Hesa 573 Tap Team A Initial Findings

INITIAL FINDINGS: ASSESSING ACADEMIC SUPPORT
Assessing Academic Support Services: A Student Perspective
Initial Findings
Vanessa Beckham, Nathan Foster, Jasmine Ivy, Carol McFarland McKee, & Alexis Torres
Department of Counseling and Higher Education, Northern Illinois University
HESA 573: Applied Assessment Methods in Higher Education
Jacqueline Mac, Ph.D.
November 22, 2020

Assessing Academic Support Services: A Student Perspective
As practitioners in the field of student affairs, our focus must remain on student success.
Academic support services play a critical role in supporting students’ individual needs and
fostering student success. At Northern Illinois University (NIU), the Supplemental Instruction
(SI) program has been fundamental in helping students achieve academically for decades, and it
is essential that we continue to evaluate and improve this program to meet the goals of our
students and the university. Research shows that consistent attendance in Supplemental
Instruction (SI) is directly correlated to increased student persistence and graduation rates (Malm
et al., 2018). As the university is currently undergoing a restructuring initiative to bring all
academic support services together, it is vital that we collect and use data to identify program
strengths and weaknesses to bring about positive change while maintaining program successes.
This assessment sought to answer three basic questions about SI – What are students’
perceived impacts of participating in SI? Why are some students not taking advantage of SI
academic support services? What impact does SI programming have on students’ perceptions of
NIU as a Culturally Engaging Campus Environment (CECE)? Although some insight was gained
about students’ perception of impacts of participating in SI and cultural responsiveness of SI
program and staff, additional research is needed to better understand why some students do not
participate in SI services.
The team approached this assessment through the lens of critical theorists, with strong
influences from poststructuralism/postmodernism. We affirm that the purpose of this assessment
and that of most research is transformation, both in the students and the services, to meet the
needs of students and empower them to become more capable of controlling their destiny.
Through our assessment, we have the power to transform academic support at NIU by imagining
and helping to create alternatives, and our work will be validated if actions are created as a
result. Our mutual paradigm leads us to prefer qualitative research that is inclusive to ensure that
all voices are heard and reflected in our data and analysis. Bridging the gap in students’ learning
needs is important to ensure that we are hitting prime areas because students come from various
learning backgrounds. Inclusivity is important in academic support services because it recognizes
students’ learning curves. With this assessment we sought to provide answers to questions that
current staff pose when trying to examine student learning. We also sought to identify and share
those students' needs that tend to go unheard and unanswered.
We recognize and embrace the influence of Critical Theory and the Culturally Engaging
Campus Model on all aspects of our assessment – including our approach to the review of the
literature to inform our assessment.
Literature Review
A review of the literature informs the assessment process by providing additional
background on the standards of SI programs, ways of structuring program services, student
perceptions of learning assistance, and assessment of SI programs.
Structure of Supplemental Instruction Programs

According to Barhoum (2018) for both writing and other disciplines like science and
math, instead of a prerequisite course – a required course given to students to take prior to a
specific course – corequisite courses have been indicated to significantly improve outcomes
because of the learning assistance that happens alongside courses as students need help. Koselak
(2017) explains corequisite courses could work with embedded tutoring centers that focus less on
labeling students and pigeonholing them into tiers and more on providing just-in-time support.
Additionally, the staff should be able to help sort out whether a student will not do the work or
cannot do it, resulting in a will-versus-skill dilemma and targeting the appropriate support
(Koselak, 2017). Both Koselak (2017) and Barhoum (2018) suggest staffing peer mentors to
build relationships with other academically focused individuals, as it is a vital component of
successful student traits (Barhoum, 2018). Barhoum and Koselak’s suggestion of having an
assistance program that is free to all and required by some normalizes seeing peers helping peers
and, as stated by Barhoum, “...can be an important component of helping students feel that they
are not alone, and that college is a place they belong and where they can flourish.” (Barhoum,
2018, p. 23).
Student Impacts and Perceptions
The research indicates that students are positively impacted academically, emotionally,
and socially from academic support programs that perform at a high-level. Consistent attendance
in Supplemental Instruction (SI) is directly correlated to increased student persistence and
graduation rates (Malm et al., 2018). A study by Osborne, Parlier, and Adams (2019) followed a
group of students that participated in either tutoring, supplemental instruction, or academic
coaching. The results show that students involved in any of the programs believed that the
assistance impacted them academically, and there was also a direct correlation between frequent
attendance in these programs and higher levels of the student’s perception of how these programs
positively impacted them academically.
Standards, Certifications, and Accreditation of Learning Assistance Programs

