Diana Centanni (Learning and Instruction)

Zoom Link: https://buffalo.zoom.us/j/97817392569?pwd=UXNvbzBRVFBFTDhJMXNhalJPWE9tdz09

Higher education institutions have a responsibility to ensure that all students are offered the same opportunity to earn their degree despite pre-determined risk factors. As a regular practice, educational leaders use the term “at-risk” to label undergraduate students who need additional support due to various pre-determined factors including academic background (e.g., preparation for college), past academic performance (e.g., high school GPA), personal characteristics (e.g., race, gender, cultural background, income), or technology exposure and access (Dix et al., 2020; Laskey & Hetzel, 2011). To balance these attributes, an academic advisor is assigned to offer guidance, reassurance, and support early in the enrollment process (Lema & Agrusa, 2019; Strayhorn, 2015). Students voiced the importance of the advisor role as a source of connection and information (Baily & Brown, 2016; Gravel, 2012) and an active advisor presence has been shown to influence engagement and persistence (Kahu & Nelson, 2018; Tinto, 2012).

How does the advisor influence change when at-risk students attend college online?  Distance learning options continue to grow, and so do concerns for dropout rates because online students’ success rates are lower than those of campus students (Figlio et al., 2013; Gravel, 2012; Rovai, 2002). This heightens the concern for students who are not ready to perform at expected college-level academic standards.

This session will feature findings regarding distance-based at-risk student perceptions of the advisor role gathered from a qualitative case study completed in June 2021. Audience members will better understand access, technology preferences, availability, and limitations to the advisor role in online settings. Participants will be asked to share practice-based suggestions to guide service delivery for underprepared students to help encourage persistence and retention.

Leah Bartlo (Learning and Instruction)

Zoom Link https://buffalo.zoom.us/j/98430995846?pwd=QjFuL2NHRlNtRHcwVUNRSjRRSXhsdz09

The full impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on childhood blood lead levels in the United States may not be known for some time, but there is serious cause for concern that the severity and frequency of lead poisoning is being exacerbated by the ongoing pandemic as children spend increased time indoors in homes with lead hazards and in-person visits with pediatricians and routine blood lead screenings have decreased dramatically. It is critically important that we reevaluate our response to lead poisoning in the COVID-19 era, in particular the potential for educational interventions to mitigate the impact of lead on the learning and behavior of young children. In the April 2015 report, Educational Interventions for Children Affected by Lead, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention convened an expert panel that outlined current scientific understanding of the effects of lead on young children and described key actions that could be taken to support improved outcomes for lead-exposed children. The report noted major gaps in our understanding of the efficacy of interventions to mitigate the damage of lead and called on institutions to engage in research to address these gaps. This review examines whether any such research has been published on this topic since the CDC report and explores early indicators of the pandemic’s impact on lead poisoning. No research could be located on this topic since the CDC report calling for such work was made public in 2015. Additionally, early indicators suggest the pandemic is likely worsening the longstanding lead poisoning problem in the US, as millions of children are spending increased time indoors in homes with lead hazards amid lockdowns and school closures, and fewer children are being tested and linked to critical services. This paper concludes with a renewed call for action to address the urgent threat of lead poisoning on learning and behavior in children in the COVID-19 era.

Melissa Hubbard (Educational Leadership and Policy)

Zoom Link: https://buffalo.zoom.us/j/98338792973?pwd=cE54RGlMTFZpOTVteVR3bGhLOTR2dz09

For the past several decades, the role of higher education as a public and/or private good in United States (US) society has been a matter of significant discussion and debate in research and policy communities (Kezar, 2004; Kezar et al., 2005; McMahon, 2009; Pasque, 2010). This discussion often focuses on the question of funding higher education: if the institution is primarily a private good for those who obtain degrees, then it should be funded by those individuals; if it is primarily a public good that benefits all of US society, then it should be funded publicly through taxation (Kezar, 2004; Kezar et al., 2005; McMahon, 2009). There has been a significant shift over the past fifty years, from thinking of higher education in the US as primarily a public good, toward thinking of it as primarily a private good (Gildersleeve, et al., 2010; Giroux, 2014; Kezar, 2004; Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004). This changing relationship between higher education and society has led to practical changes within the industry, the consequences of which include decreased funding for instruction, increased commercialization of academic research, and the corporatization of higher education management with an associated decline in faculty governance (Bok, 2004; Kezar, 2004; Slaughter & Leslie, 1997; Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004). How has the privatization and marketization of higher education impacted academic libraries, which have traditionally been spaces that disseminate scholarly knowledge to the general public? Slaughter and Rhoades (2004) argued that one of the consequences of what they call  academic capitalism  has been the systemic defunding of academic libraries.

Kubra Say and Giambattista Davis (Educational Leadership and Policy)

Zoom Link https://buffalo.zoom.us/j/98272238661?pwd=dUNOeUprYlhtNHRFYzlCMFViYWh0UT09

Background

Mentoring programs are one of the services that colleges and universities commonly offer to support first-year students to facilitate their transition and integration into college (Venegas-Muggli et al., 2021). Tinto (1975) suggests that integration can occur in two ways, academically and socially. Mentoring programs serve as key constituents impacting students’ academic achievement and persistence (Flores & Estudillo, 2018; Sanchez et al., 2006).

Tinto’s (1975) attrition model describes how students show better academic outcomes when they feel more integrated into their college community. Mentees are anticipated to have higher academic performance and better school outcomes. The literature has found positive associations between peer-mentoring programs and different components of academic success, including better test grades (Chester et al., 2013; Rodger & Tremblay, 2003), higher GPA (Leidenfrost et al., 2014; Zaniewski & Reinholz, 2016), the number of failed/passed courses (Fox et al., 2010) and better persistence rate (Chester et al., 2013; Collings et al., 2014; Goff, 2011; Mangold et al., 2002).

Purpose

The University at Buffalo (UB) launched, in 2020, a peer-mentoring intervention for first-year, first-generation students to enhance their college outcomes. This peer-mentoring program aims to create new contacts at the University, build a sense of community, stay on track with the academic path, connect with resources, discuss issues and challenges, connect with faculty and staff on campus, and receive individualized support from a peer at the institution. Peer mentors are required to meet with their mentees at least four times each semester, and there are a variety of settings that can count for such meetings, for example, workshops on campus, and sessions journaling about one’s experience, then to be reported on surveys and assessments (Student Success Gateway, n.d). Considering the prior peer-mentoring evaluation studies and the significant impacts on the first-generation student population, this study will evaluate the effectiveness of UB’s peer-mentoring program and present preliminary findings of our evaluation research.

Significance

Peer-mentoring reinforces students’ academic and social growth, benefits their college integration, and improves college outcomes. However, previous research supports that the students identified as underprivileged, such as low-income, racially minoritized, or first-generation, tend to get more benefits and help from mentoring programs than non-participant peers (Flores & Estudillo, 2018). Focusing on the first-generation entering students, our study will help understand peer-mentoring programs’ impact on our specific target population. Our findings aim to contribute to the general knowledge of peer-mentoring, as well as inform researchers, fellow students, faculty, and administrators in higher education and student affairs.

Method

This study uses student-level data from the Office of Institutional Analysis (OIA) at UB between 2016-17-2021-22 academic years. To identify the effect of the peer-mentoring program on participants’ academic performance and retention outcomes, we employ difference-in-differences (DID) as an empirical method. This quasi-experimental method allows us to establish causal relationships between intervention and outcome variables (Furquim et al., 2020). We aim to estimate how the dependent variables would change over time before and after the intervention and evaluate the effectiveness of the peer-mentoring program.