GIFTS: Boosting Students Who Demonstrate Non-Thriving Characteristics Early In Semester

Andrew Charles Bartolini; Joseph A Lyon

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: FYEE 2025 Conference
Location: University of Maryland - College Park, Maryland
Publication Date: July 27, 2025
Start Date: July 27, 2025
End Date: July 29, 2025
Conference Session: GIFTS I
Tagged Topic: FYEE 2025
Page Count: 4
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--55261
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/55261
Download Count: 3

Paper Authors

biography

Andrew Charles Bartolini University of Notre Dame

visit author page

Associate Teaching Professor, University of Notre Dame
Director, First-Year Engineering Program, University of Notre Dame

visit author page

biography

Joseph A Lyon University of Notre Dame orcid.org/0000-0002-1993-4191

visit author page

Joseph A. Lyon is an Assistant Teaching Professor at the University of Notre Dame. He holds a Ph.D. in Engineering Education. His research interests are computational thinking and mathematical modeling.

visit author page

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

This evidence-based complete paper investigates a process used by the First-Year Engineering Program at a private midwestern university to identify students who show signs that they may be non-thriving at the end of the semester and boost them towards success and improved course performance. One goal of an educator is to enable students to learn the course material and assist them in thriving as young scholars. The earlier in the semester, we can identify students who show signs similar to those of previous students who were ultimately non-thriving at the end of the semester, the more time the current students have to utilize resources and ultimately thrive in a course.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, one of the authors conducted a study aimed at this purpose. This boosting initiative included several steps:

1) Using historical data, a trigger that, when met, increased the likelihood that the student would be non-thriving by the end of the semester (i.e., students who met this trigger condition had higher odds of being non-thriving) was identified. The goal was to create a trigger that identified as many ultimately non-thriving students as possible while minimizing the identification of students who would ultimately thrive by the semester's end (i.e., false positives). This trigger had to be based on the first four or five weeks of performance so the faculty could boost these students before the semester progressed too far. The trigger was also based solely on the student’s performance in the classroom, which was important for two reasons: (i) the authors did not want to identify students based on their demographics or preparation levels; instead, only on their performance, and (ii) for transferability to future courses, we could guarantee that faculty members would have access to student grades, but not demographic or preparation information based on data privacy.

2) Using this trigger, the course instructors identified “at-risk” students and asked these students to create a personal action plan that they would use to help them thrive in the course. Once a faculty member identified the students that met the trigger, the faculty member boosted these students. This boost involved a personalized email to the student, mentioning their performance met characteristics that in the past have sometimes resulted in students who ultimately are non-thriving by the end of the semester. The email invited students to complete a personalized action plan, which helped them build meta-cognition and identify what steps they would take to help boost their performance. This personal action plan connected students to various resources on campus to help support them.

3) The study finally tracked the boosted students to see if they were thriving by the end of the semester. The previous study showed that students who created a personal action plan had statistically higher grades at the end of the semester, on average, than those who did not. While this initiative was conducted in the Fall 2019 semester, it has not been repeated due to bandwidth limitations after the COVID-19 pandemic.

The process is being repeated this fall. In many ways, this study is similar to the previous one, although there are significant differences in process and timing that will allow us to address the following questions through the current study:

1) How has the number and percentage of students who met the trigger condition changed before and after the pandemic? 2) How has the number and percentage of students who completed the personal action plan changed before and after the pandemic? 3) How does having advisors individually contact students who fail to complete the personal action plan affect their ultimate performance at the end of the semester? 4) Using a survey distributed at the end of the semester, do students view the boosting initiative as effective? 5) Using the results of the personal action plans, what are the reasons why students self-reported meeting the trigger condition? 6) What are the similarities and differences between the boosting initiative run through the First-Year Engineering Program and a similar process occurring in the Introductory Chemistry course?

Citation
Format

Bartolini, A. C., & Lyon, J. A. (2025, July), GIFTS: Boosting Students Who Demonstrate Non-Thriving Characteristics Early In Semester Paper presented at FYEE 2025 Conference, University of Maryland - College Park, Maryland. 10.18260/1-2--55261

TY  - CPAPER
AB  - This evidence-based complete paper investigates a process used by the First-Year Engineering Program at a private midwestern university to identify students who show signs that they may be non-thriving at the end of the semester and boost them towards success and improved course performance. One goal of an educator is to enable students to learn the course material and assist them in thriving as young scholars. The earlier in the semester, we can identify students who show signs similar to those of previous students who were ultimately non-thriving at the end of the semester, the more time the current students have to utilize resources and ultimately thrive in a course.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, one of the authors conducted a study aimed at this purpose. This boosting initiative included several steps:

1) Using historical data, a trigger that, when met, increased the likelihood that the student would be non-thriving by the end of the semester (i.e., students who met this trigger condition had higher odds of being non-thriving) was identified. The goal was to create a trigger that identified as many ultimately non-thriving students as possible while minimizing the identification of students who would ultimately thrive by the semester&#39;s end (i.e., false positives). This trigger had to be based on the first four or five weeks of performance so the faculty could boost these students before the semester progressed too far. The trigger was also based solely on the student’s performance in the classroom, which was important for two reasons: (i) the authors did not want to identify students based on their demographics or preparation levels; instead, only on their performance, and (ii) for transferability to future courses, we could guarantee that faculty members would have access to student grades, but not demographic or preparation information based on data privacy.

2) Using this trigger, the course instructors identified “at-risk” students and asked these students to create a personal action plan that they would use to help them thrive in the course. Once a faculty member identified the students that met the trigger, the faculty member boosted these students. This boost involved a personalized email to the student, mentioning their performance met characteristics that in the past have sometimes resulted in students who ultimately are non-thriving by the end of the semester. The email invited students to complete a personalized action plan, which helped them build meta-cognition and identify what steps they would take to help boost their performance. This personal action plan connected students to various resources on campus to help support them.

3) The study finally tracked the boosted students to see if they were thriving by the end of the semester. The previous study showed that students who created a personal action plan had statistically higher grades at the end of the semester, on average, than those who did not.
While this initiative was conducted in the Fall 2019 semester, it has not been repeated due to bandwidth limitations after the COVID-19 pandemic. 

The process is being repeated this fall. In many ways, this study is similar to the previous one, although there are significant differences in process and timing that will allow us to address the following questions through the current study:

1) How has the number and percentage of students who met the trigger condition changed before and after the pandemic?
2) How has the number and percentage of students who completed the personal action plan changed before and after the pandemic?
3) How does having advisors individually contact students who fail to complete the personal action plan affect their ultimate performance at the end of the semester?
4) Using a survey distributed at the end of the semester, do students view the boosting initiative as effective?
5) Using the results of the personal action plans, what are the reasons why students self-reported meeting the trigger condition?
6) What are the similarities and differences between the boosting initiative run through the First-Year Engineering Program and a similar process occurring in the Introductory Chemistry course?
AU  - Andrew Charles Bartolini
AU  - Joseph A Lyon
CY  - University of Maryland - College Park, Maryland
DA  - 2025/07/27
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - GIFTS: Boosting Students Who Demonstrate Non-Thriving Characteristics Early In Semester
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/55261
DO  - 10.18260/1-2--55261
ER  -