Computers in Human Behavior 47 (2015) 90–97

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Investigating student motivation in the context of a learning analytics

intervention during a summer bridge program
Steven Lonn a,⇑, Stephen J. Aguilar b,1, Stephanie D. Teasley c,2
a
USE Lab, Digital Media Commons, University Library, University of Michigan, United States
b
Combined Program in Education and Psychology and USE Lab, Digital Media Commons, University Library, University of Michigan, United States
c
School of Information and USE Lab, Digital Media Commons, University Library, University of Michigan, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Summer bridge programs are designed to improve retention and academic success among at-risk popu-
Available online 10 August 2014 lations in postsecondary education by focusing on successful skills, behaviors, and high impact practices
that promote academic performance. Recent research on these programs has focused primarily on how
Keywords: students’ incoming demographics and prior academic performance predict academic performance at
Learning analytics the university level. This study investigated changes in students’ academic motivation orientations over
Motivation the course of one bridge program, and how a learning analytics-based intervention was employed by aca-
Early warning systems
demic advisors to inform their face-to-face meetings with students. The results of our study show that
At-risk students
Design-based research
students’ mastery orientation decreased over the course of the bridge program, and indicate that stu-
dents’ exposure to displays of their academic performance negatively predicts this change. The findings
suggest that student perceptions of their goals and formative performance need to be carefully consid-
ered in the design of learning analytics interventions since the resulting tools can affect students’ inter-
pretations of their own data as well as their subsequent academic success.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction that six areas—or components—contribute to students’ decision

Retention has been seen as a critical issue in higher education
for decades. Admitting students who fail to graduate is devastating
for the students, and has ramifications for institutional account-
ability and related revenue models. Indeed, there is a newfound
sense of urgency to address this issue because of the new institu-
tional rating model proposed by President Barack Obama to tie
U.S. federal financial aid to graduation rates, tuition, and the
percentage of lower-income student enrollment (Lewin, 2013).
Consequently, postsecondary institutions are ever more interested
in investing in viable and successful models to increase retention,
particularly for groups of students with historically lower gradua-
tion rates, such as first-generation college students (Dennis,
Phinney, & Chuateco, 2005) and students from low-SES families
(Adelman, 2006; Walpole, 2003).
Students’ academic persistence has been a well-researched
topic. Tinto’s (1987, 1993) longitudinal work has demonstrated
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 734 615 4333.
E-mail addresses: slonn@umich.edu (S. Lonn), aguilars@umich.edu (S.J. Aguilar),
steasley@umich.edu (S.D. Teasley).
1
Tel.: +1 734 615 4333.
2
Tel.: +1 734 763 8124.
to depart college before earning a degree: (1) pre-entry attributes,
such as academic preparation, cultural background, and first-gen-
eration status; (2) students’ goals such as academic major, and
career choice, and level of commitment to achieving those goals;
(3) students’ institutional experiences, both formal and informal
with peers, faculty, and staff; (4) integration and balance between
academic and social interactions; (5) re-examination and updating
of goals and commitments; and (6) decision finalization based on
students’ cumulative experiences. Related to Tinto’s model, Astin
(1975) asserted that students who physically and psychologically
involved themselves in the academic and social opportunities in
the college environment are more likely to persist. Further, Astin
(1984) argued that student involvement is a behavioral manifesta-
tion of the psychological construct of motivation. In order to better
assess and monitor the metrics related to student persistence,
many postsecondary institutions have turned to learning analytics
tools utilizing models driven by pre-entry attributes to address
their retention concerns. These attributes are generally paired with
students’ formal institutional experiences (i.e., grades), and this
approach has dominated the higher education intervention land-
scape (e.g., Arnold & Pistilli, 2012).
To combat declining retention rates for at-risk student popula-
tions, many institutions have developed summer bridge programs

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.013
0747-5632/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 S. Lonn et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 47 (2015) 90–97 91

(Gandara, 2001; Myers & Schirm, 1999; Terenzini & Wright, 1993). non-cognitive as well as academic performance measures to ulti-
Historically, these programs have been designed to provide aca- mately improve student learning and retention.
demic support and information regarding college campus life, ori-
ent students to the institutional culture, and develop at-risk
2. Literature review
students’ self-esteem and self-efficacy (Ackermann, 1991; Fitts,
1989; Garcia & Paz, 2009; Kezar, 2001; Pascarella & Terenzini,
2.1. Summer bridge programs
2005). Put simply, ‘‘summer bridge programs are intended to
address important preparation and achievement gaps that are evi-
The programmatic content and structure of summer bridge pro-
dent in the research [on retention and persistence]’’ (Colyar, 2011,
grams are, in most instances, inspired by Tinto’s (1987, 1993) and
p. 123). Although these programs are extremely varied in program-
Astin’s (1984) foundational theories of student retention (Kezar,
matic content and implementation, most aim to develop students’
2001). The content of these programs can vary widely, but typically
study and time management skills, their ability to utilize univer-
include accelerated mathematics, English or writing, and general
sity services (e.g., tutoring centers, libraries), and provide meaning-
‘‘college knowledge’’ courses (Suzuki, Amrein-Beardsley, & Perry,
ful exposure to college course work and faculty (Cabrera, Miner, &
2012). Offering these programs during the transitional summer
Milem, 2013). Early evaluations and assessments of summer bridge
months between high school graduation and college matriculation
programs were largely descriptive, relying on student satisfaction
is intentional. Tinto (1996) argued that in order to increase student
surveys (e.g., Ackermann, 1991) while more recent research has
retention, an institution must ‘‘ensure that students receive the
utilized comparison samples of non-participants, longitudinal
guidance they need at the beginning of the journey through college
analyses, and other empirical techniques (e.g., Allen & Bir, 2012;
to graduation’’ (p. 4). Furthermore, the residential component
Cabrera et al., 2013; Strayhorn, 2011).
