Task Force Report on Mid-term Progress Reporting
Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Stages of Investigation
o Review of Literature
o Historical Issues at FDU
o Mid-term Progress Report Intervention Survey
o Participation in Mid-term Reporting (UG – University-wide)
o Student Response to Mid-term Reporting
o Add/Drop Survey
o Data Analysis of Grade Movement Following Mid-term
Reporting
o Overall Grade Movement – A Comparison of Final Grades
Prior to and Following Mid-term Reporting Implementation
(UG, On-campus, Non-developmental courses)
o Students in Developmental (Remedial) Courses
 Policies and Procedures
 Conclusions
 Appendices A-I
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
FDU Confidential
1
Task Force Report on Mid-term Progress Reporting
Introduction
Fairleigh Dickinson University has had a long tradition in providing access to higher education through
the many programs, colleges and degrees at the undergraduate level. We firmly believe that all
students are entitled to an equitable FDU experience including the opportunity and advantages or
receiving early and steady feedback from their professors along with the potential of procuring early
intervention so that they can look forward to success and completion of their intended degrees.
In Fall 2012, Provost Chris Capuano convened an Ad Hoc committee to investigate the efficacy of the
mid-term-reporting system. After several semesters of piloting the reports, a full implementation began
in the Fall 2011 semester. The committee was charged with looking at the mid-term reporting system
and investigating whether mid-term reports made a difference for our students and if so, how.
The committee was made up of the following faculty and staff, representing the Metro and Florham
campuses as well as Becton, Silberman, Petrocelli, and University Colleges:









Mary Farrell – Professor, UC, School of Education, Director of the Regional Center
Ernest (Bub) Kovacs – Associate Professor, Petrocelli, School of Administrative Science
Brian Mauro – Associate Provost, Florham Campus
Craig Mourton – Associate Provost, Metropolitan Campus
Miriam Singer (co-chair) – Associate Professor, UC, School of Education, Director of QUEST
Program
Richard Wagner (co-chair) – Professor, BC, Math, Computer Science, Physics
Daniel Wischnevsky - Exec Associate Dean Undergrad Program, Silberman College
Indira Govindan (data consultant) - Associate Vice President for Institutional Research &
Assessment
Sharon Seigmeister (data consultant) - Programmer Analyst, Management Information Systems
The committee met monthly for two years, first looking at issues concerning mid-term reporting in
general, and then moving into data collection and analysis. At each step, the committee discussed what
we had learned to date and how to progress with data collection and analysis.
Stages of Investigation
Review of Literature
As with any good study, a review of the literature is imperative. There is a breadth of literature
supporting early warning systems (including mid-term reporting). We have chosen just a few sources to
support our research but note that there are many other works which also support our own, internal
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
FDU Confidential
2
research. Additionally, our purpose in this report is to report our own findings at FDU so we have
limited our citations.
Required and recommended remedial coursework were included in the
ACT’s What Works in Student Retention (WWISR) Survey (Habley, McClanahan, Valiga & Burkum,
2010) that asked senior campus administrators about the availability of 18 different Learning
Assistance/Academic Support programs and perceived contribution to retention at the
respective institutions (Habley, et al., 2010). Practices incorporated into this section of the
survey include: supplemental instruction, summer bridge program, learning assistance
center/lab, tutoring, study skills course, program, or center early warning system, midterm
progress reports, performance contracts… (Habley, Bloom, & Robbins, 2012, p.262)
In the WWISR Survey, private four-year institutions (81%) were found to use midterm progress
reports as a retention tool more often than public four-year institutions. (63%) or community
college institutions (48%).Midterm progress reports are used to give students feedback on how
they are performing in classes. In addition, as noted earlier, early warning systems sometimes
use midterm progress reports to help identify students who are experiencing academic
difficulty. (Habley, Bloom, & Robins, 2012, p. 276)
We would be remiss if we failed to mention that mid-term progress reporting is only one part of an
“early-alert” system. FDU has put into practice an early-alert system which does not specifically include
mid-term reporting. The literature reports:
In the past decade, early alert programs have become widespread, particularly among
community colleges, small institutions, and within individual departments or professional
schools at larger universities. Like similar efforts at Columbus State University, Edgewood
College, and the University of Missouri at St. Louis, Hanover’s program was designed to keep
students engaged and enrolled. … Until recently early-alert programs dealt solely with students’
academic performance…growing number of colleges with systems that take into account the
“whole student experience”. The early-alert program merely reinforces the personal
connections that tend to flourish at the small liberal-arts college… But the system has helped
him anticipate students’ problems without injuring their self-esteem, he says. He has used the
network four times to report students who were failing his classes. Usually, he says, the
students were able to turn their grades around. (Wasley, 2007)
Becton College, at their Chair’s Retreat (May, 2009), investigated the midterm policies at other
universities. In short, they found (sample information given):



University of Minnesota – all 1000 level courses, performance in the course through the 6th
week, grade of D, F, NC.
Old Dominion University – 1000 and 2000 level courses before the mid-term of the semester
University of Northern Colorado - Freshmen, undergraduate first-term transfer students,
students on probation, and student athletes.
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
FDU Confidential
3


