Upload
stephen-greene
View
221
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
STUDENT SUCCESS – WHOSE JOB IS IT?
Anne E. Harrington, Ph.D.Dean of Freshmen and Director of Academic Advisement
Saint Anselm CollegeManchester, NH
U.S.A. NACADA 2015: University of Melbourne
Topics
Context Unique Role and Why
Philosophy Data
Access Programs
Cross Divisional Collaboration Retention and Related Positions
Saint Anselm College
Private, Small, Residential, Benedictine, Undergraduate, Liberal Arts College
New Hampshire (New England, North East) 1950 students
60% women, 40% men Average GPA: 3.24 (4.0 scale) Average SAT: (Admitted) 570CR; 580M; 570W
Tuition: $36,724 (R&B: $13, 334 + $900 fees) Division II 76 students are out of state (largely MA) 149 Full time faculty; 60 Part time faculty 389 Full time staff; 108 Part time staff
Why retention matters
Rankings: Top 100 Liberal Arts Colleges Key methodology component in U.S. News &
World Report Retention Rate Graduation Rate Acceptance Rate SAT’s, % of classes under 20/over 50 Annual alumni giving
Savings
Saint Anselm College Data
RETENTION
Cohort: Retention 2008: 85% 2009: 84% 2010: 85% 2011: 88% 2012: 85% 2013: 90%
GRADUATION (4 YEAR)
Using 2012-13 as snapshot year:
Current: 70% 5-year high: 72% 5-year low: 70%
Graduation (6 year)Using 2012-13 as snapshot year:
Current: 74% 5-year high: 76% 5-year low: 73%
The Role(s)
Director, Academic
Advisement
Dissertation
Dean of Freshmen
Chair, Orientation
Chair, Academic Advisement Committee
Chair, Retention
2014: Curriculum ChangeExpanded Curricular & Co-curricular
Prescriptive Curriculum 1970’s - 2014 (i.e., prescriptive advising)
--Renewed appreciation of advisor--Philosophy on persistence --Personal connection to learning --Connection
--Centralized person for decentralized process --Chair, undeclared--Faculty trainer--Graduate and Law School--Disability Services
--Greater exposure to range of issues/offices--Early Alert--Access to data --Student Affairs, Admissions, Registrar’s --Platform for programming
-New Committee-Examine alternative models-Authority as a Dean
-New Appointment-Different Philosophy -Expanded Membership
College Readiness
Epistemology of Persistence 10
Bronfenbrennian Framework
Macro – curriculum, traditional divisions, decentralized advising system, child-rearing, ROI, growing specialization of each Role
Exo-Parents, expectations, employability
Micro – class standing, classes/major, career services, financial aid, athletics, physical and mental health, residential life, peers, judicial.
Meso – interaction between two or more micro-systemse.g., --Academic Standing and Financial Aid--Academic Standing & Athletic Eligibility --Mental Health and Academic Standing
Chrono – tuition, different norms and attitudes, faculty & staff, institutional culture
Unique Insight & Why
Blending Academic and Student Affairs and Enrollment Management Operational Strategic
Complexity of retention & persistence is personal Organizational structures and delivery Committee membership & philosophy Sharing data Checked assumptions Creativity in the face of organizational limitations
Considerations
Purpose: Recommendations for partnering Micro and Macro Break down silos
Cooperation versus Collaboration? Either top down or bottom up? What is success? Relationships
Strategic versus Organic
Philosophy
• Experience is the foundation for learning in adulthood (Dewey, 1938; Lindeman, 1926; Knowles, 1999; Mezirow, 1991)
Social Constructivist (Berger & Luckman, 1967) Feminist theories of development, centrality of relationships and
connection (Belenky, 1997; Gilligan, 1993) Socio-cultural perspectives on development (Arnett, 2000) Student success versus retention Students will leave in absence of personal meaning in their learning
(Harrington, 2012) Resilience (Masten, 2001; McGillan, 2003) Support and Challenge (Stanford, 1962) College as a seamless web (Kuh, et.al, 1994) – team lens
• Advising, only structured one-on-one activity (Habley, 1994) – the “hub of the wheel”
Tinto (1987, 1993), Astin (1977, 1993, 1997), Kuh (NSSE)• Interaction between individual and institution; Connection and Involvement;
Engagement
13
Data
Types of Data
• Institutional Research – Retention by cohort, subpopulation, NSSE, BSSE, HERI– Withdrawing Student Survey
• Office specific, by function– Progression reports, transcript requests, withdrawals, tutoring, Early Alert,
loan default, financial aid loss, health services, academic standing • *Admissions Data (rating, involvement, etc.)• Surveys, Focus Groups, etc.
