Factors That Contribute to the Likeliness of Academic Recovery

Abstract

Institutions of higher education invest a lot of resources into supporting and retaining students, and most colleges and universities offer systems of support for students who struggle academically in the form of support programs for students on academic probation. This study aimed to determine the demographic factors that potentially contribute to an individual’s likeliness to academically recover from academic probation, as well as the likeliness that they will be retained to the semester following being placed on academic probation. The students sample included in this analysis were freshman students on academic probation at five institutions within a state system of higher education. The study reviewed three years’ worth of archival data on probation students’ academic performance at these five participating institutions.

Keywords

academic probation academic recovery retention freshman

Whether it is an issue of being underprepared, underrepresented, or unmotivated, many college students struggle academically, especially in their first year. With proper support and guidance, these struggling students could go on to graduate and reap the benefits of a college education. Without it, many will drop out and owe money for an education that they were unable to complete. Colleges have a moral obligation to ensure that students being admitted to their institution are given the best possible chance to succeed. This is usually met in the form of first year experience initiatives and student support services and programs. Ideally, this programming will provide the necessary support to help students have an academically successful freshman year. However, in reality, even with a broad array of first year programming, there are students that find themselves in an academic hole after their first semester of college. Institutions typically provide some type of intervention to help students on academic probation to recover academically.

Academic probation is defined by most institutions as a status for students who are unable to achieve satisfactory academic progress, determined by a combination of number of credits earned with cumulative grade point average (GPA). Colleges and universities generally define academic probation as those students whose cumulative GPA is below 2.0 on a 4.0 scale. The standard has been set at that level since a 2.0 GPA is required to graduate from most institutions and also allows for students to continue qualifying for federal and state financial aid programs.

As many as one fourth of undergraduate college students will be placed on academic probation at least one time in their college careers (Cohen & Brawer, 2002; Garnett, 1990). Additionally, Miller and Sonner (1996) indicate that as few as 13% of the students placed on academic probation will eventually graduate. This at-risk group of students, regardless of their incoming preparedness, needs to be supported to increase their chances of academic success and graduation.

Any support programs for students need to contribute value to a university’s mission. Since support programs do not directly generate revenue but can have a significant cost, it is imperative to make sure that funding is directed to programs that will have the greatest direct impact on students. To ensure that programs aimed at assisting students with academic recovery are fulfilling their mission, the demographics of the students and the effects that can have on academic recovery should be considered.

Research does show differences in retention and graduation rates of students in various demographic groups. Table 1 contains data on graduation rates from the Higher Education Research Institute for the 2004 cohort of students (as cited in Eastern Illinois University CORE, 2013).

Table 1.

Demographics and National Graduation Rates.

Characteristic	National graduation rate—All 4-year institution types	National graduation rate for public universities only
Men	58.1%	62.9%
Women	63.6%	68.1%
African American	41.3%	46.7%
Asian or Pacific Islander	73.2%	76.4%
Latino or Latina	64.3%	57.7%
White	64.3%	66.9%

Women have higher graduation rates than men at public universities, as well as across all 4-year institutions. Several studies cite that freshman females perform better academically than their male counterparts. For example, Mattson (2007) states that “females outperformed males significantly when it came to first-semester GPA and first-year GPA” (p. 11).

Others contend that females are less likely to earn academic probation. Mathies, Gardner, and Bauer (2006) report that even though their freshman cohort was 42% male, 60% of the probation group comprises male students. Kamphoff, Hutson, Amundsen, and Atwood (2006–2007) reported that although 67.5% of students on their campus were female, female students made up slightly less than half (49.5%) of the academic probation student population.

There is also a notable difference in national graduation rates between various ethnic groups with African American students having the lowest average graduation rate by far among ethnic groups. Research does support that academic probation students are disproportionately students of color. Mathies et al. (2006) reported that 84% of the freshman cohort was White, but only 12% to 14% of the probation group was White. Nance (2007) also notes that Black students made up 7% of the probation students at University of California at San Diego, while they only make up 1% of the overall population.

Because academic success typically plays a significant role in graduation rates, it stands to reason that the demographic factors that affect graduation rates may also affect academic probation and recovery. In addition to basic demographic information such as gender, age, and ethnicity, it is also important to consider admittance type, regular or conditional.

