right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time...

49
state college of florida manatee - sarasota right place right time right person

Transcript of right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time...

Page 1: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

state college of floridamanatee - sarasota

right place right time right person

Page 2: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

chapter 1 Executive Summary 4

2 College Overview 6

3 Literature Review and Best Practices 10

4 Identifying and Selecting the QEP Topic 17

5 Baseline Data and Resources 33

6 Desired Student Learning Outcomes 39

7 Organizational Structure 44

8 QEP R3 Action 48

9 Assessment 74

appendix

1 Bibliography 78

2 SCF Institutional Research Support for QEP Topic from SENSE, SSI, and CCSSE 80

3 Faculty / Staff Development Day QEP Survey (Fall 2013) 82

4 Student Feedback Survey for QEP (Spring 2014) 84

5 Student Feedback Survey for QEP Results (Spring 2014) 86

6 QEP R3 Visual Plan Model 88

7 Faculty Mentor Application 89

8 QEP Mentee Entering-Student Survey 90

9 QEP Mentee End-of-Semester Survey 91

10 QEP Mentor End-of-Semester Review 92

11 Suggested Protocol for Mentee Focus Group & Faculty Mentor Meeting 94

12 Glossary of Abbreviations and Terms 95

right place • right time • right person

table of contents

Page 3: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

54

right place • right time • right person

chapter 1executive summary

QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting gateway mathematics and English courses populated by FTIC students in which both Faculty Mentors and Early Alert will be provided. The thesis of the plan is that with the added individual attention, which will im-prove the environment that supports student learning, there should be a quantifi-able improvement in both engagement and success of the student. The success of the plan will be assessed by comparing, at the end of the semester, the records of those in the QEP cohort (experimental group) with the FTIC students taking other sections of the same courses (control group).

The first year will involve the development of program infrastructure, Early Alert technology and protocols, and training materials and professional development for faculty members teaching the sections selected for the pilot cohort and those selected as Faculty Mentors. Year 2 will be limited to face-to-face gateway classes taught on the Bradenton campus. Year 3 will expand the QEP to the Venice and Lakewood Ranch campuses.

Table 1.1 shows the number of course sections (half mathematics and half English), students, and Faculty Mentors that will be involved in QEP R3 in Years 2 through 5.

r3

QEP Implementation Years 2 to 5

Academic Year

# Gateway Course Sections

# of FTIC Students in Cohort

# of Faculty Mentors

2015-16 8 240 9–10

2016-17 15 445 17–18

2017-18 20 600 24

2018-19 25 755 30

table 1.1

Where a causal relationship or correlation exists be-tween QEP activities and improved student engagement and success, those elements of the QEP will be studied for expansion to a larger number of the FTIC student population.

SCF remains dedicated to maximizing the success of our students and is committing administrative, fiscal, and personnel resources to support the implementation of QEP R3: right place, right time, right person.

systems and resources available to students at SCF, but they need to know that these exist and choose to avail themselves of them. Thus, a five-year, three-part plan was designed, the goal of which was to address all of these issues.

The plan, named QEP R3: right place, right time, right person, focuses on improving student engagement and success by changing the learning environment at SCF as follows:

1. Create a Faculty Mentor program: FTIC students will be paired with Faculty Mentors for the fall and spring semesters of their first year. FTIC students are defined as students who have not previously been enrolled in any college credit classes and thus come to SCF with zero college credits; excluded in this definition are dual-enrolled students.

2. Create an Early Alert system: The performance of FTIC students in select gateway mathematics and English courses will be monitored and reported by the faculty teaching those courses. If students demonstrate deficiencies or lack of progress in the first half of the term, faculty will notify the student, the student’s Faculty Mentor, and the Student Success Coordinator, who can intervene, offer assistance, and/or referral to the proper service.

3. Increase awareness+ access to Learning Support Resources, Modules, and Student Support Services: Through both the Faculty Mentor program and Early Alert system, connect FTIC students with existing resources and services available to them at SCF that can enhance their experience at the College. In addition, the project will create customized learning modules to help students improve skills necessary for success in gateway courses.

From its founding in 1957, the State College of Florida, Manatee-Sarasota (SCF) has been a dedicated curator of the educational needs of the communities it serves, and for many of its fifty-seven years, SCF graduates have maintained a higher GPA at Florida public universities when compared to the aggregate GPA of graduates from all other Florida state/community colleges. It is this commitment to excellence that has informed SCF’s practice of regularly assessing its curriculum, programs, and services. Over the past several years, that assessment has revealed the disturbing fact that many first-time-in-college (FTIC) students encounter an increasingly complex college experience and either “drop out” during that first year or, if they remain in classes, still do not succeed. The research indicates that this is a nationwide event and hypothesizes three probable reasons: 1) the absence of a sense of connectedness to the institution; 2) a lack of readiness for college; and 3) ignorance of support systems that exist. In response to these barriers to student success, SCF has designed a collaborative, integrated Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) targeting both the engagement and success of FTIC students with the expectation that both can be improved.