found in most summer bridge programs is based on Astin’s
Students’ intrinsic motivation to achieve their stated goals, and
(1984) finding that living on campus is the single most important
their capacity to plan and utilize available resources are fundamen-
factor and positive predictor of persistence for all students.
tally linked to their retention in higher education (Allen & Bir,
Assessments of the impact and success of summer bridge pro-
2012). However, the learning analytics tools that are currently
grams have yielded inconsistent results. While some studies indi-
available for deployment at a large scale do not include measures
cate that summer bridge programs improve students’ academic
of student motivation, as reported either by the students them-
success (Strayhorn, 2011; Walpole et al., 2008), others show no
selves or from assessments by their instructors or academic advis-
impact (Fletcher, Newell, Newton, & Anderson-Rowland, 2001)
ors. These measures are difficult to include in large-scale analytics
and some indicate decreased academic success (Ackermann,
tools since such information is not typically captured by institu-
1991). Further complicating these findings, Myers and Schirm
tional student information systems. Whereas the assessment and
(1999) claim that summer bridge program outcomes are more
evaluation of retention programs once relied primarily on student
social than academic. To investigate these mixed results, Cabrera
satisfaction surveys (Astin, 1993; Garcia & Paz, 2009; Strayhorn,
et al. (2013) conducted a longitudinal study assessing the impact
2011; Walpole et al., 2008), today a reliance on institutional
of the University of Arizona’s New Start Summer Program (NSSP)
records of high school preparation, standardized test scores, and
on participants’ first year grade point average (GPA) and retention,
student aid serve as the ‘‘basis for models that evaluate the effects
controlling for incoming student characteristics. While program-
of interventions on attainment outcomes’’ (St. John, 2006, p. 100).
matic participation significantly predicted first-year GPA and
A range of data sources representing a broader characterization of
retention, this relationship became insignificant when controlling
the student experience is needed if technological tools are to suc-
for first-year college experiences and student development.
cessfully produce models that represent all of the components of
As summer bridge programs have matured, research has begun
Tinto’s original model. In response, this study investigates stu-
to focus on the connections between student perceptions and aca-
dents’ motivational orientations and how assessment of those ori-
demic success. For example, Suzuki et al. (2012) investigated stu-
entations can inform a learning analytics-based intervention
dents’ confidence about college expectations and their sense of
employed during a summer bridge program to support data-driven
belonging following their participation in a five-week summer
decisions and actions of the academic advisors.
bridge program at Arizona State University. Bridge program partic-
ipants had a higher likelihood of demonstrating these attributes
1.1. Research questions
than non-bridge students, and the program positively influenced
their short-term retention. Bridge program participation also
The overarching research questions guiding this current study
resulted in students’ forming valuable friendships, learning
are:
about skills known to increase student success (e.g., note taking,
time management), increased feelings of security and confidence,
 RQ1: To what extent, if any, do students’ motivational orienta-
and greater sense of belonging at the institution. Similarly,
tions change throughout the course of a summer bridge
Strayhorn (2011) investigated summer bridge students’ academic
program?
self-efficacy, sense of belonging, and academic and social skills.
 RQ2: What factors predict the changes in motivation, if any, that
His results indicated that summer bridge participation positively
occur over the course of a summer bridge program?
correlated with specific academic skills (e.g., use of technology,
 RQ3: What is the relationship between advisors’ use of a learn-
interpreting syllabi) and academic self-efficacy, but did not seem
ing analytics-powered Early Warning System and their
to affect students’ sense of belonging or social skills. Students’ posi-
students’ academic performance during a summer bridge
tive beliefs about their academic skills and precollege aptitude also
program?
positively predicted first-semester grades in college, explaining
approximately 30% of the variance in first-semester GPA.
This study is the result of working in partnership with summer
bridge staff; we believe that such partnerships are necessary in
order to better understand the different factors that affect stu- 2.2. Relevant learning analytics techniques and tools
dent’s motivational orientations within the context of the summer
transition program. These factors can, in turn, inform the future Learning analytics techniques can utilize large data sets to pro-
designs of learning analytics tools so that new tools include vide decision makers with actionable information that can help
92 S. Lonn et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 47 (2015) 90–97
determine the best course of action to improve learning outcomes
(e.g., grades, retention) (EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative, 2011). Early
Warning Systems (EWSs) are one approach for utilizing historical
and formative educational data to identify students who might
be at risk of academic failure, often in near real time. Arnold
(2010) states that users of EWSs can leverage this ‘‘actionable
intelligence’’ to direct students toward resources or changes in
behavior in a timely manner. Prior work in this area has generated
several useful proofs of concept, including Morris, Finnegan, and
Wu’s (2005) correlation of students’ activity within a Learning
Management System (LMS) with persistence in an online course.
Macfadyen and Dawson’s (2010) work classified specific online
activities—supported by an LMS—that correctly identified 81% of
students who failed the course. Goggins, Galyen, and Laffey
(2010) found that students were able to use LMS feedback to
identify what their peers were doing, and what they, in turn, might
need to accomplish in order to catch up to the ‘‘herd.’’ The Check
My Activity tool, developed at the University of Maryland–
Baltimore County, is one example of a tool that allows students
to compare their LMS activity and grades to that of their peers
(Fritz, 2011). More recently, Muñoz-Merino, Valiente, and Kloos
(2013) found several parameters in the Khan Academy platform
that can provide useful information about the learning process
for students and teachers. Tool designers have utilized this prior
work to create systems that can predict and inform users about
the likelihood of a students’ academic failure or success.
Course Signals’, developed at Purdue University, is one example
of an EWS that uses a predictive model composed of a students’
current course performance, online LMS activity, prior academic
history, and demographics to indicate likelihood of academic fail-
ure to instructors (Arnold, 2012). Taking a slightly different
approach, the University of Phoenix developed an EWS with a cat-
egorization scheme that takes several student factors into account
for increasing or decreasing the student’s priority for receiving a
phone call from their academic advisor (Barber & Sharkey, 2012).
