Vol. 2, No. 2 Journal of Appreciative Education 2015 1 The Impact of Appreciative Advising on a ...

15 Pages·2015·0.18 MB·English

by  Ye He

Vol. 2, No. 2 Journal of Appreciative Education 2015
The Impact of Appreciative Advising on a First-Year,
Faith-based Leadership Learning Community

James Robert Walters
St. John’s University

In an attempt to increase student academic success and retention in a first-year, faith-
based leadership learning community in a Catholic, urban and northeastern institution of higher
education, the organizational model of Appreciative Advising was utilized. Appreciative
advising is an offset of appreciative inquiry, developed by David L. Cooperrider (1987) as an
organizational and corporate development model. It is understood as a spirituality-based and
infused method of inquiry as it assumed that individuals could find the positive part of
themselves (or an institution) (English, Fenwick & Parsons, 2003). According to Bushe and
Pitman (1991), Appreciative Inquiry would be appropriate for an institution of higher education
“as it is a way of thinking, seeing and acting for powering transformational change in
organizations (p.1).”

Appreciative Advising, an offset of appreciative inquiry, was developed for utilization in
the academic advising, advisor-student relationship. The model was an intentional collaborative
practice of asking positive, open-ended questions that help students optimize their educational
experiences and achieve their dreams, goals and potentials (Bloom, Hutson, & He, 2008). The
six stages of appreciative advising are “Disarm,” “Discover,” “Dream,” “Design,” “Deliver” and
“Don’t Settle.” “Disarm” and “Don’t Settle” were the two stages that differentiated appreciative
advising from appreciative inquiry. The “Disarm” stage recognized the importance of first
impressions, creating a safe and welcoming environment for students. The “Discover” stage
utilized positive open-ended questions to draw out what students enjoyed doing, their strengths
and their passions. The “Dream” stage helped students formulate a vision of what they might
become, and then assisted them in developing their life and career goals. The “Design” stage
helped students devise concrete, incremental and achievable goals. The “Deliver” stage was the
implementation stage for students with the support and encouragement of the advisor to update
and redefine the dreams as they proceed. The final stage, “Don’t Settle,” was a challenge from
the advisor to the student to raise the student’s internal bar of self-expectations (Bloom, Hutson,
& He, 2008).

In an effort to improve retention, institutions have attempted to identify the individual
strength of students to enable optimal student academic performance. Various strength-based
approaches have been developed and applied to educational settings. Seligman (2002) added that
the focus, grounded in positive psychology and social cognitive theories, is on one’s strength,
positive experiences from the past and encouragement of hope and optimism for the future. The
present study adds to the existing literature by examining the responses of groups of students in
leadership programs on the Appreciative Advising Inventory (AAI), and considering its
implications for advisement and retention.

Local and national research has identified academic performance as a predictor for
college persistence that influences college matriculation and retention. First-year GPA has been
one factor that is often found in research as a strong predictor of persistence (Hagedorn, Lester,
1
Vol. 2, No. 2 Journal of Appreciative Education 2015
Moon, & Tibbetts, 2006). The findings of the present study can help researchers and
practitioners to understand the process of implementing either a similar program or utilizing the
appreciative advising model in learning communities.

Faith-Based Leadership Learning Community (Explanation of Program)
The first-year, faith-based leadership learning community was a new leadership program
developed for the 2012-2013 academic year. Learning community members were 23 students
who demonstrated leadership in their Catholic faith either in their high school or local parish.
Students each received a scholarship of $5,000 per year for their participation over a four-year
period.

The program’s goals over the four years were developed in line with the United States
Conference of Catholic Bishop’s goals as described in the pastoral letter, “Empowered by the
Spirit” (1985). These goals are to develop leaders for the future in their freshman year; to
facilitate personal development in their sophomore year; to form the Christian conscience in their
junior year and to appropriate the faith in their senior year. To achieve the goals of developing
leaders for the future, the specific objectives of the learning community were the following:
1) begin to discern vocations and leadership in the Catholic Church through the lens of
the opportunities of Catholic higher education;
2) identify their own unique talents and gifts of spirit;
3) develop their leadership in the local faith community; and
4) grow in a deeper relationship with Jesus Christ through prayer. Student expectations
of the program included monthly learning community meetings, two shared academic
courses in their first semester, monthly meetings with the coordinator, active
membership in two student groups on monthly personal formation and ongoing
ministry to the local church.

