Engagement in iMentor programming is often talked about in the silo of above and below the targeted benchmark.  While the ultimate goal is to get all pairs above the individual benchmark, the effort this involves requires a deeper understanding of engagement.  

In this article, we will explore the use of the Cohort and Class dashboard to gain a deeper understanding of where a caseload is with respect to targeted benchmarks in service of developing data driven strategies to increase engagement.

Why Does Your Data Look the Way It Does?

Let's begin at the Case Manger dashboard level, looking at data for a case manager that handles two cohorts.

At first glance, it looks like 59% of pairs are where we want them with regards to weekly online engagement and 22% are looking good with respect to in-person meetings.  This is mostly descriptive of the case managers overall performance, but in order to obtain a deeper understanding of what is happening, the Cohort and Class dashboard can be very helpful.  Below, the same case manager's data is presented with the detail of what is happening in each cohort and class.

Here, we can see some very interesting trends at the cohort and class level that help contextualize the data visualized on the Case Mangers dashboard:

• Across the 7 classes under this case manger's purview, 3 are actually pretty high performing with regards to online engagement.  This is indicative that what they are doing in those classes is working and discussing the underlying causes of lower engagement in the other classes is where time would be best spent.  Examples of how this discussion plays out are infinite, but might look like:
  • Attempting new classroom management techniques in the lower performing classes
  • Discussing scheduling of iMentor sessions if that plays a role (i.e., low attendance)
  • Launching an incentive program within those classes
• When it comes to overall cohort online engagement, the 2018 cohort is outperforming the 2017 cohort.  So, the trend we saw on the Case Managers dashboard is being weighed down by this cohort.  Engagement is also flat across both cohorts for nearly a month indicating that pairs have established behaviors and are sticking to them for better for worse.  Perhaps a discussion around how to alter online engagement behaviors for the "worse" side of that equation is where the most benefit would be achieved.
• As far as in-person meetings, the 2018 cohort is, again, outperforming the 2017 cohort, but not by much.  Perhaps a strategy that impacts both cohorts is worth discussion.  Suggesting make-up events at the school for pairs that are not where we want them to be is a good start.  Fostering OOP form completion is another.

Hover-Over functionality is a great element of the Tableau dashboards.  It provides instantaneous insight into places where data looks particularly odd.  Pay attention to the "number of Records" in the hover-over pop-up window below.

Interesting to note that class 5 in the 2017 cohort has only one pair.  Perhaps this pair is in a stand-alone class for a reason (i.e., poor attendance, scheduling challenges, etc.).  Discussion regarding why this is the case is key to heling managers and case managers not only understand why engagement looks the way it does, but to aid in the crafting of strategies to positively impact engagement. 

Feel free to reach out to [email protected] with any questions or requests for support in leveraging this strategy in your work!

Have you tried this strategy or deployed a similar effort? If so, please consider leaving a comment below outlining your experience!