Kurland Ma Project Spring 2018

Running head: COLLABORATING TO SUPPORT STUDENTS OF COLOR ON ACADEMIC
Continuing the Conversation: Collaborating to Support Students of Color on Academic
Probation
Willa Kurland
Seattle University
SDAD 5990: Student Development Graduate Project
Dr. Erica Yamamura
June 14th 2018

COLLABORATING TO SUPPORT STUDENTS OF COLOR ON ACADEMIC 1
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... 2
Problem statement ........................................................................................................................ 2
Literature Review ......................................................................................................................... 4
Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 10
Results and Findings ................................................................................................................... 15
Implications ................................................................................................................................. 20
Action Plan and Timeline ........................................................................................................... 24
Conclusion and Reflection.......................................................................................................... 26
References .................................................................................................................................... 30
Appendix A: Faculty Interview Instrumentation .................................................................... 33
Appendix B: Focus Group Instrumentation............................................................................. 38
Appendix C: Demographic Trends and Probation .................................................................. 42
Appendix D: Action plan and timeline...................................................................................... 46

Abstract
The relationship between the university and students of color is an important factor in
understanding the rates of students of color on academic probation, particularly the
overrepresentation of Black, Native, and Southeast Asian students attending Predominantly
White Institutions (PWIs) (Bahr, 2008; James & Graham, 2010; MacDonald, 2018; Mitchell,
Wood, & Witherspoon, 2010). This qualitative research project aims to address a critical issue in
higher education by examining best practices for supporting students of color on academic
probation. For students of color academic probation is often a sign of underlying non-academic
issues. This project seeks to understand how the Office of Multicultural Affairs (OMA) and the
University Advising Center (UAC) can further support students of color on academic probation.
Data was collected at a private, four-year university. Data analysis of one focus group and two
individual interviews, revealed three key themes-- including: challenges in navigating the
institution as a student of color, a need for cross-campus collaboration and community building,
and ambiguity in expectations and processes for faculty. This practitioner-based research project
culminates in recommendations and an action plan for the university site.
Keywords: Academic advising, multicultural affairs, academic success, students of color,
academic probation, retention
Problem statement
While retention rates among students of color in higher education has become an
emerging issue in higher education, administrators and student affairs professionals continue to
struggle in effectively supporting diverse student populations. Students on academic probation
during their time in college are more likely to leave college, therefore affecting retention rates
(Coleman & Freedman, 1996). In Fall Quarter of 2017, the Office of Multicultural Affairs at a
private Jesuit institution received anecdotal evidence that a disproportionate percentage of
students of color were placed on academic probation within the largest college on campus.
Preliminary assessment shows that during the 2014-2017 academic year, among these students of
color on academic probation a high percentage identified as Black/African-American,
Native/First Nations/Indigenous, or Southeast Asian.
The Office of Multicultural Affairs (OMA) works to promote an inclusive learning
environment for all students to enhance their understanding of identity and power, to build
intercultural awareness and skills, and to support the success of students from historically
underrepresented backgrounds (Seattle University, 2018). However, the director of this center
expressed concern in the center’s role in supporting students of color in regard to academics.
They noted that the center has historically been unable to adequately support students in their
academic endeavors as its focus has been programs related to issues of social justice.
Secondly, navigating a decentralized advising system brings various challenges for any
student, which is further compounded by the experience of being placed on academic probation.
Advisors are often the only formal connection that students have to the university and are in a
unique position to facilitate a furthered sense of belonging. This is particularly important for
students of color, as well as students in academic difficulty. Research shows that high impact,
proactive advising practices can serve as a tool for increased retention among students on
academic probation, particularly among students of color (Museus & Ravello, 2010; Strayhorn,
2105; Swecker, Fifolt, & Searby, 2013; Trombley, 2000). However, there is an overall lack of
research that looks at the ways in which advising practices can support Black/African-American,
Native/First Nations/Indigenous, and Southeast Asian students on academic probation.

Purpose of study
Using a qualitative approach, the purpose of this project is to further understand how
academic advising protocols at a mission-driven, religiously affiliated university that is
“dedicated to educating the whole person” and values “educational excellence achieved through
diversity”, can holistically support students of color in academic difficulty. Given the
disproportionate percentage of Black/African-American, Native/First Nations/Indigenous, and
Southeast Asian students in academic difficulty, and in order to best support students of color on
academic probation, this study aims to look at the gap between current advising practices and
what students of color need to persist through higher education. An analysis of current practices
will guide recommendations for implementing organizational and processes change, with a focus
on cross-campus collaborations between academic advising units and the Office of Multicultural
Affairs.
Literature Review
Academic performance is often one of the most defining factors of a college student’s
experience. Students are expected to meet particular academic standards and follow institutional
policies and procedures that allow them to maintain good “academic standing”, and subsequently
earn their degree. If a student does not meet the outlined academic benchmarks, they will be
placed on “academic probation” or are considered to be in “academic difficulty”. For the purpose
of this project, academic probation and academic difficulty are used interchangeably and will be
defined as undergraduate students within the college who have a cumulative GPA below 2.0. A
high number of students who leave college are placed on academic probation during their time in
college (Coleman & Freedman, 1996). Academic advisors are considered influential and vital in
the academic trajectory of students, particularly those on academic probation.

Academic probation among students of color
Research shows that students of color succeed and persist through higher education at
substantially lower rates than their peers, often due to issues of academic difficulty, probation, or
dismissal (Bahr, 2008; James & Graham, 2010; Museus & Ravello, 2010; Strayhorn, 2105;
Tover & Simon, 2006; Trombley, 2000). As the number of students of color on college campuses
across the nation continues to rise, retention among these student populations has become an
emerging issue in higher education as administrators strive to uphold increased rates of attrition
among diverse student populations.
Among students on academic probation, transitional issues, or issues adjusting to the
university setting, are some of the most prevalent causes of students who find themselves
struggling academically. Some of the most common issues include insufficient study habits,
personal or familial circumstances, or social and emotional adjustment factors (Isaak, Graves, &
Mayers, 2006). However, the relationship between academic probation and students of color is
complex and multifaceted. For students of color, transition issues that lead to academic probation
can be further heightened by factors outside of their control (Museus & Ravello, 2010). These
include non- academic factors that hinder their academic experiences. Students of color often
hold various marginalized identities and are routinely considered academically at-risk before
they even enter the institution, often leading to preconceived assumptions from academic
advisors and university professionals.
It is important to understand a deficit model of thinking is detrimental to a student of
color’s academic success, and advisors must be able to understand the ways that race, and racism
impact a student of color’s experience navigating higher education (Yosso, 2005). Additionally,
the relationship between the university and students of color must be taken into consideration
when looking at the rates of students of color on academic probation, particularly the
overrepresentation of Black, Native, and Southeast Asian students attending Predominantly
White Institutions (PWIs) (Bahr, 2008; James & Graham, 2010; MacDonald, 2018; Mitchell,
Wood, & Witherspoon, 2010). The intersection of underrepresented students of color and
students of low socioeconomic backgrounds should also be noted, as both student populations
are less likely to succeed or persist through higher education (Walpole, 2003).
While it is important to understand that the barriers and obstacles that students of color
face in terms of academic difficulty should not be seen as insurmountable and can be mitigated
through various advising practices and support systems as discussed in the following sections.
Holistic and developmental advising as a retention tool
Holistic and developmental advising can serve as a tool for increased retention among
students on academic probation, particularly among students of color (Museus & Ravello, 2010;
Strayhorn, 2105; Swecker, Fifolt, & Searby, 2013; Trombley, 2000). While the traditional role of
an academic advisor is to help students navigate their educational plan, or academic goals, there
has been an increase in holistic and developmental advising approaches. Advisors are often the
only formal connection that students have to the university and can facilitate a furthered sense of
belonging. This is particularly important for students of color, as well as students in academic
difficulty.
Holistic advising is the notion that an advisor must take into consideration the whole
person, and values and understands the student for more than their academic performance
(McCoy, 2018). Holistic advising practices encourage advisors to under a student beyond their
academic capabilities taking into consideration personal, familial, and financial factors that may
be attributing to a student’s success. Additionally, Crookston (1994) describes developmental