The program’s curriculum and structure were built on the appreciative advising
framework, utilized in higher education to increase student persistence and retention. The stages
of “Disarm,” “Discover,” and “Dream” were built into the first semester. The opening retreat,
first community meeting and initial one-on-one meetings with the researcher focused on the
“Disarm “ and “Discover” stages. The rest of the semester centered on the “Discover” and
“Dream” stages in both the community meetings and one-on-one meetings with the researcher.
In the second semester, the remaining stages of “Design,” “Deliver,” and “Don’t Settle” were a
focus of all of the meetings. For the participants, their “Dreams” were focused on leadership
initiatives related to their faith and identification of gifts and talents. “Dreams” also focused on
their academic success and career discernment.

2
Vol. 2, No. 2 Journal of Appreciative Education 2015
Methodology

Research Questions

The present study attempted to address the following research questions:

1) How did the appreciative advising framework specifically impact the student’s
understanding of his or her Catholic identity?
2) How do students develop their self-perception of assets after completing the
appreciative advising-infused first-year, faith-based leadership program?
3) Will first-year college students in a first-year, faith-based leadership learning
community achieve higher retention?

Sample and Population
Sample. The sample of the first-year, faith-based leadership learning community was
seventeen freshmen students. Eight of the students were male and nine were female. All students
were between the ages of 18 and 19 years old. Two additional students in the learning
community chose not to participate in any part of the research while two students chose to only
participate in the quantitative research. Fifteen students participated in the target group for the
qualitative research (see Table 1).

The non-participants (comparison group) were all first-year students. These participants
included nineteen students with similar academic achievement to the target group. Academic
achievement was determined by self-reporting of high school GPA and SAT scores. Twelve of
the students were female and seven were male. The sample was invited to participate in research
from the campus faith community of student Mass attendance records, event-tracking records
and from participants in the student organization, Catholic Students Community and a freshmen
faith-based leadership program. The other non-participants (comparison group) were nineteen
students who self-identified as Catholic, but were not engaged on campus. Academic
achievement was determined by self-reporting of high school GPA and SAT scores. Twelve of
the students were female and seven were male. Students were recruited from the orientation
rosters and tracking records.

Population. The sample for the present study was drawn from a student population of a
Catholic University with multiple campuses and locations, both nationally and internationally.
The main campus and three other campuses of the University were located in the northeastern
part of the United States. Ranking as one of the most diverse colleges in the nation, this
institution had an undergraduate population of 15,840 students, with gender distribution of 44%
male students and 56% female students. Over 5,000 students pursued graduate studies at this
University. In the fall of 2012, the freshmen class was 2,792. The residence population was 31%
while 69% lived off campus. There was an 18:1 student-to-faculty ratio. Forty-five percent of
students identified as Roman Catholic. Students came from over 48 states and 114 countries
(2012 Institution Fact Book). The findings of the study may be applicable to students and
programs within Catholic colleges and universities in the United States.

3
Vol. 2, No. 2 Journal of Appreciative Education 2015
Table 1.
Target Faith-Based Leadership Group Demographics (n =15)
Demographics Percent
Gender Female 46.6%
Male 53.4%
Ethnicity Hispanic 6.6%
Caucasian/White 93.3%
Secondary Education Private Catholic 60%
Public 40%
Diocese Affiliation Allentown 6.6%
Bridgeport 6.6%
Brooklyn 13.3%
New York Archdiocese 20%
Rockville Centre 40%
Trenton 6.6%
Washington Archdiocese 6.6%
Note: Age = 18 years of age for all participants

Data Collection

Interviews. Students in the first-year, faith-based leadership learning community
participated in individual, 20-minute interviews with the researcher during the months of
November 2012, February 2013, and April 2013. Interview questions were developed based on
the organizational model of appreciative advising and grounded theory. Students met for
approximately fifteen to twenty minutes for each interview with the researcher (see Appendix
A). The interviews were recorded after receiving written consent from the student. The
interviews were transcribed and coded. A small grant from Association of Catholic Colleges and
Universities (ACCU) was awarded to the researcher to assist with data collection.