Nearly all EWSs and similar systems are intended to guide the user
to matching specific students with appropriate help and resources
in a timely manner to mitigate against an increasing likelihood of
academic failure. Recent work has continued to develop and refine
techniques to improve these processes, including using compe-
tency maps (Grann & Bushway, 2014), delivering feedback in Mas-
sive Open Online Courses (Coffrin, Corrin, de Barba, & Kennedy,
2014), and in a variety of blended computer programming courses
(Blikstein, 2013).
The information presented in EWSs can reveal activities and
patterns of student behavior that are otherwise opaque to interme-
diaries whose stated job function is to act upon this information,
such as academic advisors (Duval, 2011; May, George, & Prévôt,
2011). Learning analytics can help these intermediaries understand
and optimize student learning and the environments in which it
occurs (Society of Learning Analytics Research, n.d.). Those who
implement summer bridge programs can leverage learning analyt-
ics tools to quickly identify students in need of academic support
and allow them to engage in sensemaking activities that support
subsequent actions (Krumm, Waddington, Lonn, & Teasley, 2014).
Combining traditional pre-entry characteristics, academic achieve-
ment data, and students’ motivation orientations can further
increase the customization and personalization of intermediary’s
actions informed by learning analytics tools.
The study presented here extends the prior research on summer
bridge programs by not only examining student perceptions about
their motivational orientation and their related academic success,
but also combining those data sources with the use of learning
analytics tools collaboratively designed with bridge program lead-
ers and staff to support timely data-driven decision making.
2.3. Theoretical framework
Postsecondary retention is highly influenced by pre-entry char-
acteristics and academic achievement, yet some level of individual
desire, or motivation, is necessary to persist in higher education,
particularly for students in groups with historically lower context
of competence-relevant activities (e.g., the kinds of learning activ-
ities prevalent in schooling) (Allen, 1999). Achievement Goal The-
ory is a useful framework to conceptualize and measure students’
motivation orientations towards academic work (see Elliot, 2005
for a review). Students’ achievement goals—which range from
mastery oriented goals to performance oriented goals—have effects
on a variety of cognitive, affective, and behavioral outcomes
(Rawsthorne & Elliot, 1999).
Intrinsic motivation—which is closely aligned to mastery-ori-
ented learning—has direct implications for educational, occupa-
tional, and sport settings (Heyman & Dweck, 1992). Intrinsic
motivation, defined as interest in and enjoyment of an activity
for its own sake (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Lepper, 1981), can be juxta-
posed against extrinsic motivations, such as getting a good grade
or pleasing a teacher. Collins, Brown, and Newman (1987) state
that when students are provided extrinsic rewards for previously
intrinsically motivated activities (e.g., reading), they are less likely
to perform the task on their own in the future. If neither extrinsic
nor intrinsic motivations are present (‘‘amotivation’’), the student
goes through the motions of learning, but ultimately fails to actu-
ally learn the material (Deci & Ryan, 1985), and is therefore at risk
of dropping out. Similarly, retention programs that focus primarily
on helping students master course content but fail to develop ade-
quate academic self-confidence, academic goals, institutional com-
mitment, and social support may ultimately be unsuccessful in
increasing rates of persistence (Lotkowski et al., 2004).
While motivation researchers have delineated achievement
goals into distinct forms, Ames and Archer (1987) argue that the
various formulations converge in mastery and performance goals.
‘‘Mastery goals focus on (and celebrate) the development of com-
petence and task mastery, whereas performance goals focus on
the demonstration of competence relative to others’’
(Rawsthorne & Elliot, 1999, p. 326). Performance goals may be fur-
ther separated into performance-avoid orientations (i.e., the stu-
dent avoids tasks that might signal incompetence) and
performance-approach orientations (i.e., the student pursues tasks
that reinforce their beliefs of competence) (Elliot & McGregor,
2001). Students with high mastery beliefs have demonstrated dee-
per processing outcomes (e.g., Nolen, 1988) while high perfor-
mance-avoid beliefs have been linked to superficial learning
strategies and cheating behaviors (e.g., Elliot & Dweck, 1988). Stu-
dents with high performance-approach orientations need to be
carefully monitored; as such beliefs can lead to maladaptive as
well as adaptive behaviors. Contextual factors, like the program-
matic content and structure of summer bridge programs, can influ-
ence students’ mastery and performance goals and beliefs
(Harackiewicz, Barron, Pintrich, Elliot, & Thrash, 2002). For exam-
ple, a student who is typically performance-oriented might exhibit
mastery-oriented behaviors if proper support is provided.
We use Achievement Goal Theory both to help us understand
and measure the goals and beliefs of students within the Summer
Bridge Program, and to help us detect any possible changes that
occur during the 7-week term. Moreover, since mastery orientation
is aligned with intrinsic motivation, we utilize it as a reliable proxy
measure for intrinsic motivation. In general, we feel that this is a
necessary step for any learning analytics intervention that aims
to scale; without this preliminary work it would be difficult to
know what non-cognitive factors (e.g., motivation) are at play for
the students these interventions are meant to serve.
 S. Lonn et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 47 (2015) 90–97
3. Methodology
Our research agenda is organized around principles of design-
based research (Brown, 1992) as it involves ‘‘a series of
approaches, with the intent of producing new theories, artifacts,
and practices that account for and potentially impact learning
and teaching in naturalistic settings’’ (Barab & Squire, 2004, p.
2). We collaborated closely with the leaders and staff of a summer
bridge program to iterate the system design of our learning
analytics-powered early warning system (EWS) intended for
academic advisors (see Krumm et al., 2014; Lonn, Krumm,
Waddington, & Teasley, 2012) to and implement student motiva-
tional surveys.