advising as a practice related to facilitation of a student’s “rational processes, environmental and
interpersonal interactions, behavioral awareness, and problem-solving, decision making, and
evaluation skills” (p.5). Developmental advising is a student-centered approach that is goal
related and continuous.
Students on academic probation face increased levels of stress and can strongly benefit
from advising that is both holistic and developmental. These advising practices can also guide
students through the stages of self-authorship, in which student move through three phases: 1)
trusting the internal voice, 2) building an internal foundation, and 3) secure internal
commitments (Pizzolato, Nguyen, Johnson, & Wang, 2012). As students move through these
stages, they are able to be clearer of their goals and capabilities and are able to make meaning of
their experiences.
In addressing all aspects of a student’s being, advisors can ultimately can serve as a one
stop shop. If an advisor is able to build rapport with the student, they will know how to
holistically support a student through the transition of college. For this reason, there is a
heightened importance of cross campus collaboration and partnerships between academic
advisors and student affairs. Collaboration and campus partnerships allow for advisors to
effectively refer and connect students to campus departments or individuals who may be better
able to address the student’s needs.
Proactive and culturally relevant interventions for students of color
A high-involvement model of advising that includes proactive and culturally relevant
advising can be effective in supporting students of color in academic difficulty. (Kuwaye &
Nishida, 2000; Museus & Ravello, 2010; Strayhorn, 2105; Trombley, 2000; Viande & Barlow,
2015). In combination with the aforementioned holistic and developmental advising practices,
this model not only serves as a retention tool, but is critical in supporting students of color facing
academic difficulty.
Students who are academic difficulty and have trouble asking for help can benefit from
high-institutional involvement. Mitchell et al. (2010) discusses the importance of moving beyond
individual student-to-advisor interactions to understanding more systemic advisor-to-student-to-
institution relationships. Proactive advising intervention strategies vary among institutional type
but includes proactive outreach from the academic advisor.
The student-advisor relationship is an important factor in this model and interventions
include face-to-face interactions that help students improve traditional study skills, time
management, goal setting, and general advice in navigating higher education (Isaak et al., 2006).
For students on academic probation early interventions, structured agreements or contracts, and
personal and student-driven meetings with advisors can greatly increase a student’s self-
authorship and sense of belonging. Contracts or agreements for students on academic probation
can allow for effective referrals and provide an avenue for follow up. High-involvement policy
makers see these practices as effective retention mechanisms for students facing academic
difficulty (Kuwaye & Nishida, 2000).
In order to best serve students, this model of advising must be combined with strong
cultural competence among academic advisors. If advisors do not have strong cultural
competence, advisor-student relationship will not be beneficial for students of color on academic
probation. Advisors should also understand both ethnic identity development and
epistemological development in order to encourage self-authorship among students of color who
are struggling academically (Pizzolato et al., 2012). However, for many academic advisors at
PWIs, additional training in cultural competence and identity development is necessary.

Best practices
While programs specifically for students of color on academic probation are lacking,
three best practices have been identified that support “high-risk” students. These include models
of success coaching, mentorship programs, and programming to demystify and destigmatize the
academic probation process.
University of San Francisco provides “Back on Track”, an intrusive advising program
that requires students on academic probation to have one-on-one meetings with an academic
success coach, completion of an academic action plan, submitting midterm progress reports, and
doing two academic success activities that can improve their success (University of San
Francisco, 2018). This is hosted through the Center for Academic and Student Achievement and
includes Canvas course.
Check and Connect (C&C) is a national model for retention and persistence for high risk
students informed by adult learning theories, self-determination, social cognitive career theory,
and validation theory (Stout, Johnson, Pohl, & Opsal, 2012). Originally developed by
researchers, practitioners, parents, and students at the University of Minnesota, this program
includes mentorship and peer support for students who are at risk of non-completion. While
C&C was initially developed for secondary education, it has been adapted for post-secondary
institutions and has been implemented at The Minneapolis Community and Technical College
and Jefferson Community and Technical College in Louisville, Kentucky. Additionally, the
Seattle University Fostering Scholars program utilizes the C&C model for first-year students in
the Fostering Scholars program.
At the University of California Davis, collaboration between the division of student
affairs and academic advising units have been formed to work towards demystifying the
academic probation process. For example, the Student Recruitment and Retention Center and
academic counselors from college Dean’s offices have partnered to host processing spaces for
students to talk about their experience being placed on academic probation. Additionally, the
Cross-Cultural Center has hosted academic advisors, creating more accessible advising spaces
and various student and peer initiatives have further demystified the academic probation process
for students (UC Davis, 2018).
While this literature review lays a foundation for understanding best practices for
students in academic difficulty there is an overall lack of research on how an Office of
Multicultural Affairs can best support students of color on academic probation.
Methodology
This phenomenological approach aims to understand the experiences of staff and faculty
advisors, to further address issues of institutional racism, oppression and inequity in order to
focus on the experience of students of color-- students who are often at the margins within a
Predominantly White Institution (PWI) (Creswell, 2014). To work towards institutional change
and reform at this PWI, guiding research questions include:
 How might current advising practices impact the disproportionate percentage of
students of color on academic probation?
 What role can an Office of Multicultural Affairs play in supporting students of
color on academic probation?
Site description
Seattle University (SU) is a four-year, private, Jesuit Institution located in the Pacific
Northwest with approximately 8000 students, including undergraduate and graduate students.
This study focused on the University Advising Center (UAC) at SU. This center provides
advising to 70% of the student population, includes pre-education, and pre-law advising and is
home to more than 45 undergraduate majors, 34 minors, 7 master’s degrees, 3 professional
advanced certificates, the Indigenous Peoples Institute, and the Study of the U.S. Institute for
Scholars on Contemporary American Literature (Seattle University, 2018).
Given UAC’s mission of “holistic professional and academic formation of current and
prospective UAC students through the building of educational plans and the promotion of
academic excellence” and dedication to “developmental advising, equality, and access” this
office provides an opportunity to further understand the importance of academic advising
practices that advance diversity, equity, and inclusion within higher education (Seattle
University, 2018). Additionally, given SU’s recent retention efforts, this project aligns with the
University-wide goal of increasing retention rates among diverse student populations.
Demographic profile
Participants included one Assistant Dean for Student Academic Affairs, two Senior
Academic Advisors, two Academic Advisors, one Senior Administrative Assistant, and two
faculty advisors. Time in current position ranged from 7 months to 11 years. Seven participants
identified as female, one identified as male. Six participants identified as white, one participant
identified as Native American, and one participant identified as Pacific Islander. The
participant’s educational experience ranged from having completed bachelor’s degree to having
completed a PhD.
Data collection
Previously collected quantitative data shows a disproportionate number of students of
color on academic probation between Spring 2014 and Spring 2017. In a report created by the
Office of Success and Outreach, Black (10.6%) and Native American (25%) students were more
likely to enter academic probation than any other ethnicity (Appendix C).
However, in order to understand an emerging issue in higher education, this project used
a qualitative approach that allows the researcher to explore the of disproportionate percentages of
students of color on academic probation. The project utilized a narrative design with open-ended
interviewing in the form of one focus group and two individual interviews.
This study examines the focal topic at an administrative level, through the lens of those
working most closely with these students. This study chose to interview both staff and faculty,
due to the hybrid model of advising in the college. In this model of advising, students potentially
meet with both faculty and staff advisors during their time on academic probation. Based on
Miles and Huberman’s (as cited in Creswell, 2014) criteria, the researched purposefully selected
participants within the advising center (p. 188). The process of purposive selection allowed for
participants with a wide range of advising experiences. With a sample size of 8 advising staff
and 2 faculty, each participant brought a unique perspective.
A total of two interviews and one focus group were conducted. The interviews conducted
were with faculty advisors from the UAC provided insights on faculty advising. The focus group
included advisors and staff in the UAC, the researcher asked questions to further understand staff
and advisor’s experience working with students of color on academic probation. In consideration
of space and familiarity, the focus group was conducted in an UAC meeting, and the faculty
interviews took place in the participant’s own office space. Fieldnotes were taken over the course
of document analysis, data collection, transcription, coding, and the writing process.
Instrumentation
Questions asked were open-ended and crafted with the intent to address topics of
diversity, social justice, and ethical leadership. The focus group comprised of staff advisors
allowed for participants to share their thoughts, participate in group dialogue which allowed for
insight in intergroup dynamics within the advising center (Krueger, 2000). Focus group
questions included topics of an advisor’s role in working with students of color, previous
professional development, and questions related to collaboration (Appendix B).
Faculty members were asked questions related to their experiences working with students
of color on academic probation, their previous professional development experiences related to
advising, as well as areas of strengths and areas of growth in their role as faculty advisors
(Appendix A). Individual interview questions were formulated after the focus group was
conducted, allowing for the two instrumentations to build on each other. The focus group and
interviews allowed for honest and in depth conversations. Furthermore, all participants were
given the opportunity to discuss and reflect on any additional topics they felt were relevant to
advising students of color on academic probation.
Document collection
Throughout the project, the researcher collected various documents surrounding topics of
retention, advising, diversity, and equity. These documents have guided the research process, the
analysis and have provided further institutional context and insights on organizational structures
and processes. A UAC academic advisor provided the following documents: “A Guide to the
Probation Appointment”, “Approaches to Probation”, “Faculty Email to Support Advisees on
Probation 2017-2018”, “Sample First Probation Letter”.
The UAC advising team also also provided organizational charts and academic advisor
job descriptions. The researcher had the opportunity to discuss this research topic with the
Student Academic Persistence Team, comprised of the Director of Student Academic Persistence
and Premajor Studies as other members of the Premajor advising center. This meeting resulted in
reviewing the Seattle University Retention/Student Success Consultation Reports from April
2011, March 2011, and October 2017. After data collection the researcher also had the
opportunity to review the January 2016 Task Force on Diversity and Inclusive Excellence Final
Report.
Data analysis
The data was analyzed using Tesch’s Eight Steps in the Coding Process (Creswell, 2014).
Both open and thematic coding occurred, allowing for a thorough analysis. Each transcription
was initially read for content, to gain a deeper understanding of the messages conveyed. Next,
topics and ideas discussed in the interviews and focus groups were grouped according to
similarity. This allowed for thematic coding, in which key themes were identified--drawing from
the narratives of each participant.
To ensure internal validity, the data was triangulated through focus groups, individual
interviews, and reference to existing literature. After data collection, the research allowed for
member checking to ensure participants felt their words were captured accurately (Creswell,
2013). The interview and focus group protocol were shaped by the literature, the document
analysis, were peer reviewed, and approved by a faculty advisor.
Researcher’s Role
The researcher is a first-year graduate student in a student development administration
master’s program. As student of color with previous training in advising and multicultural
affairs, this inherently shapes the lens through which this project was conducted. Having four
years of experience working in Undergraduate Education Advising at a large public university,