One goal of the higher education system in the United States is to provide opportunities to attend college. With more and more opportunities for students to attend college in the past one hundred plus years, the number of institutions of higher learning in the United States has steadily risen. As the pool of potential candidates has begun to taper (McGrath & Braunstein, 1997), colleges are in competition for enrollments causing institutions to revisit their recruitment strategies. Consequently, there are even more attempts to offer programs designed to target enrollment of less qualified students. The programs geared at providing access do not necessarily support success in college. In fact, Lohfink and Paulsen (2005) remark that “although the American education system may be among the most diverse, open, and accessible in the world, substantial inequities exist in educational attainment by race, income, and gender” (p. 409).

These programs may bring students to campus for an extended orientation or for a summer session of coursework, either developmental, academic, or a combination. These programs are designed to prepare students for success during the regular academic year. Institutions need to be concerned with not only giving these students an opportunity to attend college through access programs but also with ensuring appropriate supports are in place to increase likelihood of success once they matriculate.

Method

Participants

The institutions examined in this study were 5 of 14 universities within the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education. All 14 were invited to participate in this study; however, only five elected to fully participate. These five institutions range from small to mid-sized institutions located in various locations within Pennsylvania, ranging from rural, small towns to suburban areas. For the purposes of this study, the institutions will be labeled at Red University, Orange University, Yellow University, Green University, and Blue University.

Student participants for the data analysis included in this study were all full-time freshmen students admitted to any one of the five participating schools during the fall of 2009, 2010, and 2011 and were placed on academic probation at the conclusion of their first fall semester. The data set includes students who may have started in a summer bridge program prior to the fall semester. Most institutions label academic probation as students with a cumulative GPA below 2.0 on a 4.0 scale. Some colleges at certain institutions may include students with higher GPAs among their academic probation population. For example, students in the College of Business at Green University are considered on probation if their GPA is below a 2.5. For the purpose of this study, academic probation refers to students with a fall cumulative GPA below 2.0 on a 4.0 scale. This study excluded upperclassman placed on academic probation, students with transfer credits that classified them as sophomore status or above, nondegree seeking students, and part-time students defined as those students carrying a credit load of fewer than 12 credits. The academic recovery rates of freshman students from the last three years were evaluated, along with selected demographic information about the students: age (to determine traditional vs. nontraditional aged students), ethnicity, and type of admittance (conditional admittance or regular admittance).

Many students placed on probation did not return for their fall semester. Because the purpose of this study was to assess institutional interventions for probation students and these students did not participate in the spring programming, they were not included in the Academic Recovery Rate for each institution. However, the percentage of probation students that did not return for the spring semester was calculated and reported. Table 2 shows an overview of the population data for the three years studied including total undergraduate population and total freshman population for each institution.

Table 2.

Overview of Population Data From 2009, 2010, and 2011.

Year	Population	Red	Orange	Yellow	Green	Blue
Fall 2009	Total undergraduate enrollment	8,605	6,223	5,004	6,942	11,920
	Total freshman enrollment	2,040	1,640	1,129	2,385	2,248
	Freshman on probation	190	296	266	246	136
	Percentage of freshman on probation	9.3%	18.0%	23.6%	10.3%	6.0%
	Did not return for spring	67	86	67	34	36
	Percentage probation students who did not return	35.3%	29.1%	25.2%	13.8%	26.5%
Fall 2010	Total undergraduate enrollment	9,136	6,225	5,114	7,143	12,234
	Total freshman enrollment	2,140	1,624	1,147	2,393	2,067
	Freshman on probation	198	273	247	229	162
	Percentage of freshman on probation	9.3%	16.8%	21.5%	9.6%	7.8%
	Did not return for spring	62	84	53	43	38
	Percentage of probation students who did not return	31.3%	30.8%	21.5%	18.8%	23.5%
Fall 2011	Total undergraduate enrollment	9,256	5,876	5,029	7,132	12,834
	Total freshman enrollment	1,981	1,607	1,187	2,522	2,292
	Freshman on probation	241	258	247	288	205
	Percentage of freshman on probation	12.2%	16.1%	20.8%	11.4%	8.9%
	Did not return for spring	63	106	70	63	46
	Percentage of probation students who did not return	26.1%	41.1%	28.3%	21.9%	22.4%

Note. “Freshman on probation” are those students included in this study. The actual sample size for this study is 3,482 total students over the three years at the five institutions investigated.

