How Non Cognitive Factors Impact Student Success April 2 2014 amp April 21 2014 Interstate compact Data and research services Resourcesharing agreements Cooperative programs Network of state ID: 705259
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Making Sure They Make It:" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Making Sure They Make It:
How “Non Cognitive” Factors Impact Student Success
April 2, 2014 &
April 21, 2014Slide2
Interstate compact
Data and research services
Resource-sharing agreements
Cooperative programsSlide3
Network of state
representatives working to promote
college
access and postsecondary success
Focus on “first the family” students
Go
AllianceSlide4
Effective policy
Support programs
Communications and OutreachSlide5
SREB College
Access CampaignsSlide6
Slide7
Enrollment Rates
Source: 2011 SREB Fact Book on Higher EducationSlide8
Completion Rates
Source: Complete College AmericaSlide9
Industrial/Organizational Psychology
Job Predictors:
Intelligence
PersonalitySlide10
Stoutland
(2011)
Academically successful students are able to:
Manage their time
Study effectively
Persist despite discouragement
Seek and use academic supportSlide11
O
penness to New Experiences
C
onscientiousness
E
xtraversionA
greeableness
N
euroticism (Anxiety)
Personality: Five Factor ModelSlide12
Resilience and AnxietySlide13
Conscientiousness
Self-discipline
Dependability
Preparedness
Attention to Details
Organization Skills
Orderly/Neatness
Impulse Control
Achievement OrientationSlide14
Impulse ControlSlide15
“Grit” (Angela Duckworth)Slide16
Motivation
Goal Setting
Percent of attention devoted to task
Persistence over timeSlide17
Expectancy and Motivation
Effort → Performance → OutcomeSlide18
Motivation and Academic SuccessSlide19
Self-Regulation of Behavior
Observation
Evaluation
ReactionSlide20
Types of MemorySlide21
Short-Term (Working) Memory Slide22
Short-Term (Working) Memory Slide23
No Such Thing As Multi-TaskingSlide24
Cognitive Load
Your Choice ?Slide25
Anxiety and PerformanceSlide26
Stereotype ThreatSlide27Slide28
Steele & Aronson, 1995Slide29
Steele & Aronson, 1995
Blacks more likely to call to mind negative stereotypes about their ability in the threat condition
Blacks were more likely to distance themselves from stereotypical hobbies and interestsSlide30
Steele & Aronson, 1995Slide31
Stereotype Threat
Negative stereotypes:
Women
Latinos
Elderly
Low-SES students
White MenSlide32
Stereotype Threat among Women
The Brain Game Handout:
Are women better at using more of their brain and multi-tasking?
Are men better at spatial and advanced math tasks?Slide33
Stereotype Threat among WomenSlide34
Mediators of Stereotype Threat
Negative stereotypes:
increase anxiety, which decreases working memory
decrease task self-efficacySlide35
Moderators of Stereotype Threat
Group Composition
Domain Identification
Group Identification
Acceptance of the Stereotype
Beliefs About AbilitiesSlide36
Reactions to Stereotype Threat
Self-handicapping
Task Avoidance
Disidentification
with the domainSlide37
ResilienceSlide38
Factors that Increase Resilience
Theories of Intelligence
Task Self-Efficacy
Locus of Control (Agency)Slide39
Fixed = “born smart”
Malleable = academic ability increases with effort
Theories of IntelligenceSlide40
Fixed View
Extrinsic motivation
Experience Greater Anxiety
Attribute failure to a lack of ability
Avoid difficult challenges
Performance declines
in the middle grades
and later Slide41
Malleable View
Set Higher Goals
Persist Longer in the face of failure
Value task mastery more than external rewards
deeper learning
More likely to commit new concepts to long-term memorySlide42
Changing MindsetsSlide43
Mueller and
Dweck
(1998)Slide44
Mueller and
Dweck
(1998)
1) Easy Task
2) Praise:
Intelligence
Effort
Neither
3) Difficult Task
4) Easy TaskSlide45
Mueller and
Dweck
(1998)
Performance
Attributions
Enjoyment
MindsetsSlide46
Feedback: How to PraiseSlide47
Cognitive ModelingSlide48
Locus of Control (Agency)
External
InternalSlide49
Learned HelplessnessSlide50
Watson and Linville (1982, 1985)Slide51
Locus of Control and School Success
Students with an internal locus of control have been shown to:
Have Better Class Attendance
Be More Engaged in School
Display more help seeking behaviors
Study MoreSlide52
Self-Efficacy
“I Think I Can!”Slide53
Self-Efficacy and School Success
Students with high self efficacy:
Set High Goals
Have High Task Persistence, especially in the face of failure
More likely to Use Heuristics/Short Cuts in Problem Solving—Can work more quicklySlide54
Increasing Self-Efficacy
Past successful experience with task
Modeling—Watching others perform the task
Praise/EncouragementSlide55
Reducing Stereotype Threat
Positive Role Models
Teach an incremental view of intelligence
Increase Self-efficacy for the Task
Reframe the Task as Non-evaluativeSlide56
Aronson Fried and Good (2002)Slide57
Greg Walton (Stanford University)Slide58
Predicting College SuccessSlide59
Non-cognitive Factors and
College Admission ?Slide60
Teacher Expectations