This EWS utilizes information from the institutional learning
management system (LMS) to inform just-in-time advisor inter-
ventions designed to identify student’s maladaptive academic
behaviors and study habits before students fall further into aca-
demic jeopardy.
3.1. Setting
This study focuses on the Summer Bridge Program (referred to
simply as ‘‘Bridge’’ by both program staff and students) that is sit-
uated within a large four-year, more selective, lower transfer-in,
and primarily residential university in the Midwestern United
States with very high research activity (http://classifications.carne-
giefoundation.org). Bridge began in 1975 as an effort to assist non-
traditional students’ transition from high school to college by
providing highly structured introductory coursework. Today,
Bridge offers intensive academic preparation, individualized aca-
demic advising, and a community-building living environment to
an incoming cohort of over 200 students. Students are expected
to attend all of the Bridge classes and workshops, while also meet-
ing with their academic advisor on a regular basis.
Bridge students are enrolled in three courses for a seven-week
term: (1) a mathematics course (remedial intermediate algebra
(Math A), college-level intermediate algebra (Math B), or mathe-
matical reasoning (Math C)); (2) an English or Writing course;
and (3) a freshman seminar that serves as an introduction to social
science. Students are sorted into the mathematics and English or
Writing courses based on a combination of placement exam scores,
prior academic history, and primary major interest. Of these
courses, Bridge leaders and staff have stated that the mathematics
courses are the most ‘‘high stakes’’ because they are designed to
the specifications of the math department, including grading stu-
dents on a curve.
3.2. Participants
Two hundred and sixteen students completed Bridge in the
Summer 2013 term (3 students dropped from the program dur-
ing the term). Most of the participants were female (62.5%) and
identified as members of an underrepresented minority group
(69.4%). The full student cohort was comprised of the following
racial/ethnic groups: Black (46.8%), White (22.2%), Hispanic
(13.9%), ‘‘two or more’’ (8.8%), Asian (6.5%), and Other (1.8%).
Nearly a quarter (24.1%) of students reported that their parent’s
income was less than $25,000 per year and many (22.2%)
reported incomes of $25,000–$50,000 per year. One-fifth (21.8%)
of Bridge students were first-generation college students and
one-sixth (14.8%) were student athletes. Students’ high school
grade point averages (GPAs) ranged from 2.1 to 4.0 (M = 3.45)
and composite American College Testing (ACT) scores ranged
from 14 to 30 (M = 22.54).
93
3.3. Data sources
Two online surveys were distributed to Bridge students, one at
the start-of-term (12 items) and one at the end-of-term (22 items).
Students received course credit for survey completion. To measure
Bridge students’ motivational orientations, we used the Patterns of
Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS; Midgley et al., 2000), to measure
students’ achievement goal orientations in both surveys. These
items have been validated and used in multiple areas (e.g.,
Blumenfeld, 1992; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996), and produce fac-
tors that indicate a respondent’s mastery goal orientation (e.g.,
‘‘One of my goals in class is to learn as much as I can.’’), perfor-
mance-approach orientation (e.g., ‘‘I want to do better than other
students in my class.’’), and performance-avoidance orientation
(e.g., ‘‘It’s very important to me that I don’t look stupid in my
class.’’). The surveys also included questions that asked students
about their perceptions of their college preparation, academic
expectations and goals for Bridge courses, support from family
and friends, and their interaction with their academic advisors.
Student data from the institutional data warehouse was gathered
to supplement the survey responses, including pre-entry demo-
graphic and achievement data.
While the two surveys described above represent the main data
sources described in this paper, our overall design-based research
program investigates how academic advisors in Bridge and other
at-risk student programs use our EWS, called Student Explorer.
This system was designed to provide advisors information about
their students’ engagement and performance to facilitate timely
interventions (see Aguilar, Lonn, & Teasley, 2014; Krumm et al.,
2014; Lonn, Aguilar, & Teasley, 2013; Lonn et al., 2012). Students’
weekly progress updates were presented through a dashboard that
provided representations of student engagement and performance
that allowed the advisors to readily identify students who were
succeeding in any given course, beginning to show signs of falling
behind, or struggling with their coursework (see Fig. 1). The forma-
tive data for this dashboard was provided from the institutional
LMS and updated daily to align with the brisk pace of the 7-week
term. For each course presented within Student Explorer, students
were designated with an ‘‘E3’’ status of ‘‘Encourage’’ (green3),
‘‘Explore’’ (yellow), or ‘‘Engage’’ (red), a categorization derived from
overall percentage of points earned, distance from the course aver-
age, and LMS course website logins (see Krumm et al., 2014 for addi-
tional details about the algorithm underlying this classification). Log
data captured from academic advisors’ use of Student Explorer and
corresponding data from the student meeting appointment system
were matched with student survey data. This allowed us to know
how often an advisor looked at a particular student’s data and
whether advisors did so during a meeting with the student (Note
that it is not possible to know if the student looked at the data view
with the advisor, we can only note that it was possible).
4. Results
We conducted paired-sample t-tests to investigate whether stu-
dents’ goal-orientations changed throughout the course of Bridge
(RQ1) by comparing pre and post measures of students’ mastery,
performance-approach, and performance-avoid orientations. There
were no significant differences between pre-bridge performance-
approach scores (M = 2.8, SD = .93, a = .85) and post-bridge perfor-
mance-approach scores (M = 2.7, SD = .99, a = .90); (t(208) = .792,
p = .43). There were also no significant differences between pre-
bridge performance-avoid scores (M = 2.9, SD = .92, a = .77) and
3
For interpretation of color in Fig. 1, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.
94 S. Lonn et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 47 (2015) 90–97

Fig. 1. Example dashboard displays from Student Explorer early warning system. Summary (left) dashboard presents most recent formative data across courses. Course detail
(right) dashboard presents all assignment details, a historical performance graph, and LMS login history about a specific course in which the selected student is enrolled.