the researcher has previous experience working with students on academic probation and has had
the opportunity to pursue various professional development opportunities and academic advising
trainings. It is important to acknowledge the ways in which may shape the researcher’s analysis
of data as well as recommendations.
However, to an extent, the researcher holds an outside perspective. They work at a
different institution and do not hold a graduate assistantship on campus. It should be noted that
the researcher holds a 10 hour a week internship within the Office of Wellness and Health
promotion at the University site. This internship allowed the graduate student to gain perspective
on the Division of Student Development outside of this project.
Results and Findings
The following three sections delve into findings from the focus group and interviews.
Three key themes emerged. The importance of understanding the way in which a student of color
navigates the institution emerged in both faculty interviews and focus group discussions.
Secondly, advisors noted a lack of community for students of color on academic probation.
Additionally, there were different perspectives on collaboration and expectations of advisors and
faculty.
Challenges in navigating the institution as a student of color
All participants discussed that students of color are often juggling various priorities and
their academic capability is not always the primary reason a student finds them self on academic
probation. Through these conversations, the ways in which a student’s racial identity,
socioeconomic status, and cultural identity impacted their university experience was a recurring
theme. Adrienne, a faculty advisor in the college explains:

I would say the most difficult aspect of that work is to not reinforce the larger kind of
systemic issues that are potentially telling that students that they are inadequate because
they're not meeting or achieving expectations in my mind, has often been determined by
dominant cultural peoples...I don't think we're necessarily really understanding the origins
of the academic difficulty...And then you know working with students of color who are
already feeling and understandably, I don't want to say it's just a feeling, who are
minoritized and who are marginalized within these spaces that it is something that I'm not
really trained or equipped to do…”
In discussing the challenges with working with students of color, Lynne, a staff advisor similarly
noted that:
A number of times when meeting with students on AP when I feel very powerless in
hearing something that they're experiencing, and I can share it here with my colleagues in
this office and maybe I can share it with a couple people on campus, but I don't know if
there's anything that will really change institutionally
Advisors and faculty had different levels of understanding in discussing the way a student’s
racial identity that may be impacting their experience at the university. Among those who
believed a student’s racial identity was salient to their experience on academic probation,
instances both in and out of the classroom were discussed. For example, Diane shared:
If a student came into an appointment and said I'm having trouble studying, or I can't
write my papers, and then we like provide the writing center as a resource- well maybe
it's not the writing center, maybe it's the fact that their professor has committed
microaggressions in the classroom.

