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. aharrington@anselm.edu