post-bridge performance-avoid scores (M = 2.8, SD = .93, a = .82); Students’ incoming mastery was positively associated with
(t(208) = .772, p = .44). There was statistically significant decrease, their outgoing mastery. However, students’ self-reports of how
however, in students’ reported pre-bridge mastery scores often their advisors showed them their Student Explorer data
(M = 4.7, SD = .55, a = .89), and post-bridge mastery scores negatively predicted the change in mastery over the course of
(M = 4.3, SD = .84, a = .93); (t(208) = 6.53, p < .001). bridge. Advisors’ logged (actual) use of the Student Explorer EWS
To better understand what might contribute to students’ before, during, or after meetings with each student was not a
decrease in mastery orientations during Bridge (RQ2), we specified significant predictor of the change in mastery.
a multiple regression model of students’ change in mastery Since Bridge programs are meant to ensure that students are
(Table 1). We controlled for relevant demographic characteristics prepared for college-level coursework, we wanted to understand
(e.g., athletic status, gender), previous academic expectations and what factors would predict student final grade outcomes in three
support (e.g., support from family and friends), incoming mastery, of the courses offered during the seven week term (RQ3): an Eng-
as well as previous achievement (ACT scores). We were also inter- lish course, a remedial intermediate algebra course (Math A), and a
ested in the relationship between students’ understanding of their college-level intermediate algebra course (Math B). We did not
formative academic achievement data and their mastery percep- model the Math C, Writing, or freshman seminar courses because
tions. To measure this relationship, we included variables that there was little grade variation. We used multiple regression to
measured students’ self-reports about how often their academic model which factors would predict student outcomes in each of
advisor showed them Student Explorer data, as well as whether these courses, and controlled for demographic characteristics
advisors used the Student Explorer EWS before, during, or after (e.g., gender and athletic status), academic achievement measures
their meetings with students. (e.g., ACT scores, math pre-tests, and math midterms), high school
experiences (e.g., perceived quality of high school teachers in gen-
eral, and math/English preparation, specifically), and encourage-
Table 1
ment by family and friends. This allowed us to focus on the
Change in mastery orientation over the course of the bridge program.
relationships between student motivation, advisors’ use of Student
b SE b R2 Explorer, and course grade outcomes (Table 2).
Change in mastery orientation .30 Results of the multiple regression models indicated that athletic
Intercept 1.890 .974 status negatively predicted English course grades, while students
Demographic variables who stated that they had excellent high school teachers positively
Mastery orientation before summer bridge .358** .116 predicted English course grades. These variables, however, were
Student athlete .294 .248
not predictive of math course grades. For students in the remedial
Female .045 .127
Math course (A), mastery orientation negatively predicted course
Achievement variables
grade. The extent to which Bridge advisors viewed students’ data
ACT composite score .042 .031
via Student Explorer after meeting with students also negatively
1-on-1 Advisor-student discussionsa
predicted students’ Math A course grades. For students in the
Graphs within Student Explorer shown to student .112* .050
Studying for bridge courses .058 .043 college-level Math course (B), perceived family encouragement
negatively predicted course grades. The midterm score positively
Advisor’s use of Student Explorer
Before meeting (count) .025 .049 predicted the final course grade for both Math courses. Finally, stu-
During meeting (count) .009 .030 dents’ self-reports of how often their advisors showed them their
After meeting (count) .015 .137 Student Explorer data did not predict any course grade, suggesting
Pre-enrollment support that students’ perceptions of their data affected their mastery ori-
Family encouraged academic success .252** .082 entation but not their grade because mastery orientation.
Friends encouraged academic success .013 .062
Excellent HS teachers .145* .066
**
p < .01.
5. Discussion
*
p < .05.
a
Represents students’ reports of the number of times each issue was discussed While Achievement Goal Theory research has shown that high
during 1-on-1 meetings. mastery orientation is adaptive for students in academic settings
 S. Lonn et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 47 (2015) 90–97 95

Table 2
Predicting summer bridge course grade outcomes.

Variable English course Math A course Math B course

2 2
b SE b R b SE b R b SE b R2
.31 .63 .80
Mastery .06 .07 5.48* 2.58 3.33 4.81
Performance-approach .09 .01 2.00 3.29 11.85 8.93
Performance-avoid .10 .09 3.63 2.82 4.11 8.77
Student athlete .66** .26 – – 1.92 15.15
Female .11 .11 2.22 3.81 15.23 15.23
Student Explorer data shown to student .06 .05 .65 1.62 3.72 4.29
Studying for bridge courses .03 .04 1.85 1.37 .76 3.73
Student Explorer before meeting (count) .04 .04 .63 1.62 1.85 4.48
Student Explorer during meeting (count) .01 .03 1.62 .98 1.96 2.176
Student Explorer after meeting (count) .36 .21 13.42** 4.55 .44 7.62
Family encouragement .05 .07 1.09 2.53 15.59* 7.24
Friend encouragement .04 .06 .54 1.90 8.00 5.73
Excellent HS teachers .12* .06 3.76 2.39 7.24 8.19
ACT English score .01 .02 .88 1.67 7.46 4.15
HS English preparation .07 .05 – – – –
ACT math – – .82 .86 1.42 2.71
Math pre-test – – .61 .16 .43 .81
Math midterm – – .78*** .17 .96* .41
***
p < .001.
**
p < .01.
*
p < .05.

(Rawsthorne & Elliot, 1999), our results show that some features of
the Bridge program may moderately decrease students’ mastery
goal orientations (RQ1). In an effort to understand this change, we
were surprised to learn that showing students their own data within
the context of the Student Explorer early warning system (EWS)
may have contributed to this decrease (RQ2). Yet, we do not know
which features of Student Explorer use contribute to this effect.
