Growth of Innovation: Saturday Academies

Abstract

The article presents a mixed-methods assessment of an educational intervention proposed by a partnership between Pulaski County Special School District, the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Philander Smith College, and plaintiffs in a longstanding federal desegregation lawsuit. The Donaldson Scholars Saturday Academy is part of a plan, approved by the Federal Court’s Eastern District of Arkansas in 2014, designed to improve educational achievement of all Pulaski County Special School District students with special emphasis on improving academic performance of African American and other at-risk students. Composed of eight all-day sessions during the academic year focused on relationship building, academic rigor, fun, and college graduation, goals of the Saturday Academy include developing better cognitive and noncognitive skills to succeed in college and facilitating college graduation by eliminating the need for developmental courses. Students completing the program and enrolling in one of the two partner colleges receive a $10,000 scholarship. Preliminary findings are impressive.

Keywords

saturday academies retention at-risk students bypassing developmental requirements

Introduction

Educational performance of African American students in the Pulaski County (Arkansas) Special School District (PCSSD) continued to lag well behind those of European American students through the first half of 2014. Recognizing these disparities in educational outcomes for minority students, PCSSD Superintendent Dr. Jerry Guess and a group of interested parties composed of Attorneys Alan Roberts and John Walker, a group of plaintiffs called the Joshua Case Interveners, and representatives of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) and Philander Smith College (PSC) proposed an educational intervention with the goal of improving the educational achievement for all PCSSD students but giving special emphasis to the performance of its African American matriculates (Smith, Patterson, & Donaldson, 2014, p. 1).

On June 11, 2014, U.S. District Judge D. Price Marshall Jr. of the Eastern District of Arkansas approved the Charles W. Donaldson Scholars Academy (CWDSA) as part of the PCSSD’s Desegregation Plan 2000. The goals of the Donaldson Scholars Academy for these students include improvement in educational achievement and in test scores used in college admission, increases in high school graduation rates, entry into postsecondary programs without the requirements for remediation, and completion of the undergraduate curriculum in 4 years after participating in the Donaldson Scholars program for 4 years (Smith et al., 2014, p. 1).

The plan jointly proposed by the PCSSD and the Joshua Interveners—plaintiffs who represent Black students in the 31-year-old school desegregation lawsuit—called for the school district to pay $10 million over 3 years to the UALR for operation of the CWDSA. The plan, approved by the parties, offers new African American graduates of the PCSSD a summer college-preparation program and scholarship incentives of up to $10,000 ($2,500 per academic year). To qualify for the scholarship, the plan requires students to successfully complete the Donaldson Scholars Summer Bridge experience, to be admitted to one of the two participating schools—UALR or PSC—and to be enrolled for fall term (Smith et al., 2014, p. 1). See Table 1 for CWDSA Programs schedule.

Table 1.

CWDSA Programs Annual Schedule.

	Rising 9th grade	Rising 10th grade	Rising 11th grade	Rising 12th grade	Entering freshmen
Summer	4 Days	4 Days	4 Days	4 Days	3 Weeks
Fall
Rally	Mentor driven	Leadership	Academic completion	Vision and plan
Saturday academy	1 Saturday monthly	1 Saturday monthly	1 Saturday monthly	1 Saturday monthly
Concurrent or dual enrollment			Fall semester	Fall semester
Spring
Rally	Relationship	Relationship	Relationship	Relationship
Saturday academy	1 Saturday monthly	1 Saturday monthly	1 Saturday monthly	1 Saturday monthly
Concurrent or dual enrollment			Spring semester	Spring semester

Note. Entering freshmen currently have a 10-day summer bridge.

As the programs expanded, students could fulfill the requirements by attending the Saturday Academy and its 4-day Summer Program, culminating after their high school graduation with the Donaldson Scholars Summer Bridge program before entering one of the two institutions, or just by attending the CWDSA Summer Bridge for graduated seniors. This article focuses on the PCSSD students who participated in the Saturday Academies during its first 2 years.

Following the June 2014 ruling, the CWDSA staff had just more than 1 month to launch the Donaldson Scholars Academy Summer Bridge program. Held July 13 to August 2, 2014, 63 students, all May 2014 graduates of PCSSD, attended the program. The participants explored their options for attending college, learned what skills-deficits they needed to overcome in order to be successful in college courses, and strove to bypass required developmental courses. Many of these students had never taken the American College Testing (ACT) examination, and several had no plans to attend college.

By the end of the Scholars Academy Summer Bridge, 100% of the participants had committed to attend higher education somewhere. Results of the first cohort in the Scholars Academy were as follows:

52% bypassed developmental math

56% bypassed developmental reading

62% bypassed developmental composition

Six students who needed developmental reading, writing, and math bypassed all three courses (Smith et al., 2014, p. 4).

Background

A major objective of the CWDSA program is to improve the educational outcomes of students, as well as to provide scholarships for graduates of the PCSSD high schools. The plan also includes three additional programs—a program for 9th graders, a program for 12th graders, and an after-school program for Jacksonville High School to prepare students for the ACT examination. One of the programs—originally called the Ninth Grade Program—has now been expanded to include all high school classes and has been renamed the CWDSA Saturday Academy. The program for 12th-grade students eventually evolved into a program providing concurrent courses that gives dual college and high school credit to expedite the PCSSD seniors’ matriculation from high school to college graduation (Smith et al., 2014, p. 10).

To get the new programs off to a good start, the Donaldson Scholars staff held special recruitment sessions at each of the seven PCSSD high schools targeted. The school district required all 9th- and 12th-grade students to attend the sessions. The staff sent recruitment letters to all ninth-grade parents, offering nearly 2,600 students the opportunity to observe a presentation and learn about the Academy. Printed materials were distributed, and Q & A sessions were an integral part of the presentations (Smith et al., 2014, p. 10).

The academy staff conducted the orientation sessions in the Donaldson Student Services Center Auditorium on the UALR campus for participating students and their parents. They posted information about the CWDSA programs to the web pages of the PCSSD, PSC, and UALR. The acronym for the Donaldson Scholars Academy programs was RAFT: Relationship, Academic Rigor, Fun, and Tassel (Smith et al., 2014, p. 10).

Saturday Academy

The CWDSA staff designed the Saturday Academy to occur once per month from September to May, but in order to expedite its implementation, the first cohort entered the program in November 2014 and participated until May 2015 (Smith, Patterson, & Donaldson, 2015). Two groups of ninth graders met five times during the school year. One group of 17 students met on Saturdays at PSC while the other group of 32 students met on Saturdays at UALR. On their first Saturday, students completed the Compass (reading, writing, and math). The score they achieved served as the baseline assessment for each student’s progression through the program.

The monthly format includes a 6-hour day during which students engage with each other in rigorous academic programming in preparation for the ACT examination. In addition, students participate in culturally enriching programs, and through planned interactions with the CWDSA staff and their peers, they learn civility. Their teachers incorporate a review of students’ test scores, their course grades, and evaluation of their progress into each monthly Saturday Academy program. This provides a more comprehensive assessment of the specific interventions necessary for each student’s success (Smith et al., 2014, p. A-6).