Student Journals. Students completed a monthly journal reflection to be submitted at the
conclusion of each month. Students were provided with journal questions by the researcher.
They were instructed to reflect on the specific question for each month and to submit their entries
by the provided monthly date. There were no specific expectations placed for length of response.
Students were simply asked to reflect on the question and to share their thoughts based on their
experiences. Several students submitted the journal reflections at the conclusion of the spring
semester. Students were observed at monthly community meetings and in individual monthly
meetings with the researcher.

Appreciative Advising Inventory. All students received and completed the Appreciative
Advising Inventory (AAI) in April of the second semester. The AAI was designed to accompany
the appreciative advising framework. It was modeled after the 40 Developmental Assets
instrument, developed by The Search Institute. Similar to the 40 Developmental Assets
instrument, the AAI has helped individuals identify both external and internal assets. External
assets included support, empowerment, boundaries, expectations and constructive use of time.
Internal assets included commitment to learning, positive identities, values and social
competencies. The 40 Developmental Assets instrument was designed to focus on asset
4
Vol. 2, No. 2 Journal of Appreciative Education 2015
development among K-12 students. The AAI was designed specifically for post-secondary
students (Hutson & He, 2011).

Developed and designed by academic advisors from eight different institutions, the
instrument was developed in response to the need among institutions that utilized the
appreciative advising framework to find an efficient method for starting assets-focused
conversations with students (He, Hutson & Bloom, 2010). The AAI instrument is a 5-point
Likert-scale survey (strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree) containing 44
items addressing two main subscales: internal assets (items 1-22) and external assets (items 23-
44). For internal assets, four internal constructs were measured: commitment to learning (items
1-7), positive values (items 8-11), social competencies (items 12-15), and positive identity (items
16-22). For external assets, four external constructs were measured: support/connectedness
(items 23-27), empowerment (items 28-36), boundaries and expectations (items 37-40), and
constructive use of time (items 41-44). The reliability of the instrument was .95 and LISREL
analysis confirmed the constructs of the instrument (RMRM=.08; GFI=.95) (He, Hutson &
Bloom, 2010). The AAI instrument has been used as a supplementary advising tool to facilitate
both individual and group advising, applicable to the appreciative advising framework. AAI was
used as a self-assessment tool for students to identify their assets and strengths.

All participants received an invitation via email. Students who agreed to participate in the
survey were directed to a link on the Survey Monkey® website. Before taking the survey,
students agreed to participate by clicking “yes” on the consent form on page one of the survey.
The participants’ self-reported SAT scores, first semester GPA, gender, religious identity and
intention to return in the Fall of 2013 for their sophomore year. Students who fell below a SAT
score of 900 and a GPA of 3.0 were removed from the study. Students who did not agree to the
consent form were removed as well. After a self-imposed deadline of the last day of classes of
the spring semester, any survey submitted was not included in the study. The participants, based
on their level of engagement with faith-based activities were designated to different samples.
Intention to return, religion and gender were noted.

Intervention. Students met with the researcher for one-hour meetings during the months
of September, October, and March. The researcher as a participant observer kept field notes for
all meetings. For all meetings, the student discussed his or her curricular and co-curricular
activities, his or her expectations for the leadership program and his or her leadership projects.
The stages of appreciative advising were followed in this sequence: September: “Disarm” and
“Discover” Phase; October: “Discover”; November: “Dream;” February: “Design;” March:
“Deliver;” April: “Deliver” and “Don’t Settle.”

At the start of each meeting, following an initial welcome, the researcher checked in on
the expectations required of the scholarship, which included Mass attendance, student group
participation, and leadership initiatives. Students also reflected on the previous community
meetings and reflection to assess their development. Often, students were challenged in these
one-on-one meetings with action steps to implement before the next meeting. By November,
students committed to their “Dream” activity. This was a focus of the subsequent monthly
meetings and there were specific strategies and action steps that were assessed at the next
meeting, following the appreciative advising model. For some students, they did not get past the
5
Vol. 2, No. 2 Journal of Appreciative Education 2015
transition from “Dream” to “Design.” Most of the students struggled in the “Deliver” stage to
execute their “Dreams.” The researcher stayed at the stage where students were, helping them by
providing skills, encouragement and assessment to move to the next stage over the following
month. In addition, during the months of the interviews, 20 minutes were dedicated to the
specific questions that followed the appreciative advising model. Finally, students always had
time to address any challenges that related to their personal, spiritual and emotional well-being
as well as their academic progress and success.