Moreover, our findings indicate that student perceptions, rather
than advisors’ actual utilization of Student Explorer are the strongest
predictors of changes in student motivation. The lack of relationship
between the advisors’ frequency of Student Explorer use and stu-
dent motivational changes lends support to the idea that any ‘‘stu-
dent-facing’’ learning analytics intervention will need to be
developed and deployed with care. Such tools can affect students’
interpretations of their own data and possibly their subsequent aca-
demic success. Howley and Rosé’s (2014) recent finding that mas-
tery learning-oriented goals are negatively correlated with seeking
help from informal sources gives additional pause when considering
how students’ might interpret and act upon learning analytics data.
Our investigation of the relationship between advisors’ use of
the Student Explorer EWS and students’ academic performance
as measured by course grades (RQ3) resulted in mixed findings.
The extent to which Bridge advisors viewed students’ data via Stu-
dent Explorer after meeting with students was negatively associ-
ated with students’ Math A course grades, after controlling for
pre-entry demographics, students’ perceptions about encourage-
ment from family and friends, and formative course performance.
This finding may be related to advisors spending more time outside
of meetings trying to help the students whose formative course
performance was already flagged by Student Explorer as far below
the course average.
The analyses conducted to answer RQ3, the relationship
between advisors’ use of Student Explorer and their students’ aca-
demic performance, also highlighted several surprising results
with regard to students’ perceptions. Specifically, mastery orienta-
tion negatively predicted Math A course grades, suggesting that the
context of or students’ placement in this math course may have in
some way been discouraging for students more prone to mastery
achievement orientations. In addition, for the Math B course, stu-
dents’ perceptions about family encouragement negatively pre-
dicted course outcomes. The meaning of these findings is unclear
from the data available in this study. They do, however, highlight
a need for additional research investigating how Achievement Goal
Theory constructs might be interpreted differently by the at-risk
populations participating in summer bridge programs who are
selected specifically because they differ demographically and aca-
demically (in terms of preparedness) from the general student
body at their respective institutions.
Learning analytics is designed to use data mining and statistical
techniques to ‘‘help target instructional, curricular, and support
resources’’ in support of student achievement (van Barneveld,
Arnold, & Campbell, 2012). To that end, learning analytics should
leverage resources to enable informed decision-making. The prom-
ise of learning analytics is allowing users to interact with tools that
support their sensemaking and suggest actions that benefit stu-
dents, either directly or indirectly (Krumm et al., 2014). Given
the wide variability of course contexts, grading schemes and learn-
ing objectives, academic advisors are a logical choice to first test
and refine analytics efforts, leveraging their institutional knowl-
edge of courses, instructors and degree requirements in reference
to the analytic information. The work presented here adds infor-
mation about the student and their motivational orientation into
these analytics-based interventions that compounds the complex-
ity in advisors’ sensemaking tasks for the future. New learning ana-
lytics-powered tools will need to balance students’ academic goals,
motivation to achieve those goals, prior academic skills and habits,
formative performance, and current effort to support decision
making about the most appropriate and timely recommended
actions. Constructing the next generation of learning analytics
tools that can guide users through these complex data sources to
arrive at actionable decisions is a worthwhile challenge for this
emergent field.
5.1. Limitations
The size, selection biases of an at-risk student population, and
short duration of the Bridge program are all factors that limit the
generalizability of this study. Nevertheless, the findings presented
in this article lay important groundwork for future initiatives that
seek to incorporate measures of student motivation into tools that
employ learning analytics, especially in settings like summer
bridge programs.
96 S. Lonn et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 47 (2015) 90–97
One of the limitations of our study is that, by design, EWSs
encourage higher contact with students who are struggling aca-
demically than students who are thriving, thus skewing user data
from EWS actions. Specifically, advisors are likely to log into the
EWS more frequently to check on a student with lower grades than
a student with higher grades, potentially explaining the trends for
demonstrated by our results, particularly the relationship between
advisors’ use of Student Explorer and their students’ academic per-
formance. Also, the lack of understanding why advisors choose to
use the EWS in a particular way (e.g., only viewing summary views
or only for students already having difficulties) is a limitation of
learning analytics-based interventions where the focus is only on
student outcome data. The data sources utilized by these tools
can be informative about what, when, who, and how a student per-
formed within a given learning environment, yet intentionality is
very difficult to capture with current data structures and reporting
mechanisms.
5.2. Future research
Our research agenda is focused on better understanding (A)
what habits and behaviors students bring to their higher education
contexts, (B) how those habits and behaviors mediate students’
goals, performance, and effort, (C) what suggestions advisors make
to remediate students’ unproductive habits and behaviors based on
the data presented in systems like the EWS, and finally, (D) what
actions, if any, students take in response to their advisors’ sugges-
tions. Understanding this entire process will add needed clarity to
the ‘‘feedback loops’’ between students, instructors, and academic
advisors (Clow, 2012). To further this agenda, we propose to
unpack the ‘‘design literacy’’ skills that are required to develop
effective learning analytics-powered tools. Informed by definitions
of affordances by Norman (2013) and Soegaard (2003), this form of
literacy encompasses the skills required to unpack, investigate, and
ultimately understand the affordances that are inherent in any
data visualization within a given context. Properly scaffolding this
form of literacy will require the creators of data representations
(e.g., learning analytics researchers) to construct visualizations
that have perceptible affordances that are sensitive and actionable,
to the needs of the intended – and implied – audiences. In short,
we believe that in order to help academic advisors to identify
and act more effectively on data, learning analytics tools will need
to facilitate visual communication from the data source and,
through the informed intermediary, to the student.
5.3. Conclusion
Learning analytics interventions are designed to foster optimi-
zation of learning and learning environments (Society of Learning
Analytics Research, n.d.) that can ultimately improve student
performance and retention. The study presented here is one of
the first attempts to understand how the use of analytic data might
impact students’ motivation. Our results indicate that even guided
presentations of student performance data by trained advisors can
have significant effects on students’ academic achievement, moti-
vational orientation, and ultimately, their decision to persist in
college. Therefore, designers of learning analytics interventions
should consider how best to collect and present such data. Motiva-
tional and psychological scales have proven useful for helping
instructors and instructional designers tailor learning environ-
ments to learners’ needs, yet are difficult to marry with current
learning analytics interventions. Thus, the next generation of
learning analytics interventions must resolve the tension between
ease of scalability in current data sources (e.g., grades) and the
richness of measures such as students’ intentionality, goals, and
motivations that provide direction about how to tailor learning
environments to learners’ needs.