A review of the literature reveals a handful of standards, certifications, and accreditations
for learning assistance programs. One of these is the International Center for Supplemental
Instruction (SI), housed at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, which offers an accreditation
specifically for SI programs. The accreditation process identifies four areas that must be met,
which are referred to as the Core Four. They include a) training and certification of the program
coordinator by the International Center for SI; b) initial and ongoing intensive training for SI
leaders, as well as observation of SI leaders; c) a strong focus on session planning; and d)
attendance of all class sessions by SI leaders and evaluation of program effectiveness
(International Center for Supplemental Instruction, n.d.).
Methods Overview
This assessment focused on undergraduate students at Northern Illinois University (NIU)
who were enrolled in one or more of multiple sessions of seven SI-supported classes during Fall
2019 and Spring 2020 semesters. A survey instrument and focus group questions were developed
to gather perceptions of both participants and non-participants of SI academic support services
for these two semesters.
Norton and Agee (2014) offer three basic categories of assessment processes for learning
assistance programs: quantitative, qualitative, and criterion referenced. In the course of the
literature review, we examined criterion-referenced assessment based on accreditation criteria of
the International Center for Supplemental Instruction. However, since the SI program at NIU has
not sought this accreditation, this evaluation is limited to and focused on the first two categories,
quantitative, and qualitative. Quantitative assessments, such as comparison of pre- and post-test
scores for student participants, or comparison of learning outcomes or grades for student
participants compared to non-participants (the control group) may be feasible and useful for
assessing program effectiveness, but present challenges of time, preparation, and access to
FERPA-protected comparison data, as well as confounding variables such as prior learning,
participation credit, or attendance points (Norton & Agee, 2014). They further indicate an
“ongoing need for the kinds of qualitative assessment processes that allow learning assistance
services to gauge student satisfaction and to tell students’ compelling stories of frustration or
success” and “mixed-methods approaches that combine quantitative and qualitative assessments
process are often favored” (Norton & Agee, 2014, p. 7). Effective qualitative assessment
processes include surveys, in-person interviews, and focus groups (Norton & Agee, 2014; Schuh,
et al., 2016).
Our primary goals of this assessment were twofold: a) to gain a better understanding of
students’ perceptions of their past experiences using SI services; and b) to learn how program
administrators might better reach students who are unaware of the SI program or may be aware
but choose not to use SI. Following these two primary goals of the assessment, data were
gathered through a survey and voluntary focus group of past users for two semesters (Fall 2019
and Spring 2020), and an additional voluntary focus group consisting of non-users for the same
two semesters. In keeping with the Culturally Engaging Campus Environment (CECE)
theoretical framework, data collected and analyzed from the survey and the two focus groups
included students’ perceptions of SI in providing and incorporating cross-cultural engagement, a
culturally validating and humanized environment, a proactive philosophy, and holistic support.
Data Collection
Our goal was to assess SI based on the framework of the CECE model, but it was also
valuable to build on data that already gathered by the SI program. Survey instruments used by
the SI program to conduct past surveys were provided, however, historical results from these past
surveys were not compiled and readily available. Using the CECE model to conduct the current
assessment, however, required gathering information that had not been asked in previous surveys
of student participants. Past surveys did not include questions that pertain to a culturally
validating and humanized environment, a proactive philosophy, and holistic support. We
included such questions in both the survey and in focus group questions (see Appendices B &
C).
SI sessions are typically offered for introductory 100-level courses which may satisfy
general education requirements and must be completed to advance in any program of study. For
the Fall 2019 and Spring 2020 semesters, supplemental instruction (SI) sessions were offered for
multiple sections of seven courses at NIU: three sections of Introductory Financial Accounting
(ACCY 206); five sections of Chemistry (CHEM 110); six sections of Communications Skills –
Reading (LTRE 100); 17 sections of Fundamentals of Mathematics I (MATH 108); seven
sections of Fundamentals of Mathematics II (MATH 109); five sections of Introduction to
Psychology (PSYC 102); and three sections of Basic Statistics (STAT 100).
Our data collection throughout this evaluation was to follow the two objectives of
understanding a) the perception of students who have already used SI, and b) how to encourage
students who have never worked with the program to use their services. Analysis through the
lens of the CECE model provides insight into student perceptions of SI’s effectiveness as a
culturally responsive support system focused on ensuring their students of all backgrounds
succeed.
The Targeted Audience
A total of 2,062 individual students were eligible to participate in SI for the various
sections of the seven courses. Participation in SI was not required but was strongly
recommended. More than a third (749 students, 36.32%) of all 2,062 students took advantage of
the opportunity to participate in SI sessions. This included 675 students who participated in SI
sessions during the Fall 2019 semester and 74 students who first participated in SI sessions in
Spring 2020. Many students who had participated in SI sessions both semesters, such as MATH
108 in Fall 2010 and MATH 109 in Spring 2020. The exact number of students who participated
in SI both semesters could not be determined from the data set provided. Additionally, some
students participated in SI sessions for more than one course during each of the semesters, such
as PSYC 102 and ACCY 206 in the same semester, or LTRE 100 and MATH 108 the same
semester. Again, the number of students who participated in SI sessions for more than one class
in a single semester was not determinable from the data set provided. However, the sample of
675 students was developed by excluding duplication to provide the total number of unique
individual students who actively participated in SI over the course of the two semesters.
No information was provided about demographic characteristics of the students in the data
set.
Survey Instrument
The survey instrument was developed by the team, in consultation with the client and
course instructor for Assessment Methods in Higher Education, and incorporated elements of
past surveys conducted of SI students by the client, a previous survey of alumni of a cultural
resource center by one of the team members, and questions designed to elicit information from
respondents regarding culturally engaging campus environments (CECE model) aspects of the SI
program. The survey consisted of a total of 40 questions and 9 skip-logic questions (see
Appendix A for complete instrument).
Survey Distribution
The SI Assessment Survey was sent via email link to all 749 students who had
participated in SI sessions during Fall 2019 and Spring 2020 semesters (see Appendix B). To
protect private student information and ensure compliance with FERPA regulations, the survey
was distributed on behalf of the assessment team by NIU’s Director of Career Services Planning
and Assessment. The initial survey invitation was sent on November 5, 2020, and a reminder
email sent on November 8, 2020. An additional reminder for the survey was sent on behalf of the
SI Supervisor on November 16, 2020.
Survey results reported were collected on November 21, 2020; however, the survey
remains open and additional reminders will be sent on behalf of the SI Supervisor to gather
additional responses.
Data Analysis Plan
Using Qualtrics to create and distribute the survey for SI participants yielded quantitative
data in a report that was compiled and organized in seven pre-selected sections or themes:
Introduction and Consent; Familiarity and Understanding of SI; Expectations and Perceptions of
SI; SI Engaging Environment; Student Status and Academic Standing; Participants’
Demographic Information; and Survey Closure and Invitation to Participate in Focus Group
Additionally, open-ended questions on the survey provided more depth and context for responses
(See Appendix A).
The second part of our data analysis consisted of reviewing and analyzing interview
transcripts and coding for themes. Assessment team members who conducted interviews also
transcribed the interviews, and all members reviewed and analyzed the transcripts for emerging
themes. Munoz and Espina (2017) used a similar method for their article using the CECE model
as the theoretical framework. After the initial reading and themes were completed, they wrote,
“We then developed a coding scheme based on the inductive codes and the literature review,
including our interpretations of the CECE model, our understanding of culturally relevant
pedagogy, and the school as sanctuary concept” (Munoz & Espina, p. 540, 2017). For our
assessment purposes, the “school as sanctuary concept” that Munoz and Espina describe were
replaced with SI. Finally, as an entire group, themes were modified through rereading and
rethinking the data giving us our assessment findings.
Assessment Standards and Ethics
Although we did not conduct research and did not require IRB approval, we still planned
to utilize the three basic criteria for ethical research as outlined in The Belmont Report: respect
for persons, beneficence, and justice (Schuh et al., 2016). To ensure we met these criteria we
included an informed consent document that outlined the purpose of the assessment, description
of the focus group procedures, potential risk, and how the data would be collected, processed,
and managed. To guarantee participants confidentially we solely worked with a gatekeeper in the
SI program. All forms of outreach with participants in this study were communicated through a
gatekeeper designated by the Program Director. This gatekeeper distributed the anonymous
survey to students who had previously participated in SI in one of two semesters (Fall 2019 and
Spring 2020). Additionally, an invitation to participate in a focus group was emailed to non-users
during those same two semesters by the gatekeeper. Based on users volunteering in the survey to
participate in a focus group, students were invited to join the “users focus group” by a team
member. Participant anonymity and confidentiality were maintained by allowing only the
gatekeeper to handle identifying information of the students until they volunteered to participate
in a focus group. At the point of opting into a focus group, participants provided their contact
information (email address).
Since our assessment is situational and context specific, we did not focus on reliability,
and instead shifted our attention on trustworthiness and credibility to ensure rigor (Henning &
Roberts, 2016). We used the assessment of the impact of the program to show that the findings
of this assessment are worth paying attention to. Using focus groups allowed us to increase rigor
and credibility by collecting qualitative data that included students’ firsthand accounts of their
experiences using the services or why they do not use the services. This allowed the using
participants to create and approve of the data that is collected through the survey, and the non-
using participants a chance for their voices to be heard. The assessment’s focus is on a program
at NIU so the transferability, dependability, and confirmability applied to this specific program,
and provided insight into participants’ perceptions of the degree to which SI services contribute
to a Culturally Engaging Campus Environment at NIU.
Theoretical Framework
As noted earlier, our team approaches this assessment through the lens of critical
theorists, with strong influences from poststructural/postmodernism. The purpose of this
assessment is that of transformation, primarily of the services, to meet the needs of students and
empower them to become more capable of controlling their destiny. Our collective paradigm
leads us to prefer qualitative research that is inclusive to ensure that all voices are heard and
reflected in our data and in analysis.
Our methodology is further informed by the theoretical framework of the Cultural
Engaging Campus (CECE) Model proposed by Museus (2014), a model aimed at generating data
and evidence that can inform efforts to transform institutions of higher education, from policies
and pedagogy, to activities and program, like NIU’s SI program. Museus’ CECE Model outlines
the elements of campus environments that are necessary for students to thrive in college and how
these environments can positively affect student outcomes. Building on other well-known
theories of student success developed by Tinto (1975, 1987, 1993), Astin (1993, 1999) and Kuh
et al. (2005), Museus provides a more racially and culturally responsive model – one that
“advances an equity agenda that promotes the development of campus environments that allow
students from all backgrounds to thrive” (Museus, 2014; Museus & Smith, 2014). The CECE
model includes two clusters of indicators. The first cluster – cultural relevance – includes five
indicators that “characterize campus environments that meaningfully engage and reflect the
cultural backgrounds, communities, and identities of diverse students” (Museus & Smith, 2014).
Cultural responsiveness, the second cluster, consists of four indicators that “reflect environments
in which an understanding of diverse students’ cultural norms and values undergirds campus
learning and support systems that respond to these students’ needs” (Museus & Smith, 2014).
The CECE Model is congruent with the collective epistemology of our assessment team.
Survey and Focus Group Findings
Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents
A total of 19 students, or 2.5% of the targeted sample, consented to begin the study. Of
the 19 students, 12 moved beyond consent and completed most of the survey, and 11 completed
the survey to the end, for a full response rate of less than 1.5%. One student chose not to answer
the demographic questions, which were the last section.