The researcher was also a participant observer in learning community meetings each
month. The researcher kept field notes at this time. Each meeting had a focus on the year’s goal
of developing leaders for the future. Meetings included small and large group activities, lectures
by speakers and unique prayer experiences. Time was allocated for meals and reviewing
upcoming expectations. Journals were distributed by email and collected by email at the end of
each month in November 2012, January 2013, February 2013, March 2013, and April 2013. The
researcher used open coding for analysis in identifying, naming, categorizing and describing
phenomena found in the collected data. Codes were generated based on the emerging themes.
The researcher generated theoretical notes to relate the codes to the literature. ANOVA was
conducted with SPSS to measure the AAI scores.

Results

Participants’ Self-Reported Assets

Descriptive results were analyzed from the first-year, faith-based leadership learning
community (target group) and the first-year, faith-engaged and first-year, non-faith engaged
student (comparison groups) scores on the following measures: commitment to learning,
positive values, social competencies, positive identity, support/connectedness, empowerment,
boundaries and expectations, and constructive use of time (see Table 2). For these variables, an
alpha level of .05 was used to determine significance. The null hypothesis of this research was
rejected. The hypothesis stated that there is no difference in student first-year perceptions of
assets between (a) first-year, faith-based leadership learning community, (b) first-year, faith-
engaged, self-identified Catholic, and (c) first-year, non-faith, engaged, self-identified Catholic
students.

The ANOVA results indicated that there was a significant difference at a .05 level
between the learning communities and positive values, F(1,55)= 6.19, p=.004; social
competencies, F(1,55) = 3.84, p=.028; positive identity, F(1, 55)= 9.50, p=.028;
support/connectedness, F(1,55) = 4.46, p=.016; boundaries and expectations, F(1,55)= 3.84,
p=.028. Empowerment was significant at an alpha level of .01, F(1, 55)= 14.21, p=.000.
Commitment, F(1,55)= 1.19, p=.315 and time, F(1, 55) = 2.13, p=.129 were not statistically
significant.

Post hoc analyses were conducted with a specific Tukey HSD test on all possible pair-
wise contrasts. The following pairs of groups were found to be significantly different (p<.05):
faith-based learning community and faith-engaged (positive values; M=.508, SD=.148) and faith-
based learning community and non-faith engaged (positive values; M=.368, SD=1.48); faith-
6
Vol. 2, No. 2 Journal of Appreciative Education 2015
based learning community and non-faith engaged (social competencies; M=.375, SD=.047);
faith-based learning community and non-faith engaged (positive identity; M=.551, SD=.012);
faith-based learning community and non-faith engaged (support/connectedness; M=.474,
SD=.021); faith-based learning community and faith-engaged (empowerment; M=.419,
SD=.015); faith-engaged and non-faith engaged (empowerment, M=.353, SD=.040); faith-based
learning community and faith-engaged (boundaries, M=.381, SD=.031). Faith-based learning
community and faith engaged (positive identity, M=.733, SD=.171) and faith-based learning
community and non-faith engaged (empowerment, M=.771, SD=.145) were found to be
significantly different (p<.01).

Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations for the Participant Groups on the AAI.
Faith-Based Faith-Engaged Non-Faith
Group Group Group
M SD M SD M SD
Commitment 4.59 .416 4.37 .582 4.40 .390
nal ts Positive Values 4.70 .242 4.19 .569 4.33 .439
erse Social Competencies 4.41 .507 4.04 .455 4.04 .421
ts
InA Positive Identity 4.46 .418 3.73 .581 3.95 .518
Support/Connectedness 4.50 .440 4.42 .577 4.03 .508
l
nas Empowerment 4.68 .251 4.26 .455 3.91 .529
terset Boundaries 4.22 .412 3.84 4.88 3.91 .408
xs
EA Use of Time 4.20 .615 3.84 .861 3.73 .646

The findings are consistent with the data collection from the target group participants.
The faith-based leadership learning community scored higher than both comparison groups at a
significant level (p<.05) on the measure of positive values. In the interviews, students reported
an appreciation for the moral community of their cohort. This community supported their
personal values, which were reinforced by scripture, attendance at Mass and conversations with
Campus Ministers. These findings are consistent with the 100% retention rate of the target group
as compared to the 79.6% retention rate of the same academic class. There was no difference,
however, as compared to the comparison group of faith engaged students (100%) and a slight
difference with the non-faith engaged comparison group (95%).