Slippery rock University – All freshmen and those upper-class students who have less than
satisfactory grades (D & F). Also sent to parents if release form on file.
Lehigh University – All freshmen and sophomores. Sent to students and parents.
At the same time as Becton College discussions in 2009, the Metro Student Success Team was also
discussing implementation of mid-term progress reports so, that in the end, the effort to implement
mid-term progress reports was bi-campus.
Historical Issues at FDU
We began by looking at a national report, Enrollment in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2011; Financial
Statistics, Fiscal Year 2011; and Graduation Rates, Selected Cohorts, 2003-2008, produced by IES,
National Center for Educational Statistics: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012174rev.pdf . “This First
Look presents findings from the preliminary data of the IPEDS spring 2012 data collection, which
included four survey components: Enrollment at postsecondary institutions during fall 2011; Finance, for
the 2011 fiscal year; and graduation rates of selected cohorts within 150 and 200 percent of normal
program completion time. Data for all components were collected through the IPEDS web-based data
collection system.” This information was placed side-by-side with our IPEDs for the same time frame:
http://view.fdu.edu/files/cds2011_sectionb_univ_rev.pdf We found that FDU was hovering at about
the 50% mark depending upon the year. We specifically looked at our Common Data Set for 2011-2012.
(See Appendix A).
Our next step was to explore retention tables 2006-2011. As a follow up to task force conversations
about graduation rates, we have attached a report with national data up through 2011. There is a
section showing the four, five, and six year graduation rates. It looks like the national six year
graduation rate for four year private/non-profit institutions is around 64%. We (FDU) are below this,
hovering around 50% depending on the year, but keep in mind that this figure does not account for the
large number of transfer students that graduate from FDU. (See Appendix B).
Our (FDU) data has been increasing slightly over time. There is a strong correlation between increased
interventions of students in special populations such as NCAA (athletes), EOF , EFE, and FIS. Efforts to
maintain affordability of the FDU education also has dad a positive impact on student persistence.
While the transfer student graduation rate is higher than our first-time, full-time admission graduation
rate, it should be noted that both continue to improve.
Mid-term Progress Report Intervention Survey (special populations
We developed a Mid-term Progress Report Intervention Survey. This survey was distributed on both
campuses to those in charge of Special Populations. Special Populations are defined as EOF (Equal
Opportunity Fund), EFE (Enhanced Freshman Experience), FIS (Freshman Intensive Studies), Regional
Center, and Athletes. We requested information to identify best practices that were occurring in the
area of data collection and subsequent intervention, so that these interventions could be better
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
FDU Confidential
4
articulated to the faculty. We thus began our work by soliciting information from each of the special
populations. The results of this survey are summarized and represented by graphs in Appendix C.
Our general findings are as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The majority of special population coordinators (75%) meet with only those students who
receive a progress report below a “C” letter grade. Metro Athletics is the exception and they
meeting with only students below a “D” letter grade.
Between 10-30+ interventions relating to midterm progress reports are occurring each semester
in each office.
Interventions are conducted mostly by the director of the program and staff members working
with the program. Two offices (Metro Athletics and Metro EFE) also utilize Graduate Assistants
to conduct interventions.
Offices use a variety of communication methods—email, in person meetings and phone calls to
reach out to students regarding interventions.
The most common intervention used for students who fall below the threshold for each
program are suggested tutoring, mandated tutoring, and counseling/advising within the
program. Mandated study hours and suggested psychological counseling is also used
frequently, but not as often as the interventions mentioned above. The least used intervention
was mandatory study skill/time management workshops/sessions.
The majority of the special populations (66%) hold interventions by the following week after
receiving the progress reports.
The responses were spilt 50/50 regarding the time of the semester of mid-term progress
reporting. Of those who feel that the process is not in the best part of the semester, they stated
that if the reporting was earlier, there would be more time for interventions and if needed
withdrawals.
The majority of respondents, however, felt that the current process allows for successful
interventions.
Between 0-25% of students (as estimated by the special population coordinators) do not comply
with the suggested/mandated interventions.
Forty percent of the respondents stated that they have noticed an increase/decrease in the
number of students who withdraw from courses after the mid-term progress report comes out.
Several commented that the date of the reports is often too close to the withdrawal date for
this to be an effective option.
Concern was also raised by several respondents in the comment section regarding the lack of
participation in reporting.
Participation in Mid-term Reporting (All UG – University-wide)
Our committee requested information as to mid-term reporting participation from Institutional
Research for Fall 2012. In general, we found the following for the entire university:
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
FDU Confidential
5









When a (science) lab was attached to a course (and not given a separate final grade) then no
mid-term progress was reported. Therefore, students did not always know where they were
holding in regards to this portion of their grade.
There was a large number of CORE sections for which no mid-terms were reported. We noted
that many, but not all, of these sections were staffed by adjunct faculty.
Courses staffed by adjuncts were less likely to have mid-term reports entered into the system.
This was true across all colleges and all departments.
There were certain departments where there was a noticeably small number of mid-term
reports entered. We are not reporting which specific departments although the deans have
been made aware of the issue and the specifics.
We noted that Freshman Seminar had a non-report rate of 38% for Becton College and 46% for
University College. Of all required courses, Freshman Seminar is a critical course for incoming
students and directly relates to overall student success and retention.
Undergraduate students who take graduate level courses, such as those in Accelerated
programs might not have received mid-term reports for their graduate level classes because
some professors were unaware that the students were undergraduates and/or that this partial
class population needed their mid-terms progress entered.
Many courses which are designated as “field experience”, “internship”, and the like did not
receive mid-term reports because the students may have unusual scheduling and monitoring of
these internships.
Some courses, many in Petrocelli College, are run on a unique calendar which does not conform
to mid-term reporting schedules. These classes may have only begun or may be ending at the
time of mid-term reporting. Likewise, there are a small number of half-semester courses where
the final grade is submitted just at the mid-term point in the semester’s calendar.
The results of this investigation were reported to Provost Capuano who, in turn, reported these
results to the Dean’s Council. We believe that there is now a much higher participation rate.
Additionally, specific department chairs and faculty, through their department chairs, may
request that a specific course such as field experience or half-semester courses be exempted
from the mid-term reporting and are handled on a case-by-case basis.
Student Response to Mid-term Reporting
The next piece of data which we collected was a gathered through a task-force-developed survey to
investigate student responses and reactions to their mid-term progress reports. A questionnaire was
developed by the task force and was distributed to students who sought help at the various academic
support and tutoring centers on both the Metro and Florham campuses. The results of this survey are
reported in Appendix D. A brief summary of findings is given:




Students desire and are influenced by their mid-term progress reports 2:1.
Freshman math and English writing courses are most heavily populated for tutoring.
Freshmen are most likely to come for assistance followed by sophomores.
Science majors, business majors, and psychology majors seek out help more than other majors.
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
FDU Confidential
6



Most tutoring seems to occur in the Regional Center and the Academic Center.
Our survey needs some revisions to be more specific in how students respond.
Many students don’t know the course name/number for which they are receiving tutoring.
Add/Drop Survey
The task-force developed another questionnaire which was presented to students at the Registrar’s
Office if the student came to drop a course after the mid-term reporting closed.
We looked at Add/Drop Survey results by asking students who dropped courses after receiving mid-term
reports why they were dropping the course. 55% of the students dropping a course reported that they
had received a mid-term report for the given course. The full results of this survey are reported in
Appendix E. In summary students give the following reasons for dropping courses:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Midterm test/project grade was lower than expected
Midterm progress report on WebAdvisor was lower than expected
The course is more difficult than expected
I haven’t been attending the course
I needed to drop a course in order to devote more time on other courses
I needed to drop a course in order to devote more time on other obligations (work, family,
etc.)
The instruction methods used in the course did not match my learning style
I am concerned my performance in this class will affect my financial aid
I don’t feel as though I have the foundational skills required to do well in this course
Data Analysis of Grade Movement Following Mid-term Reporting
The task force wanted to see if grades went up, down, or stayed the same after students received their
mid-term progress reports Institutional Research (IR) wrote a specific program to retrieve and analyze
the requested data. The data was analyzed by term from Fall 2010-Fall 2013. Two reports were
produced, one for the general population and one for Special Populations (EOF, EFE, FIS, Athlete,
Regional Center). The results are shown in Appendix F for Fall 2013. Similar reports can be produced
semester by semester as required. An important finding is that 1) the percentage of students with
improved grades increased, while 2) the percentage of students with poorer grades (after mid-term
reports) decreased. There seems to be a steady improvement and the overall delta is important. We
also note 3) that the number of professors reporting mid-terms has increased markedly from the Fall
2010 pilot to Fall 2013 with full implementation, by approximately 2.5 times as many reports. Please
note that the improvement for Special Populations was larger than for the general population. We
believe that this is because of the “attention” which is paid to these students after the mid-terms and
the extra support which is given to special populations.
The new data retrieval and analysis system gives us the ability to call any semester, specify a college,
department, course, or specific group of students, such as special population or specific major, and drill
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
FDU Confidential
7
down to specific data which will allow us to make data-driven decisions in our course improvement and
student retention.
Overall Grade Movement – A Comparison of Final Grades Prior to and
Following Mid-term Reporting Implementation (institutional, on-campus,
non-remedial)
At the request of Provost Capuano, we conducted one more piece of research. We were asked to see if
final grades, overall, have increased or decreased since the implementation of the mid-term progress
reports. Final grades for Fall 2006-Spring 2014 were examined. These results are found in Appendix G.
Several points are noted:






Due to the varied enrollments from year to year and term to term, all data is reported by % of
total grades issues for the given semester.
The report shown in Appendix G is for on-campus, non-remedial, institutional data (Metro and
Florham combined). Developmental (remedial) courses were not included in this data but are
discussed briefly in the next section.
Fall grades tend to be higher than spring grades.
There was an increase of grades of “A” and a decrease of grades of “F” over time.
Overall, the number of withdrawals from courses has decreased.
Middle range grades of “B-“ and “C+” seem to hold nearly steady.
Students in Developmental Courses (institutional, on-campus, remedial)
When preparing the report for Appendix G, another piece of the picture came to light. This concerns the
progress of our students in developmental courses. A separate, identical analysis was done for
remedial courses for on-campus, institution-wide data. The results were startling. Results are shown in
Appendix H.



First, the number of developmental final grades has increased from 728 in Fall 2007 to 1218 in
Fall 2013. This is approximately a 67% increase in developmental final grades. Note that we
cannot ascertain whether these are single, double, or triple remedial students.
In contrast, the results show that there is not a large increase in grades of “A” nor “P” (pass).
There is an increase in “F” and “NC” (no credit).
Final grades for Fall 2013 and Spring 2014 are given here to show the concern we have in
retention (again, not in the purview of this committee).
o Fall 2013 73.49% Grade of “C” or better or “P”(pass) - passing grades
o Fall 2013 24.06% Grade of “C-“ or below or “NC” (no credit) – failing grades
o Spring 2014 62% Grade of “C” or better or “P”(pass) - passing grades
o Spring 2014 34.36% Grade of “C-“ or below or “NC” (no credit) – failing grades
o Note that a grade of “C” or above can be transferred to another institution. “C-“ or
below is not be transferable to another institution. Therefore, “C” was used as the cutoff for an acceptable grade.
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
FDU Confidential
8
o
Also note that BC gives letter grades for developmental courses while UC gives P/NC
grades.
In comparison and contrast to non-developmental courses,




Fall grades tend to be higher than spring grades. (same as non-developmental)
There was not an increase of grades of “A” nor was there a decrease of grades of “F” over time.
In fact, for developmental courses, the number of “P” grades rose then decreased significantly
while the number of “F” and “NC” grades shows a significant increase.
Overall, the number of withdrawals from courses has decreased.
Middle range grades of “B-“, “C+”, and “C” seem to hold nearly steady.
Policy and Procedures
The Mid-Term Task Force was asked by Provost Capuano to make recommendations for Policy and
Procedures of Mid-term Reporting to be implemented for the entire university. The task force
developed a working document (draft) to comply with this request. Our draft of Policies and Procedures
is found in Appendix I. Key elements include:
•
•
•
All undergraduate (UG) courses should have mid-term assessments.
Follow up by the student with the faculty member to develop strategies for successful
completion of the course is essential.
It is recognized that there are educational experiences where mid-term reporting does not
apply because they are of a non-routine nature.
We recommend the following types of interventions for students who fall below an acceptable (below a
grade of C) threshold:





Tutoring
Mandated tutoring
Counseling/advising within the program
Mandated study hours
Suggested psychological when appropriate (i.e. students who have issues with anxiety, test
anxiety, appearance of depression, etc.)
Last but not least, one of the most effective interventions for all students is faculty availability and
contact. Students should be urged to meet with their professors to discuss their progress. Professors
should make their office hours know to their students, make themselves available before and after
classes, and when necessary, find mutually convenient times to meet with students and help them to
succeed. There is no substitution for personal contact.
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
FDU Confidential
9
Conclusions
In conclusion, we thank Provost Capuano for the opportunity to serve the entire FDU community, both
faculty and students. We hereby submit our final report. We have chosen to include the introduction
from the Policies and Procedures within the body of this report as a form of both affirmation and
necessity for mid-term progress reporting.
The purpose of the mid-term assessment for the University is to provide feedback to students in
a more formal manner that will alert the student to his/her performance status at the
approximate mid-point of the Term. It is intended to assist the student in taking actions that
will improve the likelihood of successfully completing the course and continuation to degree
completion at the University. Degree completion is one of the key performance indicators used
by the Federal Department of Education as well as the several college and university review
publications. Additionally, the mid-term assessment will assist academic and administrative
units of the University in identifying students who may benefit from interventions and guidance
that may be necessary to assist the student by referral to appropriate resources to improve their
academic performance. Finally, the mid-term assessment may provide the opportunity for the
student and the faculty to clarify the expectations for learning outcomes and student
performance that may lead to the successful completion of the course.
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
FDU Confidential
10
Appendices
Appendix A
Common Data Set for 2011-2012
Appendix B
Retention Tables 2006-2011
Appendix C
Mid-term Progress Report Intervention Survey
(special populations)
Appendix D
Student Response to Mid-term Reporting
Appendix E
Add/Drop Survey
Appendix F
Data Analysis of Grade Movement Following Mid-term
Reporting
Appendix G
Overall Grade Movement – A Comparison of Final
Grades Prior to and Following Mid-term Reporting
Implementation (institutional, on-campus, nonremedial)
Appendix H
Students in Developmental Courses (institutional, oncampus, remedial)
Appendix I
Policies and Procedures
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
FDU Confidential
11
Appendix A: Common Data Set for 20112012
ices fall 2011
national data sets.pdf
The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) collects institution-level data from
postsecondary institutions in the United States (50 states and the District of Columbia) and other U.S.
jurisdictions (see appendix A for a list of other U.S. jurisdictions). This First Look presents findings from
the preliminary data of the IPEDS spring 2012 data collection, which included four survey components:
Enrollment at postsecondary institutions during fall 2011; Finance, for the 2011 fiscal year; and
graduation rates of selected cohorts within 150 and 200 percent of normal program completion time.
Data for all components were collected through the IPEDS web-based data collection system. Detailed
information about the study methodology can be found at
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2012293.
This First Look using IPEDS preliminary data provides users with an opportunity to obtain access to IPEDS
data soon after the close of data collection. Provisional data for this collection, containing fully imputed
and adjudicated data, will be released approximately 3 months after the preliminary data. Final data,
including revisions submitted by institutions after the close of data collection, will be available during
the following collection year (2012-13).
The purpose of this report is to introduce new data through the presentation of tables containing
descriptive information. Selected findings have been chosen to demonstrate the range of information
available when using the IPEDS data rather than to discuss all of the observed differences, and they are
not meant to emphasize any particular issue. Not all data collected during the spring 2012 collection are
displayed in this First Look; however, all data from the spring 2012 collection are publicly available
through the IPEDS Data Center, found at http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter. (NCES 2012-174)
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
FDU Confidential
12
Appendix B: Retention Tables 20062011
As a follow up to task force conversations about graduation rates, the attached report with national
data up through 2011 is presented. There is a section showing the four, five and six year graduation
rates. It looks like the national six year graduation rate for four year private/non-profit institutions is
around 64%. We (FDU) are below this, hovering around 50% depending on the year.
http://view.fdu.edu/files/cds2011_sectionb_univ_rev.pdf
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
FDU Confidential
13
Appendix C: Mid-term Progress Report
Intervention Survey
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
FDU Confidential
14
Mid Term Progress Report Task Force
Summary of Current Interventions and Suggested Interventions to Implement
March 2013
Introduction
A task force comprised of faculty and staff from both campuses was established by the University Provost
at the beginning of the 2012-2013 academic years to examine and make recommendations concerning the
Mid-Term Progress Reporting process. The task force created a survey to gain a better understanding of
what types of Mid-Term Progress Report interventions that are being used for each of the special
populations at the University (EOF, EFE, FIS, Regional Center, and Athletics). It is hoped that through
this survey we could form a set of best practices for intervention and further define our recommendations.
The survey was administered through Survey Monkey and went live on February 8th, 2013 with a
requested response by February 15th. Please see the attached summary report for the list of questions and
overall responses to each question.
General Findings









The majority of special population coordinators (75%) meet with only those students who receive
a progress report below a “C” letter grade. Metro Athletics is the exception and they meeting with
only students below a “D” letter grade.
Between 10-30+ interventions relating to midterm progress reports are occurring each semester in
each office.
Interventions are conducted mostly by the director of the program and staff members working
with the program. Two offices (Metro Athletics and Metro EFE) also utilize Graduate Assistants
to conduct interventions.
Offices use a variety of communication methods—email, in person meetings and phone calls to
reach out to students regarding interventions.
The most common intervention used for students who fall below the threshold for each program
are suggested tutoring, mandated tutoring, and counseling/advising within the program.
Mandated study hours and suggested psychological counseling is also used frequently, but not as
often as the interventions mentioned above. The least used intervention was mandatory study
skill/time management workshops/sessions.
The majority of the special populations (66%) hold interventions by the following week after
receiving the progress reports.
The responses were spilt 50/50 regarding the time of the semester of mid-term progress reporting.
Of those who feel that the process is not in the best part of the semester, they stated that if the
reporting was earlier, there would be more time for interventions and if needed withdrawals.
The majority of respondents, however, felt that the current process allows for successful
interventions.
Between 0-25% of students (as estimated by the special population coordinators) do not comply
with the suggested/mandated interventions.
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
FDU Confidential
15


Forty percent of the respondents stated that they have noticed an increase/decrease in the number
of students who withdraw from courses after the mid-term progress report comes out. Several
commented that the date of the reports is often too close to the withdrawal date for this to be an
effective option.
Concern was also raised by several respondents in the comment section regarding the lack of
participation in reporting.
Areas to further explore and build recommendations upon
A common theme heard throughout the survey was the need to examine the timing of the progress report
and its relation to the final withdrawal date of the semester.
Faculty participation was also cited frequently in the comments.
Additional Suggested Intervention for students not in a Special Population
The majority of FDU undergraduate students are not in a special population. While it could be argued that
student self-knowledge of their mid-term standing in itself justifies the process, the task force has
identified additional intervention opportunities that should be investigated:




For first time, full time students who are not in a special population, the intervention could occur
in the first semester as part of the Freshmen Seminar mentoring meeting. Freshmen Seminar
instructors are required to meet with each student twice a semester. One of the meetings could
coincide with the midterm progress reporting window.
The proposed second semester freshmen seminar that is specific to the major could provide an
intervention opportunity for second semester students.
Interventions for upperclassmen that are in special academic programs (i.e. QUEST) could have
interventions administered by the head of the program.
Many academic departments have faculty and or professional staff members that advise students
and could be utilized for upperclassmen interventions.
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
FDU Confidential
16
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
FDU Confidential
17
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
FDU Confidential
18
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
FDU Confidential
19
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
FDU Confidential
20
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
FDU Confidential
21
Appendix D: Student Response to Midterm Reporting
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
FDU Confidential
22
Mid-term Progress Report Student Response Survey:
Executive Summary




An 18 question survey was distributed to the various academic support and tutoring
centers on both the Metro and Florham campuses. The locations were:
Surveys were distributed and collected for a 2 week period beginning the close of midterm marking Spring 2013.
168 surveys were collected at Florham. 68 surveys were collected at Metro. Total 236.
Academic year of student was distributed as shown:
Freshmen
124
Juniors
31
Sophomores
52
Seniors
21
Graduate students
3
undisclosed
5
It is clear that the heaviest users of academic support are the freshmen followed by the
sophomores.

The location of the tutoring was requested and the students used a variety of acronyms
for where they received their support. These designations were condensed as best
possible as follows:
Academic center
104
Metro Writing Studio
19
FIS
27
EOF
3
Regional center
70
We were unable to ascertain certain locations due to the way they were listed. Some of these
include designations of Library, Florham, Prof XYZ.