A QEP steering committee comprised of faculty, staff, and students was constituted to gather pertinent information from the College community and to do extensive research on the study of best practices for FTIC engagement and success nationwide and, having done so, to design a plan to address those issues at SCF. Three things emerged from that research: 1) students would feel better oriented to college life if they had a mentor who is caring, accessible, and dedicated to empowering them with accurate information about how the college operates, helping them plan their academic pathway, and generally representing the College’s commitment to them; 2) for students who are academically prepared to do college-level work, it is important to their success that they are made aware as soon as possible of any deficiencies in their progress in a given class and where they can receive assistance on these specific issues; and 3) there are a vast number of academic and personal support

Page 4: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

76

chapter 2college overview

right place • right time • right person

(76.9%) of the College’s Fall 2012 FTIC (both part-time and full-time) were under 21, while less than one-third (31.7%) of the total Fall 2012 student population was 20 or younger (2012-13 SCF Fact Book, pp. 18 & 16, re-spectively). Thus, the FTIC population is much younger than the overall student population. Additionally, SCF’s collegiate school juniors and seniors (as well as 11th and 12th graders in other area high schools) are eligible to complete high school while simultaneously earning their A.A. degrees through dual enrollment.

Tuition at Florida’s state colleges is significantly lower than the cost of its universities. The average per capita income of wage earners in the Bradenton and Sarasota area is $31,000, making SCF an accessible and attractive opportunity for a rewarding future. Of the students eligible to apply for student financial aid in

Fall 2011, 52 percent received Pell grants.

Lower division open-door admission policies allow SCF students who require remediation to get the skills they need for college-level courses. Providing the College’s academic instructional needs are 125 full-time faculty and approximately 350 adjunct faculty members.

More than 82 percent of the first-time-in-college (FTIC) students beginning their studies in Fall 2012 and Spring 2013 declared their intentions to earn an Associate in Arts degree. The A.A. degree program includes com-mon core curriculum which, as a result of a statewide articulation agreement, permits the College’s graduates to enter a Florida state public college or university at the junior level. Excellence in teaching is a cherished tradition at the State College of Florida. Testifying to the success of its graduates, SCF students who transfer to state universities within Florida have consistently earned higher GPAs compared to native students. In fact, SCF is also among the top 100 associate degree producers in the nation.

The average age of all students in the Florida College System is 26, but SCF’s FTIC students are typically younger. Almost eight out of 10

The Committee

formulated the QEP goals so that they

clearly connect to the institution’s Mission,

Vision, and Strategic Priorities.

counties; relocate to the region from other parts of Florida, other states, or foreign countries; or participate in distance learning options, as appropriate.

SCF is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC) to award two- and four-year degrees and college credit certificates. SCF is governed by its District

Board of Trustees as dictated by Florida statutes and Florida State Board of Education rules. SCF, and the 27 other public state/community colleges, are members of the Florida College System, which implements the above-mentioned statutory and rule-based structure of operation and accountability. The College’s offerings include 13 certificate programs; three advanced technical certificate programs; 30 Associate in Science degrees (some, but not all, A.S. degrees offered are designed for transfer); one Associate in Arts degree;

two Bachelor of Science degrees and six Bachelor of Applied Science degrees. The Florida College System is moving away from offering Associate in Applied Science (A.A.S.) degrees; therefore, SCF notified SACSCOC of its decision to curtail the admittance of new A.A.S. majors as of Fall 2013 and to provide an SCF-delivered teach-out process through summer 2015 for students continually enrolled in 20 A.A.S. programs pertaining to 19 disciplines. In addition, the College provides continuing

and community education, business-professional development, workforce training, and personal enrichment offerings.