Acknowledgments
This work was partially funded by an Exploring Learning Ana-
lytics Grant awarded by the Learning Analytics Task Force at the
University of Michigan. The authors would like to thank their part-
ners in the Summer Bridge Program and colleagues who helped
develop earlier iterations of Student Explorer, the early warning
system used in this investigation. Special thanks to William Geh-
ring for his assistance with survey development and Richard Rich-
ter for his development work on the most recent version of Student
Explorer. Finally, many thanks to the members of the USE Lab for
their thoughtful feedback and suggestions throughout this project.
References
Ackermann, S. P. (1991). The benefits of summer bridge programs for
underrepresented and low-income transfer students. Community/Junior
College, 15, 211–224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0361697910150209.
Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school
through college. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. http://
www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/toolboxrevisit/toolbox.pdf.
Aguilar, S., Lonn, S., & Teasley, S. D. (2014). Perceptions and use of an early warning
system during a higher education transition program. In Proceedings of the
fourth international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 113–
117). Indianapolis, IN: ACM. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2567574.2567625.
Allen, D. (1999). Desire to finish college: An empirical link between motivation and
persistence. Research in Higher Education, 40(4), 461–485. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1023/A:1018740226006.
Allen, D. F., & Bir, B. (2012). Academic confidence and summer bridge learning
communities: Path analytic linkages to student persistence. Journal of College
Student Retention, 13(4), 519–548. http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/CS.13.4.f.
Arnold, K. E., & Pistilli, M. D. (2012). Course signals at Purdue: Using learning
analytics to increase student success. In Proceedings of the second international
conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 267–270). Vancouver, BC,
Canada: ACM. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2330601.2330666.
Astin, A. (1975). Preventing students from dropping out. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher
education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297–308.
Astin, A. W. (1993). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of
assessment and evaluation in higher education. Westport: Oryx Press.
Barber, R., & Sharkey, M. (2012). Course correction: Using analytics to predict course
success. In Proceedings of the second international conference on learning analytics
and knowledge (pp. 259–262). Vancouver, BC, Canada. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1145/2330601.2330664.
Blikstein, P. (2013). Multimodal learning analytics. In Proceedings of the third
international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 102–106).
Leuven, Belgium: ACM. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2460296.2460316.
Blumenfeld, P. (1992). Classroom learning and motivation: Clarifying and
expanding goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 272–281.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.272.
Cabrera, N. L., Miner, D. D., & Milem, J. F. (2013). Can a summer bridge program
impact first-year persistence and performance? A case study of the new start
summer program. Research in Higher Education, 54, 481–498. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s11162-013-9286-7.
Clow, D. (2012). The learning analytics cycle: Closing the loop effectively. In
Proceedings of the second international conference on learning analytics and
knowledge (pp. 134–138). Vancouver, BC, Canada: ACM. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1145/2330601.2330636.
Coffrin, C., Corrin, L., de Barba, P., & Kennedy, G. (2014). Visualizing patterns of
student engagement and performance in MOOCs. In Proceedings of the fourth
international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 83–92).
Indianapolis, IN: ACM. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2567574.2567586.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1987). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching
the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing,
learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Colyar, J. (2011). Strangers in a strange land: Low-income students and the
transition to college. In A. J. Kezar (Ed.), Recognizing and serving low-income
students in higher education: An examination of institutional policies, practices, and
culture (pp. 121–138). New York: Routledge.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination inhuman
behavior. New York: Plenum.
Dennis, J. M., Phinney, J. S., & Chuateco, L. I. (2005). The role of motivation, parental
support, and peer support in the academic success of ethnic minority first-
generation college students. Journal of College Student Development, 46,
223–236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/csd.2005.0023.
Duval, E. (2011). Attention Please! Learning Analytics for Visualization and
Recommendation. In Proceedings of the first international conference on learning
 S. Lonn et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 47 (2015) 90–97
analytics and knowledge (pp. 9–17). Banff, Canada: ACM. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1145/2090116.2090118.
Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct.
Handbook of Competence and Motivation, 52–72.
Elliot, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and
achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5–12. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.54.1.5.
Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals
and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 70(3), 461–475. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.461.
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2  2 achievement goal framework. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 501–519. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0022-3514.80.3.501.
Fitts, J. D. (1989). A comparison of locus of control and achievement among
remedial summer bridge and nonbridge students in community colleges in New
Jersey (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Rutgers University, New Brunswick,
NJ.
Fletcher, S. L., Newell, D. C., Newton, L. D., & Anderson-Rowland, M. R. (2001). The
WISE summer bridge program: Assessing student attrition, retention, and
program effectiveness. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Society for Engineering Education, Albuquerque. http://www.foundationcoalition.
org/publications/journalpapers/fie01/01161.pdf.
Fritz, J. (2011). Classroom walls that talk: Using online course activity data of
successful students to raise self-awareness of underperforming peers. Internet
and Higher Education, 14(2), 89–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.
07.007.
Gandara, P. (2001). Paving the way to postsecondary education: K-12 interventions for
underrepresented youth. Washington DC: National Center for Education
Statistics. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001205.pdf.
Garcia, L. D., & Paz, C. C. (2009). Evaluation of summer bridge programs. About
Campus, 14(4), 30–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/abc.299.
Goggins, S., Galyen, K., & Laffey, J. (2010). Network analysis of trace data for the
support of group work: Activity patterns in a completely online course.
Proceedings of the 16th ACM International Conference on Supporting Group
Work (pp. 107–116), Sanibel Island, FL. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1880071.