The total sample of freshman students on academic probation across all five universities over the 3-year period was 3,482. There were 1,995 male students (57.3%) and 1,487 female students (42.7%) in the total sample.

Because each institution categorizes and labels ethnicity differently, the categories were initially collapsed into the following: (a) Asian, (b) Black or African American, (c) Hispanic, (d) Multiracial, (e) Native American, (f) Nonresident, (g) Unknown, and (h) White. The percentage of the sample using this breakdown is shown in Table 3. In the sample, there were 45 Asian students (1.3%), 512 Black or African American students (14.7%), 170 Hispanic students (4.9%), 81 students identified as multiracial (2.3%), 7 Native American students (0.2%), 4 students listed as nonresident (0.1%), 95 students listed as Unknown (2.7%), and 2,568 White students (73.8%).

Table 3.

Initial Ethnicity Frequencies for Entire Sample.

Ethnicity category	Frequency	Percent
Asian	45	1.3%
Black	512	14.7%
Hispanic	170	4.9%
Multiracial	81	2.3%
Native American	7	.2%
Nonresident	4	.1%
Unknown	95	2.7%
White	2568	73.8%
Total	3482	100.0%

After totaling the frequency of ethnicity categories for all five institutions for 3 years, some of the group sizes were too small to provide quality analysis. To increase the size of the groups, the groups labeled Asian, Multiracial, Native American, Nonresident, and Unknown were collapsed into the category “Other or Unknown” for further analysis. The collapsed ethnicity frequencies are shown in Table 4. These five categories combined represent 6.7% of the whole sample.

Table 4.

Collapsed Ethnicity Frequencies for Entire Sample.

Ethnicity category	Frequency	Percent
White	2568	73.8%
Black	512	14.7%
Hispanic	170	4.9%
Other or unknown	232	6.7%
Total	3482	100.0%

Age of the student at the time of their freshman year enrollment was collected. This age was used to categorize students as a “traditional-aged student,” defined as less than 25 years of age, or “adult student,” defined as 25 years or more. There were 3,396 or 97.5% of students in the entire sample who were defined as traditional-aged students and 86 or 2.5% of sample that were adult students.

Finally, although the institutions usually offer more than one conditional admittance program, for the sake of analysis the various programs were not delineated. Students were categorized as either “regularly admitted” or “conditionally admitted.” Of the entire sample of 3,482 students, 2,529 students were regularly admitted (72.6%) and 953 students were conditionally admitted (27.4%).

Data Analysis

First, a binary logistic regression was completed to determine which of the demographic factors would impact a student’s likelihood to return for the spring semester after ending the fall semester on academic probation. Since a binary logistic regression was the best fit, the variables were labeled as follows: gender (male or female), White (yes or no), Black (yes or no), hispanic (yes or no), age category (traditional or adult), and admittance category (regular or conditional). The results of the binary logistic regression appear in Table 5.

Table 5.

Factors That Influence a Probation Student’s Likeliness to Return.

Variable	B	SE	Sig.
Gender	−.171	.078	.030*
White	−.168	.159	.292
Black	.542	.195	.005*
Hispanic	−.303	.226	.181
Age category	1.305	.225	.000*
Admittance type	.052	.090	.562

Of the six factors examined in this test, three of the values made a statistically significant contribution to the model. The first factor is gender, which has a p value of .030. Since 1 indicates female and the B value is negative, this means that females are less likely to return for the spring semester if they are placed on academic probation. The second factor is one of the ethnicity factors. With a p value of .005 and a positive B value, this means that a Black or African American student who is placed on probation is more likely to return for the spring semester than a non-Black student. Finally, the age category factor has a p value of .000 and a positive B value. Since a traditional-aged student is labeled as 1, this means that a traditional-aged student is more likely to return than an adult student if they are placed on probation.

Next, a binary logistic regression was completed to determine which of these same factors contribute to the likelihood of students’ academic recovery. The results for this appear in Table 6.