State College of Florida, Manatee-Sarasota (SCF), a non-residential, two-year college serving Manatee and Sarasota counties, was established as Manatee Junior College in 1957. It is the region’s first and largest public institution of higher education. The Bradenton campus, located in southwest Manatee County, is the College’s main campus, housing the senior-level administrative functions of the institution and providing educational and student services to the largest number of students. As the educational needs of the service district expanded and transformed, so too did the College properties and programs. Other locations include SCF Venice, dedicated as a full-service campus in 1985 (when the College’s name changed to Manatee Community College), and SCF Lakewood Ranch (dedicated in 2003), which includes the Center for Innovation and Technology and the Medical Technology and Simulation Center. In 2009, the State Board of Education approved the College’s proposal to deliver a Bachelor of Science in Nursing degree. To reflect this change to a four-year degree-granting institution, the College’s name was changed to State College of Florida, Manatee-Sarasota. SCF offers courses in three formats: traditional (face-to-face), blended (part traditional and part online), and distance learning (primarily online). SCF averages more than 10,000 full- and part-time credit students each fall and spring and an average of approximately

5,000 students each summer. While SCF students come primarily from Manatee and Sarasota counties, individuals may commute from neighboring Florida

Page 5: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

chapter 2college overview

right place • right time • right person

Goal V Fiscal Responsibility Embrace fiscal models and practices that attract new sources of revenue and expand existing resources that are compatible with the College’s mission, values, and vision

Goal VI Quality Workforce Provide professional development for SCF employees, promoting skills and degree attainment that will enrich the employees’ career paths and support the sustainable quality of programs and services at SCF

Goal VII Pluralistic Focus Encourage and expect cultural diversity, sensitivity, and healthy habits of living in service to a sustainable environment

From its founding, the State College of Florida, Manatee-Sarasota has been a dedicated curator of the educational needs of its community. It is this commitment to excellence that has shaped SCF’s drive to refine its curriculum, its programs, and its services. An analysis of internal research has revealed the discouraging barriers that our students encounter as they navigate the increasing complexity of the college experience. It is incumbent upon the College to respond by creating a collaborative, integrated, and intentional learning environment that promotes student engagement and success during the first year in college. It is this dedication to students that motivated the College to create the Quality Enhancement Plan: QEP R3: right place, right time, right person.

Strategic Priorities: SCF’s Strategic Priorities are measured annually and assessed for continuous improvement.

Goal I Student Learning and Development Provide student-centered curricular and co-curricular learning experiences and support services that promote student success and goal achievement

Goal II Institutional Effectiveness Ensure a data-informed, performance-based culture of assessment and improvement to enhance institutional excellence

Goal III Partnership Provide the catalyst for the establishment, mainte-nance, expansion, and improvement of synergistic programs and services with entities outside of the College

Goal IV Technology Leverage technology to promote student learning, faculty and staff development, operational excellence, and global outreach

9

SCF Mission Statement:State College of Florida, Manatee-Sarasota, guided by measurable standards of institutional excellence, provides engaging and accessible learning environments that result in student success and community prosperity.

SCF Vision: State College of Florida, Manatee-Sarasota is globally recognized as an innovative model of educational organization that hosts a dynamic continuum of academic and career pathways focused on student success and community responsiveness.

SCF Institutional Values: This mission is carried out in a culture that values leadership, excellence, accountability, diversity, self-knowledge, and sustainability.

Strategic PlanningThe Strategic Plan of SCF evolved from an in-depth analysis of educational trends for the College and com-munity. The study predicted that SCF students would continue to be academically underprepared, technically savvy, and interested in workforce education. They would be attending our College in the presence of slower economic growth, unemployment, and reduced funding from the state and federal governments. In addition to the recommendation that the College invest in developing technology, there was a predominant recognition that faculty serving as coaches, mentors, and facilitators of group collaboration will play an es-sential role in the success of SCF’s future students.

SCF is committed to improving the engagement and success of its students and believes that this goal is consistent with the core elements of the College’s Mission and Strategic Priorities.

8

Page 6: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

1110

chapter 3literature review and best practices

right place • right time • right person

identifying appropriate majors and careers for their interests and strengths (Karp). Hughes and Karp (2004), Gore and Metz (2008), and Reardon, Lenz, Sampson, and Peterson (2011) cited an array of inventories. Hughes and Karp reviewed over 50 studies on career counseling and guidance and found that self-assessment inventories are related to improved career-selection measures, such as increased career decidedness and career maturity. For example, two studies of the Kuder career assessment found participation to be linked to postsecondary persistence, identification of a college major, and persistence in majors well aligned with career goals (D’Achiardi-Ressler, 2008; Stephen, 2010).

This QEP will incorporate career assessments, faculty mentoring, and academic advisors in the development of academic pathways for students within their first semester. This process will allow for what Karp (2013) describes as identifying and deploying resources for students at their individual developmental needs.