The CWDSA staff developed the curriculum for an entire year. It includes eight Saturday academies during the traditional academic year and a 4-day exploratory summer experience for high school students. In addition, graduated seniors participate in an intensive 3-week summer bridge session (later reduced to an intensive 10-day summer bridge for cost purposes). During January, the academy requires students to take cognitive and noncognitive assessments (i.e., ACT’s Compass, Compass Diagnostics, and Engage) to help identify academic problem areas and motivational factors that, once improved, may lead to success in college. Twice annually students attend a Mentor-Driven Motivational Rally (Smith et al., 2014, pp. A-5, A-8).

The high-energy rallies serve as motivational days that provide the opportunity for students to participate in fun competitive activities that challenge them to display the learning they have achieved. Students receive awards and are honored for outstanding achievement. Exercises allow students to apply the knowledge they have gained to practical, real-world situations. Students participate in Math Olympics, Spelling Bees, and VoCreate (a game that challenges students to use ACT vocabulary words creatively through songs, skits, videos, human crossword puzzles, etc.). Scholars compete on teams composed of students from their high school, which provides the opportunity for positive interaction once they return to their school (Bafile, 2012; Ith, n.d.; Smith et al., 2014, p. A-5-7).

Method

To evaluate the success of the program, the researchers collected both quantitative and qualitative data. The quantitative assessment covers the period from entry in the program in Grade 9 through high school graduation at the end of Grade 12. The quantitative component of the evaluation included monitoring of grade point average (GPA), scores on Compass (diagnostic exam identifying particular deficiencies), ACT scores, and progress toward high school completion, and college graduation. These data measure the cognitive or academic factors that indicate success in the program. Noncognitive or nonacademic assessment methods were used to secure qualitative data including interviews, surveys, and focus groups with students, parents or guardians, mentors, and CWDSA staff members.

Table 2 provides data outlining the overall assessment plan for students in Grades 9 to 12 who attend the Saturday Scholars program during the fall and spring terms (Smith, Patterson, & Donaldson, 2016, pp. 43–44). The qualitative data are intended to provide both formative and summative evaluations of the end results of the program (Krueger & Casey, 2014; Morgan, 1997; Smith et al., 2016, p. 43). Based on the data collection procedures and the study being part of the Donaldson Scholars assessment, the University’s institutional review board found the study to be “Not Human Subjects Research” but granted permission to publish from the study.

Table 2.

C. W. Donaldson Scholars Saturday Academy Assessment Plan—Grades 9 to 12.

Benchmark	Evaluation instruments	Data collection method(s)	Data analysis	Participant group	Annual collection dates
Socio-economic status, family education, school district	Demographics	Questions included on program application	Counts of demographic responses	Student participants	Application
Cognitive skills deficiency diagnosis	Compass diagnostic (Pre)	Computer-generated examination	Computer-generated reports	Student participants	Fall scholars academy
College placement examination	ACT	Computer-generated examination	Computer-generated reports	Student participants	September
Noncognitive skills student self-assessment	Qualitative interview (Baseline)	Qualitative interview triangulated with ACT engage results	NVivo qualitative data analysis software	Student participants	Fall scholars academy
Noncognitive skills family assessment	Qualitative interview (Baseline)	Qualitative interview triangulated with ACT product results	NVivo qualitative data analysis software	Parents, guardians	Fall scholars academy
Noncognitive skills student self-assessment	Engage	Computer-generated examination	Computer-generated reports	Student participants	January, ninth grade (Only)
Cognitive skills deficiency improvement	Compass (Post)	Computer-generated examination	Computer-generated reports	Student participants	May
Noncognitive skills student self-assessment	Qualitative interview (Year end)	Qualitative interview triangulated with act product results	NVivo qualitative data analysis software	Student participants	Spring scholars academy
Noncognitive skills deficiency improvement	Qualitative interview (Year end)	Qualitative interview triangulated with act product results	NVivo qualitative data analysis software	Parents, guardians	Spring scholars academy
Qualitative interviews for program improvement	Staff qualitative interview	Qualitative interview	NVivo qualitative data analysis software	Staff	Spring scholars academy

Note. ACT =American College Testing Examination.

Adapted from Smith, A. R., Patterson, R. B., and Donaldson, C. W. (June 2016). Dr. Charles W. Donaldson Scholars Academy (Progress Report No. 5). U.S. Federal District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas.

The CWDSA based on its conceptual framework for the qualitative evaluation in part on an ACT Policy Report by Lotkowski, Robbins, and Noeth (2004), in part on a meta-analysis on psychosocial and study skill factors that predict college outcomes (Robbins et al., 2004), and in part on the domains and scales guiding the ACT Engage assessments from middle school to college designed to help educators evaluate students’ self-reported psychosocial attributes, determine their levels of academic risk, and identify interventions to help them succeed. The Engage examination measures motivation, social engagement, and self-regulation. Because the ACT Engage data are difficult to evaluate over a large group of students and because we used the ACT Engage Domains and Scales as part of the criteria on which we developed the focus group interview protocol, we used the focus group data as our proxy for the Engage data in the study. Table 3 presents the qualitative factors, their practical strength of prediction of retention, and the operationalized definitions for these factors.

Table 3.

Nonacademic Factors (Qualitative) and Contextual Factors, Practical Strength for Predicting Retention (Strongest to Weakest), and Operationalized Definitions.

Nonacademic factors or practical strength	Operationalized definition (measurable) or practical strength
Academic-related skills (Strong)	Time management skills, study skills, and study habits (taking notes, meeting deadlines, using information resources).
Academic self-efficacy (Strong)	Level of academic self-confidence (self-efficacy regarding one’s ability to be successful in the academic environment).
Academic goals (Strong)	Level of commitment to obtain a college degree.
Institutional commitment (Moderate)	Level of confidence in and satisfaction with institutional choice.
Social support (Moderate)	Level of social support a student feels that the institution provides.
Contextual influence or institutional selectivity (Moderate)	The extent that an institution sets high standards for selecting new students.
Social involvement (Moderate)	Extent to which a student feels connected to the college environment, peers, faculty, and others in college and is involved in campus activities.
Contextual influence or financial aid (Moderate)	The extent to which students are supported financially by an institution.
Achievement motivation (Weak)	Level of motivation to achieve success.
General self-concept (Weak)	Level of self-confidence and self-esteem.
Contextual influence or institutional size (Weak)	Number of students enrolled at an institution.

Note. Adapted from Lotkowski, Robbins, and Noeth (2004); Robbins et al. (2004).

Table 4 delineates the quantitative factors, their relative practical strength of prediction of academic success, and the operationalized definitions for these factors (Lotkowski et al., 2004; Robbins et al., 2004).

Table 4.

Academic Factors (Quantitative), Practical Strength for Predicting Retention, and Operationalized Definitions.

