Introduction The Correlation Between Meeting with an Implications

The Freshman Grade Point Recovery Program (FGPR)

and Continuing Grade Point Recovery Program (CGPR)
Academic Coach and GPA This preliminary examination of the relationship
of meeting with an academic coach with a
are designed and implemented by the Academic
Achievement Center to support the academic success of
Juliette Coatsworth & Aldina Vicente, Academic Achievement Center student’s GPA is promising. In the fall of 2018,
students who met with a coach at least once saw
college students at Bridgewater State University. As part
of this program, students are required to meet with an BSU Academic Policy Earned Credit Academic Separation their GPA increase by an average of 0.156 more
Probation GPA than the GPA of students who did not meet with
Academic Coach to address the various barriers they Hours Warning Below this GPA
have experienced throughout their college life, including In order for a degree-seeking or non-degree student to an academic coach.
but not limited to: study skills, time management, avoid separation from Bridgewater State University, 0-16 2.0-2.19 Below 2.0 1.00
motivation and goal setting, and organization. It is his/her cumulative Grade Point Average (GPA) must 17-31 2.0-2.19 Below 2.0 1.50 It is important to take into consideration that this
expected that the more a struggling student meets with remain above the probation level (indicated right). 32-6 2.0-2.19 Below 2.0 1.65 was not an experimental study, so there are more
an Academic Coach, the greater the benefit the student
Students on academic probation are limited to 13 47-61 2.0-2.19 Below 2.0 1.75 likely than not several factors external to this
will receive, translating into a higher increase in GPA on Abstract Abstract

average. semester hours during the semester they are on 62-89 2.0-2.19 Below 2.0 1.85 analysis that influenced the results (e.g., students
probation. Students who have been academically Must maintain with more motivation, self-efficacy, or better time
separated from the university may not take courses at the 90+ - 2.00 management skills may have been more likely to
GOAL: assist students to achieve good academic 2.0+
standings (a cumulative GPA of 2.00 or higher) university for at least one academic semester. meet with an academic coach, and these factors
are correlated with higher academic
At-Risk Students Results achievement).
No Meetings One Meeting Two Meetings 3+ Meetings 1+ Meetings It is recommended to
• Students whose “skills, knowledge, motivation,
Total 2018 Data

Mean 0.184 0.272 0.337 0.395 0.292

FGPR/CGPR

and/or academic ability are significantly below those Standard Error 0.039 0.045 0.104 0.113 0.039 The data collection continue to analyze this
of the 'typical' student in the college or curriculum in Standard Deviation 0.412 0.436 0.347 0.425 0.426 measures for Spring relationship and utilize
Sample Variance 0.169 0.190 0.120 0.180 0.181 2018 (i.e., coach meeting student perception data
which they are enrolled” (Maxwell, 1997, pg. 2).
Range 1.661 2.069 1.230 1.457 2.069 frequency) seemed to
• “Those who have made poor choices or decisions that lack the consistency of to further strengthen and
Range -0.61-1.05 -0.44-0.95 -0.43-0.80 -0.44-1.02 -0.82-1.25
impacted negatively on their academics, or they may Count 109 95 11 14 120 later semesters. As a new inform the findings.
be an adult student who returns to higher education df 226 collection measure was
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
ANOVA

after an extended absence, or students with academic introduced in Spring

References
(0-3+)

(0,1+)
t-test
Between Groups 0.873 3 0.291 1.651 0.179 2.645 t Stat -8.268
or physical limitations not identified before enrolling P(T<=t) two-tail 0.000 2018, the unfamiliarity
Within Groups 39.686 225 0.176
(and break from normal
in higher education” (Walsh, 2003). Total 40.559 228 t Critical two-tail 1.971
behavior) may have Abrams, H. G., & Jernigan, L. P. (1984). Academic support
• Are likely to display “characteristics such as low No Meetings One Meeting Two Meetings 3+ Meetings 1+ Meetings
affected the integrity. For services and the success of high-risk college students.
academic self-concept, unrealistic grade and career Mean 0.069 0.071 0.371 0.419 0.225
Fall 2018 Data
FGPR/CGPR

this reason, examining American Educational Research Journal, 21(2), 261-274.