Early Connections and Faculty MentoringColleges that do careful cohort tracking generally note that when community colleges lose students, they lose them early (CCSSE, 2013). Research studies illustrate the critical importance of connecting with students from the moment of their earliest encounter with the college. According to McClenney, et al. (2012), the CCSSE student-faculty interaction benchmark measures the extent to which students and faculty communicate about academic performance, career plans, and course content and assignments. Here again, the results were positive. Student-faculty interaction was correlated with number of terms enrolled and credit hours completed, GPA, and degree/certificate completion (McClenney, et al.). In their groundbreaking longitudinal study, Gerdes and Mallinckrodt (1994) discovered that the strongest predictor of retention among both academi-cally prepared and underprepared students is informal connections with faculty.

goals, not only in terms of the type of degree they desire but also in terms of the broad type of occupation they hope to enter. When students are asked to select between health, information technology, liberal arts, or business, they need to have a sense of what those academic programs entail (Karp). They should also understand what selecting a particular pathway might mean for their future employment, in terms of the types of jobs they will be qualified for, their employ-ment outlook, and the fit between their personal goals and needs and their potential employment options (Karp). According to the Center for Community College Student Engagement (2013), pathways should be designed for fast completion. The sooner students achieve success, the more likely they are to persist (Hollis, 2009; Tinto, 1998).

The first phase of determining academic and career goals is for students to engage in a process of self-examination and to identify their goals, interests, strengths, and weaknesses (Gore & Metz, 2008). These factors then drive additional career development activities (such as job exploration), as well as academic and career planning. Tools designed to help students clarify their goals can be useful in helping students decide which program of study to enter (Gore & Metz). Ideally, these tools would be one component of a prolonged interaction between advisor and student—essentially, a foundation for discussion (Gore & Metz). However, in the absence of sustained, developmental career guidance, these tools are often used in isolation by advisors and individuals (Grubb, 2006).

Typical tools include interest inventories, in which students are asked to assess their interests, and these interests are related to potential careers; strengths inventories, in which students assess their strengths and identify careers that build upon their strengths; and values inventories, in which students are asked what they value in a job and are provided with information about careers that are typified by those value traits (Grubb, 2006).

There are a wide variety of such inventories available commercially and through government websites, most of which have undergone some sort of internal validity testing (Karp, 2013). There is evidence that such interventions can set students on a path toward

encourage, if not require, faculty-student interaction and student engagement. “Engagement doesn’t happen by accident; it happens by design,” writes Kay McClenney, CCCSE director. Researchers, who surveyed more than 700,000 students from more than 550 community colleges, found key engagement strategies correlated positively with academic performance, persistence, and attainment (McClenney, et al.). The researchers suggest success requires a well-researched approach.

This review of the literature encapsulates the research employed to develop this QEP. Several of the plan components, reviewed below, were recommended in the CCCSE reports mentioned above and enhanced through the review of additional empirical research, best practices, and discussions with current practitioners.

Creating Academic PathwaysThe Community College Survey of Student Engage-ment (CCSSE) and the Survey of Entering Student Engagement (SENSE) data collected in 2010 and 2012 show only about 38 percent of SCF students met with an advisor or faculty member to develop an academic plan (see Appendix 2). CCSSE (2013) suggests colleges can significantly improve student success rates by developing academic pathways, which provide stu-dents a step-by-step road map to goal achievement. CCCSE (2012) reported both Chipola College and Century College experienced a nine percent increase in fall-to-spring retention by engaging students in the development of academic and career pathways.

According to Karp (2013), four broad principles should guide community colleges’ efforts to assist students in identifying career goals and academic pathways: 1) academic pathways should balance structure with exploration; 2) career counseling should drive an inte-grated approach to advising; 3) colleges should provide services to students based on their level of need; and 4) colleges should strategically deploy resources to allow for developmental advising.

Karp (2013) asserts that academic pathways should be predicated on students’ abilities to identify their

The State College of Florida, Manatee-Sarasota (SCF) QEP Steering Committee began its review of the literature with Terry O’Banion’s (2013) agendas on community college access, success, and completion. Once the general direction of the plan became apparent, sub-committees were formed to conduct further research, including the review of QEPs and journal articles on the topics of faculty mentoring and early alert. These committee members reviewed and presented to their fellow members the scholarly literature, QEPs on these topics, and their conversations with current practition-ers at colleges reporting successful faculty mentoring and early alert programs. Meanwhile, SCF librarians developed an annotated bibliography for committee members to consult throughout the planning process. Below is a summary of the committee’s review of the literature and consultation with practitioners. (See Ap-pendix 1 for Bibliography.)