Academic factors or practical strength	Operationalized definition (measurable) or practical strength
ACT assessment score (Strong)	College preparedness measure in English, mathematics, reading, and science.
High school grade point (Strong)	Cumulative grade point average student average earned from all high school courses.

Note. ACT =American College Testing Examination.

Adapted from Lotkowski, Robbins, and Noeth (2004); Robbins et al. (2004).

Focus Groups

The Saturday Academy internal evaluators conducted a focus group with 9th-grade PCSSD student participants at PSC on Saturday, November 7, 2015. Although they planned for two focus groups that day, a university-wide electrical outage prevented the second focus group at UALR from meeting. We held the make-up session for the cancelled focus group on Saturday, December 5, 2015.

The evaluators interviewed participants in each of the focus groups using the same beginning of year interview protocol derived from the conceptual dimensions and variables explained in Table 3 to establish a baseline assessment for these grades and programs. They collected the high school GPA from application materials. During the fall and spring semesters, they also examined Saturday Academy participants using the ACT Compass test, an untimed, computerized test that helps colleges evaluate the academic skills of students and place them into appropriate courses, often allowing them to bypass remediation. Compass offers tests in reading, writing, math, writing essay, and English as a Second Language. Students receive their Compass test results immediately upon completion of testing, and their score report includes placement messages informing them what courses they should take.

Initially the evaluators coded data from the interviews and the field notes to the conceptual framework using HyperResearch qualitative software. Page limitations for the article necessitated data reduction (Guest, MacQueen, & Namey, 2012; Namey, Guest, Thairu, & Johnson, 2008) which is sometimes called data condensation (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014). Miles and Huberman (1994) explain data reduction as “a form of analysis that sharpens, sorts, focuses, discards, and organizes data in such a way that ‘final’ conclusions can be drawn and verified” (p. 11). In our approach to data reduction, we eliminated any variables from the findings not reported as strong or moderate predictors of retention by Lotkowski et al. (2004). This approach yielded an analysis of approximately three quarters of the original variables.

We achieved trustworthiness—or what some qualitative researchers call standards of verification—by using an adequate sample (15 participants between the two focus groups), triangulating methods (member checks), theoretical saturation, accounting for unanticipated findings or surprises in the data, and by attempting to achieve transferability, so our findings may be applicable to other similar settings (Williams & Hill, 2012).

Results

CWDSA Ninth-Grade Saturday Academy Quantitative Results

Two groups of ninth graders met five times throughout the school year, from November 2014 to May 2015. The other two meetings represented the Rallies. As noted earlier, one group met on Saturdays at PSC while the other group met on Saturdays at UALR. The PSC group consisted of 17 students while the UALR group was composed of 32 students. The CWDSA staff administered the Compass exams on the first Saturday meeting and on the last Saturday meeting to act as a pre- and posttest. The students achieved the following quantitative results after combining data for both groups of ninth graders:

A 3.875 point average increase on the Compass Algebra exam.

A 7.265 point average increase on the Compass Reading exam.

COMPASS writing scores remained steady with no significant increase or decrease.

See Table 5 for participants’ sex, entry grade, average highest compass scores, and range of compass scores for PCSSD students entering Saturday Academy in the 2014 to 2015 and 2015 to 2016 cohorts; 14 of the 2014 to 2015 students gained reading scores high enough to bypass college remediation, 5 students tested into college algebra, and 12 students tested into college composition. A comparable number of the 2015 to 2016 students tested out of developmental reading, math, and writing. During the 2015 to 2016 academic year, 33 students tested into Composition I. During the 2015 to 2016 academic year, students from the Little Rock School District and the North Little Rock School District attended the Saturday Academy with the PCSSD students which explains why the number of students testing into Composition I exceeded the number of PCSSD students shown in Table 5. Regardless of the addition of these students to the overall pool, the results for the PCSSD students are exceptional for at-risk students in the 9th and 10th grades.

Table 5.

Participants’ Sex, Entry Grade, Average Highest Compass Scores, and Range of Compass Scores for Pulaski County Special School District Students Entering Saturday Academy in 2014 to 2015 and 2015 to 2016.

Cohort and gender (Numbers)	Entry grade	Highest math score (Average)	Range math highest or lowest	Highest reading score (Average)	Range reading highest or lowest	Highest writing score (Average)	Range writing highest or lowest
2014–2015
Male = 19, Female = 31	Ninth grade (All)	28	H = 56, L = 15	67	H = 99, L = 15	55	H = 99, L = 1
Total = 50		937/33		2211/33		1858/34
2015–2016
Male = 13 Female = 12	Not Available	22	H = 34, L = 15	69	H = 88, L = 55	32	H = 70, L = 3
Total = 25		132/6		413/6		191/6

Source: CWDSA Master Student Spreadsheet and personal calculations.

Note. Compass scores were reported for only 34 of the 50 2014 to 2015 student participants and for only 6 of the 25 2015 to 2016 student participants.

ACT subject test section score ranges are displayed in Table 6 for the 2014 to 2015 ninth grade and the 2015 to 2016 9th- and 10th-grade student cohorts. The low scores for the 2014 to 2015 table exhibit the range of underpreparedness of the ninth-grade PCSSD students who sat for the examination. The higher low test scores for the ACT subject test sections among the 2015 to 2016 students may indicate the benefits of taking the ACT multiple times or the benefits of the ACT test prep sessions provided by the Donaldson Scholars programs.

Table 6.

Participants’ Average Highest ACT Subject Test Scores and Range of ACT Subject Test Scores for Pulaski County Special School District Students Entering Saturday Academy in 2014 to 2015 and 2015 to 2016.

Range: High low and average	ACT writing	ACT English	ACT mathematics	ACT reading	ACT science
2014–2015
High	22	23	23	20	23
Low	13	8	16	12	17
Average	19	17	21	17	21
Total N = 50	76/4	69/4	83/4	69/4	83/4
2015–2016
High	24	24	23	29	24
Low	18	20	17	21	11
Average	21	22	20	24	20
Total N = 25	105/5	110/5	102/5	118/5	102/5

Source: CWDSA Master Student Spreadsheet and personal calculations.

Note. ACT = American College Testing Examination; CWDSA = Charles W. Donaldson Scholars Academy.

ACT subject test scores were reported for only 4 of the 50 student participants in the 2014 to 2015 cohort and for only 5 of the 25 student participants in the 2015 to 2016 cohort. Composite ACT scores were not reported.

Ninth-Grade Saturday Academy Focus Group Results for Psychosocial and Study Skill Factors

Table 7 exhibits the eight variables analyzed in the study. The table includes abbreviated data from the focus groups at each of the two participating institutions—the UALR and PSC. What follows represents a more complete narrative, presenting the qualitative variables by their expected strength of prediction which composes the data upon which we base our conclusions.

Table 7.

Nonacademic Factors (Qualitative) and Contextual Factors, Strength for Predicting Retention (Highest to Lowest), and Qualitative Data from Saturday Academy Focus Groups.

