We are here to support your program.

S.T.E.V.E. Pro-Tip: Leveraging Success in One Cohort With Another

Analysis conducted by the Research and Evaluation team has shown that, typically, online engagement decreases throughout the years (i.e., Sophomores engage at lower rates than Freshman, and so on).  While this is often the case, there are always outliers, and in any case we don't want engagement to decrease over time - we have just observed that it has.  This article presents strategies for leveraging successes in one cohort with another via collaboration between Program Managers (PMs) in various scenarios.

Leveraging Successes Between Cohorts (or caseloads) Within the Same School

The PM Summary dashboard of S.T.E.V.E. can provide valuable insight into where the success being achieved within one cohort can be leveraged in another.  PMs working together within the same school can quickly and easily manipulate the PM and Cohort interface to explore opportunities to consider trends in data in support of a conversation around strategies they may want to borrow from one another.  The graphic below displays the steps a group of PMs would take to do so.

  1. First, select the appropriate school (in this case BLA II in NYC is used as an example);
  2. Determine whether considering trends across PM caseloads or cohorts is preferred (the example below involves considering trends across cohorts, but if PM caseload is the preferred method, this step is not necessary as S.T.E.V.E. defaults to PM caseload).

With the appropriate filters set, PMs can begin to discuss the trends they observe.  The screenshot below highlights a few potential areas for discussion in the example of BLA II, beginning with weekly online communication.

1 - Spikes

In the example, BLA II 18 showed a fairly significant spike in online engagement in mid-November. 

It is worth exploring what caused this spike with that PM.  Maybe an incentive program that was well received was in place and that program can be recreated with the 2018 cohort.  It is also worth noting that engagement dropped again shortly thereafter and then leveled out, indicating that whatever intervention caused the spike may not have been long-lasting at the desired levl, which could spark discussion on how to augment the strategy to increase the longevity of its effect. 

2 - Dips

In the example, BLA II 20 showed an 8-point dip in late November following a fairly long period of consistency in the mid-70s.

Again, it is worth exploring the cause for this observation with that PM.  Perhaps the disruption in school scheduling around the Thanksgiving holiday resulted in the dip and the team can discuss ways to get ahead of that challenge prior to future disruptions in the school schedule.

3 - Outlier Cohorts

In the example, BLA II 19 is outperforming BLA II 21 by a sizable margin, which is contrary to the Research and Evaluation finding that online engagement decreases as cohorts progress through high school.  

This observation can frame a conversation to explore why this might be the case.  Perhaps the PM managing the 19 cohort has deployed a strategy that is netting increased weekly communication that can be replicated in other cohorts.  

NOTE: In order to support similar discussions around in-person meeting frequency, PMs will need to navigate to the Cohort and Class tab of S.T.E.V.E. and use the pie charts on the left hand side of the screen.


Still have questions or need assistance with this pro-tip?  Click HERE to contact a member of the National team for help!