The Case for Engaging the First-Time-in-College StudentAs soon as they walk through the door, first-time-in-college (FTIC) students should see an advisor who will help chart the path to achieve their educational goals, but that is only happening for half of the students, say researchers from the Center for Community College Student Engagement (CCCSE) (McClenney, Marti, & Adkins, 2012). According to CCCSE (2013), focusing on entering students and getting them through the first semester dramatically improves success rates.

The findings from 20 years of research on undergraduate education have been unequivocal: the more actively engaged students are with college faculty and staff, with other students, and with the subject matter they study, the more likely they are able to learn, to stick with their studies, and to attain their academic goals (McClenney, et al., 2012). According to McClenney, et al., community colleges must act intentionally to better retain students and increase the likelihood that they will succeed by promoting a culture of high expectations and instituting policies that

Page 7: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

13

chapter 3literature review and best practices

right place • right time • right person

• late enrollment and/or missed classes;

• faculty grading pattern and/or lack of early feedback;

• lack of institutional action/plan;

• other.

Beyond identifying and analyzing these courses, colleges should develop action plans that include sup-plemental instruction, increasing student engagement in the classroom, and using early warning and/or early intervention (analytics) tools (Koch & Pistilli, 2012).

Identifying Struggling StudentsAccording to CCSSE data (2013) and Crisp (2010), community college students that are at risk of dropping out display the following factors:

• being academically underprepared (i.e., students who have not earned a high school diploma and/or have participated or plan to participate in developmental/remedial education);

• being a single parent;

• being financially independent (i.e., students who rely on their own income or savings as a major source for college costs and indicate that parents and spouses/significant others are not sources of income for that purpose);

• caring for children at home;

• working more than 30 hours per week;

• being a first-generation college student;

• delaying entry into college;

• being a part-time student; and

• affording the cost of attending college.

A longitudinal study of retention conducted by Gerdes and Mallinckrodt (1994) identified emotional, social, and academic factors of students that did not complete

students will have face-to-face interactions with faculty, advisors, and other academic and student support services personnel. Utah Valley University adopted a similar mentoring/early alert analytics using Hobsons’ Retain to initiate contacts with students and to record interventions which resulted in a 14 percent increase in freshman retention (Durso, 2010).

Early Alert in Gateway CoursesKoch and Pistilli (2012) suggest colleges should iden-tify gateway courses as any course that serves as a “gatekeeper” to further study and degree completion. Studies confirm that students passing gateway courses in their first semester are more than twice as likely to graduate (Goldrick-Rab, 2010; Koch and Pistilli, 2012; Zeidentberg, Jenkins, & Calcagno, 2007). Those are courses with the highest enrollment of new students and those with the highest number of students who receive a D, F, W, or I in the course (DFWI rates) (Koch & Pistilli, 2012). Descriptive analytics performed by Koch and Pistilli showed that the average DFWI rate of 87 two-year institutions among their five highest enroll-ment courses was 37 percent for first-year students.

The average DFWI rate among 91 four-year institutions was 25 percent. For two-year institutions, the high-est DFWI rates were for developmental mathematics courses at 46 percent, college level mathematics at 42 percent, and developmental English at 41 percent. These three fields of study were followed by history (39%), sociology (37%), computer science (35%), and college-level English (35%). According to their calcu-lations, Koch and Pistilli (2012) report that 70 percent of two-year college courses have a DFWI rate of 30 percent or more. Reasons for high DFWI include the following:

• lack of institutional identification of courses;

• students’ lack of academic preparation, especially in mathematics;

• inadequate or nonexistent placement procedures;

Using Technology to ConnectTechnology tools appear to be promising when used as part of a broader mentoring/advising strategy. For example, Bettinger and Baker (2011) found strong positive results from an intensive and intrusive coaching program that relied on technology in the form of email, social networking, and electronic records to identify student needs and initiate contact. Though the effec-tiveness of the intervention likely stemmed from the frequency and intensity of the personal advising con-tacts rather than their medium, technology made many of those contacts possible (Bettinger & Baker).

Newer studies have found that, like student success courses, e-advising interventions may be effective only when well designed—and that many such interventions are not user-friendly (Jaggars, et al., 2012; Margolin, Miller, & Rosenbaum, 2013). Online resources designed for students are often poorly organized, out-of-date, and poorly integrated with other services (Jaggars, et al.; Margolin, et al.). These technical drawbacks under-mine the ability of e-advising technologies to fully meet student needs.

The theoretical literature suggests that, except for a small group of decided and self-directed students, technology can supplement but not supplant the interpersonal interactions inherent in more traditional approaches (Campbell & Nutt, 2008; Creamer, 2000; Hagen & Jordan, 2008; Lowenstein, 2005). The data from internal student surveys conducted by the QEP Steering Committee in spring 2014 also indicates that SCF students prefer face-to face and one-on-one con-tact with faculty mentors.