• Students, Faculty, and Faculty and Administration • *Extra credit
• Literature & Best Practices• Tinto, Kuh, Astin, Bean & Eaton, ACT, Noel-Levitz
• Peer and Aspirants• Existing Programs, what do we already do/don’t do • Experience • Pulling together pieces of data residing in separate places
15
Beginning Question(s)
• Can our current advising system support the curricular changes and range of options now available to students?
• Who voluntarily withdraws from the college?• Data collected depends on what you want
to know• Iterative and Grounded in Experience
– Pursuing hunches through experience & anecdotal evidence, asking more questions, “Do we know if…,” “Is there a relationship between…,” Is this predictive of that…”
Academic Advisement Committee
QUESTIONS DATA
– Is there consistency in delivery? – Is there an imbalance of
numbers? – What do students need? What
needs are not met?• Developmental
– What do faculty need? What needs are not met?
– What are our peer and aspirants doing? Best practices? Literature?
– Are students satisfied? – Do we lose students who
change majors? Which majors?– Which majors leave?
• Dean’s Office – FT faculty by dept.,
advisee/advisor loads • Focus Groups
– By YOG– Extra Credit
• Survey sent by faculty • Calling/Emailing Peers &
Aspirants – Conducted by Staff
• NSSE & HERI & BSSE• Registrar’s Office• Institutional Research
Retention Committee
QUESTIONS DATA
• Do we want to be pragmatic, target one small or large sub- group or target first year students? • Who do we target? What do
we already do? • Who voluntarily leaves
the college? • Why do they leave based
on our unique perspectives?
• Institutional Research • 3 of voluntary withdrawal,
first year students• Multiple data points
• State; race/ethnicity; gender, high school GPA; admit rating, college GPA, major, involvement
• Progression reports, office specific
• Early alert, admission rankings, academic standing, tutoring, disabilities, athletics, race/ethnicity, loan defaults
• Perspective and Experience
Findings
What we know: We keep students who are engaged, live on campus, work study, student athletes, female, Caucasian (Withdrawing Student Survey)
• Advising “works” (per the NSSE)• First year students biggest retention problem • We lose sophomores: 7-8%• Major and attrition are correlated • We lose undeclared students regardless of GPA• We lose students who are not involved regardless of major, GPA• We lose the in-between students (6’s and missed through early
alert)• Attrition related to Athletics • We can identify at-risk students • We lose students who change their major, mostly undeclared• Faculty advisor loads are imbalanced • Students need their advisors to be everything to everyone.
Considerations
• Advising is a crucial component to retention.• Engagement and connection contribute to retention • We want to be pragmatic in approach .• We want cross divisional collaboration.• Advising is focused on registration. • We want to engage and connect students sooner (before pre-registration).• Students choosing major based on ROI, not interest or skill. • First year students need more holistic advising • Developmentally, students are younger; parents are more involved • We are navigating a curriculum change. Faculty advisors need support. • Need to consider alternative advising delivery models. • Faculty want to maintain decentralized delivery. • Peer & aspirants centralized freshman advising, have peer mentor
programs.• The context
• Infrastructure, culture, resources, time, existing interventions
Intersection of Roles
Chair, Retention
Chair, NSO
Dean of FreshmenDirector,
Advisement
Chair, Committee Academic Advisemen
t
How can the work dovetail and support the work of each other?How can I use access from one role to advance the purposes of another?
Easy to Implement/Low
Impact
Easy to Implement/High
Impact
Hard to Implement/Low
Impact
Hard to Implement/High
Impact
InfrastructureCultureTime
Existing Interventions
Brainstorming
-Bridge Program -Changing Advising -Peer Mentors for FY-Cross Divisional Collaboration
Advisor Meetings – week 1
Direct Interventions Advising Pilot Peer Mentor
Pilot Early Alert
Focus Groups Focus Groups No data that can be tracked
Imbalanced loads Attrition, uninvolved
Attrition, major changes
Attrition, major changes
Attrition, uninvolved
Imbalanced loads
Peer & Aspirants Peer & Aspirants
AA: AccessDOF: informedNSO: platform Retention: opportunity
Retention: initiative DOF and AA: informed NSO: platform
DOF: responsibility Retention: opportunity
Indirect (Buttressing) Faculty at Orientation
Academic & Student Affairs Teams
Retention Summit
Culture Change – advising
Cross Divisional Collaboration -
Cross Divisional Collaboration
Introduce advising expectations
Cross training Campus Wide Retention
Faculty Survey Focus Groups Create conditions for collaboration
Peer & Aspirants Fosters conditions for future collaboration
Culture Change - College
Focus Groups
AA – informed NSO – access
DOF – informed NSO – Access
DOF – Informed Retention – Access
Pilot Programs
Program Target Purpose Data Context Process Cost Assessment Data - Measurement
Pilot Programs – Problems and Pleasant Surprises!