Variable	UALR participants	Philander smith participants
Academic-related skills (Strong)^a	Time management: Most yes, others working on it.Study time: Look over day of class; Don’t study daily; Bored; Fall asleep; Questions not on test. Deadlines: Write down; Google classroom; Do in class.Learn study skills: People; TV; Sister in college role model.Have study skills: No. Nobody teaches. Mom makes me study.Coping skills: Write list; Music; Pathfinders. Leadership: Must follow to be leader. Communication: Talk; Text, Teams.	Time management: Three no’s; Some focused; One does not study at home; Two discussed extra-curricular commitments.Deadlines: With God’s help deadlines will be met; Rely on friends; Secret group work on assignments (not team assignments); Procrastination.
Academic self-efficacy (Strong)^a	Confident in succeeding: Very; Mentors helping; Achieving something.Academic support: Mentors on campus.Attain degree: Yes, I participate; They call on you; Improved vocabulary.Feel smarter: Yes; Rather go here than to school.	Confident in Succeeding: Confident at UALR not Philander. Unaccustomed to HBCU environment. Academic support: Mentors very supportive but go to UALR.Confidence of academic success: comfortable with Scholars.
Academic goals (Strong)^a	CWDSA: Grades improving; Fun, not boring. Graduation Commitment: Yes; From Mom. Value of college: Get job.	CWDSA: Vocabulary with goal of Pediatrician; Picked-up studying.Graduation commitment: Yes to get money; Overcome race stereotypes.Value of college: It’s available; For parents.
Institutional commitment (Moderate)^a	Commitment: $10,000 scholarship; Major availability; Family in Little Rock.Part of CWDSA: No one left out; They call you.	Commitment: Yes! UALR Engineering; Great nursing program; Criminal Justice; No, lack desired major.Part of CWDSA: Mentors; friends.
Social support (Moderate)^a	Family and scholars: Bring us; Want to be successful; Have fun.Scholars: Circle of friends; Make you want to learn; Meet new people; Continues in high school.Mentors: Talk to you; Better than real teachers.	Family and scholars: Getting here; Push to attend; Money for college; Feeling for college; Sister in Program.Scholars: Push to come; [Leader]’s encouragement. Mentors: Friends, not like teachers; Uncomfortable with move to Philander.
Contextual influence or institutional selectivity (Moderate)^a	Students have not begun thinking about selectivity since they are ninth graders.	These students were a mix of 9th- to 11th-grade high school students but institutional selectivity was only discussed by one student and only with respect to the fields of science and medicine.
Social involvement (Moderate)^a	Mentors: Put in groups; Grows circle of friends; Team work.Connected to UALR: Besides mentors, no. CWDSA relationship quality: Really good; Nice, crazy, fun.Faculty relationships: Just with mentors. Campus activities: Not much chance.	Not much social involvement in Saturday Academy. Forgotten ice breakers. Could do more team building. Suggest meeting twice a month.
Contextual influence or financial aid (Moderate)^a	Feel good; $10,000 scholarship; My way through school; Take ACT for free.Access to resources: UALR College Fair—academic support but not financial aid.	It’s free! Programs for tutoring, Other ACT prep programs require payment; College is expensive.Access to resources: HS counselor advises about loans; Nobody taught us; We have book smarts but no street smarts.

Note. UALR = University of Arkansas at Little Rock; HS = high school; CWDSA = Charles W. Donaldson Scholars Academy; HBCU = historically Black colleges and universities; ACT =American College Testing Examination.

The practical strength of the relationship refers to the usefulness of these factors in predicting college retention or performance. Relative strengths are derived from Lotkowski, Robbins, and Noeth (2004).

Academic-related skills (strong predictor)

Academic-related skills include cognitive, behavioral, and affective tools and abilities necessary to successfully complete tasks, achieve goals, and manage academic demands (Robbins et al., 2004, p. 267). Lotkowski et al. (2004) assert that academic-related skills represent the strongest predictor of retention (p. 7). The first focus groups with Saturday Academy students met with the 2015 to 2016 cohort during November and December 2015.

The moderator asked the Saturday Academy students at UALR “How much time do you allow per week studying for each course?” The students responded, “I don’t do that. The day of the class I just look over it and stuff.” A barrage of similar comments concluding with: “Most of the time if you study the stuff won’t be on the test.” Saturday Academy students at Philander Smith answered similarly. A male student shared, “Y’all need to pray for me because I’m a procrastinator.” A female student said,

The thing with us being teenagers . . . a lot of us, we have work and then we have sports then most of us have [siblings] that we have to take care of, too. Then having second classes and his [Saturday Academy], that’s a lot of stuff on our plate.

Another female student shared,

Well I do a lot of things after school so homework, it really doesn’t work out. We have activity period [for] 25 minutes so I do most of my studying and homework in that 25 minutes. But I still keep a 3.8 [GPA].

“How do you manage deadlines for each of the courses so you can get the assignments submitted on time or do you have deadlines?” was the next question the moderator asked the UALR students. “I write mine down,” said one student. Other students said: “Yeah, we have deadlines, it’s on Google classroom.” “A project? I do it in the classroom because sometimes if you don’t turn it in when it’s due you don’t get a grade.” Time management was an important topic for students at Philander Smith, too. When the moderator asked, “How do you manage deadlines for classes and get assignments done?” A young man said somewhat flippantly, “I pray. . . . Hallelujah!” A young woman added, “Also this thing you have called friends, too. I’m not going to call it cheating. It ain’t cheating. It’s like it’s group work. Group work. Secret group work. You worked together to figure out the right answer.” A young man provided a different take on the help of friends: “My [English] teacher what she do, she give us a week to do the homework. I forgot about it by Friday and my friend is going to tell me, you read that book? You know, its due Monday. Fran came through. She reminded me and I get it done—on Sunday night.”

Concerned over the apparent lack of study time and commitment to completing assignments, the moderator asked, “Where and how did you learn these skills to manage your time?” The students replied: “Different people.” “My parents. Or TV shows—maybe.” “I’ll just be watching different TV shows like Ned’s Classifieds. He’s a teenage boy in high school.” “My sister goes here (UALR) and she studies every day,” said one student. “She’s 19 but she studies every day. Even when we come to get her on the weekends, she still studies every day.”

These responses explain why the Donaldson Scholars Academy provides opportunities for students to gain such representative measures as time-management skills, study skills and habits, leadership skills, problem-solving and coping strategies, and communication skills.

Academic self-efficacy (strong predictor)

Robbins et al. (2004) define academic self-efficacy as a self-evaluation of one’s ability or chances for success in the academic environment (p. 267). Lotkowski et al. (2004) characterize academic self-efficacy as a strong predictor of student retention (p. 7).

“How confident do you feel about your ability or chances for being successful in your studies at UALR or Philander Smith?” the co-moderator asked of the UALR focus group members. “I feel good. My mentors are helping me very well, so, yeah I’m actually achieving something.” A Philander Smith focus group participant echoed the sentiment but felt better about succeeding at UALR than at Philander Smith:

I feel confident being successful at UALR because that’s where we first started out at. We spent a lot of time walking around the campus, being in classroom[s]—that’s where we feel the most comfortable. Philander being a historical[ly] Black college and way different scenery than what most of us are accustom[ed] to. So UALR would be the best place, in my opinion, to be successful.