Therefore, this QEP will pair FTIC students in the fall and spring semesters with appropriate Faculty Mentors. Both communication and interventions will be facili-tated by technology but will also include face-to-face interpersonal communications. The Early Alert analytics tool (Hobsons’ CRM Retain) chosen for the QEP will, in fact, provide a communication system for ensuring

MentorshipGalbraith and James (2004) state that “mentorship in its completeness has a natural connection to the teaching and learning process” (p. 697); it is far more than giving advice: “It is the mentor who often makes the difference between success and failure through a life journey” (Galbraith & Maslin-Ostrowski, 2000, p. 690). Therefore, a mentoring program will logically improve student engagement. When academically tied to career development, mentoring can have signifi-cant implications. Nick, et al. (2012) observed, “Across settings, mentoring has contributed to higher career satisfaction” (p. 2). Mentorship goes beyond the role of advising (Galbraith & James, 2004). The goal of the nurturing perspective is to help people become more confident, critically reflective, and self-sufficient learn-ers (Galbraith & James). Toward this end, appropriate fit between the mentor and mentee is significant.

Connecting Mentor with MenteeOf the five basic ways to pair mentees and mentors, formal mentoring tends not to take into account mentor-mentee input, and while there is not clear evidence about one method or another, obtaining input in the matching process results in better match outcomes (Nick, et al., 2012, p. 3). Ultimately, the six major themes of best practices for a formal mentoring program include: 1) appropriately matched mentor-ships, 2) clear mentorship purpose and goals, 3) a solid relationship, 4) advocate for and guide the protégé, 5) integration of the protégé into the academic culture, and 6) mobilization of institutional resources (Nick, et al., p. 7). Mentoring facilitates both social and aca-demic integration, which in turn enhances satisfaction with and commitment to the institution and degree completion thereby positively impacting students’ per-sistence (Hu and Ma, 2010).

right place • right time • right person

12

Page 8: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

1514

chapter 3literature review and best practices

right place • right time • right person

handled proactively with appropriate professional development to enhance online teaching and learning competence (Na’Gambi & Brown, 2009). SCF has a strong tradition of creatively deploying blended and hybrid learning resources, particularly for learning library research.

However, the relationship between online components to traditional face-to-face classroom experiences has not been widely explored (Anderson & May, 2010). As Na’Gambi and Brown (2009) note, students behave differently when engaging in traditional learning formats than in online learning formats. Significant for this QEP, an intended outcome of student completion of learning modules, whether completely online or hybrid, is that a blending of face-to-face with online interaction will extend student engagement beyond the limitation of a classroom and provide a forum for further collaboration and consultation (Na’Gambi & Brown). Another intended outcome is that the tools will provide the classroom instructor with diagnostic information that can be used to impact pedagogical designs of the learning resources (Na’Gambi & Brown).

There is some promising, though not rigorous, evidence that technology combined with face-to-face interactions can be used to improve student outcomes. For instance, LifeMap at Valencia Community College uses web-based resources to help students identify and develop academic and career plans in conjunction with campus-based, in-person services (E. Rosa, personal communication, April 14, 2014). A descriptive analyses of institutional data indicated that the college has improved its persistence rates, student credit earning, and degree attainment rates since implementing the program (Rosa). Additionally, the Education Wizard, an online learning resource in Virginia that links students to career and academic information, had similarly positive descriptive results; users had higher grade point averages and a higher likelihood of receiving financial aid than non-users (Herndon, 2011).

Clark and Chinburg (2010) and Burkhardt, Kinnie, and Cournoyer (2008) suggest that assessments should be embedded in the course content and supported by

performance. However, the use of learning resources by underprepared students was positively correlated with both persistence and academic performance (McClenney, et al.). The researchers suggest having a supportive campus environment and using learning resources helps raise the performance of academically underprepared students to the level of better-prepared students (McClenney, et al.).

This QEP proposes that increased awareness of existing resources and services as well as the creation of customized tutorials will connect content to online or hybrid modules to improve skills necessary for students to succeed in gateway courses. These include study and time management skills, anxiety management, financial aid resources and financial planning, academic and career planning, participation in extra-curricular activities, information literacy and library research skills, mathematics competencies, and written and oral communication skills. The strategy of students participating in learning modules, which incorporate online and face-to-face feedback, increases student satisfaction and confidence (Kraemer, Lombardo, & Lepkowski, 2007). This strategy also helps students understand how online components positively affect their performance and outcomes on assignments and assessments (Clark & Chinburg, 2010; Kraemer, et al., 2007).