Information was requested from the Associate Provosts (Craig and Brian) regarding
enrollment, specifically “special populations”.
Special
Population
Teaneck
Freshmen
Athletes
EFE (Teaneck)
55
65
Total Number
(including
Freshmen)
222
65 (freshmen
only program
FIS (Madison)
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
Madison
Freshmen
133
58
FDU Confidential
Total Number
(including
Freshmen)
447
58 (freshmen
only program
23
Regional Center
EOF
Total

8
36
577
38
151
2,718
15
42
509
75
160
2,116
Since every student listed their major in a “unique” fashion, majors were combined into
related categories. The majors most heavily represented were:
Business (accounting, business
admin, finance, marketing)
Sciences (biology, chemistry, biochem, allied health, nursing)
History and Poli-Sci
Math
Engineering
Computer science
Communications
Psychology
English (literature and writing)
Criminology and Criminal Justice
Hospitality
Sports administration
Undeclared
36
42
14
6
3
6
16
25
7
8
4
10
20
 The courses for which students most frequently attended tutoring were:
CORE (any CORE course)
9
Psychology (all courses including Stats.)
12
Business (all)
8
Biology (including A&P)
22
Chemistry
6
Lower Math (Precalc and below)
38
Upper Math (Calc I and up)
8
Communications/Speech
12
English (includes 1101 and 1102) - writing
46
English (literature)
3

We asked the students whether they desired a mid-term progress report for their
course (for which they were attending tutoring). We also asked whether the mid-term
report influenced their decision to attend tutoring. Results are shown below.
YES
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
NO
No response given
FDU Confidential
24
Did you receive a grade for
the course in which you are
getting tutoring today?
Did you want to get a midterm report for this course?
Did the report influence your
decision to come for
tutoring?
162
71
3
127
36
73
113
51
72
Summary of findings







Students desire and are influenced by their mid-term progress reports 2:1.
Freshman math and English writing courses are most heavily populated for tutoring.
Freshmen are most likely to come for assistance followed by sophomores.
Science majors, business majors, and psychology majors seek out help more than other majors.
Most tutoring seems to occur in the Regional Center and the Academic Center.
Our survey needs some revisions to be more specific in how students respond.
Many students don’t know the course name/number for which they are receiving tutoring.
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
FDU Confidential
25
Appendix E: Add/Drop Survey
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
FDU Confidential
26
Add/Drop Survey: Results
Did you receive a midterm progress report through Webadvisor for this course?
Student Responses
yes
54
no
26
I don’t know
16
no response
3
Total Completed Surveys
99
Reasons For Dropping
Student Responses
Midterm test/project grade was lower than expected
35
Midterm progress report on webadvisor was lower than I expected
23
The course is more difficult than I expected
37
I haven't been attending the course
14
I needed to drop a course in order to devote more time on other courses
45
I needed to drop a course in order to devote more time on other obligations (work, family,
etc.)
28
The instruction methods used in the course did not match my learning style
28
I am concerned my performance in this class will affect my financial aid
24
I don’t feel as though I have the foundational skills required to do well in this course
9
Other
3
Midterm Progress Report
ResponsenoPercentage
Midterm Report
Responses
60
response
3%
I don’t
know
16%
50
40
30
20
no
26%
10
yes
55%
0
yes
no
I don’t
know
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
no
response
FDU Confidential
27
Student Reasons for Dropping
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
Series1
15
10
5
0
Midterm
test/project
grade was
lower than
expected
Midterm
The course is I haven't been
progress
more difficult attending the
report on
than I
course
webadvisor
expected
was lower
than I
expected
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
I needed to
drop a course
in order to
devote more
time on other
courses
FDU Confidential
I needed to
drop a sourse
in order to
devote more
time on other
obiligations
(work, family,
etc.)
The
instruction
methods used
in the course
did not match
my learning
style
I am
concerned my
performance
in this class
will affect my
financial aid
28
I don’t feel as
though I have
the
foundational
skills required
to do well in
this course
other
Reason for Dropping Response Percentages
Midterm test/project grade was lower than
expected
1%
4%
14%
Midterm progress report on webadvisor was
lower than I expected
10%
The course is more difficult than I expected
9%
I haven't been attending the course
11%
I needed to drop a course in order to devote
more time on other courses
15%
12%
I needed to drop a sourse in order to devote
more time on other obiligations (work, family,
etc.)
The instruction methods used in the course did
not match my learning style
I am concerned my performance in this class will
affect my financial aid
6%
I don’t feel as though I have the foundational
skills required to do well in this course
18%
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
FDU Confidential
29
Reason Responses distinguished by answer to Question 1
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
Yes
15
No/I don’t know/NR
10
5
0
Midterm
Midterm The course is I haven't
I needed to I needed to
test/project progress more difficult
been
drop a course drop a sourse
grade was
report on
than I
attending the in order to in order to
lower than webadvisor expected
course
devote more devote more
expected
was lower
time on
time on
than I
other courses
other
expected
obiligations
(work, family,
etc.)
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
FDU Confidential
The
instruction
methods
used in the
course did
not match
my learning
style
I am
I don’t feel as
concerned though I have
my
the
performance foundational
in this class
skills
will affect my required to
financial aid do well in
this course
30
other
Appendix F: Data Analysis of Grade
Movement Following Mid-term
Reporting
Note: this specific report is for Fall 2013. We have selected only one small sample to include in this
report:


Midterm Grading Outcomes – UG – Fall 2010-Fall 2013
Midterm Grading Outcomes – All Special Populations – Fall 2010-Fall 2013
The new data retrieval and analysis system gives us the ability to call any semester, specify a college,
department or course, and drill down to specific data which will allow us to make data-driven decisions
in our course improvement and student retention.
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
FDU Confidential
31
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
FDU Confidential
32
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
FDU Confidential
33
Appendix G: Overall Grade Movement –
A Comparison of Final Grades Prior to
and Following Mid-term Reporting
Implementation (institutional, oncampus, non-remedial)
The data shown on the next two pages show the following:





Fall grades seem to be higher than Spring grades.
Does the large number of “A”s represent grade inflations?
There is a general decline in “F”s.
The majority of the grades over all are “B-“ and above.
There is a visible increase in “A”s since mid-term reporting began and a visible decrease in “F”s.
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
FDU Confidential
34
Institutional Data – On-campus, non-remedial
Term
A
A-
B+
B
B-
C+
C
14/SP - raw data
14/SP - %
5999
25.9
3018
13
2784
12
3140
13.5
1667
7.2
1165
5
1398
6
13/FA - raw data
13/FA - %
7591
27.6
3609
13.1
3297
11.9
3669
13.3
2076
7.5
1415
5.1
13/SP - raw data
6427
3246
3061
3378
1736
13/SP - %
26.1
13.2
12.4
13.7
12/FA - raw data
12/FA - %
7917
27.2
3813
13.1
3633
12.4
12/SP - raw data
12/SP - %
6291
25.5
3082
12.5
11/FA - raw data
11/FA - %
7517
26
11/SP - raw data
C-
D
F
P
I
AU
W
NC
Total N
715
3
735
3.1
895
3.8
448
1.9
512
2.2
27
0.1
601
2.6
3
0.01
23107
99.31
1619
5.8
813
2.9
820
2.9
1219
4.4
580
2.1
14
0.05
24
0.08
725
2.6
28
0.1
27499
99.43
1343
1422
766
756
1095
508
1
21
789
5
24554
7
5.4
5.7
3.1
3
4.4
2
0.004
0.08
3.2
0.02
99.304
3961
13.6
2141
7.3
1545
5.3
1706
5.8
810
2.7
861
2.9
1304
4.4
579
1.9
0
0
26
0.08
764
2.6
34
0.11
29094
99.39
3122
12.6
3329
13.5
1953
7.9
1403
5.7
1530
6.22
736
2.9
773
3.1
1059
4.3
536
2.1
0
0
21
0.08
758
3
4
0.01
24597
99.41
3677
12.7
3596
12.4
4006
13.8
2204
7.6
1630
5.6
1771
6.1
874
3
897
3.1
1277
4.4
607
2.1
0
0
22
0.07
768
2.6
44
0.15
28890
99.62
6104
3207
2956
3389
1998
1387
1501
786
761
1177
546
1
14
679
6
24512
11/SP - %
24.9
13
12
13.8
8.15
5.6
6.1
3.2
3.1
4.8
2.2
0.004
0.05
2.7
0.02
99.624
10/FA - raw data
10/FA - %
7243
25.7
3601
12.7
3366
11.9
3775
13.3
2105
7.4
1605
5.6
1691
6
855
3
890
3.1
1473
5.2
580
2
1
0.003
21
0.07
948
3.3
20
0.07
28174
99.343
10/SP - raw data
10/SP - %
5600
24.2
2969
12.8
2865
12.4
3337
14.4
1816
7.8
1394
6
1424
6.1
688
2.9
685
2.9
1077
4.6
468
2
0
0
24
0.1
711
3
9
0.03
23067
99.23
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
FDU Confidential
35
09/FA - raw data
09/FA - %
6982
26
3452
12.9
3383
12.6
3579
13.3
2083
7.7
1449
5.4
1650
6.1
772
2.8
775
2.8
1288
4.8
521
1.9
0
0
23
0.08
778
2.9
21
0.07
26756
99.35
09/SP - raw data
09/SP - %
5187
23.9
2840
13
2645
12.1
3039
14
1829
8.4
1326
6.11
1267
5.8
629
2.9
663
3
1118
5.1
441
2
0
0
20
0.09
678
3.1
7
0.03
21689
99.53
08/FA - raw data
08/FA - %
6181
25.4
3088
12.6
2882
11.8
3300
13.5
2002
8.2
1481
6
1375
5.6
775
3.1
742
3
1252
5.1
465
1.9
0
0
22
0.09
742
3
20
0.08
24327
99.37
08/SP - raw data
08/SP - %
5775
25.3
2924
12.8
2772
12.1
3205
14
1805
7.9
1336
5.8
1395
6.11
612
2.6
695
3
1041
4.5
514
2.2
0
0
37
0.16
684
2.9
9
0.03
22804
99.4
07/FA - raw data
07/FA - %
6349
25.1
3330
13.2
3101
12.2
3287
13
2003
7.9
1363
5.4
1528
6
742
2.9
700
2.7
1318
5.2
512
2
0
0
41
0.16
937
3.7
9
0.03
25220
99.49
07/SP - raw data
07/SP - %
5465
24.2
2871
12.7
2710
12
3096
13.7
1711
7.6
1345
5.9
1450
6.4
712
3.1
718
3.1
1096
4.8
440
1.9
0
0
28
0.12
851
3.7
9
0.03
22502
99.25
06/FA - raw data
06/FA - %
6298
24.8
3240
12.7
3137
12.3
3274
12.9
1975
7.7
1457
5.7
1484
5.8
840
3.3
839
3.3
1266
4.9
449
1.7
0
0
40
0.15
906
3.5
168
0.66
25373
99.41
06/SP - raw data
06/SP - %
2745
13.5
2895
14.2
2745
13.5
3195
15.7
1828
9
1313
6.4
1439
7
775
3.8
784
3.8
1214
5.9
513
2.5
0
0
31
0.15
813
4
9
0.04
20299
99.49
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
FDU Confidential
36
Comparison of Grades over 16 Semesters
(Spring '14 back to Fall '06)
30
14/SP
13/FA
25
13/SP
12/FA
% of Total Grades
20
12/SP
11/FA
11/SP
15
10/FA
10/SP
09/FA
10
09/SP
08/FA
5
08/SP
07/FA
07/SP
0
A
A-
B+
B
B-
C+
C
C-
Grades
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
FDU Confidential
37
D
F
06/FA
Grade of "A-" by Semester
(% of total semester grades)
Grade of "A" by Semester
(% of total semester grades)
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
27.6
27.2
26.1
25.9
25.5
26
26
25.7
25.4 25.3 25.1
24.9
24.2
24.2
23.9
% of total grades ="A-"
% of total grades ="A"
% of Each Grade - Semester Comparisons
24.8
13.4
13.2
13
12.8
12.6
12.4
12.2
12
13
13.1
13.2
13.2
13.1
13
12.7
12.7
12
12.1
11.9
12.1
12.3
12.2
12
11.8
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
14.4
13.5
13.3
13.7 13.6
13.5
13.3
Semester
5.7 5.6 5.6 5.6
5.1 5.4 5.3
6
5.4
6.11 6
5.8
5.4
5.9 5.7
6.6
6.4
6.2
6
5.8
5.6
5.4
5.2
6
5.8
5.7
6.1 6.1
2.9 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 2.9 2.8
3
3
3
2.7
3.1
3.3
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
3.8
7.2 7.5
7
7.3
7.9 7.6 8.15 7.4 7.8 7.7 8.4 8.2 7.9 7.9 7.6 7.7
4
2
0
Grade of "C-" by Semester
(% of total semester grades
6.11
6.1 6.1
5.8
4.4 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.4
5.8
6
5.8
5.6
4.8
5.2
FDU Confidential
12.712.7
Semester
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
3
2.9 3.1 2.7 2.9
3
3.2
3
3.3
2.9 2.8 2.9 3.1
2.9 3.1
2.6
Semester
Withdrawals (W) by Semester
(% of total semester marks)
5.2
5.1 5.1
4.8 4.9
4.6 4.8
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
3.2
2.6 2.6
2.6
3
3.3
2.6 2.7
3
Semester
Semester
Semester
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
6
12.6
6
Grade of "F" by Semester
(% of total semester grades)
% of grades ="F"
% of total grades ="D"
3
12.9
8
Semester
Grade of "D" by Semester
(% of total semester grades)
3.1 2.9
13
6.4
6.22
Semester
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
13.7
13.5
13.3
10
Grade of "C" by Semester
(% of total semester grades)
% of total grades ="C"
% of total grades ="C+"
5
14
Semester
Grade of "C+" by Semester
(% of total semester grades)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
14
13.813.8
% of total grades ="B-"
11.9
12.4
% of total grades = "C-"
12
12.6
12.4
12.8