Table 6.

Factors That Influence a Probation Student’s Likeliness to Recover Academically.

Variable	B	SE	Sig.
Gender	.273	.089	.002*
White	.248	.183	.174
Black	−.156	.212	.463
Hispanic	.053	.277	.849
Age category	−.394	.352	.263
Admittance type	.451	.107	.000*

Of these six factors, two of them have a significant relationship to a student’s academic recovery. Gender had a p value of .002 and a positive B, meaning that a female student placed on probation was significantly more likely to recover academically after being placed on probation. Admittance category was the other significant value. There was a p value of .000 and a positive B value. Since 1 was defined as a regularly admitted student, this means that regularly admitted students in this sample were more likely to recover academically than provisionally admitted students.

Next, in order to examine the comparison of degree of academic recovery among groups, independent sample t-tests were run for the demographic categories with two levels. The dependent value used was the difference between fall cumulative GPA and spring cumulative GPA, which was calculated using a simple subtraction for each student in the sample. The first t-test was run to compare the cumulative GPA difference among males and females.

The mean difference in cumulative GPA between fall and spring was .1535 for males and .1859 for females. The results reveal a p value of .100, meaning there is no significant difference between the mean difference of fall and spring GPA among males and females in the entire sample.

The second t-test was run to compare the cumulative GPA difference among adult and traditional-aged students. The mean difference in cumulative GPA between fall and spring was 1.0205 for adult students and .1545 for traditional-aged students. The results reveal a p value of .000, meaning there is a significant difference between the mean difference of fall and spring GPA among adult students and traditional-aged students in the entire sample.

The third and final t-test was run to compare the cumulative GPA difference among regular admitted students and conditionally admitted students. The mean difference in cumulative GPA between fall and spring was .1281 for conditionally admitted students and .1815 for regularly admitted students. The results reveal a p value of .001, meaning there is a significant difference between the mean difference of fall and spring GPA among regularly admitted students and conditionally admitted students in the entire sample.

Finally, in order to compare means among the ethnicity categories, a one-way ANOVA was done. The ethnicity category had four levels: White, Black or African American, Hispanic, and Other or Unknown. The mean difference in cumulative GPA between fall and spring was .1820 for White students, .1211 for Black or African American students, .0907 for Hispanic students, and .1720 for other or unknown students. The results reveal a p value of .101, meaning there is no significant difference between the mean difference of fall and spring GPA among the various ethnicity categories of students in this sample.

Discussion

Regarding individual differences, the summary of individual differences and their effects on returning after being placed on probation and academic recovery appear in Table 7.

Table 7.

Individual Factors That Influence Persistence and Academic Recovery.

Variable	Return for spring semester	Academic recovery
Males	More likely	Less likely
Females	Less likely	More likely
White	–	–
Black	More likely	–
Hispanic	–	–
Traditional age	More likely	–
Adult	Less likely	–
Regular admit	–	More likely
Conditional admit	–	Less likely

While males are more likely to return for the spring semester after being placed on academic probation, the male students that do return are less likely to recover academically. Females, however, are more inclined to drop out after being placed on probation, but those that do return are more apt to academically recover.

Other significant differences are Black students are more likely to return than non-Black students, adult students tend to drop out after being placed on probation when compared with traditional-aged students, and regularly admitted students are more likely to recover academically than conditionally admitted students.

While there is no national data available on academic probation students, the Higher Education Research Institute shows differences between 6-year graduation rates among certain demographic categories (as cited in EIU CORE, 2013). Males have a 58.1% graduation rate compared with females at 63.6% nationally at all 4-year institutions. Additionally, African American students with a 41.3% graduation rate have by far the lowest when compared with other ethnic groups like White or Latino, both at 64.3%.

When looking at the students who returned for the spring semester after being placed on academic probation at the end of their fall semester, only some factors were statistically significant. Male students on probation are significantly more likely to return for their spring semester than females on probation. This finding is not consistent with the national research on graduation rates. It is possible that male students initially may have higher self-efficacy, in spite of their academic jeopardy. Similarly, Black or African American students are significantly more likely to return than non-Black students. A possible explanation for this is institutions in the state system have specific retention goals for underrepresented minority students; therefore, there may be more efforts in place to retain students of color.