Another Philander Smith focus group participant said confidently, “Well most of our mentors go to UALR so . . . it’s easier to go to UALR.”

Some of the students participating in the 2015 to 2016 Saturday Academy did not start the Donaldson Scholars programs with the Saturday Academy. They began with the Summer Scholars Academy 4-day program offered at UALR. Thus, they had what amounted to an immersion experience at UALR before being assigned to the Saturday Academy group at Philander Smith. In addition, some students who started with the first Saturday Academy cohort may have been assigned to the UALR group their first year but intentionally reassigned to the Philander Smith group their second year to give them exposure to both schools.

Academic goals (strong predictor)

Academic-related goals defined as “One’s persistence with and commitment to action, including general and specific goal-directed behavior, in particular, commitment to attaining the college degree; one’s appreciation of the value of college education” are said to be strong predictors of college retention and performance (Robbins, et al., 2004, p. 267).

When the focus group moderator asked the UALR Scholars, “How has being a part of the Donaldson Scholars Academy helped you make and stick to the goals in your classes?” the students responded enthusiastically by saying: “My grades have been going up ever since I have joined this program.” “Mine has too, because we started in the summer, and like last year I didn’t get good grades but this year I’ve been keeping my grades A’s and B’s.” In response to why they think this is so, the students responded, “I think it’s like the way they teach it. You just want to keep learning. It’s actually fun.”

When asked “How does being a part of the Donaldson Scholars Academy help you make and stick to your goals in your classes?” a ninth-grade young woman at Philander Smith responded,

Well I know we’ve been doing a lot on these vocabulary sheets. I want to be a pediatrician when I grow up and I know my verbal communication is going to have to be way better than it is now. We’re actually learning stuff here that’s helping me in school and actually is going to help me when I get older too.

Another student responded, “You will get a job without a college education, but they will hire you first [before] people without college education.”

When the moderator asked the Donaldson Scholars at UALR, “Do you feel like you are really committed to graduating from college?” the students responded, “Yeah, I plan to, because I want to be somebody in life and have a job, a good one.” A young woman at Philander Smith framed her response in more than money. She said,

It comes back to your race sometimes—for me it does because I mean you look at it, our black community—not trying to be mean or anything—but we’re not [doing] as good as, to be honest, the white community. They always look down on us—not all the time but most of the time. They think ‘Oh, they’re not going to do anything. They just want to be rappers and strippers and all of that’ and that’s not for everybody. We actually want to make it in life like everybody else and us graduating from college that’s going to show them . . . Not just them but ourselves that we can make it in life. We can be good. Just as they can be good.

Institutional commitment (moderate predictor)

Robbins et al. (2004) define institutional commitment as “students’ confidence of and satisfaction with their institutional choice; the extent that students feel committed to the college they are currently enrolled in; their overall attachment to college” (p. 267). Lotkowski et al. (2004) explain that institutional commitment has only a moderate capacity to predict retention or performance in college (p. 7). Perhaps other factors may increase these students’ commitment to the institution they choose.

A part of the students’ commitment to going to either UALR or PSC is the $10,000 scholarship attached to completion of the Donaldson Scholars Academy programs and admission to and enrollment in one of those two schools. Although this funding bridges both institutional commitment and the contextual influence of financial aid, more than one UALR focus group participant mentioned the scholarship in their responses. Simply having the scholarship available makes these students feel more committed to these two colleges.

The students’ responses to the focus group moderator’s question about their involvement in and connection with the Donaldson Scholars Academy reflected the importance of developing relationships with faculty members and student mentors. The UALR student focus group participants responded by saying, “Even if you don’t want to do it, they will call you up and ask. Then once you do it, then you will really like it.” “Yes, they make you feel like you are really a part of the program and they don’t leave nobody out.”

A ninth-grade young man in the Philander Smith focus group explained about the ease of adaptation to the program:

It feels good being here because the mentors are a couple years older than us. They don’t look down to us but they treat us like little brothers and little sisters and they look out for us and make sure we understand the material. Being close [in the] metro [there] are a lot of schools the kids come from here. We have friends who are here that we can also relate to.

One student in the Philander Smith focus group emphasized another characteristic of these institutions as being critical to the institutional commitment in her response to the question about the certainty of her decision. “I’m 100% sure. I’m very certain that I’m choosing UALR.” She elaborated,

Well I have a teacher her name is [teacher’s name]. She’s my engineering teacher so she was telling me about how UALR has a great engineering program. She was telling me how most people who go into Engineering are either white [or] Chinese, those kind of people [and] most of them men. So me being a black female that will help me. It’s a minority scholarship.

Two other students mentioned the availability of programs in which they have an interest in majoring—nursing and criminal justice—as being integral to their commitment.

Social support (moderate predictor)

“Students’ perception of the availability of the social networks that support them in college” exemplifies the perceived social support identified by Robbins et al. (2004, p. 267) in their study. Lotkowski et al. (2004) found social support to be a moderate predictor of retention (p. 7).

A male focus group participant at PSC spoke of parental support by saying:

They[’re] talking about you doing this to get money for college. Even though they say you can make it at college they say . . . ‘nowadays you need a good education and this is going to help you get that education and help you pay for it too.’

A ninth-grade young woman said of her mother, “She’ll tell me, ‘I didn’t finish school. I want you to make it. I want you to experience all of that, college, high school stuff.’”

The moderator asked the students to talk about the friendships and how much support they have from their friends in the Donaldson Scholars Academy. A ninth-grade young woman said, “I think we have good support because I actually made her come today [motioning toward her friend]. She wasn’t going [to come] and I was like pushing her to come.” A young man said, “Getting good support! Have you heard [senior CWDSA staff member]? She’s getting deep!”

With respect to friendships, one young woman said,

The mentors, they treat us just like we’re their little brothers and little sisters. We’re close to them. I mean we’re close to the other students here, too. We’re not all buddy-buddy best friends and all that but we know enough about each other where we can sit down and have a conversation and actually learn together and support each other.

Next, the moderator raised the topic of social stress. A ninth-grade young man said, “Help[s] you feel less stressed about the ACT because . . . I need to go ahead and get that score up and what we’re doing here is helping me.” A young woman exclaimed, “It’s fun here! I never expected . . . something so educational to be so fun!” A young woman explained: “Understanding that learning is not going to be all about the fun but when you’re able to bring fun into college and stuff like that for high school students—that’s so amazing!” Three students said they did not feel as connected at Philander Smith as they did at UALR. A ninth-grade male explained, “I don’t feel connected here as I do at UALR because UALR, you know, that’s where we started out at.”

Contextual influence or institutional selectivity (moderate predictor)

Robbins et al. (2004) defined the contextual influence of institutional selectivity as “The extent that an institution sets high standards for selecting new students” (p. 267). Lotkowski et al. (2004) found institutional selectivity to be a moderate influence on college student retention (p. 7).