expectations, unfocused career objectives, extrinsic Standard Error 0.076 0.073 0.073 0.120 0.057 solely the Fall 2018 data Ahmed, J. U., Chowdhury, M. H. K., Rahman, S., &
Standard Deviation 0.339 0.367 0.220 0.432 0.394
motivation, external locus of control, low self- may provide more Talukder, A. K. M. M. H. (2014). Academic probation: An
Sample Variance 0.115 0.135 0.048 0.187 0.155 generalizable and reliable
efficacy, inadequate study skills for college success, a Range 1.089 1.389 0.629 1.457 1.457
empirical study of private university students. Research in
data. Education, 92, 1–17.
belief that learning is memorizing, and a history of Range -0.38-0.71 -0.44-0.95 0.14-0.77 -0.44-1.02 -0.44-1.02
passive learning” (Ender and Wilkie, 2000, p. 134- Count 20 25 9 13 47 Coleman, H. L. K., & Freedman, A. M. (1996). Effects of
135). structured group intervention on the achievement of
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit df 21 df 41
ANOVA

academically at-risk undergraduates. Journal of College

(0-3+)

(0,3+)

(0,1+)
t-test

t-test
Between Groups 1.615 3 0.538 4.212 0.009 2.751 t Stat -4.935 t Stat -5.315
Student Development, 37, 631–6.
Student support services programs are being created and Within Groups 8.049 63 0.128 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.000 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.000
Ender, S. C., & Wilkie, C. J. (2000). Advising students with
implemented by higher education institutions to increase Total 9.663 66 t Critical two-tail 2.080 t Critical two-tail 2.020 special needs. In V. N. Gordon & W. R. Habley (Eds.),
student retention of high-risk students (Abrams & There is no significant difference in increase in GPA based on number of times a student meets with a coach when looking at the data for the Spring and Academic advising: A comprehensive handbook (pp. 118–143).
Jernigan, 1984). Program implementation has been Fall of 2018, unless looking solely at the two categories of no meetings (M = 0.184, SD = 0.412) and at least one meeting (M = 0.292, SD = 0.426), San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
correlated with increase in GPAs among students from t(226) = 1.971, p < .01. There is a significant difference based on number of meetings when looking solely at the Fall 2018 data, F(3, 66) = 4.212, p = Maxwell, M. (1997). Improving student learning skills.
the at-risk population due to: 0.009. This is further exhibited when comparing students who did not meet with a coach (M = 0.069, SD = 0.339) in comparison to those who met at Clearwater, FL: HH Publishing, Inc.
least once (M = 0.225, SD = 0.394) in Fall of 2018, t(41) = 2.020, p < 0.01 . Neuburger, J. (1999). Improving student learning skills.
• Hours spent obtaining supportive services in the
% Good % Not % Good Standing: those with at least a 2.00 GPA by Research and Teaching in Developmental Education, 15(2),
reading and study skills areas and the numbers of # Meetings # FGPR % FGPR % Withdrawn % Dismissed
Standing Returning FA18 the beginning of the next semester 107-110.
Spring 2018

visits to tutors. 0 89 55% 19% 7% 15% 30% Pascarela, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college
% Withdrawn: mid-semester withdrawals and end-
• Students’ willingness to seek assistance from 1 70 43% 29% 4% 4% 14% of-semester university withdrawals affects students: A third decade of research (Vol. 2). San
either reading teachers or tutors. 2 2 1% 50% 0% 50% 50% % Dismissed: those academically dismissed Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
3+ 1 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% % Not Returning FA18: those dismissed or not Tovar, E. and Simon, M. (2006). Academic probation as a
Students on academic probation typically have low 1+ 73 45% 29% 4% 5% 15% enrolled, and university withdrawals dangerous opportunity: Factors influencing diverse college
motivation, poor academic performance, and difficulty % Good % Good students' success. Community College Journal of Research and
# Meetings # FGPR % FGPR % Withdrawn % Dismissed # Meetings # FGPR % FGPR % Withdrawn % Dismissed
transitioning and adjusting to college, lack study skills, Standing Standing Practice, 30, 547–64
2018 Total
Fall 2018

and believe they have little control in improving their 0 20 30% 10% 5% 15% 0 109 48% 17% 6% 15% Walsh, P. (2003). Advising at-risk students. Retrieved July,
1 25 37% 4% 0% 16% 1 95 41% 22% 3% 7% 15, 2014. Retrieved from
academic standing (Coleman and Freedman, 1996; 2 9 13% 22% 0% 0% 2 11 5% 27% 0% 9% https://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Cl earinghouse/View-
Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005; Tovar and Simon, 2006; 3+ 13 19% 46% 0% 0% 3+ 14 6% 43% 0% 0% Articles/At-Risk-Students.aspx
Ahmed, Chowdhury, Rahman, Talukder, 2014). 1+ 47 70% 19% 0% 9% 1+ 120 52% 25% 3% 7%