ADVISING PEER MENTOR
Do we tell them they’re in a pilot? Numbers – too little Undeclared Specification Assigning (admissions data) Major changers Resistance to staff as advisors Resistance to training other staff
on curriculum Faculty concerns, recommending
changes to advising Extending the training to other
faculty Excitement and willingness of staff
as advisors, Staff attendance at training.
Do we tell them they’re in a pilot?
Numbers – too many Not quite “in the middle” Gender and major imbalance Collaboration v Cooperation Conflicts, aligning training Students with dual roles Assigning Mentors/Mentees Distinguishing among peer roles Early return to campus –
different philosophies Budget
Problems - Ownership
Changing what is not “yours” Faculty at Orientation
Who decides involvement, the director of the program or the chair of the department?
Student and Academic Affairs Teams Who decides, participants in the individual
program, or the director of the entire event?
Assessment Advising Pilot Peer Mentor Pilot Orientation
GPARetention Involvement
GPARetentionInvolvement
Learning Outcomes Developed for each program
Pre-Test/Post-test Curriculum, Academic Policies:--Orientation: Poll Everywhere (baseline)--Mid-semester: IT
Survey emailed one week after --Students--Parents
Advisor Evaluation(Different colors for staff and faculty)
Pre-Test/Post Test Curriculum
Compared against half with no intervention
Compare with entire 2014 cohort
Compared against 2014 sub group w/o intervention
Compare with entire 2015 cohort?
Retention Summit
PROCESS GOALS
“Everyone’s Job” Cross Campus Interviews Stumped on retention Themes Appeared 4 panels Who should present? Attendees are hand-
selected and part of discussion
Support from President Invitation from President Feed them
Culture of Campus Wide Retention Bring diverse constituent
together to discuss topics related to student success and retention
Work across traditional divisional lines Same topics, different
perspectives Create opportunities for
collaboration
Panels
Perspectives on Engaging Males Retention, Admissions, Involvement,
Scholarship, Campus Culture Dispelling Myths, Assumptions
Student Perspectives on Retention Use of Withdrawal Student Survey as prompt Importance of faculty, connection, honors,
diversity and inclusion, assumptions, marketing
Panels Student Success at Saint Anselm College: Persistence, Connection,
and Retention Faculty Connection to Persistence not Retention Perspectives on non-cognitive factors in persistence; research
interest versus research specialty
The Deliberate Use of Space as a Retention Tool “If you don’t find your place, all of a sudden you’ll look up, and it
won’t be there.” Student-operated center: How does student presence and
leadership within the space affect the use of space? Can we affect this with an intentional use of space?
Transparency/openness: How does the physical design, location, and openness of the space impact the usage of the space?
Space & Professional staff: How does the size of the space, its proximity to other spaces, and its connection to professional staff make a difference?
Retention and Related Experience
Committee - and its name Responsibility versus Authority Top down versus bottoms up People versus Position (philosophy, disposition, interests)
Strategic Enrollment Management (implicit and explicit) Academic Affairs Faculty or Administrator or IR Campus wide retention – What does that mean? Who can do it? How?
Operational Co-housing versus Integration (and who) Centralize versus Decentralize (advising and pockets of programs, w/o alienating Lack of and needed connection with advising
Searches Clarity in position needs, internal and external Faculty input Consider the search committees, and their biases and agendas
Data, Targets, Philosophy Quantitative versus Qualitative; Descriptive versus Predictive At risk – middle - high achieving Success = retention = persistence
STUDENT SUCCESS – WHOSE JOB IS IT?
Anne E. Harrington, Ph.D.Dean of Freshmen and Director of Academic Advisement
Saint Anselm CollegeManchester, NH
U.S.A. [email protected]