Only one young woman seemed to grasp the concept of selectivity when she shared, “It just depends on what institution you’re trying to go to and if you’re trying to get into the medical field, the science field, as far as going to be selective.”

Social involvement (moderate predictor)

Robbins et al. (2004) defined social involvement as: “The extent that students feel connected to the college environment; the quality of students’ relationships with peers, faculty, and others in college; the extent that students are involved in campus activities” (p. 267). Lotkowski et al. (2004) found social involvement to be a moderate predictor of college student retention (p. 7).

Probing to inquire about relationships within the Saturday Academy, the moderator asked, “How would you describe the quality of your relationships with your group of friends in the Donaldson Scholars Program?” The students said, “They are nice, crazy. Fun.”

Trying to gauge how the students may have developed relationships with faculty who teach the math and English courses, the moderator asked, “How would you describe the quality of your relationships with the faculty at UALR, the folks who are actually teaching the classes when you come?” The students said, “It’s not actual teachers that teach you, it’s the mentors.” “One teacher looked like he was, but he had to leave.” “Well as I understood it, there were math and English teachers as well as the mentors,” the moderator shared. “I only had the mentors.” “Okay. Just today, all mentors.” “There was one here that was a math teacher. I had him.”

Contextual influence or financial aid (moderate predictor)

Robbins et al. (2004) defined the contextual influence of financial aid as: “The extent to which students are supported financially by an institution” (p. 267) and was operationalized by participation in a financial aid program and the adequacy of the financial aid that was available to students. Financial aid was classified as a moderate influence on college student retention (Lotkowski et al., 2004, p. 7).

The moderator asked about financial support with this question: “How do you feel about the financial support you’ve received from this academy?” A male student said, “It’s free. A lot of [programs] like those [that] offer tutoring, ACT prep they require you to pay X amount of dollars for every hour you spend with them.” A young woman said,

A lot of people, honestly, in this academy, they might be struggling to get the money they need for college. I know I want to be a pediatrician so that’s a lot of money. I know I’m going to [need] at least four years of college so that’s a lot of money for all my classes. This is a scholarship that can actually help me at least get a little bit down the road so all of it won’t have to come out of my pocket.

The moderator asked about the resources available through the two colleges: “What do you know about financial aid and who has helped out with that?” A young woman said,

My counselor, she comes and talks to us sometimes about how we can get—I know we can get loans from schools can’t we? But I don’t want a loan from no school because you’re going to have to pay back student loans.

A young man began to express frustration in saying, “Sometimes with school what’s lacking is they teach all this academic stuff but they . . . ” When a woman finished the thought, “They don’t teach you about making a life.” A young woman echoed the same theme sharing, “Yeah we got book smarts and all that, some of us have that down pat but when it comes to street smarts and common sense like I don’t have any of that—I honestly don’t.”

All the students who complete the Donaldson Scholars Academy and enroll in either UALR or Philander Smith will receive a $2,500 scholarship renewable for 4 years subject to maintaining an established GPA and enrolling for a minimum number of hours each semester. The maximum amount of the scholarship totals $10,000.

Discussion

Quantitative Results

Because participation in the Donaldson Scholars programs is voluntary and the study was conducted in a single school district that has been locked in a decades long desegregation lawsuit in which the Federal District Court had approved a scholarship award of $10,000 for students who complete the programs, these factors may have influenced the composition of the sample. Availability of the scholarship may have encouraged more well-situated minority parents in the PCSSD and their higher achieving children to self-select into the CWDSA programs as a fallback or alternative should other scholarships fall through.

Compass and ACT exams

The exceptional results achieved by the 9th- and 10th-grade students on the Compass exam would not have been predicted for underserved students (Westrick & Allen, 2014). However, the PCSSD students did perform quite well with the ninth graders in the 2014 to 2015 cohort testing into a total of 31 college reading, college Algebra, and college composition courses and the 9th and 10th graders in the 2015 to 2016 cohort testing into a comparable number of regular college courses. These results are outstanding for underserved high school students at these grade levels.

The ACT test section scores were exceptional for the ninth-grade students in the 2014 to 2015 cohort. The improvement of the 9th- and 10th-grade students in the 2015 to 2016 cohort where the test takers represented a much larger proportion of the Saturday Academy students reflected a marked improvement in most of the subject specializations (Helms, 2006). We cannot be precisely sure what led to this improvement but it may have been the inauguration of an ACT test prep program by the CWDSA staff.

Qualitative Results

Academic-related skills

Schnell, Seashore Louis, and Doetkatt (2003) found that first-year students who participated in a first-year experience seminar graduated at a higher rate than the matched group of students who did not. They also found that among those participants admitted to postsecondary institutions with low ACT assessment scores and high school GPAs, graduation rates also fared better than those of matched nonparticipants. These results suggest that a student’s entering characteristics play an important role in persistence to graduation, but potential for success can be increased with the addition of a program, like the Saturday Academy.

Academic self-efficacy

Although only ninth graders, these students exhibit the concerns expressed by first-year college students in the findings of Chemers, Hu, and Garcia (2001) regarding academic self-efficacy, adjustment to college, and academic performance in college. The results of the study by Gloria, Kurpius, Hamilton, and Wilson (1999) regarding the importance of self-beliefs, social support, and university comfort for the persistence of African American students in a predominantly White university also conform to the qualitative findings in this study.

Comments by the focus group participants align with the findings of Simons and Van Rheenen (2000) on academic self-worth and of Ethington and Smart (1986) on the development of academic self-confidence. Responses by these students also indicate that course self-efficacy, exemplified by feeling confident enough to go to their teachers and ask questions if they have concerns, is in evidence among these Saturday Academy students (Solberg et al., 1998).

Academic goals

The responses of the focus group participants speak to the findings of Brown and Robinson Kurpius (1997) regarding the valuing of education. These replies lend credence to the research of Pascarella and Chapman (1983) and Pavel and Padilla (1993) on commitment to the goal of graduation and to that of Allen (1999) on the desire to finish college.

Institutional commitment

Based on the results of their studies, Berger and Milem (1999) and Pike, Schroeder, and Berry (1997) emphasize the importance of student involvement and of acquiring a sense of belonging as essential components of students’ commitment to an institution. Because these students are ninth graders, the Saturday Academy plays much the same role as do living-learning communities or as having close interactions with faculty members or student peers for college students. As indicated by the scales in Krotseng’s (1992) Student Adaptation Questionnaire, the Donaldson Scholars program will also help ease the adaptation to college in several ways.

Social support

Allen (1999) and Solberg et al. (1998) link the desire to finish college to family emotional support. Based on the focus group responses, this holds true for the majority of CWDSA Saturday Academy Scholars but most of the students said their mothers encouraged them the most. These comments coincide with the findings of Ryland, Riordan, and Brack (1994) who found social support to be a key factor in persistence. The Scholars praised their mentors, which align with the findings of Gloria et al. (1999) that punctuated the importance of providing social support to facilitate retention.