Financial challenges were also discussed in both the focus group and individual
interviews. As financial stability largely influences a college student’s experience, staff advisors
expressed challenges in working with students who do not have adequate financial support.
Lynne, an advisor noted, “Something I've find very challenging is working with students in
general who have financial challenges. And then seeing how their experiences with student
financial services has been different based on the color of their skin”.
Both staff and faculty advisors expressed lack of training and understanding of how to best
support these students.
Cross-campus collaboration and community building
Further training and collaboration across campus in order destigmatize academic
probation and further support students of color on academic probation was salient for each
participant. Taking into consideration the various factors that may contribute to a student’s poor
academic standing, participants discussed the need for a holistic approach in advising, as well as
destigmatizing academic probation across the campus community. In discussing possible
collaborations, Diane a staff member in the advising center noted:
What feels exciting about a collaboration with OMA specifically is that if a student is not
comfortable talking to an academic advisor about what's going on in their life, if and why
they ended up on academic probation, they might feel more comfortable talking to
someone in OMA
Elizabeth, an advisor explained:
This reminds me about what's been challenging with students of color in academic
difficulty, because sometimes I see patterns with departments, as an advising center, we
work with specific majors or departments. I would want to collaborate and have these
conversations with departments, especially departments that might not feel that
sometimes talking about race, students of colors experience, fits in with exactly their
curriculum. I feel like it all can connect back, it's all intersectional--I would want to
collaborate with departments to make that happen on a holistic level and find support
everywhere.
This is a prime example of the ways in which advisors are challenged to holistically support
students of color. Elizabeth’s sentiments were also expressed by faculty, Adrienne, who shared:
When it comes to students of color you know I am just hearing from them oftentimes
they're working oftentimes they're engaged in important community events and
experiences that are meeting their needs as individuals that Seattle University can't nor do
I think it should try to- because that's something to be said about you know again if we're
living our mission of professional formation and empowering leaders for a just and
humane world- it's important for students and especially of color to be able to have
communities and groups that help to again ensure that they're not feeling crazy or
gaslighted by a system that is potentially invalidating their identities and who they are
and where they're coming from.
Lynne, a staff advisor discussed an experience in which a student was experience
microaggressions and the importance of making a referral elsewhere on campus “they felt their
voice was not listened to by the professor- invalidated by the professor. I was able to connect that
student to a person on campus who is working on retention just so that they felt they had an
outlet, so they could share their experience.”
Additionally, there was a unanimous request to provide further resources on campus for
students on academic probation. Both faculty and staff advisors desire further guidance about
how to talk to students on academic probation, particularly in regard to emotional support-
addressing topics of anxiety, procrastination, and depression. In regard to knowledge of available
resources on campus, the response of both faculty advisors varied. For example, one faculty
advisor was unsure about what the Office of Multicultural offers, while the other has previous
experience collaboration with this office. This discrepancy shows the varying degree of training,
and the differing approaches to advising among faculty.
Ambiguity in expectations and processes for faculty advisors
Given Seattle University’s hybrid model of advising, various process and organizational
related concerns surfaced. Participants answers did not align when it came to understanding
expectations of their role with students. In both the focus group and individual interviews, staff
and faculty noted a lack of clarity in the role faculty vs staff advisor. Among faculty, this was
particularly heightened in regard to working with students of color on academic probation.
A further dimension of this finding includes the lack of clear communication among staff
and faculty. Joe was unclear about his role with students of color academic probation and in
regard to his role stated:
We're struggling with that right now and the expectations are not clear, and we need to do
better… whether there’s documents or not it’s clearly not part of our culture... resources
may be available, I don't know. They probably are, and I haven't availed myself of them.
But it's also difficult and kind of our current environment at SU.
Faculty advisor Adrienne explained:
I guess in some ways, there's a lack of clarity in my mind to get information and you
know so as an advisor I get an email that lets me know that I'm student advising is on
academic probation and it provides some suggestions on things that could be done. But
for the most part that's such a hands-off form email that it doesn't necessarily take into
account what the student is going through or what resources the student has.
Additionally, both faculty advisors shared their experience with the online advising technology
used at Seattle U. Both faculty advisors expressed that there is ambiguity in processes for using
Starfish and documenting their advising appointments and content discussed. The overall
sentiment was that strong leadership on the issue would be helpful in understanding the role of
faculty in working with students of color on academic probation.
Implications
Findings point to an overall lack of institutional support for students of color on this
campus, particularly students of color on academic probation-- uncovering the consequences of a
siloed campus, and the importance of collective responsibility among staff and faculty, and
improved communication between the Division of Student Development and Academic Affairs.
However, while these findings are based on emerging themes, it is important to acknowledge the
hard work of many individuals across campus.
Further cultural competency training
When working with students of color, understanding the origins of academic difficulty
beyond a student’s academic capabilities is closely tied to cultural competence. The challenges
that students of color face when navigating the institution brought to light the ways in which
students of color on academic probation may be facing issues of institutional racism. This
finding is two-fold, while students of color on academic probation may face institutional barriers
that impact their academic success, assuming a student’s inability to navigate campus further
perpetuates a deficit model of thinking. University staff and faculty advisors are deeply dedicated
to “educating the whole person, to professional formation, and to empowering leaders for a just
and humane world”, yet for students of color on academic probation, professionals are
challenged to holistically understand various dimensions of academic success.
Yosso’s (2005) community cultural wealth model posits a strengths-based approach is
important for working with students of color and allows for more holistic and student centered
advising. This is particularly important for white student affairs professional working with
students of color. If advisors have preconceived notions that students lack the navigational and
social capital to succeed, this inherently effects the way that these advisors work with students.
To mitigate the possibility of advising without care to cultural competence, staff advisors and
faculty need additional training in order to help students navigate institutional barriers that
marginalized students face. If advisors can and empower students to navigate an institution that
may not support them in their identity as a student of color, advisors can serve as a powerful
retention tool. Given the varying degrees of awareness, advisors across the college should
participate in further professional development related to working with students of color.
Need for high institutional involvement
While outlined expectations may exist, findings show that no one is holding faculty or
academic departments accountable for streamlined processes. Consistent with the literature,
further institutional support and institutionalized expectations are needed to maintain
accountability to strengthen advising practices. According to Kuwaye and Nishida (2000),
“institutional involvement is determined by how college student motivation and cognition are
viewed by policy makers” (p. 40). While this model can vary by institutional type, it is important
for a high level of commitment from staff as well as physical and monetary resources.
Advisors must be supported by the institution to effectively support their students.
Academic advising protocol for students on academic probation should be institutionalized and
advisors must be able to understand the campus environment with consideration of the unique
experiences of students of color at Seattle U. If expectations for staff and faculty are unclear,
this results in each academic department operating separately and high institutional involvement
and high impact, proactive advising practices are unattainable.
Seattle University should integrate more proactive advising practices across campus,
including robust contracts and referral processes for students on academic difficulty. This
includes early interventions and retention tools (Kuwaye & Nishida, 2000).
Cultivating community and creating mentorship
All participants emphasized the importance of adapting to the needs of the student they
are working with, the importance of holistic advising, and meeting students where they are-
academically and personally. To further a culture of care, collaboration across campus can act as
wrap around services for students of color on academic probation. For staff and faculty, further
knowledge of campus resource can greatly increase effectiveness of advisor-student relationships
and the enhance existing programming that is happening in departments across campus. This also
requires a thorough understanding of their role as an advisor as well as facilitating spaces for
students to create community.
As advisors and faculty serve as touchpoints for students, truly understanding a student’s
situation is vital to making effective referrals and allowing students to move through the stages
of self-authorship and take control of their academic trajectory (Pizzolato, Nguyen, Johnson, &
Wang, 2012). Integrating advising conversations into the campus community helps to further
destigmatize academic probation and promotes student success. Additionally, culturally relevant
mentorship can further a sense of belonging for students who are struggling, academically or
otherwise. Creating a network of support through furthering campus partnerships and

collaboration across the Division of Student Development and Academic Services, through
formal mentorship programs can serve as an effective interventions and systems of support for
students of color on academic probation.
Limitations of the study
Given the limited time and scope of this project, while participants represented the largest
academic college and faculty advisors represented two of the largest academic departments
within the college, this quarter long project is not generalizable for all students of color at the
university. While this study aimed to understand the experiences of Black/African-American,
Native/First Nations/Indigenous, or Southeast Asian students, participants did not specifically
discuss the implications of Black/African-American, Native/First Nations/Indigenous, or
Southeast Asian on academic probation. This further points to the importance of assessment and
disaggregating racial demographic data.
Additionally, during the progression of this project, the researcher examined previous
initiatives and reports related to retention and diversity. There is a need to further disseminate
information and share data across campus and effectively communicate priorities with key
stakeholders. In furthering this research, a mixed methods approach would be beneficial in order
to understand the topic issue through a more substantial quantitative and qualitative lens.
Ethical considerations
Participants were provided an opportunity to remove them self from the project at any
point. Prior to engaging in the study, concerns of anonymity and confidentiality were discussed
with each participant. Furthermore, to avoid any conflict of interest, one member of the UAC
advising team did not participate in the focus group as they are also a graduate student within the
student development program and student development project class.