1880089.
Grann, J., & Bushway, D. (2014). Competency map: visualizing student learning to
promote student success. In Proceedings of the fourth international conference on
learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 168–172). Indianapolis, IN: ACM. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1145/2567574.2567622.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Pintrich, P. R., Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002).
Revision of achievement goal theory: Necessary and illuminating. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 94(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.94.3.638.
Heyman, G. D., & Dweck, C. S. (1992). Achievement goals and intrinsic motivation:
Their relation and their role in adaptive motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 16,
231–247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00991653.
Howley, I., & Rosé, C. P. (2014). Undergraduate attitudes toward help-seeking. In
Proceedings of the 11th international conference of the learning sciences (pp. 1561–
2562). Boulder, CO: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Kezar, A. (2001). Summer bridge programs: Supporting all students. ERIC Digest.
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED442421.pdf.
Krumm, A. E., Waddington, R. J., Lonn, S., & Teasley, S. D. (2014). A learning
management system-based early warning system for academic advising in
undergraduate engineering. In J. A. Larusson & B. White (Eds.), Learning
analytics: From research to practice (pp. 103–119). New York: Springer
Science+Business Media. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3305-7_6.
Lepper, M. R. (1981). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in children: Detrimental
effects of superfluous social controls. In W. A. Collins (Ed.). Aspects of the
development of competence: The Minnesota symposium on child psychology (Vol.
14, pp. 155–214). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc..
Lewin, T. (2013, August 22). Obama’s plan aims to lower cost of college. The New
York Times (pp. A1). http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/education/obamas-
plan-aims-to-lower-cost-of-college.html.
Lonn, S., Krumm, A. E., Waddington, R. J., & Teasley, S. D. (2012). Bridging the gap
from knowledge to action: Putting analytics in the hands of academic advisors.
In Proceedings of the second international conference on learning analytics and
knowledge (pp. 184–187). Vancouver, Canada: ACM. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/
2330601.2330647.
Lonn, S., Aguilar, S., & Teasley, S. D. (2013). Issues, challenges, and lessons learned
when scaling up a learning analytics intervention. In Proceedings of the third
97
international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 235–239).
Leuven, Belgium: ACM. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2460296.2460343.
Lotkowski, V. A., Robbins, S. B., & Noeth, R. J. (2004). The role of academic and non-
academic factors in improving college retention. Policy report. Iowa City, IA: ACT.
http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/college_retention.pdf.
Macfadyen, L. P., & Dawson, S. (2010). Mining LMS data to develop an ‘‘early
warning system’’ for educators: A proof of concept. Computers & Education,
54(2), 588–599. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.008.
May, M., George, S., & Prévôt, P. (2011). TrAVis to enhance online tutoring and
learning activities: Real-time visualization of students tracking data. Interactive
Technology and Smart Education, 8(1), 52–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
17415651111125513.
Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K. E.,
et al. (2000). Manual for the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS). Ann
Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. http://www.umich.edu/~pals/manuals.html.
Morris, L. V., Finnegan, C., & Wu, S. (2005). Tracking student behavior, persistence,
and achievement in online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 8(3),
221–231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2005.06.009.
Muñoz-Merino, P. J., Valiente, J. A. R., & Kloos, C. D. (2013). Inferring higher level
learning information from low level data for the Khan Academy platform. In
Proceedings of the third international conference on learning analytics and
knowledge (pp. 112–116). Leuven, Belgium: ACM. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/
2460296.2460318.
Myers, D., & Schirm, A. (1999, April). The impacts of Upward Bound: Final report for
Phase I of the national evaluation. Report submitted to the U.S. Department of
Education. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. http://
mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/upwardph1.pdf.
Nolen, S. B. (1988). Reasons for studying: Motivational orientations and study
strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 5, 269–287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
s1532690xci0504_2.
Norman, D. (2013). The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. New
York: Basic Books.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: Volume II, A
third decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rawsthorne, L. J., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Achievement goals and intrinsic motivation:
A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(4), 326–344.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0304_3.
Society of Learning Analytics Research (n.d.). About [Webpage]. http://
www.solaresearch.org/mission/about/.
Soegaard, M. (2003). Affordances. http://www.interaction-design.org/encyclopedia/
affordances.html.
St. John, E. P. (2006). Lessons learned: Institutional research as support for academic
improvement. In E. P. St. John & M. Wilkerson (Eds.). Reframing persistence
research to improve academic success: New directions for institutional research
(vol. 130, pp. 95–107). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Strayhorn, T. (2011). Bridging the pipeline: Increasing underrepresented students’
preparation for college through a summer bridge program. American Behavioral
Scientist, 55(2), 142–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764210381871.
Suzuki, A., Amrein-Beardsley, A., & Perry, N. J. (2012). A summer bridge program for
underprepared first-year students: Confidence, community, and re-enrollment.
Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 24(2), 85–106.
Terenzini, P. T., & Wright, S. T. (1993). Students’ personal growth during the first
two years of college. Review of Higher Education, 10, 259–271. http://
files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED281463.pdf.
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition
(2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1996). Reconstructing the first year of college. Planning for Higher
Education, 25(1), 1–6.
van Barneveld, A., Arnold, K. E., & Campbell, J. P. (2012, January). Analytics in higher
education: Establishing a common language. ELI paper 1. http://www.educause.
edu/Resources/AnalyticsinHigherEducationEsta/245405.
Walpole, M. (2003). Socioeconomic status and college: How SES affects college
experiences and outcomes. The Review of Higher Education, 27(1), 45–73. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2003.0044.
Walpole, M., Simmerman, H., Mack, C., Mills, J. T., Scales, M., & Albano, D. (2008).
Bridge to success: Insight into summer bridge program students’ college
transition. Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 20(1),
11–30. http://fyesit.metapress.com/content/f6k70720655h856k/.