Asked to describe their ethnicity, 9 participants responded with the following: Black or
African American (2), Hispanic or Latino (4), Asian (2), White (1). Two students chose not to
answer. It should be noted that this was an open-ended question “When asked, how do you
define or describe your ethnic background?” to remove limitations. It is possible that a multiple-
choice question with common ethnicities and races options and one “Prefer to self-describe”
option may have yielded more complete results. Nine students identified as female and two as
male. No responses were noted for other gender options, including non-binary/third gender;
genderqueer, prefer to self-describe, and prefer not to say. Asked about sexual orientation, nine
students indicated heterosexual/straight, one preferred not to say, and one preferred to self-
describe with “straight.” Ten students identified as being 18-20 years old, and one student
indicated an age range of 25-29. One of the eleven respondents self-identified as a transfer
student (having attended another institution prior to NIU).
Familiarity and Understanding of SI
A client question regarding SI participation is whether students are aware of the
opportunity to participate in SI for certain courses, and promising practices for marketing the
program to students. Survey respondents indicated that they most often learned about SI from an
SI Leader (7 responses). SI Leaders are students who are screened and hired by SI staff to
provide the supplemental instruction sessions for the selected courses. As part of their SI Leader
role, they attend the course with the students and recruit prospective students to SI by making in-
class announcements during one of the first few class sessions. Respondents also learned about
SI through campus visits, faculty or instructors, academic advisors, CHANCE program
presentations, or CHANCE advisors. Orientation, NIU announcements, NIU website, and
bulletin board flyers were other less-cited ways students learned about SI. Program staff both in
SI and in CHANCE indicate that participation in SI sessions is not required but is recommended.
However, when asked in the survey to choose one answer as to their understanding about
attending SI session, half of respondents indicated SI was required; 25% that it was optional, and
25% that it was recommended.
The three classes for which respondents most utilized SI were Fundamentals of
Mathematics I (MATH 108P), Fundamentals of Mathematics II (MATH 109P), and College
Algebra MATH 110P. Introductory Financial Accounting (ACCY 206), Communication Skills –
Reading (LTRE 100P), College Reading Study Strategies (LTRE 190), Chemistry (CHEM 110),
Basic Statistics (STAT 100), and Rhetoric and Composition I (ENG 103) were other courses for
which respondents indicated they had participated in SI sessions. It should be noted that SI
sessions were not offered for Rhetoric and Composition I (ENG 103) during the two semesters of
this study.
According to program staff, SI sessions are typically offered twice each week, during the
same time slot as the course is offered, but on the off days. For example, SI sessions are offered
on Tuesday and Thursday at 9 a.m. for classes that are taught on Monday-Wednesday-Friday at 9
a.m. When asked on average how many SI sessions they attended each week, six responded they
attended twice a week; three attended once a week, and three attended three times a week.
Expectations and Perceptions of SI
A corollary objective of the SI program is to encourage students to engage more with the
instructor, fostering a sense of cultural responsiveness by providing holistic support and a
humanized educational environment per the CECE model (Museus, 2014). Half of all
respondents indicated they had met 2-3 times with their instructor outside of class for assistance,
and 17% met four or more times. A third of respondents indicated they never met with the
instructor outside of class. Engaging with the curriculum is also an important indicator of success
for students in the SI program. Not counting class time and SI sessions, five respondents (42%)
indicated on average that they studied or did homework for each of their SI supported classes 4-6
hours each week, and five indicated they studied or did homework for 2-3 hours each week for
the classes. Two indicated one hour or less per week was spent on studying or homework for
these classes.
Another measure of success for SI, according to SI Program Supervisor Kimberly
Johnson, is if students move on to the next course in the sequence the next semester, such as
taking MATH 108 and then MATH 109 the following semester. Eleven of twelve respondents
indicated that they did enroll in the next level course for the following semester.
Survey respondents indicated that participation in SI impacted them as a student in many
ways: helped with my understanding of the subject (31%); helped improve my grade in the
course (23%); helped build confidence in my abilities (23%); helped me connect with other
students in my class (14%); helped me connect with informal mentors (6%); and helped me
connect with my instructor (3%). Asked about how their final grade in the course compared to
the grade they had expected to get at the beginning of the semester, 67% indicated it was “quite a
bit higher” and 25% that it was “a little bit higher” than expected.
Seventy-five percent of respondents found SI sessions to be extremely helpful (42%) or
moderately helpful (33%) and remaining respondents found it somewhat or slightly helpful.
Two-thirds of all respondents indicated that they would definitely (5) or probably (4) plan to use
SI services for other courses in the future. Three students indicated that they would like to have
or wish they would have had SI services for these classes: CHEM 211, MKTG 295, MGMT 217,
Psychology, BIO 103/105, and MATH 110.
Given the opportunity to share some of the things that they found helpful about SI, students
wrote:
· “The SI offered a more in depth teaching of each class subject.”
· “They were in one point in time where I am.”
· “Small group, more personal help.”
· “Someone that can relate since SI leaders are students as well.”
· “It helped me understand any material the professor did not clear up.”
· “Easy to understand material.”
A significant majority (92%) of respondents felt that their SI Leaders were very (50%) or
extremely (42%) knowledgeable and well-prepared, and 86% of respondents who met with their
SI Leader during office hours indicated that their sessions worked well with their schedules.
Perceptions of Culturally Engaging Campus Environment in SI
Of particular interest to this assessment was how SI might contribute to a Culturally
Engaging Campus Environment (CECE) at NIU. All respondents indicated that they agreed
(36%) or strongly agreed (64%) that SI Leaders and staff members made them feel welcomed.
Responses were similar regarding “SI Leaders and staff members made me feel respected”: 73%
strongly agreed and 27% agreed. These responses indicate a positive impact of SI on the
student’s sense of belonging and contributes to a humanized educational environment.