Diversity and Social Justice
This project allowed the researcher to understand issues of diversity and equity on both a
macro and micro level. The intersection of organizational change and culture were important
facets of understanding the problem at hand. Ultimately, Seattle University is challenged in its
preparedness to support diverse student populations. Critical conversations in examining how the
university mission furthers social justice are vital. Consideration of the ways in which the
university contributes to perpetuating systems of oppression are also important.
Action Plan and Timeline
To integrate OMA into advising at SU, several steps can be taken. In consultation with
the Director of OMA, the following action plan has been created. These recommendations
revolve around creating strong campus partnerships and formalizing processes that support
students of color on academic probation. While these recommendations are focused on the role
of OMA in supporting students of color on academic probation within the UAC, a more detailed
action plan with further recommendations can be found in Appendix D.
Creating community for students of color on academic probation
In line with OMA’s intentions to create more robust mentorship programs, OMA can
implement a Check and Connect mentorship program geared toward students on academic
probation. This program will closely monitor student’s progress and staff will provide holistic
mentorship. This group will meet weekly for the first quarter that a student is on academic
probation, with the opportunity to maintain mentorship relations throughout the rest of a
student’s time at the university. This model will include small group and individual mentoring, in
which a mentor will provide active support. This will help students navigate the university and
connect them to important resources, enhancing their sense of belonging.

This will require collaboration with academic advisors, faculty advisors, Counseling and
Psychological Services, Career Services, the Center for Community Engagement, and Camp
Ministry. Ideally, representatives will visit the C&C sessions and can provide resources and
guidance that is intentionally geared towards students on academic probation. For example,
OMA can partner with Learning Assistance programs to provide study skills workshops that can
be facilitated in the C&C sessions.
Additionally, OMA and the Outreach Center can collaborate to host processing spaces for
students of color on academic probation. These programs can be scheduled to align with the
academic probation letters sent out by advising and communicated to students as a valuable
resource. These will allow students a space to process what it means to be on academic probation
as well as get connect to resources to support them in their academic endeavors.
Demystifying and destigmatizing academic probation
Streamlining communication for students on academic probation is an important part of
proactive and developmental advising practices. Integrating culturally relevant communications,
sending quarterly academic reminders, and providing study tips through the OMA email listserv
and social media can serve to enhance the conversation and demystify academic probation for
students. Streamlining communications can include revamping the documents that are provided
to students on academic probation and creating a student contract that requires students to seek
resources on campus. This will require OMA staff can act as consultants for the communication
sent out by advisors, to both students and faculty. It will also be beneficial to have a more robust
academic success component on the OMA website
Creating more robust infrastructure for student persistence team

The student persistence and retention team can create a more robust infrastructure to
include representation from OMA, advisors from each college, faculty stakeholders, as well as a
student representative. Representation and frequent check ins with high level administrators will
also be beneficial in creating culture change and accountability among campus partners.
In the long term, this committee can create an advising training syllabus that guides
expectations for advisors and is implemented across campus. This can include creating more
clear expectations of use of technology such as Starfish, serve as a campus resource map for
advisors to utilize for more effective referrals, and maintain overall best practices for working
with students of color on academic probation. Additionally, creating standardized trainings with
an emphasis on cultural competence training will allow campus to disseminate information
regarding standardize advising practices across campus units. Building out this team will allow
for future partnerships among the division of student affairs and academic affairs. Lastly it will
be essential to continue ongoing assessment of student experiences and staff and faculty
experiences.
Conclusion and Reflection
This project allowed me to integrate my understanding of student development theory,
advising best practices, and explore the unique organizational structures and campus culture at
the project site. This project allowed insight into systemic issues in higher education and was
great practice in working within a system that was not constructed for many of the students it
serves. Overall, the project enhanced my professional competencies in research, evaluation, and
assessment as well as allowed me to further my skills in multicultural competency.
Challenges and opportunity

Working with two separate functional areas and various stakeholders across campus
allowed me to understand the ways in which individuals on campus are able to make a
difference. Within one quarter, I have come to find there are various conversations happening
across campus surrounding retention, diversity, equity, and supporting students of color. While
this can be a discouraging process, I have also seen the potential that practitioner research holds.
In many ways Seattle University isn’t looking at retention via academic problem, but instead
through a diversity and inclusion standpoint. Fortunately, many individuals on campus have
taken interest in this issue and looking at retention in an intersectional way allows for more
momentum towards a common goal.
However, given the siloed and decentralized nature of campus, stakeholders are not
effectively communicating. While this projected was hosted in OMA, this issue is not entirely
the responsibility of one office, nor is it purely the responsibility of faculty or staff advisors. At
the beginning of this project, it was unclear which department was ultimately responsible for the
undertaking of taking this project, which brings forward the importance of data sharing and a
culture of collective responsibility. A challenge that I faced is that the topic of retention and
supporting students of color--is an ongoing conversation, but simultaneously stagnant. I feel that
this is a topic that encompasses much more than I was able to address within a 10-week graduate
project. I hope that key stakeholders and university professionals will take responsibility to move
forward.
Higher education research
I have been challenged to think critically about higher education research and adapt to
practitioner-based research at a private university. My academic research background is
grounded in the social sciences at a large public research university, and most of my experience
has been lab-based and much more theoretical. As a higher education and student affairs
practitioner-researcher, I am challenged to be more practitioner based and adapt to the private
university setting. I have learned that qualitative research is a creative process in which the
researcher undergoes an exploratory process and provides meaning to existing constructs.
During this project, three main questions I continued to ask myself were: Are we ready to
support the diverse student population at Seattle University? What ways does the university
mission further social justice? In what ways does the university environment perpetuate systems
of oppression? I continually have many questions, and this provided me an outlet to discuss these
important topics with staff and faculty.
If I were to further this project, it would be beneficial to discuss topics of academic
probation with higher level administrators, Deans, and Provosts at the university site. It would
also be beneficial, and necessary to stay grounded in student-centered work. To me this means
creating infrastructure in which students have a seat at the table.
Closing and gratitude
I am hopeful that this experience allowed me to establish credibility among staff and
administrators across campus, and I’m confident that it has enhanced my professional identity as
an advocate for students. Over the last few months I have been able to advocate for students
through an administrative lens, to further understand the power and privilege that staff and
faculty hold on campus. I have had the opportunity to build relationships with various members
of the campus community and through this have been inspired to continue to grow my
professional competencies that will allow me to further address issues of social justice, equity,
and access in higher education.

I want to thank the many individuals who supported this project along the way. Without
the support of my faculty advisor, site-supervisor, classmates, and the participants of this project,
this project would not have come to fruition. While it there is much work left to be done, I hope
that through this project I am able to add to this important conversation.