Essentially the combination of educational programs with fun activities substantially decreased the social stress felt by some of these students. However, moving the location of the Saturday Academy from UALR to Philander Smith created more stress for some. These differing results regarding academic stress conform to the findings of Solberg et al. (1998) using the adaptive success identity plan.

Contextual influence or institutional selectivity

Although the study conducted by Stoecker, Pascarella, and Wolfe (1988) on institutional selectivity and prestige found these factors to be moderate predictors of college student retention, the vast majority of the ninth graders in our study had given little thought to institutional selectivity. Several of the participants thought just going to college was beyond the realm of possibility before enrolling in the Donaldson Scholars programs.

Social involvement

If a major programmatic deficit exists for these young people, it could be the lack of interaction with college students while on campus at either PSC or UALR beyond their mentors during the Donaldson Scholars Saturday Academy. Social involvement must be a major issue for many colleges and universities given the proliferation of social involvement scales ranging from the Social Alienation From Classmates Scale (Daugherty & Lane, 1999), to the Social Integration Scale (Ethington & Smart, 1986), to the University Alienation Scale (Suen, 1983), to the Personal Contact Scale and Campus Involvement Scale (Mohr, Eiche, & Sedlacek, 1998), to the Class Involvement Scale (Grosset, 1991), and even the Student–Faculty Interaction Scale (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1977).

Contextual influence or financial aid

McGrath and Braunstein (1997) assert the importance of financial aid to student success, especially to the success of at-risk students, so each student who meets program criteria will receive student aid from the Donaldson Scholars Academy through the program’s scholarship. The big question is the adequacy of the financial aid package (Oliver, Rodriguez, & Mickelson, 1985). The $10,000 scholarship will go a great deal farther at UALR toward public university tuition and fees than it will at PSC with its private, religiously affiliated tuition and fees. To help address the issue of financial aid literacy, the CWDSA includes a financial advisor as one of the two full-time advisors on its staff.

Limitations and Implications for Future Research

The major contribution the study makes to the body of knowledge is the data it provides on the educational impact and potential benefits of a Saturday Academy—an innovative intervention designed to improve the educational achievement of African American and other at-risk high school students in a metropolitan area. Although employing a mixed-methods approach does add to the robustness of the assessment, the small but adequate sample size of the two focus groups, 15 total students, creates some concerns about the transferability of the findings to other similar contexts (Creswell & Clark, 2018; Miles et al., 2014).

The range between the highest and lowest Compass results may be outliers reflecting differences in the preparation of the students pursuing the scholarship and demonstrating that some students in the Saturday Academy may be less underserved than others. The number of ACT test section results reported is disappointing but it may be because the cohorts were composed of ninth graders for the 2014 to 2015 cohort and 9th and 10th graders for the 2015 to 2016 cohort, many of whom had not thought much about institutional selectivity and where and how they would go to college. Thus, not all of the students had taken the ACT by the end of those two program years in April. The evaluators cannot determine results of the program on college performance as the student participants in the study are still in high school.

A delimitation of the study has to do with ACT Engage. Because the dimensions of the ACT Engage examination were incorporated into the noncognitive measures included in the Focus Group protocol, we consider the focus group data as a proxy for the ACT Engage exam results in this study. Another delimitation is that student GPAs are covered under Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and, though the high school district is a partner in the CWDSA effort, participant GPAs were not collected by the CWDSA staff for this period. We also assumed that students enrolled in the CWDSA programs were making appropriate progress toward high school completion simply by virtue of their continuing to enroll in the programs through their high school matriculation and because high school graduation was a condition for being awarded the $10,000 scholarship.

Recommendations for future research

At the end of the second year of the Saturday Academy’s history, ACT removed Compass from its product line. The Donaldson Scholars staff replaced the Compass exam with Accuplacer, an Educational Testing Service product. We recommend replicating the study for more recent years to see if the students taking Accuplacer are still able to bypass developmental courses in the same numbers as those who bypassed them by taking the Compass exam. We also recommend replicating the study in contexts in which the $10,000 scholarship awards are not available. An easy way to do this would be to replicate the study in geographic and cultural regions outside the South where desegregation funds would not be available. Further research should also be conducted on effects of peer mentoring on both the mentees and their peer mentors.

Implications for Practice

Despite the study’s limitations, the findings highlight for administrators the merits and challenges of the Saturday Academy approach to achieving better outcomes for underserved students through educational interventions, peer mentoring, and relationship building. Using the mixed-methods data to highlight the results of these interventions provides administrators with key evidence to report to the Federal Court overseeing the Donaldson Scholars Academies programs and to the PCSSD that is a partner in these efforts. The evaluation results and dissemination of them also can be useful in helping to develop effective Saturday Academies at institutions with similar contexts (Royse, Thyer, & Padgett, 2016).

Several students commented about Saturday Academy being so structured that there was no time to really tour the campuses—either at UALR or at PSC—to learn where services are located and to feel more engaged with the campus environments. This feeling was especially acute among Saturday Academy students at Philander Smith, the historically Black college, which is a context with which several of the students said they were unfamiliar and not as comfortable as they were at UALR. Administrators might consider providing campus tours and allowing some free time for unsupervised individual exploration of the campuses to address this concern.

With respect to academic support, defined as their peer mentors, students at both UALR and Philander Smith agreed the mentors were very supportive and made them feel connected to the institutions but they shared a concern that all of the mentors attend UALR (Yomtov, Plunkett, Efrat, & Marin, 2017). This is something the program administrators could easily correct by recruiting some percentage of the peer mentors from PSC.

Many of the students said their high schools did a poor job of helping them to gain the academic skills they will need to be successful in college. It would be advisable for CWDSA administrators to keep the development of academic-related skills—time management, meeting deadlines, study skills, and of coping skills—a high priority of the Saturday Academies.

Conclusion

Based on both the quantitative results and the qualitative responses of the Donaldson Scholars participants, the Saturday Academies programs have been a success. Quantitatively, the average point gains on the Compass Algebra and Compass Reading exams for both the 2014 to 2015 and the 2015 to 2016 cohorts are most impressive and the number of students either testing out of developmental courses or testing into regular college credit bearing courses is also outstanding. Qualitatively, the development of attitudes and behaviors that predict college success shows positive results from participation in the Saturday Academies. Overall, the conceptual framework composed of noncognitive and contextual factors that guided the qualitative study indicates that the CWDSA Saturday Academy is succeeding while the curricular innovation it represents continues to grow and expand rapidly.

We believe that the programs incorporated into the Donaldson Scholars Saturday Academy are transferrable to other similar contexts, including the achievement of comparable results within those alternative contexts (Miles et al., 2014). The key to success lies in the commitment of staff leadership and student mentors recruited to implement the social and cultural programs and in the dedication of the instructional faculty selected to teach the subjects included in the Saturday Academy curriculum.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The Charles W. Donaldson Scholars Academy (CWDSA) as part of the Pulaski County Special School District’s Desegregation Plan 2000 funded this evaluation project.