In response to questions designed to measure indicators of culturally responsive proactive
philosophies and holistic support under the CECE model, respondents strongly agreed (64%) or
agreed (27%) with the statement “SI staff members sent me important information about where I
can access academic support.” One respondent strongly disagreed with this statement. Responses
varied more widely on another indicator of cultural responsiveness in creating a humanized
education environment that offers holistic support. For “SI Leaders or staff checked in on me
regularly” 73% strongly agreed or agreed with the statement, and 18% disagreed or strongly
disagreed. One respondent neither agreed nor disagreed.
Two additional statements were offered to assess participants’ perceptions of the extent to
which SI fosters a culturally responsive humanized educational environment: “SI Leaders were
interested in getting to know who I am” and “SI staff members were interested in getting to know
who I am”. Fifty-five percent of respondents agreed with the statement regarding SI Leaders,
with 36% somewhat agreeing or neutral. One participant somewhat disagreed. With regard to SI
staff, 60% of participants agreed or strongly agreed; 30% somewhat agreed or were neutral; and
one participant somewhat disagreed.
Similarly structured statements were designed to elicit responses specifically regarding
perceptions of culturally responsive holistic support: “If I were experiencing an academic
challenge, I knew I could go to SI Leaders for support” and the same statement for SI staff.
Responses for both questions were very similar, indicating that 82% strongly agreed or agreed
with the statement regarding SI Leaders, and 18% somewhat agreed. For SI staff, 91% agreed or
strongly agreed, with 9% indicating they somewhat agreed.
Indicators of the SI program’s contribution to a culturally engaging campus environment
were also measured to assess the program’s cultural relevance, especially cultural familiarity, for
SI participants, with the statement “It is easy to connect with SI Leaders who share similar
backgrounds and experiences as me” and the same statement, but for SI staff. Eighty-two percent
of respondents strongly agreed or agreed with this statement for both SI Leaders and SI staff,
with 18% neither agreeing nor disagreeing.
Focus Groups
Focus groups were held via Zoom both for students who did not participate in SI, and for
students who did participate in SI. All 2,062 unique students who were enrolled in the multiple
sections of the seven courses identified earlier were invited and encouraged to participate in SI
during the Fall 2019 and Spring 2020 semesters. Just over 36% of these students took advantage
of the opportunity for additional academic support offered by SI for these courses.
Focus Group 1 – Students Who Participated in SI
Of the 2,062 students who were eligible to participate in SI, 749 did participate in SI
sessions and received the email invitation to complete the survey. In addition to containing a link
to the survey, the invitation that was emailed to these 749 students also notified students that at
the end of the survey, they would have an opportunity to sign up for a focus group. Twelve
students completed the survey, and at the end of the survey, were asked if they would like to
participate in a focus group to provide more information. One of the twelve survey participants
responded positively to the focus group invitation and signed up on an external link using Sign-
Up Genius by providing their email addresses.
Of the two times available to the students to participate, the student chose the later time,
8:00-9:00pm CT on 11/16/20. There was also an option to participate from 6:00-7:00pm CT on
11/17/20. The students received an email (Appendix C) the day that they registered for the focus
group that thanked them for participating in the focus group, provided them with instructions and
a link to join the Zoom meeting, and allowed them to respond with any questions they may have
had. They then received email reminders on the day before the focus group and a few hours
before the focus group took place, if perhaps they had forgotten since they had originally
registered (Appendix F & G).
Focus Group 1 – Themes
There were several themes throughout the focus group from the student that participated
in SI. First, the communication to the student was an important factor for their participation in
the program. The student mentioned that they received notifications of where and when their
scheduled SI appointment would take place, and they mentioned email and text as their preferred
method of contact. They also acknowledged that they learned about Supplemental Instruction in
orientation and through the CHANCE program, but they believed that reaching out to students
through social media platforms could be an effective way to reach others.
Another theme that presented itself throughout the focus group was the benefits and
challenges of using Supplemental Instruction. The student indicated that it helped to improve
their grade, and it also helped them to get caught up with anything that they were having
difficulty understanding. It also helped them with homework completion, and they benefited
from both their SI leaders and the other students in the class when having difficulty working out
a problem. They mentioned that it then allowed them to have a better understanding of the
material when the professor would discuss it during their lecture. Also, for this particular
student, they felt that SI provided times that fit their schedule well. The only challenges that
were discussed were minor technological issues, feeling as though they were falling behind the
others when missing several sessions consecutively, and many students compared to the number
of SI leaders.
The third theme that ran throughout the focus group was the helpfulness and respect
shown by the SI leaders and other students. They believed that the SI leaders were willing to
help, very kind, and very helpful with assisting the students in understanding the subject. The
student commented on how students within the program would help each other, as the SI leaders
were sometimes busy helping others. However, they mentioned several times that the leaders
were “nice,” “helpful,” and able to help the students learn the material.
Focus Group 2 – Students Who Did Not Participate in SI
Sixty-four percent of all students eligible to participate in SI during the Fall 2019 and
Spring 2020 session did not participate in SI sessions. An email invitation to participate in a
focus group was sent to all 1,313 students who did not attended SI sessions. Of these 1,313
invitations, three students responded positively to the focus group invitation, signing up through
a link using Sign-Up Genius with their email addresses. However, of the three students that
registered, only one student eventually participated in the focus group, and the other two
participants did not respond or reach out to say that they would not be participating.
Of the two times available for the students to participate, all three students chose the later
time, 8:00-9:00pm CT on 11/12/20. There was also an option to participate from 6:00-7:00pm
CT on 11/13/20. Each of the four students that signed up for either of the two focus groups
chose the later of the two times, and, thematically, this has implications as to when we should
provide services to our students. It is essential that we recognize that times that are most
convenient for our students may often be different than times that are convenient for faculty or
staff. However, if we wish to provide services that can be widely accessible to our students, it is
important to recognize when they are available and most willingly to participate in SI or any
other student service. Similar to the focus group of those that had participated in SI, the students
also received an email (Appendix C) the day that they registered for the focus group. They then
received email reminder on the day before the focus group and a few hours before the focus
group took place, if perhaps they had forgotten since they had originally registered (Appendix D
& E).
Conclusion
In approaching this assessment through the lens of the CECE Model, we sought to let the
voices of the students themselves provide insight to the students’ sense of belonging and success
at NIU with the assistance of SI services and to help identify opportunities for more culturally
responsive support systems and culturally relevant high-impact practice in SI at NIU. Our goal
with having student input is to make sure we are allowing the space for students to feel heard and
be seen. A lot of times we have discovered that students recognize when they are not given an
opportunity to share their viewpoint on experiences they have throughout our university and that
may leave a negative connotation in their minds. That negative connotation could potentially
come from spaces that are not existing to allow students to express themselves and their
experiences. With this in mind, we hope to create an inclusive space for diverse students to have
the freedom to give their thoughts and opinions so that programs like SI can still be in existence
and constantly improved for NIUs students.