References
Bahr, P. R. (2008). Cooling out in the community college: What is the effect of academic
advising on students’ chances of success? Research in Higher Education, 49(8), 704–
732.
Coleman, H. L. K., & Freedman, A. M. (1996). Effects of a structured group intervention on the
achievement of academically at-risk undergraduates. Journal of College Student
Development, 37(6), 631–636. Retrieved from
http://pointloma.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tr
ue&db=eft&AN=507531813&site=ehost-live
Crookston, B.B. (1994). A developmental view of academic advising as teaching. NACADA
Journal, 14(2), 5-9.
Isaak, M. I., Graves, K. M., & Mayers, B. O. (2006). Academic, motivational, and emotional
problems identified by college students in academic jeopardy. Journal of College Student
Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 8(2), 171–183. https://doi.org/10.2190/4LPY-
Y21T-BY3Q-Q9VM
James, C. L., & Graham, S. (2010). An empirical study of students on academic probation.
Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 22(2), 71–92.
https://doi.org/10.7227/RIE.0001
Johnson, D. R., Wasserman, T. H., Yildirim, N., & Yonai, B. A. (2014). Examining the effects of
stress and campus climate on the persistence of students of color and white students: an
application of Bean and Eaton’s psychological model of retention. Research in Higher
Education, 55(1), 75–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s
Kirk-Kuwaye, M., & Nishida, D. (2001). Effect of low and high advisor involvement on the
academic performances of probation students. NACADA Journal, 21(1–2), 40–45.
https://doi.org/10.12930/0271-9517-21.1-2.40
Krueger, R. A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (3rd edition).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
MacDonald, G. (2018). Through a lens of critical race theory: Inclusive advising narrative
experiences of graduate multiracial students in higher education. Race, Gender & Class,
21(1).
McCoy, M.R. (2018). Holistic approaches to advising students on academic
probation. Academic Advising Today, 41(1)
Mitchell, R. W., Wood, G. K., & Witherspoon, N. (2010). Considering race and space: Mapping
developmental approaches for providing culturally responsive advising. Equity and
Excellence in Education, 43(3), 294–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2010.496691
Museus, S. D., & Ravello, J. N. (2010). Characteristics of academic advising that contribute to
racial and ethnic minority student success at predominantly white institutions. NACADA
Journal, 30(1), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.12930/0271-9517-30.1.47
Pizzolato, J. E., Nguyen, T. K., Johnson, M. P., & Wang, S. (2012). Understanding context:
Cultural, relational, & psychological interactions in self-authorship development. Journal
of College Student Development, 53(5), 656-679.
Stout, K. E., & Johnson, D. R., Pohl, A. J., Opsal, C. L. (2012). Making the Connection
Implementation Manual. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Institute on Community
Integration.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2015). Reframing academic advising for student success: From advisor to
cultural navigator. NACADA Journal, 35(1), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.12930/NACADA-
14-199
Swecker, H. K., Fifolt, M., & Searby, L. (2013). Academic advising and first-generation college
students: A quantitative study on student retention. NACADA Journal, 33(1), 46–53.
https://doi.org/10.12930/NACADA-13-192
Tovar, E., & Simon, M. A. (2006). Academic probation as a dangerous opportunity: Factors
influencing diverse college students’ success. Community College Journal of Research
and Practice, 30(7), 547–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920500208237
Trombley, C. M. (2000). Evaluating students on probation and determining intervention
strategies: A comparison of probation and good standing students. Journal of College
Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 2(3), 239–251.
https://doi.org/10.2190/4MY9-LB3T-D5Y0-APUQ
Vianden, J., & Barlow, P. J. (2015). Strengthen the bond: Relationships between academic
advising quality and undergraduate student loyalty. NACADA Journal, 35(2), 15–27.
https://doi.org/10.12930/NACADA-15-026
Walpole, M. (2003). Socioeconomic status and college: how SES affects college. The Review of
Higher Education, 27(1), 45–73. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2003.0044
Yosso, T. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community
cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69-91.

Appendix A: Faculty Interview Instrumentation
Research site: Seattle University
Introduction:
My name is Willa Kurland and I am a first year SDA student at Seattle University. Thank you so
much for your willingness to participate in this interview. I am conducting this interview for my
Student Development Graduate Project course (SDAD 5990).
Previous findings have shown a disproportionate percentage of students of color placed on

academic probation during the 2014-2017 academic years. The purpose of this interview is to
learn more about the experience of faculty working with students of color on academic
probation.
In order accurately capture and document the information you share, I will be recording and
transcribing this focus group session. I will be the only person with access to the tape recording
and will erase it once it has been transcribed. I ask that you do not share what is said today,
outside of this room. Additionally, please select a pseudonym that will be used today, as well as
in my final report and any written communications.
Upon completion, a transcription of today’s interview will be provided to you. You may review
it for accuracy. Finally, I will be handing out a demographic questionnaire, please fill this out at
the end of today’s interview.
For the purpose of this project, academic probation and academic difficulty are used
interchangeably and will be defined as: Undergraduate students in the UAC with a cumulative
SU GPA below 2.00
Faculty Interview Questions
Warm-up question
1. Given Seattle University’s dedication to “educating the whole person, to professional

formation, and to empowering leaders for a just and humane world”, what is your role as
an academic advisor?
The role of a faculty advisor
2. In your opinion, what is your role in supporting students of color in academic difficulty?
a. What kind of responsibilities does this entail?
i. Probe- ask about self-expectation vs UAC expectation
3. What has been most challenging about working with students of color in academic
difficulty?
a. Can you give me an example?
4. How have your previous professional development experiences informed your approach
in advising these students?
a. Please describe what you mean/give examples
Recommendations
5. What types of training or professional development could enhance your advising of

6. What do you need to further support students of color in academic difficulty?
7. If you could make any changes regarding your role in advising, what changes would you
make?
8. What do you think SU can do to better support students of color in academic difficulty?
9. How might current or future collaboration with the Office of Multicultural Affairs
(OMA) support students of color in academic difficulty?
10. Is there anyone else (individuals/campus departments) you would like to collaborate
with?
a. What would this look like?
b. What resources would you need in order to do this?
Wrap-up
11. Are there any questions or areas I did not ask about that you think would be relevant to
advising students of color on academic probation?
Demographic Questionnaire
Name: ______________________________
Pseudonym: ______________________________
Current Professional Position: _____________________________
How long have you been in this position? _____________________________
Previous Professional Positions: please list 2 most recent, and provide CV (if comfortable):
______________________________
______________________________
Race/Ethnicity (Check all that apply)
o Asian/Asian-American
o Black/African American
o Hispanic
o Latino/a
o Native American/First Nations
o Pacific Islander
o Multi-Racial
o White
o If none of these, please specify: _____________
Gender:
o Male
o Female
o Intersex (Transgender)
o Prefer Not to Answer
o Other: Please Specify _________
Preferred Pronouns (Check all that apply):
o He/Him/His
o She/Her/Hers
o They/Them/Their
In my role as faculty member, I have worked with (check all that apply)
o Students of color
o Students on academic probation
o Low-income students
o First generation college students
What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed? (Check all that apply)
o High school graduate, diploma or the equivalent (for example: GED)
o Some college credit, no degree
o Trade/technical/vocational training
o Associate degree
o Bachelor’s degree
o Master’s degree
If yes, please include degree type and institution: ______________________________
o Professional degree
o Doctorate degree
Have you obtained any additional academic advising credentials/certifications?
If yes, please include type and date obtained. (i.e.- NACADA advising certificate, 2018)
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Please list any professional development experience relevant to working with students of color
on academic probation:
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Is there anything additional about your professional work that you think would be helpful for
me to know?
SDAD 5590 Information Sheet
Purpose
The purpose of this project is to provide master’s students an opportunity for project-based
learning around equity, and diversity in higher education. Previous findings have shown a
disproportionate percentage of students of color placed on academic probation during the 2014-
2017 academic years. The purpose of this interview is to learn more about the experience of
faculty working with students of color on academic probation. Findings from this project will be
used to provide recommendations to Seattle University, in particular the Office of Multicultural
affairs, the Division of Student Development, and the UAC.
Procedures
The invited stakeholders will participate in one 1:1 interview for no more than 30 minutes. Feel
free to answer questions to the degree you feel comfortable with. You may refuse to answer any
question and withdraw from the interview at any time without consequence. With permission,
the interview will be audio-recorded and transcribed. The facilitator will analyze the data and
prepare a written and oral report to be turned in for course credit and may be shared with campus
stakeholders. Upon completion, a transcription of today’s focus group will be provided to you.
You may review it for accuracy.
Privacy
Several steps will be taken to ensure confidentiality of the interviewee. The interviewer will be
the only person who has access to the recorded interview. The recording will be erased after the
interview is transcribed. You will be asked to select a pseudonym and that name will be used
during the interview and in the write up of the report—therefore your real name will not be
identified verbally or in any written documents.
Contact Information: Dr. Yamamura, Associate Professor, in the SDA program is supervising
this class project. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact her:
yamamur1@seattleu.edu
Appendix B: Focus Group Instrumentation
Research site: Seattle University
Introduction:
My name is Willa Kurland and I am a first year SDA student at Seattle University. Thank you so
much for your willingness to participate in this focus group. I am conducting this focus group for
my Student Development Graduate Project course (SDAD 5990).
Based on previous findings at Seattle U, there has been a disproportionate number of students of
color placed on academic probation during the 2014-2017 academic years. The purpose of this
session is to learn more about the experience of academic advisors working with students of
color on academic probation.
In order accurately capture and document the information you share, I will be recording and
transcribing this focus group session. I will be the only person with access to the tape recording
and will erase it once it has been transcribed. I ask that you do not share what is said today
outside of this room. Additionally, please select a pseudonym that will be used today, as well as
in my final report and any written communications.
Upon completion, a transcription of today’s focus group will be provided to you. You may
review it for accuracy. Finally, I will be handing out a demographic questionnaire, please fill this
out at the end of today’s session.
Guidelines for this focus group session:

 There are no right or wrong answers
 Everyone should have an equal chance to speak
 Please speak one at a time
 Please respect everyone’s confidentiality
My role is to guide the conversation. Tasmia will be helping with note-taking and observation.
For the purpose of this project, academic probation and academic difficulty are used
interchangeably and will be defined as: Undergraduate students in the UAC with a cumulative
SU GPA below 2.00
Focus group questions

Warm-up question
1. Given Seattle University’s dedication to “educating the whole person, to professional

formation, and to empowering leaders for a just and humane world”, what is your role as
an academic advisor?
The role of an academic advisor
2. In your opinion, what is the role of an academic advisor in supporting students of color in
academic difficulty?
3. What has been most challenging about working with students of color in academic
difficulty?
a. Can you give me an example?
4. How have your previous professional development experiences informed your approach
in advising these students?
a. Please describe what you mean
Recommendations
5. What types of training or professional development could enhance your advising of

6. How might current or future collaboration with the Office of Multicultural Affairs
(OMA) support students of color in academic difficulty?
7. Is there anyone else (individuals/campus departments) you would like to collaborate

with?
a. What would this look like?
8. Suppose UAC had unlimited resources, what would you need to further support students
of color in academic difficulty?
Wrap-up
9. Are there any questions or areas I did not ask about that you think would be relevant to
advising students of color on academic probation?
Demographic Questionnaire
Name: ______________________________
Pseudonym: ______________________________
Current Professional Position: _____________________________
How long have you been in this position? _____________________________
How many hours a week do you work in this position? _____________________________
Previous Professional Positions (please include job title and institution):
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
I have worked professionally with (check all that apply)
o Students of color
o Students on academic probation
o Low-income students
o First generation college students
Race/Ethnicity (Check all that apply)
o Asian/Asian-American
o Black/African American
o Hispanic
o Latino/a
o Native American/First Nations
o Pacific Islander
o Multi-Racial
o White
o If none of these, please specify: _____________
Gender:
o Male
o Female
o Intersex (Transgender)
o Prefer Not to Answer
Preferred Pronouns (Check all that apply):
o He/Him/His
o She/Her/Hers
o They/Them/Their
What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed? (Check all that apply)
o High school graduate, diploma or the equivalent (for example: GED)
o Some college credit, no degree
o Trade/technical/vocational training
o Associate degree
o Bachelor’s degree
o Master’s degree
o Professional degree
o Doctorate degree
Have you obtained any additional academic advising credentials/certifications?

If yes, please include type and date obtained. (i.e.- NACADA advising certificate, 2018)
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Please list any professional development experience relevant to working with students of color
on academic probation:
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Is there anything additional about your professional work that you think would be helpful for
me to know?
Appendix C: Demographic Trends and Probation
Population Description
From Spring 2014 – Spring 2017, a total of 202 students have been placed on academic
probation within the UAC. Lists of enrolled undergraduate students from Spring 2014, Spring
2015, Spring 2016, and Spring 2017 were generated creating a list of 3,677 unique records
including ethnicity, age, gender, admit status, and religious denomination. Using this aggregate
list, each record within the probation list was matched to these fields to obtain a full picture of
their demographic profile. Some records did not have complete fields and are designated by an
“Unknown” entry and may skew results. This data was coded and analyzed using IBM SPSS
Statistics version 23.
Ethnic Identity of Students

The distribution of ethnic identities for students on probation within the UAC between Spring
2014 - 2017 follows a normal distribution curve and closely resembles the ethnic identity
distribution of all matriculated undergraduates between Spring 2014 – Spring 2017 (probation
skewness: -0.572; SU skewness: -0.656). Native American (∆ +1.6%) and Black (∆ +2.6%)
show the greatest difference in proportion of students on probation when compared to the overall
undergraduate population, indicating higher populations of students with these identities having
probationary status. See Table 1 for distribution of ethnic identities among students.
Table 1: Frequency of Ethnicity

All UG Probation
Ethnicity All UG Percent Probation Percent
Frequency Frequency
Native American 16 0.4% 4 2.0%
Pacific Islander 29 0.8% 0 0%
Black 104 2.8% 11 5.4%
Two or More 265 7.2% 9 4.5%
Non-Resident 368 10.0% 24 11.9%
Hispanic 389 10.6% 22 10.9%
Unknown 503 13.7% 27 13.4%
Asian 541 14.7% 28 13.9%
White 1461 39.7% 77 38.1%
Total 3676 100.0% 202 100.0%
Ethnicity and Probation

After removing records with an “Unknown” ethnicity (count = 503, 13.7%), a Pearson chi-square
test was conducted to examine whether there was a relationship between ethnicity and academic
probation. The results revealed that there was a significant relationship between the two
variables (Chi square value = 21.764, df =7, p = .003). Black (10.6%) and Native American
(25%) students were significantly more likely to enter academic probation than any other
ethnicity (see Tables 2 and 3).
Table 2: Ethnicity * Probation Crosstabulation

Ethnicity (Excluding “Unknown”)
Pacifi Two
Native Non- c or
Hispan Americ Reside Island More Whit
Asian Black ic an nt er Races e Total
Probati N Count 513 93 367 12 344 29 256 1384 2998
on o % within
94.8 89.4 100.0 96.6 94.7 94.5
NoUnkno 94.3% 75.0% 93.5%
% % % % % %
wn
Ye Count 28 11 22 4 24 0 9 77 175
s % within
10.6
NoUnkno 5.2% 5.7% 25.0% 6.5% 0.0% 3.4% 5.3% 5.5%
%
wn
Total Count 541 104 389 16 368 29 265 1461 3173
% within
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
NoUnkno 100.0%
% % % % % % % %
wn
Table 3: Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 21.764a 7 .003
N of Valid Cases 3173
a. 2 cells (12.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .88.
Admit Status and Probation