Grade of "B-" by Semester
(% of total semester grades)
% of Withdrawals by Semester
12.6
12.412.4
13
Semester
Grade of "B" by Semester
(% of total semester grades)
% of total grades ="B"
% of total grades ="B+"
12.8
12.6
12.4
12.2
12
11.8
11.6
11.4
12.9
12.5
Semester
Grade of "B+" by Semester
(% of total semester grades)
12.8
38
2.9 3.1
3.7 3.7 3.5
3
2.9
Appendix H
Students in
Developmental (remedial) Courses
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
FDU Confidential
39
Developmental (Remedial) Courses – Raw Data (N) and Percentages
Term
A
A-
B+
B
B-
C+
C
C-
D
F
P
14/SP - raw data
14/SP - %
2
1.03
0
0.00
2
1.03
4
2.05
5
2.56
3
1.54
10
5.13
1
0.51
13/FA - raw data
13/FA - %
30
2.46
13
1.07
31
2.55
73
5.99
36
2.96
28
2.30
63
5.17
13/SP - raw data
13/SP - %
2
0.8
1
0.4
7
2.8
3
1.2
5
2
5
2
12/FA - raw data
12/FA - %
50
4.39
22
1.93
24
2.11
66
5.79
21
1.84
12/SP - raw data
12/SP - %
3
1.69
0
0.00
2
1.12
5
2.81
11/FA - raw data
11/FA - %
42
3.85
36
3.30
35
3.21
11/SP - raw data
11/SP - %
10
4.98
0
0.00
10/FA - raw data
10/FA - %
48
4.42
10/SP - raw data
10/SP - %
6
3.30
2
1.03
24
12.31
95
48.72
4
2.05
3
1.54
40
20.51
195
100
29
2.38
13
1.07
57
4.68
621
50.99
0
0.00
30
2.46
194
15.93
1218
100
13
5.2
2
0.8
4
1.6
25
10
162
64.8
0
0
7
2.8
14
5.6
250
100
19
1.67
66
5.79
30
2.63
13
1.14
34
2.98
597
52.37
0
0.00
33
2.89
165
14.47
1140
100
3
1.69
0
0.00
11
6.18
3
1.69
4
2.25
16
8.99
79
44.38
0
0.00
10
5.62
42
23.60
178
100
78
7.14
26
2.38
25
2.29
61
5.59
35
3.21
23
2.11
51
4.67
511
46.79
0
0.00
20
1.83
149
13.64
1092
100
1
0.50
18
8.96
1
0.50
2
1.00
12
5.97
6
2.99
3
1.49
33
16.42
87
43.28
0
0.00
7
3.48
21
10.45
201
100
35
3.23
45
4.15
70
6.45
29
2.67
25
2.30
87
8.02
43
3.96
27
2.49
54
4.98
474
43.69
0
0.00
27
2.49
121
11.15
1085
100
0
0.00
2
1.10
6
3.30
2
1.10
4
2.20
18
9.89
4
2.20
12
6.59
30
16.48
67
36.81
0
0.00
5
2.75
26
14.29
182
100
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
FDU Confidential
40
I
W
NC
Total N
09/FA - raw data
09/FA - %
62
6.05
32
3.12
42
4.10
107
10.44
26
2.54
21
2.05
52
5.07
25
2.44
35
3.41
66
6.44
422
41.17
0
0.00
38
3.71
97
9.46
1025
100
09/SP - raw data
09/SP - %
5
3.85
1
0.77
2
1.54
12
9.23
1
0.77
1
0.77
17
13.08
2
1.54
11
8.46
30
23.08
20
15.38
0
0.00
14
10.77
14
10.77
130
100
08/FA - raw data
08/FA - %
53
6.19
38
4.44
45
5.26
63
7.36
26
3.04
18
2.10
87
10.16
18
2.10
20
2.34
85
9.93
314
36.68
0
0.00
31
3.62
58
6.78
856
100
08/SP - raw data
08/SP - %
7
5.43
2
1.55
2
1.55
13
10.08
3
2.33
2
1.55
19
14.73
5
3.88
14
10.85
30
23.26
22
17.05
0
0.00
3
2.33
7
5.43
129
100
07/FA - raw data
07/FA - %
53
7.28
34
4.67
35
4.81
52
7.14
21
2.88
24
3.30
60
8.24
17
2.34
19
2.61
76
10.44
256
35.16
0
0.00
26
3.57
55
7.55
728
100
07/SP - raw data
07/SP - %
9
6.12
1
0.68
3
2.04
5
3.40
6
4.08
5
3.40
18
12.24
2
1.36
9
6.12
38
25.85
30
20.41
0
0.00
11
7.48
10
6.80
147
100
06/FA - raw data
06/FA - %
48
4.47
54
5.03
51
4.75
68
6.33
26
2.42
49
4.56
84
7.82
11
1.02
34
3.17
97
9.03
431
40.13
0
0.00
44
4.10
77
7.17
1074
100
06/SP - raw data
06/SP - %
3
1.84
2
1.23
3
1.84
8
4.91
3
1.84
9
5.52
16
9.82
1
0.61
5
3.07
37
22.70
49
30.06
0
0.00
9
5.52
18
11.04
163
100
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
FDU Confidential
41
10.00
14/SP - %
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
13/FA - %
FDU Confidential
5.6
3.85
3.30
3.21
7.14
2.38
2.29
5.59
3.21
2.11
4.67
0.00
1.83
13/SP - %
1.69
0.00
1.12
2.81
1.69
0.00
6.18
1.69
2.25
8.99
0.00
5.62
0.00
4.39
1.93
2.11
5.79
1.84
1.67
5.79
2.63
1.14
2.98
0.00
2.89
2.8
Grades
42
13.64
14.47
30.00
23.60
20.51
46.79
44.38
52.37
50.99
48.72
64.8
70.00
0
10
15.93
20.00
0.8
0.4
2.8
1.2
2
2
5.2
0.8
1.6
2.46
1.07
2.55
5.99
2.96
2.30
5.17
2.38
1.07
4.68
0.00
2.46
12.31
50.00
2.05
1.54
1.03
0.00
1.03
2.05
2.56
1.54
5.13
0.51
1.03
% of Total Grades for Semester
Developmental Course Grade Analysis - 3 years
60.00
A
A-
B+
B
40.00
B-
C+
C
C-
D
F
12/FA - %
12/SP - %
11/FA - %
P
I
W
NC
10.00
A
A-
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
B+
B
B-
FDU Confidential
C+
C
CD
F
Grades
43
15.93
14.47
13.64
20.00
P
I
W
5.6
30.00
23.60
20.51
50.00
48.72
50.99
52.37
44.38
46.79
64.8
70.00
2.05
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.54
2.46
2.8
2.89
5.62
1.83
12.31
4.68
10
2.98
8.99
4.67
1.03
2.46
0.8
4.39
1.69
3.85
0.00
1.07
0.4
1.93
0.00
3.30
1.03
2.55
2.8
2.11
1.12
3.21
2.05
5.99
1.2
5.79
2.81
7.14
2.56
2.96
2
1.84
1.69
2.38
1.54
2.30
2
1.67
0.00
2.29
5.13
5.17
5.2
5.79
6.18
5.59
0.51
2.38
0.8
2.63
1.69
3.21
1.03
1.07
1.6
1.14
2.25
2.11
% of Total Grades for Semester
Developmental Course Grade Analysis - 3 years
60.00
40.00
14/SP
13/FA
13/SP
0.00
NC
12/FA
12/SP
11/FA
Total Developmental Grades by Semester
1400
1218
1140
1200
1092
1085
1074
1025
Total N
1000
856
728
800
600
400
250
195
0
14/SP Raw
Data
13/FA Raw
Data
13/SP Raw
Data
201
178
200
12/FA Raw
Data
12/SP Raw
Data
11/FA Raw
Data
11/SP Raw
Data
182
10/FA Raw
Data
10/SP Raw
Data
130
09/FA Raw
Data
09/SP Raw
Data
Semester
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
FDU Confidential
44
08/FA Raw
Data
08/SP Raw
Data
163
147
129
07/FA Raw
Data
07/SP Raw
Data
06/FA Raw
Data
06/SP Raw
Data
Appendix I
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
Policies and Procedures
FDU Confidential
45
Mid-Term Assessment
Policy and Procedure
Purpose
The purpose of the mid-term assessment for the University is to provide feedback to students in a more
formal manner that will alert the student to their performance status at the approximate mid-point of
the Term. It is intended to assist the student in taking actions that will improve the likelihood that they
will successfully complete the course and continue to degree completion at the University. Degree