References
Arendale, D. R., & Hane, A. R. (2014). Holistic growth of college peer study group participants:
Prompting academic and personal development. Research & Teaching in Developmental
Education, 31(1), 7–29.
Association of Colleges for Tutoring and Learning Assistance (2019). ACTLA principles,
standards, and effective practices for quality online learning. http://actla.info/wp-
content/uploads/2019/04/2019_Online_Tutoring_Standards.pdf
Banta, T. W., Jones, E. A., & Black, K. E. (2009). Designing effective assessment: Principles
and profiles of good practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9647.2011.00700.x
Barhoum, S. (2018). Increasing Student Success: Structural Recommendations for Community
Colleges. Journal of Developmental Education. Retrieved September 24, 2020 from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1210442.pdf
Bates, D. K. (2016). Perceptions from Athletic Training Students Involved in an Intentional Peer
Assisted Learning Pedagogy. Athletic Training Education Journal, 11(4), 181–188.
Bosmans, D., Young, E., & McLoughlin, R. (2019). Does PAL Work? An Exploration of Affect
amongst First-Year HE in FE Students. Athens Journal of Education, 6(1), 13–31.
Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS) (2018). Learning
assistance programs: CAS standards and guidelines. http://standards.cas.edu/getpdf.cfm?
PDF=E86D2FCA-DBEC-AD47-33AB941E185E1E67
Dawson, P., van der Meer, J., Skalicky, J., & Cowley, K. (2014). On the effectiveness of
supplemental instruction: A systematic review of supplemental instruction and peer-
assisted study sessions literature between 2001 and 2010. Review of Educational
Research 84(4). https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314540007
Hatch, D., & Bohlig, E. (2016). An Empirical Typology of the Latent Programmatic Structure
of Community College Student Success Programs. Research in Higher Education.
Retrieved September 24, 2020 from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11162-015-9379-
Henning, G. W., & Roberts, D. (2016). Student affairs assessment: Theory to practice. ProQuest
Ebook Central
International Center for Supplemental Instruction (n.d.). Accreditation overview. Retrieved
September 26, 2020 from https://info.umkc.edu/si/accreditation/
Koselak, J. (2017). The revitalized tutoring center. Phi Delta Kappan. Retrieved September 24,
2020 from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0031721717690368
LaClare, E., & Franz, T. (2013). Writing centers: Who are they for? What are they for? Studies
in Self-Access Learning Journal, 4(1), 5-16.
Malm, J., Bryngfors, L., & Fredriksson, J. (2018). Impact of Supplemental Instruction on
Dropout and Graduation Rates: An Example from 5-Year Engineering Programs. Journal
of Peer Learning, 11, 76–88.
Munley, V. G., Garvey, E., & McConnell, M. J. (2010). The effectiveness of peer tutoring on
student achievement at the university level. American Economic Review, 100(2), 277-82.
http://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.2.277
Muñoz, S. M., & Espino, M. M. (2017). The freedom to learn: Experiences of students without
legal status attending Freedom University. Review of Higher Education, 40(4), 533–555.
https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2017.0021
Museus, S. D. (2014). The Culturally Engaging Campus Environments (CECE) model: A new
theory of success among racially diverse college student populations. In M.B. Paulsen
(Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 29, pp. 189-227).
Springer.
Museus, S. D., & Smith, E. J. (2014). The Culturally Engaging Campus Environments model
and survey: A report on new tools for assessing campus environments and diverse
college student outcomes (Executive summary). National Association of Student
Personnel Administrators (NASPA).
https://www.naspa.org/images/uploads/main/CECE_Report_EXEC_SUM_DOWNLOA
D.pdf
Norton, J., & Agee, K. S. (2014). Assessment of learning assistance programs: Supporting
professionals in the field [White paper]. College Reading and Learning Association.
https://www.crla.net/images/whitepaper/AssessmentofLearningAssistancePrograms2014.
pdf
Osborne, J. D., Parlier, R., & Adams, T. (2019). Assessing Impact of Academic Interventions
through Student Perceptions of Academic Success. Learning Assistance Review, 24(1),
9–26.
Qualtrics. (n.d). An introduction to t-test theory for surveys. Retrieved from
https://www.qualtrics.com/experience-management/research/t-test-analysis/
Qualtrics. (n.d.). What is factor analysis and how does it simplify research findings? Retrieved
from https://www.qualtrics.com/experience-management/research/factor-analysis/
Schuh, J. H. and Associates (2009). Assessment methods for student affairs. Jossey-Bass.
Schuh, J. H., Biddix, J. P., Dean, L. A., & Kinzie, J. (2016). Assessment in student affairs (2nd
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Schuh, J. H., Biddix, J. P., Dean, L.A., & Kinzie, J. (2016). Assessment in student affairs (2nd
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Strange, C. C. & Banning, J. H. (2015). Designing for learning: Creating campus environments
for student success (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Trochim, W. (2014). Experimental design. Retrieved from Research Methods Knowledge Base
website at http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/desexper.php
Appendix A
Proposed Survey A: Supplemental Instruction (SI) Participants
The following survey was sent to all SI participants during Fall 2019 and Spring 2020.
Familiarity and Understanding of Supplemental Instruction (9 questions)
1. How did you learn about Supplemental Instruction (SI) at NIU?(Check all that apply)
a. NIU Campus Visit
b. NIU Orientation
c. Class Faculty Member/Instructor
d. Different Faculty Member
e. SI Leader
f. NIU Website
g. Friend/Roommate
h. Academic Advisor
i. CHANCE Program Presentation
j. CHANCE Advisor
k. Flyer on a bulletin board
l. NIU Announcements
m. Mass or group email from Office of the President, Dean of Students, or my

