assessing
Early
Intervention
What data already exists on your
campus that would be useful to you in
early intervention programming and
assessment?
Utilize Schuh’s Eight Questions to
simplify the assessment process to a
manageable level

76. Write down 3 things you want to
do or start doing when you get
“home” from the conference.

77. Write down 3 things you want to
do or start doing when you get
“home” from the conference.
Write down 3 things you want to
stop doing when you get “home”
from the conference.

78. Write down 3 things you want to
do or start doing when you get
“home” from the conference.
Write down 3 things you want to
continue doing when you get
“home” from the conference.
Write down 3 things you want to
stop doing when you get “home”
from the conference.

85. You just made a
Prioritized Action
List!

86. • What is still on your
mind?
• What is a challenge
you’re stuck on?
• What do you plan to
look further into?

87. Thank You!
Mike Dial
mdial@sc.edu
miketdial@weebly.com
Twitter: @mtdial
Paige McKeown
paigem@sc.edu
Twitter: @paigecristine_m
Please
remember to
submit your
evaluation on
Guidebook!