Social Competencies was a measurement that also scored significant (p<.05) only
between the faith-based, leadership learning community and non-faith engaged. Positive identity
was significant at a (p<.001) level between the faith-based, leadership learning community and
faith engaged and there was a significant difference at a (p<.05) level between faith-based,
leadership learning community and non-faith engaged. The measure of support and
connectedness was significant only between the faith-based, leadership learning community and
the non-faith engaged (p<.05). The questions speak to support of family, administrators and
faculty at the University. For incoming students, making connections with faculty and
administrators is often difficult. Two of the questions asked if they knew three faculty and three
administrators that they can seek for support. Students in the learning community had this level
of support built into the program and had a Campus Ministry moderator in addition to their
academic advisor. The measure of empowerment was significant (p<.05) between the first-year
7
Vol. 2, No. 2 Journal of Appreciative Education 2015
faith based learning community and non-faith engaged and at the (p<.001) level between first-
year faith based learning community and faith engaged. The boundaries and expectations
measure was significant (p<.05) between first-year faith based learning community and faith
engaged. It isn’t surprising that the faith based learning community scored high on this given
that the questions spoke to decision-making and who students turn to in that decision process.

There was no significant difference in the measures of commitment to learning and
constructive use of time. For commitment to learning, the mean score was extremely close and
between the scale of agree and strongly agree: faith based learning community (M=4.59), faith
engaged (M=4.37) and non-faith engaged (M=4.40). There was also no significant difference in
constructive use of time. In the qualitative research, challenges with organizing and managing
time were themes shared and it is consistent in these findings. For the faith based learning
community (M=4.20) and non-faith engaged (M=3.73), scores ranged from agree to strongly
agree. Faith engaged (M=3.84) ranged from disagree to strongly agree. The total (M=3.91) for all
three groups was the lowest among all measures.

Impact of Appreciative Advising Framework on Participants’ Catholic Identity

The term appreciative advising was not shared with the students as an intentional
framework of the program. However the stages, including the name of each stage, with the
exclusion of the “Disarm” stage, was included in the monthly one-on-one meetings to guide the
process.

The “Discover” stage allowed students to understand their gifts and talents. The most
influential activity was the letter writing exercise. Participants wrote letters home to their family,
religious leaders and teachers, requesting insight into what they saw in the student regarding
their gifts and talents related to their Catholic faith. This allowed students to further discover
their gifts and talents while also providing necessary affirmation and appreciation. The one-on-
one meetings with the researcher also allowed students to share who they are and to explore their
own faith development. The first series of questions in Appendix A reflect this stage.

The “Dream” stage was the most significant of all the stages as it allowed students to see
their faith as action based. This stage was more than a brainstorming activity. Being asked “to
imagine” at such an early point in their college experience was a struggle for some students.
Most were able to dream of a way to animate the faith life on campus, related to their gifts and
talents. Perhaps the most beneficial part of this process was students hearing the dreams of
others. This was reported as “empowering” and “inspiring” for many of the students. This stage
allowed students to see their Catholic faith as coming with a responsibility to be a leader among
their peers.

The “Design” and “Deliver” stages occurred in the late fall and all of the spring
semesters. Students needed to be reminded of the responsibility to bring their dream to life.
Some struggled with the application, with time management being the major challenge. Students
saw these stages as a part of their responsibility to lead their faith. One student started a male
spirituality group that provided community, a place to share struggles and successes and an
opportunity to be affirmed and appreciated by his peers. He responded to a student need for a
8
Vol. 2, No. 2 Journal of Appreciative Education 2015
male prayer group and his responsibility to lead the group. Others saw service as a way to bring
all faiths into community. While students formed a service committee and reviewed ideas to
lead, they struggled in delivering any projects. This did allow students to plan for the sophomore
year and many took on leadership roles for service projects with Campus Ministry student groups
in the summer.

The final stage, “Don’t Settle,” was a natural stage for all students in April. Even for
most who did not see their complete dream to fruition, they saw this stage as a responsibility of
their Catholic faith. Most did not have to be reminded of this challenge to build on their first
year. For the student who established the men’s spirituality group, this stage was most difficult.
He was satisfied with the number of students involved and he needed to be urged not to settle for
good, and instead to continue to extend invitations to the larger student body. This year-long
“Dream” and the stages that follow continued into the sophomore year and kept participants
connected to their program and the University, contributing to the 100% retention rate as
compared to the larger freshman class with a rate of 79.6%.