College
n. Other
2. What was your understanding about attending SI group sessions? (Check one)
a. Attending group SI sessions was required

b. Attending group SI sessions was optional
c. Attending group SI sessions was recommended
3. For which of these semesterss) did you participate in Supplemental Instruction classes?
(Check all that apply)
a. Fall 2019
b. Spring 2020
4. For which classes did you participate in SI sessions? (check all that apply)
a. ACCY 206, Introductory Financial Accounting
b. ACCY 207, Introductory Cost Management
c. LTRE 100P, Communication Skills – Reading
d. LTRE 190, College Reading Study Strategies
e. CHEM 110, Chemistry
f. MATH 101, Core Competency in Mathematics
g. MATH 108P, Fundamentals of Mathematics I
h. MATH 109P, Fundamentals of Mathematics II
i. MATH 110P, College Algebra
j. STAT 100, Basic Statistics
k. Other(s)
5. How many sessions of SI were offered each week for each of the classes you checked
above?
a. 3
b. 2
c. 1
d. 0
6. For each of the classes you checked above, on average, how many SI group sessions did
you attend each week during the semester?
a. 3
b. 2
c. 1
d. 0
7. For each of the classes you checked above, on average, how many times did you see the
instructor outside of class for assistance during the semester?
a. Never
b. Once
c. 2 – 3 times
d. 4 – 5 times
e. 6 or more times
8. In Fall 2019, approximately how many total times did you attend SI sessions for each of
the courses noted above for that semester?
a. Never
b. 1 – 4 sessions
c. 5 – 9 sessions
d. 10 – 15 sessions
e. 16 or more sessions
9. In Spring 2020, approximately how many total times did you attend SI sessions for each
of the courses noted above for that semester?
a. Never
b. 1 – 4 sessions
c. 5 – 9 sessions
d. 10 – 15 sessions
e. 16 or more sessions
10. Not counting class time and SI sessions, on average, how many additional hours each
week did you study or do homework for each of the classes you checked above?
a. One hour or less per week
b. 2 – 3 hours a week
c. 4 – 6 hours a week
d. 7 – 10 hours a week
e. 11 or more hours each week
11. For classes in which you participated in SI for Fall 2019 and/or Spring 2020, did you
enroll in the next level of the course for the following semester? As an example, if you
were in SI classes for MATH 108 in Fall 2019, did you enroll in MATH 109 in Spring
2020?
a. Yes
b. No
Expectations and Perceptions of Supplemental Instruction Group Sessions (8 questions)
1. How has participation in Supplemental Instruction impacted you as a student?

a. Helped with my understanding of the subject
b. Helped me improve my grade
c. Helped me build confidence in my abilities
d. Helped me connect with other students in my class
e. Helped me connect with the instructor in my class
f. Helped me connect with informal mentors

g. Other
h. Participating in SI did not impact me as a student
2. How helpful did you find Supplemental Instruction group sessions? (Branched open-
ended question if answer a-d: What are some of the things that you found helpful about
Supplemental Instruction? Branched open-ended question if answer is e: What was it
about Supplemental Instruction that you didn’t find helpful?)
a. Extremely helpful
b. Moderately helpful
c. Somewhat helpful
d. Slightly helpful
e. Not helpful at all
3. Thinking about the grade that you had expected to get in the course at the beginning of
the semester, how did your final grade in the course compare to the grade you had
expected?
a. Quite a bit higher
b. A little higher
c. About the same

