Student success depends on more than identifying students who may be at risk. It requires meaningful relationships and evidence-based action. Institutions are increasingly using personalized support, cross-campus collaboration and data-informed strategies to strengthen belonging, persistence and success. In this interview, Tim Fricker discusses how institutions can combine evidence-backed decision making with relationship-centered support to improve student engagement, belonging and persistence.
The EvoLLLution (Evo): What is the missing link between the insight and the meaningful student success outcomes?
Tim Fricker (TF): It’s one question that higher education has been asking for decades because there’s no single answer. Student success is incredibly complex. Every student has different needs at different moments, and every part of the institution—from faculty and staff to campus environments and communications—plays a role.
The answer that resonates most with me is the quality of a student’s relationship with the institution. That relationship can come through a friend, a faculty member, a mentor or even the way the institution communicates. I’ve done research on academic probation letters, for example. Institutions often intend those messages to be supportive, but students can experience them as judgment or shame. When those communications are redesigned using psychologically attuned language and student input, students feel seen, supported and valued. At the University of Toronto Mississauga (UTM), we are seeing the positive impact of such a redesign of academic probation letters.
So, if there’s a missing link, it’s understanding and strengthening that relationship. How do you truly measure it? And how do you scale it across many campus programs and services? I’m not sure we’ve fully figured that out yet.
Evo: How can colleges and universities move beyond identifying an at-risk student to delivering the personalized support that drives engagement, belonging and persistence for those students?
TF: We—higher ed—have also been asking this question for a long time, and personalized support is exactly the right frame. Students expect more personalization today than ever before. They experience it in many other ways—in the products they buy, the services they use and the recommendations they receive—and they increasingly expect that same level of intentionality from their institution.
For colleges and universities, that starts with purposeful structures, strategies and a culture built around relationships. There’s been a lot of great work over the last several years around relationship-rich education, asking how every interaction can strengthen a student’s connection to the institution.
One idea that continues to resonate is ensuring every student has someone in their corner—a mentor, advisor, faculty member, professional staff member or peer leader. The title matters less than the relationship. Design that support around the needs of your students and your institution, and it can be incredibly effective. It’s a bold shift, not always an easy one but one worth making.
Evo: What does it take to create a campus culture where student success data is not just collected and stored somewhere but actively used to improve the learner experience?
TF: It’s something I’m thinking about a lot in my current role. We’re building what we call an evidence-informed strategy because it’s not just about collecting data or generating insights. It’s about asking what the real evidence of need is, what evidence there is that a program or service is making a difference.
For me, it starts with asking better questions. Right now, through an equity lens and a culture of care, I’m asking: Who isn’t engaging and why? Who isn’t represented in our programs? Those questions matter most early in a student’s journey. We know the first few weeks are critical, so if someone hasn’t logged into the learning platform, attended class or engaged with orientation, that’s the moment to reach out. A simple message that says, “We noticed you haven’t been here. We care. How can we help?” can make a real difference.
That kind of outreach requires coordination across the institution, not just within student affairs. I’ve also learned that while predictive models can be valuable, faculty and staff instincts are often just as effective at identifying students who need support. The bigger challenge isn’t identifying students but knowing which interventions help. That’s where I think we still have work to do.
Evo: What role does human connection play in turning predictive insights into measurable impact on students?
TF: What are we measuring? There’s strong evidence that, when students believe their institution cares about them, they’re more likely to persist, but I also think we need to ask whether our goals are aligned with students’ goals.
When we talk about student success, are we defining it from the institution’s perspective or the student’s? Success is really the achievement of a goal, so my question becomes: What is this student trying to accomplish right now? If we stay focused on helping students achieve the goal they have in this moment,they’re more likely to feel supported, stay engaged and ultimately succeed.
Evo: How can institutions better align student affairs, academic affairs and wellbeing initiatives to ensure the data lead to coordinated action rather than an isolated intervention from said department?
TF: It starts with a campus strategy. Is there an executive leader or sponsor bringing together academic affairs, student affairs and other key areas around a shared goal? It can’t just fall on individual departments doing good work. It needs to be part of the campus’s strategic plan, with the support of a cross-functional team and the backing of the right resources.
That’s challenging, especially with the enrollment and budget pressures many institutions are facing, but this is essential work. If you have the structure, the strategy and the commitment to break down silos, the payoff for students is significant.
Evo: Is there anything you’d like to add?
TF: My research has always been about identifying which interventions actually make a difference. We’ve seen simple changes, like rewriting academic probation letters using psychologically attuned language, have a measurable impact. We also found that proactive group advising before students even arrived on campus significantly improved first-year retention, particularly for equity-deserving students.
I’d love to see more institutions rigorously evaluate their programs and services. There are great examples, like the CUNY’s ASAP program and initiatives of the University Innovation Alliance, and I think we need more of that kind of evidence-informed work across higher education. At UTM, we are considering the lessons learned from those initiatives and implementing that in strategies to decrease summer melt, enhance academic advising and more purposefully implement evidence-informed practices in student affairs and services.
You Might Also Like