A Pearson chi-square test was conducted to examine whether there was a relationship between
admit status and academic probation. The results revealed that there was a significant
relationship between the two variables (Chi square value = 27.002, df =4, p = .000). Readmitted
(28.6%) students were significantly more likely to enter academic probation than any other admit
status (see Tables 4 and 5).
Table 4: Probation * Admit Status Crosstabulation

Admit Status
Post-
FR TR Bacc Readmit Unknown Total
Probation No Count 2525 867 52 15 15 3474
% within Admit
94.8% 93.7% 100.0% 71.4% 100.0% 94.5%
Status
Yes Count 138 58 0 6 0 202
% within Admit
5.2% 6.3% 0.0% 28.6% 0.0% 5.5%
Status
Total Count 2663 925 52 21 15 3676
% within Admit
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Status

Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 27.002a 4 .000
N of Valid Cases 3676
a. 3 cells (30.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .82.
Gender and Probation

A Pearson chi-square test was conducted to examine whether there was a relationship between
gender and academic probation. The results revealed that there was a significant relationship
between the two variables (Chi square value = 6.047, df =1, p = .014). Men (6.6%) were
significantly more likely to enter academic probation than women (4.8%) (see Tables 6 and 7).
Table 6: Probation * Gender Crosstabulation

Gender
F M Total
Probation No Count 2125 1349 3474
% within Gender 95.2% 93.4% 94.5%
Yes Count 106 96 202
% within Gender 4.8% 6.6% 5.5%
Total Count 2231 1445 3676
% within Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Asymptotic Significance (2- Exact Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (1-
Value df sided) sided) sided)
Pearson Chi-
6.047a 1 .014
Square
Fisher's Exact
.015 .009
Test
N of Valid
3676
Cases
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 79.40.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Appendix D: Action Plan and Timeline
Timeline Action steps Collaborators

Next 6 months Planning of Check and Connect OMA, academic advisors,
mentorship program faculty advisors, Counseling and
- Model after SU Fostering Scholars Psychological Services, Career
and national model Services, the Center for
Community Engagement, Camp
Ministry, Fostering Scholars
OMA and the Outreach Center collaborate OMA/Outreach center/Academic
to host processing spaces for students of advisors
color on academic probation
- Create quarterly standing sessions
UAC and OMA collaborate to revamp OMA/UAC

student communications
- Remove any deficit language
- Implement student probation
contract to include requirement of
Check and Connect mentorship
program
Create culturally relevant communications OMA, Academic Services, IT,

- Sending quarterly academic Marketing and Communications
reminders, and providing study
tips through the OMA email
listserv and social media as
appropriate
Update OMA website to include academic

advising information and FAQs on
academic probation
- Collaborate with MarCom to
provide informational videos and
photo campaign
- Create more visual representation
of OMA/advising partnership for
campus life spaces
Next 12 months Implementation of Check and Connect OMA, academic advisors,

with first cohort or UAC students faculty advisors, Counseling and
Psychological Services, Career
Services, the Center for
Community Engagement, Camp
Ministry, Fostering Scholars
OMA to join student persistence team OMA/Academic Services

- Student persistence team recruit
other campus partners (i.e.-faculty,
departmental directors, etc.)
- Create collaborative
vision/mission statement
Student persistence team collaborate to OMA/Academic Services
prioritize academic advising topics
- create clear expectations of use of
technology (i.e.-Starfish)
- develop a campus resource map
for advisors to utilize for more
effective referrals
- continue to assess best practices
for working with students of color
on academic probation
Ongoing/next 2-3 Conduct further research on demographics Office of Institutional Research

years of students on academic probation within
all academic colleges and departments at
Seattle U
Further formalize partnerships with OMA Division of Student

divisional and academic Affairs/Academic Services
departments/Academic Services to share
data and best practices
- based on data, offer more
robust/relationship based cultural
competence trainings at events
such as in-service
Create academic probation advising OMA/Academic

syllabus- as training guide for staff and Services/Deans/Provosts
faculty
- create model of accountability for
faculty advisors

Kurland Ma Project Spring 2018

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

Kurland Ma Project Spring 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running head: COLLABORATING TO SUPPORT STUDENTS OF COLOR ON ACADEMIC

Continuing the Conversation: Collaborating to Support Students of Color on Academic

SDAD 5990: Student Development Graduate Project

Dr. Erica Yamamura

June 14th 2018

Problem statement ........................................................................................................................ 2

Literature Review ......................................................................................................................... 4

Results and Findings ................................................................................................................... 15

Action Plan and Timeline ........................................................................................................... 24

Conclusion and Reflection.......................................................................................................... 26

Appendix A: Faculty Interview Instrumentation .................................................................... 33

Appendix B: Focus Group Instrumentation............................................................................. 38

Appendix C: Demographic Trends and Probation .................................................................. 42

Appendix D: Action plan and timeline...................................................................................... 46

understanding the rates of students of color on academic probation, particularly the

overrepresentation of Black, Native, and Southeast Asian students attending Predominantly

culminates in recommendations and an action plan for the university site.

Keywords: Academic advising, multicultural affairs, academic success, students of color,

academic probation, retention

struggle in effectively supporting diverse student populations. Students on academic probation

private Jesuit institution received anecdotal evidence that a disproportionate percentage of

color on academic probation a high percentage identified as Black/African-American,

Native/First Nations/Indigenous, or Southeast Asian.

The Office of Multicultural Affairs (OMA) works to promote an inclusive learning

Native/First Nations/Indigenous, and Southeast Asian students on academic probation.

academic advising protocols at a mission-driven, religiously affiliated university that is

disproportionate percentage of Black/African-American, Native/First Nations/Indigenous, and

the academic trajectory of students, particularly those on academic probation.

Academic probation among students of color

among diverse student populations.

Among students on academic probation, transitional issues, or issues adjusting to the

advisors and university professionals.

It is important to understand a deficit model of thinking is detrimental to a student of

overrepresentation of Black, Native, and Southeast Asian students attending Predominantly

Holistic and developmental advising as a retention tool

be attributing to a student’s success. Additionally, Crookston (1994) describes developmental

advising as a practice related to facilitation of a student’s “rational processes, environmental and

interpersonal interactions, behavioral awareness, and problem-solving, decision making, and

evaluation skills” (p.5). Developmental advising is a student-centered approach that is goal

related and continuous.

heightened importance of cross campus collaboration and partnerships between academic

able to address the student’s needs.

Proactive and culturally relevant interventions for students of color

A high-involvement model of advising that includes proactive and culturally relevant

individual student-to-advisor interactions to understanding more systemic advisor-to-student-to-

but includes proactive outreach from the academic advisor.

The student-advisor relationship is an important factor in this model and interventions

difficulty (Kuwaye & Nishida, 2000).

epistemological development in order to encourage self-authorship among students of color who

PWIs, additional training in cultural competence and identity development is necessary.

academic probation process.

University of San Francisco provides “Back on Track”, an intrusive advising program

includes Canvas course.

the Fostering Scholars program.

At the University of California Davis, collaboration between the division of student

for students (UC Davis, 2018).

students in academic difficulty there is an overall lack of research on how an Office of

Multicultural Affairs can best support students of color on academic probation.

and reform at this PWI, guiding research questions include:

 How might current advising practices impact the disproportionate percentage of

students of color on academic probation?

 What role can an Office of Multicultural Affairs play in supporting students of

color on academic probation?