d. A little lower
e. Quite a bit lower
4. How knowledgeable and prepared did you feel your SI leaders were for the classes for
which you attended SI sessions?
a. Very knowledgeable and well-prepared
b. Moderately knowledgeable and well-prepared
c. Somewhat knowledgeable and well-prepared
d. Slightly knowledgeable and well-prepared
e. Not very knowledgeable or well-prepared
5. If you met with your SI Leader during office hours, how well did your session(s) with the
SI Leader work with your schedule? (Branched open-ended question if answer is e: What
was it about your SI Leader session(s) that did not work well with your schedule?)
a. Very well
b. Moderately well
c. Somewhat well
d. Slightly well
e. Not at all
f. Does not apply
6. Where did you attend Supplemental Instruction group sessions? (Check all that apply). If
answer is both ‘a’ and ‘b’, branch to question 6a: Do you prefer one mode over the other?
If yes, “Which mode of SI instruction did you prefer?” and “Why do you prefer that
mode of SI instruction?”)
a. Face-to-face at ____________________________
b. Online
7. Do you plan to use SI services for other courses in the future?
a. Yes, definitely
b. Probably
c. Maybe
d. Probably not
e. No, not likely
8. Are there other courses for which you would like to have SI services for? You can
include classes that you have already taken for which you wish you would have had SI
services.
a. None
b. These classes
Supplemental Instruction Engaging Environment (6 questions)
To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
1. SI leaders and staff members made me feel welcomed. (If answer is either ‘d’ and ‘e’,
branch to question “Was there a specific situation or incident that led you to not feel
welcomed?”)
a. Strongly agree
b. Somewhat agree
c. Neither agree or disagree
d. Somewhat disagree
e. Strongly disagree
2. SI leaders and staff members made me feel respected. (If answer is either ‘d’ and ‘e’,
branch to question “Was there a specific situation or incident that led you to not feel
respected?”)
a. Strongly agree
b. Somewhat agree
3. SI staff members sent me important information about where I can access academic
support.
a. Strongly agree
b. Somewhat agree
4. SI leaders or staff checked in on me regularly
a. Strongly agree
b. Somewhat agree
5. SI leaders were interested in getting to know who I am

a. Strongly agree
b. Somewhat agree
6. SI staff members were interested in getting to know who I am
a. Strongly agree
b. Somewhat agree
7. If I were experiencing an academic challenge, I knew I could go to SI leaders for support
a. Strongly agree
b. Somewhat agree
8. If I were experiencing an academic challenge, I knew I could go to SI staff for support
a. Strongly agree
b. Somewhat agree
9. It is easy to connect with SI leaders who share similar backgrounds and experiences as
me.
a. Strongly agree
b. Somewhat agree
10. It is easy to connect with SI staff members who share similar backgrounds and
experiences as me.
a. Strongly agree
b. Somewhat agree
Student Status and Academic Standing (3 questions)
1. Do you consider yourself to be a Transfer student (attended another institution prior to
NIU)?
a. Yes
b. No
2. How many continuous semesters have you attended NIU, including Fall 2020?
3. What is your current GPA?

a. 3.5 or higher
b. Between 3.0 and 3.5
c. Between 2.5 and 3.0
d. Between 2.0 and 2.5
e. Lower than 2.0
Demographic Information ( 5 questions)
1. When asked, how do you define or describe your ethnic background?

2. What is your gender? Please check all that apply.
a. Male
b. Female
c. Non-binary/third gender
d. Genderqueer
e. Prefer to self-describe
f. Prefer not to say

3. What is your age?
4. What is your sexual orientation? Choose all that apply.
a. Gay or Lesbian
b. Bisexual
c. Straight/heterosexual
d. Prefer to self-describe
e. Prefer not to say
Survey Closure (1 question)

1. Are you willing to also participate in an online focus group to further share your
perceptions of academic support services through Supplemental Instruction? (If answer is
a, auto-directs to an external link on Sign-Up Genius to enter email address to register
for the focus group, and will also receive a message: “Thank you for your responses to
this online survey – your input is very valuable to this assessment process!” If answer is
b, will simply receive thank you message)
a. Yes
b. No
Appendix B
Proposed Email Cover for SI Survey
The following survey will be sent to all SI participants for Fall 2019 and Spring 2020.
Survey Invitation
Thank you for choosing to complete our survey and provide feedback on your experience with
Supplemental Instruction at Northern Illinois University! By clicking the button below, you
acknowledge that your participation in this study is voluntary, that you are 18 years of age or
older, and that you are aware that you may choose to terminate your participation in the study at
any time and for any reason. This survey is part of a class project in the Applied Assessment
Methods in Higher Education class and through the guidance of Academic Support Services at
Northern Illinois University. Please contact Gail Jacky (gjacky@niu.edu), Dr. Kimberly (KJ)
Johnson (kjohnson@niu.edu), or our professor Dr. Jacqueline Mac (jmac@niu.edu) if you have
any questions.
 I consent, begin the study
 I do not consent and do not wish to participate