While appreciative advising was the framework for this research, a significant finding
was that this model could be adapted further for Catholic education and leadership formation.
While further research is necessary, utilizing the themes of discernment and discipleship
enhances the appreciative advising model to fit the need of faith communities as a contribution to
the larger appreciative education research.

Change of Participants’ Self-Perception of Assets

The findings of this research confirmed the goals of appreciative advising for students
engaged in the first-year, faith-based leadership learning community. As compared to students
who were faith engaged and students who were not faith engaged, there was a significant
difference in six of the eight measures: positive values, social competencies, positive identity,
support and connectedness, empowerment, boundaries and expectations. Similar to Hutson and
He’s (2011) findings, appreciative advising facilitated students’ development in regard to their
expectations, positive values and positive identity. Different, however, from Hutson and He, the
participants in the present study did not score significantly different in the constructive use of
time measure. The findings support the self-perception of assets, which directly related to their
100% retention rate as compared to the 79% retention rate of the population.
The faith-based, leadership learning community scored higher than both comparison
groups at a significant level on the measure of positive values. In the qualitative research, many
students reported an appreciation for the moral community of their cohort. This community
supported their personal values, which were reinforced by scripture, attendance at Mass and
conversations with Campus Ministers. As Nicpon et al. (2006) found, higher levels of social
support relate to greater persistence and fewer feelings of loneliness, although it did not relate to
academic achievement. Social competencies were a measurement that also scored significant
between the faith-based, leadership learning community and non-faith engaged. This isn’t
surprising since the learning community was expected to have strong social and communal
components that other students may not have experienced in their first year.

9
Vol. 2, No. 2 Journal of Appreciative Education 2015
Positive identity was significant between the faith-based, leadership learning community
and the faith-engaged sample at a (p<.01 level) and there was a significant difference at a (p<.05)
level between faith-based, leadership learning community and the non-faith engaged sample. The
questions on the AAI survey that speak to this measure focused on the ability of students to solve
problems, set goals and positive feelings. It was expected that participants from the learning
community would score high on these measures given the focus of the program to set and reach
goals (known as dreams in appreciative advising literature). Additionally, they had a strong level
of guidance from University administrators and peers.

The measure of support and connectedness was significant only between the faith-based,
leadership learning community and the non-faith engaged. The questions speak to support of
family and administrators and faculty members at the University. For freshmen, making
connections with faculty and administrators was often difficult. Two of the questions asked if
they knew three faculty and three administrators that they can seek for support. Students in the
learning community have this level of support built into the program and have a Campus
Ministry moderator in addition to their academic advisor.

The measure of empowerment was significant between the first-year, faith-based learning
community and both the non-faith engaged and faith-engaged groups. This could be credited to
the monthly one-on-one meetings, which featured empowerment and motivation through the
appreciative advising process. The boundaries and expectations measure was significant between
first-year, faith-based learning community and faith engaged. The faith-based learning
community scored high on this because the questions spoke to decision-making and who the
students turn to in that decision process. There was no significant difference in the measures of
commitment to learning and constructive use of time. For commitment to learning, the mean
score was extremely close and between the scale of agree and strongly agree: faith-based
learning community (M=4.59), faith engaged (M=4.37) and Non-faith engaged (M=4.40). There
was also no significant difference in constructive use of time. In the qualitative data, challenges
with organizing and managing time were themes shared and consistent in these findings.

College Student Retention

All of the participants in the target group returned for their sophomore year. All of the
participants in the comparison group of faith-engaged students planned on returning for their
sophomore year. In the other comparison group of non-faith engaged students, eighteen of
nineteen students planned on returning for their sophomore year. The retention rate of full-time
Baccalaureate degree seeking students, who started in fall 2012, was 79.6%. This rate for the fall
2011 freshman class was 76.1%.

First-semester GPA is a strong indicator of retention (Johnson & Molnar, 1996). The
target group achieved a first semester GPA of 3.7. The comparison groups achieved an average
GPA of 3.5 for the faith-engaged sample and an average GPA of 3.3 for the non-faith engaged
sample. This compares to an average first-semester GPA of 3.12 for the 2012-2013 freshman
class at the same institution.

10