Third, a traditional-aged student is significantly more likely to return than an adult student. Adult students, who are often balancing life and education, typically have a more difficult time dealing with adversity. Hardin (2008) summarizes this well stating,

For many adult students, returning to college and fulfilling their goals is much like building a house of cards. In order to be successful, each part of their lives must be in place and carefully balanced. When changes occur … the student feels that the only option is to drop out. (p. 56)

When looking at likelihood of students who return to recover academically, only two factors were significant. Female students over male students were significantly more likely to recover academically. More success in academic endeavors among female students over male students is well documented (Buchmann & DiPrete, 2006; Ewert, 2012; Goldin, Katz, & Kuziemko, 2006), although not focused specifically on female students who are initially in academic jeopardy. Additionally, regularly admitted students over conditionally admitted students were significantly more likely to recover academically. Because conditionally admitted students are, by definition, less academically prepared for college, their struggles to recover from a deficit are even more challenging. There were no significant differences in academic recovery among ethnicity categories or age categories.

When looking solely at cumulative GPA difference between fall and spring among the groups in the independent t-tests and ANOVA, there were no significant difference among gender or ethnicity. However, there were significant differences between age groupings and admittance category.

In summary, female students on probation in this sample were less likely to return, but those that did return did not have significantly higher GPAs or academic recovery rates. This may indicate that females make a more conscious decision to improve themselves if they choose to return after being placed on probation.

Black or African American students on probation were more likely to return; however, there were no significant differences in GPA or academic recovery rates among ethnic groups. An adult student on probation in this sample was more likely to drop out before the spring semester. Although the adult students who did return had a significant overall difference in GPA from fall to spring, they did not have a significantly higher recovery rate than traditional aged students.

There was a large difference when comparing the performance of students based on admittance category. Although there was no significant difference in the return rate of conditionally admitted students and regularly admitted students, there were significance in the difference between the fall and spring cumulative GPA and their overall recovery rates. This shows that based on this sample, students who are conditionally admitted will have the most difficult time recovering from academic probation when compared with regularly admitted students.

Limitations and Recommendations for Further Research

There are limitations that may make this research difficult to generalize to other campuses. First, universities in the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education are all small to mid-sized, state-owned institutions with a population of students that may or may not mirror the demographics at other institutions.

Second, even with collecting 3 years’ worth of data at five different institutions, some of the sample sizes for the demographic breakdowns were too small for quality analysis. The adult population only represented a negligible percentage of the overall population, as did some of the ethnicity groups within this population. Small group sizes made it more problematic to draw specific conclusions about this sample; therefore, making it more difficult to draw conclusions on a larger scale.

To more confidently make conclusions, more institutions should be examined. Ideally, these institutions should include a variety in size, type, and demographic makeup in order to truly assess program successes. Additionally, a longitudinal study of the students who were on probation as freshman would be beneficial to determine longer range success and persistence of students who participate in these programs.

Since this study did not include students’ preadmission characteristics, research that includes this information may provide further insight into why institutions have higher attrition and probation rates. Some characteristics, in addition to demographic data collected in this study, recommended to review are entrance test scores, high school GPA, socioeconomic status, and parents’ education. This research can further our understanding of the students that struggle with academic jeopardy.

When looking at the findings for individual students, there were some interesting results that warrant further investigation. First, females are more likely to drop after receiving probation status but more likely to recover academically if they do return for the following semester. There are studies showing greater academic success and graduation rates among females nationally; however, there were not anything found that could explain this situation. Further studies on gender and its effect on probation status, persistence after probation, and recovery from probation could help explain these results.

Black students on probation were more likely to return than non-Black students but there were no significant differences in academic recovery rates among ethnic groups. However, national data show significantly lower graduation rates among Black students. Since this study shows these institutions are not losing first year struggling students of color, a study to investigate where in the process institutions are losing these students to attrition would help give insight into how best to support them.

Adult students in this sample were more likely to drop out after being placed on academic probation, which seems to be in line with other research. A more in-depth study on adult students in academic jeopardy would be a valuable contribution to probation student literature, as well as the literature of adult students.