Appendix C
Initial Focus Group Email Sent to Students: Users & Non-Users
For the focus group conducted with students who did and did not attend Supplemental
Instruction sessions, the following email will be sent. Since this focus group is meeting via the
Zoom platform, this email should contain a link to the Zoom meeting. It will also contain the
details of the focus group (i.e. time) and thank the student for attending. This email should be
sent as soon as possible after the student registers for the focus group.
Title of the Email: “Supplemental Instruction Focus Group Registration & Zoom Link”
Email:
Dear ________,
Thank you for registering for the focus group to help us improve Supplemental Instruction at
Northern Illinois University. You have registered for the _:__ time slot on (day) , __/__. Please
use the Zoom link provided below to join the meeting, and please plan to join the meeting 5
minutes prior to our starting time, to ensure that Zoom opens properly. We are excited to have
you join our focus group, and we look forward to hearing your input on Supplemental
Instruction. Please feel free to email us with any questions that you may have.
Zoom link: __________________________________________________________________
Best,
Nate Foster, nfoster@niu.edu
Alex Torres, atorres8@niu.edu
Appendix D
Focus Group Questions: Non-Users
1. Briefly introduce yourselves: your name and what year you are in school.
2. What are your perceptions of using academic support services?
a. What do you think the benefits are of using academic support services?
b. What are the challenges of using academic support services?
3. Have you used any academic support services at NIU? Which ones have you used?
4. As a student, have you heard of SI?
a. If yes, how did you hear about SI?
b. If no, how could they have better reached/advertised SI to the students?
5. What do you think the most/least appealing part of the program was?
6. What kept you, or prevented you from using SI?
a. Do you think you would have benefited from using SI?
b. Do you have a preferred time that would be more accessible for you to use SI?
c. Do you have any friends who have used SI? If yes, do you think they benefited
from using SI? (Optional)
7. Anything else you would like to add about academic support services impacting your
level of satisfaction with NIU?
Appendix E
Focus Group Questions: Users
Users of SI
1. Briefly introduce yourselves: your name and what year you are in school.
2. Tell us a little bit about how you heard about SI.
a. How could they better reach/advertise to the students? Did you receive reminders
before tutoring sessions? If you did not, would this have been useful?
3. What, or who, would have encouraged you to participate in SI?
a. How often did you use SI?
b. What subject did you use SI for?
c. What were some of your perceptions of the program before you participated?
4. In what ways have your experiences with SI influenced your learning?
a. In what ways were you able to apply what you learned in SI in your classroom?
5. What are the benefits of being engaged in SI?
a. What are some of your perceptions of the program now?
6. What were the challenges of using SI?
7. Would you have preferred a more accessible time for SI?
8. Do you recommend other students use SI? Why or why not?
9. Is there anything else you’d like to share about your participation in SI?
Appendix F
Day Before Focus Group Reminder Email Sent to Students
The following email will be sent to students the day before their scheduled focus group. As a
substantial amount of time may have passed between when the students first registered and
received their Zoom meeting links, this will work to ensure that students remember the time and
details of the focus group. This email will remind the students of the focus group and will allow
them some time to plan around the meeting, if, perhaps, they had made other plans during the
focus group time.
Title of the Email: “Supplemental Instruction Focus Group Reminder”
Email:
Hello ________,
Thank you for registering for the focus group on Supplemental Instruction at Northern Illinois
University. This is a reminder that you have registered for the _:__ focus group tomorrow,
__/__. Please email us if you have any questions about the focus group. To be as accurate as
possible while analyzing our focus group discussion, we intend to record the meeting. However,
if you prefer that we do not record the focus group, please email us and let us know that you
would not like us to record. Also, no names will be documented in the analysis of the focus
group, as all volunteers will be referred to as Student A, Student B, etc. If you know of anyone
that would also be willing to participate in our focus group, then please invite them to join us and
let us know. We look forward to meeting you and hearing your thoughts on Supplemental
Instruction.
Here again is the Zoom link information: __________________________________________
Thank you,
Appendix G
Day Of Focus Group Reminder Email Sent to Students
The following email will be sent to students the day of their scheduled focus group. This email
should be sent a few hours before the focus group begins, and it will ensure that the students
remember the time and details of the focus group. It will also provide them an opportunity to ask
any questions that they may have.
Title of the Email: “Today’s Supplemental Instruction Focus Group”
Email:
Hi ________,
Thank you for joining us tonight for the focus group on Supplemental Instruction at Northern
Illinois University. This is a reminder that the focus group will take place at _:__ this evening.
Please email us if you have any questions about the focus group. To be as accurate as possible
while analyzing our focus group discussion, we intend to record the focus group. However, if
you prefer that we do not record the focus group, please email us and let us know that you would
not like us to record. Also, no names will be recorded or documented during the focus group. In
our analysis of the focus group, all volunteers will be referred to as Student A, Student B, etc.
We are looking forward to tonight’s meeting.
Zoom Link: _____________________________________________________________
Thanks,

Hesa 573 Tap Team A Initial Findings

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hesa 573 Tap Team A Initial Findings

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INITIAL FINDINGS: ASSESSING ACADEMIC SUPPORT

Assessing Academic Support Services: A Student Perspective

Department of Counseling and Higher Education, Northern Illinois University

HESA 573: Applied Assessment Methods in Higher Education

Jacqueline Mac, Ph.D.

November 22, 2020

Assessing Academic Support Services: A Student Perspective

about students’ perception of impacts of participating in SI and cultural responsiveness of SI

influences from poststructuralism/postmodernism. We affirm that the purpose of this assessment

learning backgrounds. Inclusivity is important in academic support services because it recognizes

those students' needs that tend to go unheard and unanswered.

literature to inform our assessment.

A review of the literature informs the assessment process by providing additional

background on the standards of SI programs, ways of structuring program services, student

perceptions of learning assistance, and assessment of SI programs.

Structure of Supplemental Instruction Programs

build relationships with other academically focused individuals, as it is a vital component of

Student Impacts and Perceptions

in Supplemental Instruction (SI) is directly correlated to increased student persistence and

group of students that participated in either tutoring, supplemental instruction, or academic

positively impacted them academically.

Standards, Certifications, and Accreditation of Learning Assistance Programs

leaders, as well as observation of SI leaders; c) a strong focus on session planning; and d)

attendance of all class sessions by SI leaders and evaluation of program effectiveness

(International Center for Supplemental Instruction, n.d.).

This assessment focused on undergraduate students at Northern Illinois University (NIU)

to gather perceptions of both participants and non-participants of SI academic support services

for these two semesters.

literature review, we examined criterion-referenced assessment based on accreditation criteria of

FERPA-protected comparison data, as well as confounding variables such as prior learning,

included students’ perceptions of SI in providing and incorporating cross-cultural engagement, a

validating and humanized environment, a proactive philosophy, and holistic support. We

Reading (LTRE 100); 17 sections of Fundamentals of Mathematics I (MATH 108); seven

sections of Fundamentals of Mathematics II (MATH 109); five sections of Introduction to

The Targeted Audience

Appendix A for complete instrument).

SI Supervisor on November 16, 2020.

Data Analysis Plan

SI; SI Engaging Environment; Student Status and Academic Standing; Participants’

(See Appendix A).

rethinking the data giving us our assessment findings.

Assessment Standards and Ethics

information (email address).

to a Culturally Engaging Campus Environment at NIU.

theorists, with strong influences from poststructural/postmodernism. The purpose of this

reflected in our data and in analysis.

Our methodology is further informed by the theoretical framework of the Cultural

Survey and Focus Group Findings

Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents

the demographic questions, which were the last section.

student (having attended another institution prior to NIU).

Familiarity and Understanding of SI

A client question regarding SI participation is whether students are aware of the

SI through campus visits, faculty or instructors, academic advisors, CHANCE program

presentations, or CHANCE advisors. Orientation, NIU announcements, NIU website, and

25% that it was recommended.

Mathematics I (MATH 108P), Fundamentals of Mathematics II (MATH 109P), and College

Expectations and Perceptions of SI

instructor, fostering a sense of cultural responsiveness by providing holistic support and a

Another measure of success for SI, according to SI Program Supervisor Kimberly

Survey respondents indicated that participation in SI impacted them as a student in many

Seventy-five percent of respondents found SI sessions to be extremely helpful (42%) or

Psychology, BIO 103/105, and MATH 110.