Best practices in the development of connecting learning resource modules to positive student outcomes are emerging in the literature. Hybrid or blended learning strategies that retain contact with professors, librarians, counselors, and tutoring centers appear to be the most effective (Anderson & May, 2010; Einfalt & Turley, 2009). Additionally, Johnston (2010) and Domíguez and Wang (2011) assert that required assessment of interactive learning modules should be part of any strategy for their effective use.

The development and inclusion of online learning resources must be carefully planned and assessed over time (Domíguez & Wang, 2011). Careful strategic planning, monitoring the utility of content, providing student support, and checking evaluation must be

Students with Good Academic PerformanceInformal contact with faculty, readily available high-quality courses, and confidence-building early experiences may be important factors in retaining the most academically successful students (Gerdes & Mallinckrodt, 1994). Good-standing students who dropped out reported symptoms of depression, lack of connection or confidence with the institution, lack of connection or confidence with faculty (Hollis, 2009; Tinto,1988). A successful example of providing confi-dence-building early experiences has been incorporated into the early-alert program at UNC Greensboro (H.G. Hebard, personal communication, February 24, 2014). Through the university’s online early alert system (Starfish), faculty and other college staff are able to flag students with “kudos” for exemplary performance (Hebard). The university reported high satisfaction among students receiving this feedback (Hebard).

Incorporating the research and best practices in early alert and identification of struggling students in gateway courses will require a multi-faceted approach to this QEP. First, the QEP must identify critical gateway courses such as mathematics and English. Second, factors for identifying struggling students may extend far beyond the most obvious academic and financial indicators, including social and emotional factors. Finally, early alert/identification should provide a mechanism for providing students in academic good standing with recognition of their accomplishments and early connections to faculty and the institution.

Learning Resources, Modules, and ServicesMcClenney, et al. (2012) used multiple and logisti-cal regression to study the impact of student use of learning resources measures from CCSSE and SENSE on persistence and academic performance. Their findings indicated that the use of learning resources showed a significant impact on persistence but not on academic

college gateway courses within two-year and four-year institutions. Academic factors such as insufficient college preparation and current academic performance accounted for less than half of the variance of dropout decisions. In determining the differences between students who left institutions in good academic standing versus poor, the researchers conducted a discriminant analysis between the two groups. They also conducted a discriminant analysis between those who persisted and those who did not. Their results suggest that personal adjustment and integration into the social fabric of campus life play a role at least as important as academic factors in student retention.

However, Crisp (2010) found no relationship between social and emotional factors and persistence among community college students, suggesting that factors such as high school and college grade point average, financial aid, employment, delayed entry into college, and family responsibilities may be stronger predictors for at-risk students, particularly for community college students. Crisp warns practitioners against strictly following theoretical models of persistence due to the lack of specification and clear definitions within the models, but rather to adopt practices and interventions that have been proven successful to enhance student success.

Students with Poor Academic PerformanceStudents who are struggling academically may ben-efit from career planning assistance in determining academic goals (Gerdes & Mallinckrodt, 1994). Time management, study skills, financial aid assistance and planning, anxiety management, and an appropriate course load may also be helpful for building confidence and, ultimately, academic success (Goldrick-Rab, 2010).

Page 9: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

17

chapter 4

right place • right time • right person

16

literature review and best practices

education learning community cohort, and the Student Activity Budget Review (SABR) Committee. In every administration of the survey “student engagement for success” ranked among the items with the larg-est gap between importance and satisfaction. While other areas were not rated so uniformly across cohorts, financial aid, access to technology, information literacy skills, one-stop educational and student services, and retention in high-risk courses also showed room for improvement.

Data were shared with a nine-member QEP Core Com-mittee representing the academic affairs and student affairs divisions. The group had decided to target some of the barriers to student success by recommending the implementation of a first-year-experience (FYE) initiative. Under the auspices of this committee, OPIE administered a second set of electronic surveys to the College community: one for SCF employees and another for students. Except for the demograph-ics question (different for the two populations), the substantive statements regarding the potential focus of an FYE initiative were the same (with Likert scales of agreement used as the measure). There was substantial congruence between the employee group (272 respon-dents) and the student group (39 respondents). The following are the elements chosen by both groups of respondents, ranked in descending order: 1) a mul-ti-year educational plan; 2) a faculty mentoring and advising program; and 3) incorporating critical college success skills in freshman-level courses. While student participation was light for this survey, it is important to note that the QEP focus methodology included consid-erably more student input in future steps of the QEP topic selection and development process.