completion is one of the key performance indicators used by the Federal Department of Education as
well as the several college and university review publications. Additionally, the mid-term assessment
will assist academic and administrative units of the University in identifying students who may benefit
from interventions and guidance that may be necessary to assist the student by referral to appropriate
resources to improve their academic performance. Finally, the mid-term assessment may provide the
opportunity for the student and the faculty to clarify the expectations for learning outcomes and
student performance that may lead to the successful completion of the course.
Background:
Fairleigh Dickinson University has had a long tradition in providing access to higher education through
the many programs, colleges and degrees at the undergraduate level. As a result it has a very large
number of first generation college students, students with special needs, transfer students, international
students and specially recruited student populations. These students enter the university’s campuses
and educational sites in many ways: as first time/first admit students, through partnership programs, as
transfers, and as returning adults. They are often recruited and admitted students who enter intensively
managed programs, including but not limited the Regional Center, Athletics, Enhanced Freshman
Experience, Freshman Intensive Studies, Educational Opportunity Fund, Latino Promise and Puerto Al
Futuro.
These students who participate in intensively managed programs have for many years been given a midterm report by faculty. These reports have been in the form of a paper-based/email documentation
from individual program coordinators, advisors and coaches asking faculty to provide feedback on the
progress of the students. A system was established via web-advisor to digitize the process in such a
manner as to facilitate entering of the mid-term assessments, making the process less cumbersome and
redundant.
It was recommended by committees on both New Jersey campuses that all undergraduate students
receive the same opportunity for feedback at the mid-point of the term. The intent of expanding the
program is to improve the likelihood that all students will successfully complete their coursework and
make effective progress toward graduation. All students were included in the mid-term assessment in
part to avoid the confusion of faculty having to provide feedback to some, but not all students. It was
also recognized that the intensively managed programs were across campuses/locations, programs and
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
FDU Confidential
46
Colleges. The Committees recognized the complexity and recommended all undergraduate students
receive a mid-term assessment.
Uses of the Assessment:
The uses of the assessments include but are not limited to:
-Intervention by program staff to assist in tutoring or referral for special assistance.
-Assurance by Athletic Staff that students are maintaining grades that will allow them to continue on a
particular team, successful advancement towards a degree and requirements of the NCAA for continued
participation in the inter-collegiate sport.
-For first time, full time students who are not in a specially managed program the intervention could
occur in the first semester as part of the Freshman Seminar mentoring meeting. Seminar instructors are
required to meet with each student twice a semester, one of the meetings could coincide with midterm
reporting window.
-The proposed second semester freshman seminar that is specific to the major could provide an
intervention opportunity for second semester students.
-Follow-up by the student with the faculty member to develop strategies for successful completion of
the course.
-Establishing systems for interventions by advisement offices, Colleges, Departments and Programs for
interventions and advisement.
Exceptions to the Policy:
Not all course work lends itself to the application of the mid-term assessment process. It is recognized
that there are educational experiences which do not apply because they are of a non-routine nature. In
coordination with Deans, Directors and Program Coordinators faculty may seek an exception to the
policy. Examples of these exceptions include but are not limited to:
-Course of a short duration including winter session.
-International experiences
-Cooperative Learning, Field Experiences, Independent Studies, Senior Seminars, Student Thesis,
Practicums, Student Teaching and Internships
-Weekend classes of a short calendar duration
-Classes or programs that do not follow the approved calendar of the University
In these cases if an exception is granted faculty should continue to provide feedback to the student
regarding their progress towards successful completion of the course requirements.
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
FDU Confidential
47
References
Habley, W.R., Bloom, J.L., & Robbins, S. (2012). Increasing Persistence: Reseach-Based Strategies for
College Student Success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Habley, W., McClanahan, R., Valiga, M., & Burkum, K. (June 2, 2010). Retention: Diverse Institutions
= Diverse Retention Practices? Retrieved from
http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/AIR_ForumPaper.pdf , September 7, 2014.
Habley, W., McClanahan, R., Valiga, M., & Burkum, K. (2010). What works in student retention. Iowa
City: ACT.
Wasley, P. (2007). A Secret Support Network, Chronicles of Higher Education, 53(23), A27-A29.
Retrieved from Academic Search Premier, September 7, 2014.
Midterm Task Force Report 9/2014
FDU Confidential
48