Since this study showed that conditionally admitted students struggle most with academic recovery, a more detailed investigation of conditional admittance programs and the probation support programs that are more successful at supporting this population of students would assist institutions in designing programs that best assist their particular students. Even better, support initiatives that connects these students with resources early in their academic program, before being placed on probation, should be reviewed, since it is evident that conditionally admitted students struggle most in digging themselves out of an academic hole.

Finally, there is a serious gap in the literature in regard to national data about students on academic probation. Individual institutions report on their programs and the success of the students on their campuses. A larger scale research project that gives data about persistence, academic recovery, and graduation rates of students who at some point were labeled as probation students across the nation would allow institutions to compare themselves against other institutions to properly assess their results.

Conclusion

It is important for universities to commit to supporting their students, especially those that are labeled at risk and those that struggle academically. It is also critical for universities to understand what factors may influence a student’s success in order to target them early and provide necessary support. When reviewing this particular sample, it can be concluded that freshman students on academic probation have a higher likelihood of returning the following semester based on several demographic factors. Male students are more likely to return when compared with female students, Black or African American are more likely to return than non-Black students, and traditional-aged, or less than 25 years old, are more likely to return than adult students. However, among the students who return after being placed on probation, female students are more likely to return to good academic standing, as well as regularly admitted students when compared with conditionally admitted students.

Ideally, if institutions can be armed with this information, they can take a preventative approach in their first-year programming as well as adjust the support program for students on academic probation to adequately assist all struggling students. It seems especially critical, given the data reviewed in this study showing the difficulties conditionally admitted students have in recovering after academic probation, that institutions revisit their programs offered to conditionally admitted students in their first year. It seems imperative to take a proactive approach to ensuring these at-risk students do not find themselves trying to dig themselves out of an academic hole, since they are the ones least likely to be successful in their recovery. Bottom line, institutions committed to supporting their students needs to have structured programming in place to improve the success rate of freshman students, especially ones that have difficulty with their first-year transition.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Karen J. Hamman is an assistant professor and Director of Academic Support Services at Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania. Her research interests include support systems for students on academic probation, student motivation, and programming for undeclared students.

References

Buchmann

DiPrete

T. A.

(2006) The growing female advantage in college completion: The role of family background and academic achievement. American Sociological Review 71(4): 515–541.

Cohen

Brawer

(2002) The American community college, 4th ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Eastern Illinois University Committee on Retention Efforts (CORE): Retention Forum 2013. Retrieved from http://castle.eiu.edu/∼core/index.php.

Ewert

(2012) Fewer diplomas for men: The influence of college experiences on the gender gap in college graduation. The Journal of Higher Education 83(6): 824–850.

Garnett

D. T.

(1990) Retention strategies for high risk students at a four-year university. NCADA Journal 10(1): 22–25.

Goldin

Katz

L. F.

Kuziemko

(2006) The homecoming of American college women: The reversal of the college gender gap. Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association 20(4): 133–156.

Hardin

C. J.

(2008) Adult students in higher education: A portrait of transitions. New Directions for Higher Education 2008(144): 49–57.

Kamphoff

C. S.

Hutson

B. L.

Amundsen

S. A.

Atwood

J. A.

(2006–2007) A motivational/empowerment model applied to students on academic probation. College Student Retention 8(4): 397–412.

Lohfink

M. M.

Paulsen

M. B.

(2005) Comparing the determinants of persistence for first-generation and continuing-generation students. Journal of College Student Development 46(4): 409–428.

10.

Mathies

Gardner

Bauer

K. W.

(2006) Retention and graduation: An examination of students who earn academic probation. Paper presented at 2006 Southern Association for Institutional Research Forum, Arlington, VA.

11.

Mattson

C. E.

(2007) Beyond admission: Understanding pre-college variables and the success of at-risk students. Journal of College Admission 196: 9–13.

12.

McGrath

Braunstein

(1997) The prediction of freshman attrition: An examination of the importance of certain demographic, academic, financial and social factions. College Student Journal 31(3): 396–408. Retrieved from PsycINFO database.

13.

Miller K., & Sonner B. (1996). PASS: promoting academic student success. Final report. NY: Corning Community College (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 475734).

14.

Nance

(2007) The psychological impact of academic probation. Diverse: Issues in Higher Education 24(19): 12.