Author Biographies

John A. Kuykendall, PhD, is dean of the School of Education at the University of Indianapolis.

Thomas G. Barrett, PhD, is a professor of Higher Education in the School of Education at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock.

References

Allen

(1999). Desire to finish college: An empirical link between motivation and persistence. Research in Higher Education, 40, 461–485.

Bafile

(2012). Vocabulary and spelling: Do your students say boring? Education World. Retrieved from http://www.educationworld.com/a_lesson/lesson/lesson241.shtml

Berger

J. B.

Milem

J. F.

(1999). The role of student involvement and perceptions of integration in a causal model of student persistence. Research in Higher Education, 40, 641–664.

Brown

L. L.

Robinson Kurpius

S. E.

(1997). Psychosocial factors influencing academic persistence of American Indian college students. Journal of College Student Development, 38, 3–12.

Chemers

M. M.

Garcia

B. F.

(2001). Academic self-efficacy and first year college student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 55–64.

Creswell

J. W.

Clark

V. L. P.

(2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Daugherty

T. K.

Lane

E. J.

(1999). A longitudinal study of academic and social predictors of college attrition. Social Behavior and Personality, 27, 355–362.

Ethington

C. A.

Smart

J. C.

(1986). Persistence to graduate education. Research in Higher Education, 24, 287–303.

Gloria

A. M.

Kurpius

S. E. R.

Hamilton

K. D.

Wilson

M. S.

(1999). African American students’ persistence at a predominantly White university: Influence of social support, university comfort, and self-beliefs. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 257–268.

10.

Grosset

J. M.

(1991). Patterns of integration, commitment, and student characteristics and retention among younger and older students. Research in Higher Education, 32, 159–178.

11.

Guest

MacQueen

K. M.

Namey

E. E.

(2012). Applied thematic analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

12.

Helms

J. E.

(2006). Fairness is not validity or cultural bias in racial-group assessment: A quantitative perspective. American Psychologist, 61, 845–859.

13.

Ith

(n.d.). How a former elementary teacher translated his skills to a career in the cloud: Learn more about what brought Adam Coccari (creator of “Math Evolve”) to Microsoft. Retrieved from https://blogs.microsoft.com/jobs/how-a-former-elementary-teacher-translated-his-skills-to-a-career-in-the-cloud/#KQ4ulAAu6SP0QzOT.99

14.

Krotseng

M. V.

(1992). Predicting persistence from the student adaptation to college questionnaire: Early warning or siren song? Research in Higher Education, 33, 99–111.

15.

Krueger

R. A.

Casey

M. A.

(2014). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

16.

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. Iowa City, IA: ACT. Retrieved from www.act.org/research/policy/index.html

17.

McGrath

Braunstein

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

18.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

19.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

Saldaña

(2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

20.

Mohr

Eiche

Sedlacek

(1998). So close, yet so far: Predictors of attrition on college seniors. Journal of College Student Development, 39, 343–354.

21.

Morgan

D. L.

(1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

22.

Namey

Guest

Thairu

Johnson

(2008). Data reduction techniques for large qualitative data sets. In Guest

MacQueen

(Eds), Handbook for team-based qualitative research (pp. 137–161). New York, NY: AltaMira Press.

23.

Oliver

M. L.

Rodriguez

C. J.

Mickelson

R. A.

(1985). Brown and black in white: The social adjustment and academic performance of Chicano and Black students in a predominantly White university. Urban Review, 17, 3–23.

24.

Pascarella

E. T.

Chapman

(1983). A multi-institutional, path analytic validation of Tinto’s model of college withdrawal. American Educational Research Journal, 20, 87–102.

25.

Pascarella

E. T.

Terenzini

P. T.

(1977). Patterns of student–faculty informal interaction beyond the classroom and voluntary freshman attrition. Journal of Higher Education, 48, 540–552.

26.

Pavel

D. M.

Padilla

R. V.

(1993). American Indian and Alaska native postsecondary departure: An example of assessing a mainstream model using national longitudinal data. Journal of American Indian Education, 32, 1–23.

27.

Pike

G. R.

Schroeder

C. C.

Berry

T. R.

(1997). Enhancing the educational impact of residence halls: The relationship between residential learning communities and first-year college experience and persistence. Journal of College Student Development, 38, 609–621.

28.

Robbins

S. B.

Lauver

Davis

Langley

Carlstrom

(2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 261–288.

29.

Royse

Thyer

B. A.

Padgett

D. K.

(2016). What are formative and process evaluation? In Program evaluation: An introduction to an evidence-based approach (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

30.

Ryland

E. B.

Riordan

R. J.

Brack

(1994). Selected characteristics of high-risk students and their enrollment persistence. Journal of College Student Development, 35, 54–58.

31.

Schnell

C. A.

Seashore Louis

Doetkott

(2003). The first-year seminar as a means of improving college graduation rates. Journal of the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition, 15, 53–75.

32.

Simons

H. D.

Van Rheenen

(2000). Noncognitive predictors of student athletes’ academic performance. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 30, 167–181.

33.

Smith

A. R.

Patterson

R. B.

Donaldson

C. W.

(2014, December). Dr. Charles W. Donaldson Scholars academy (Progress Report No. 1). Little Rock, AR: U.S. Federal District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas.

34.

Smith

A. R.

Patterson

R. B.

Donaldson

C. W.

(2015, May). Dr. Charles W. Donaldson Scholars academy (Progress Report No. 2). Little Rock, AR: U.S. Federal District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas.

35.

Smith

A. R.

Patterson

R. B.

Donaldson

C. W.

(2016, June). Dr. Charles W. Donaldson Scholars academy (Progress Report No. 5). Little Rock, AR: U.S. Federal District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas.

36.

Solberg

V. S.

Gusavac

Hamann

Felch

Johnson

Lamborn

Torres

(1998). The adaptive success identity plan (ASIP): A career intervention for college students. Career Development Quarterly, 47, 48–95.

37.

Stoecker

Pascarella

E. T.

Wolfe

L. M.

(1988). Persistence in higher education: A 9-year test of a theoretical model. Journal of College Student Development, 29, 196–209.

38.

Suen

(1983). Alienation and attrition of Black college students on a predominantly White campus. Journal of College Student Personnel, 24, 117–121.

39.

Westrick

P. A.

Allen

(2014). Validity Evidence for ACT Compass Placement Tests (ACT Research Report Series 2014 (2)). Retrieved from ACT Research website: http://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/ACT_RR2014-2.pdf

40.

Williams

E. N.

Hill

C. E.

(2012). Establishing trustworthiness in consensual qualitative research studies. In Hill

(Ed.), Consensual qualitative research: A practical resource for investigating social science phenomena. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

41.

Yomtov

Plunkett

S. W.

Erfat

Marin

A. G.

(2017). Can peer mentors improve first-year experiences of university students? Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory, & Practice, 19, 25–44. doi:10.1177/1521025115611398