The QEP Core Committee recommended that the QEP topic be developed around a first-year experience that could include, but not be limited to, a combination of two or more of the following elements: advising, learning communities, a student life skills course, modified curriculum for specified courses, peer mentoring, faculty mentoring/advising, pre-semester developmental workshops, and/or a multi-year educational plan. These recommendations were forwarded to the QEP Committee, which was charged with identifying a highly-defined QEP topic and creating a feasible design that incorporates the considerable expertise and capacity of the College community.

Student Success: Challenges and Potential SolutionsState College of Florida, Manatee-Sarasota (SCF) utilized an institution-wide process to identify key issues that focused on enhancing the environment that supports student learning. Administrators, staff, faculty, professional support, and students were involved throughout the topic selection process. The call for suggestions was first distributed to the Strategic Planning and Institutional Effectiveness Committee, a standing committee with membership from each of the above-mentioned constituencies. The Associate Vice President of Planning and Institutional Effectiveness (AVP-PIE), who chairs the committee, provided guidance using the institutional effectiveness evaluator materials and information about SACSCOC member institutions’ QEP topics (available on SACSCOC.org). From this exercise came a number of suggestions, which were shared with the senior leadership group (the President’s Advisory Council, PAC).

In Fall 2012, the Office of Planning and Institutional Effectiveness (OPIE) distributed an electronic survey to all SCF employees to solicit feedback on the perceived barriers to student success, engagement, and comple-tion, as well as possible initiatives that might ameliorate these challenges. In addition to multiple-choice items, open-ended questions allowed respondents to proffer additional barriers and solutions. Respondents included 33 administrators, 22 chairs/program managers, 95 faculty, seven library staff, and 157 SCF staff. The survey showed the perception that students are negatively affected by being underprepared; having financial issues; suffering from low confidence as well as facing issues with financial aid, advising, enrolling, academic support, and technology; and balancing school, life, work, and family. The OPIE then administered a survey assessing the importance of specific issues, services and programs, and the respondent’s level of satisfaction with SCF’s performance of each. Areas most in need of improvement were those where survey results showed the largest gaps between the level of importance and perceived SCF performance. This survey was adminis-tered to the College Leadership Team (administrators from the director level and above), a developmental

identifying & selecting the QEP topic • Institutional Process used to develop the QEP

face-to-face instruction. The hybrid or blended module appears to best support this QEP’s goals for student learning outcomes. Further, CCSSE and SENSE learning resources measures will help to gauge the success of the QEP intervention as well as its potential impact on success factors such as retention and academic perfor-mance (McClenney, et al., 2012).

Not all learning resources designed for student success will need to be developed (Koch & Pistilli, 2012). Koch and Pistilli contend that colleges like SCF have a wealth of existing programs and learning resources with proven success. The challenge is connecting students to those resources, which requires a systematic approach (Koch & Pistilli).

SummaryThe goal of this QEP is getting SCF students to the right place, at the right time, with the right person (QEP R3). It incorporates the research and best practices of the following:

• connecting with FTIC students within their first semester (CCSSE, 2013; McClenney, et al., 2012);

• helping FTIC students develop academic pathways (Karp, 2013; CCSSE, 2012; 2013);

• connecting FTIC students with faculty mentors (Gerdes & Mallinckrodt, 1994; Hu and Ma, 2010; McClenney, et al., 2012; Tinto, 1988);

• developing an early alert/identification program that targets FTIC students in gateway courses (Gol-drick-Rab, 2010; Koch and Pistilli, 2013; Zeidentberg, Jenkins, & Calcagno, 2007); and

• engaging FTIC students with online, hybrid, and face-to-face learning resources (Anderson & May, 2010; Clark & Chinburg, 2010; Einfalt & Turley, 2009; Kraemer, et al., 2007).

Creating a

system by which

students could predictably

be in the right place and at

the right time and with the

right person (or R3)

became the mantra

for the Committee.

Page 10: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

18

chapter 4identifying & selecting the QEP topic Institutional Process used to develop the QEP

One of the Committee members is a design artist, who developed a logo for the Committee to use in SCF’s QEP public relations and marketing.

Sources of InspirationIn successive meetings, the QEP Committee focused its discussions on strategies that the College presently employs to provide an engaging, accessible learning environment; a consistent student-centered curriculum that is clearly communicated; and an expanded, user-friendly student support service system (including financial aid). To identify student needs, the Committee also reviewed a summary of both qualitative and quantitative data gathered from years of faculty, staff, and student surveys provided by the Office of Institutional Research.

The research included the following:

• Student Engagement Committee (SEC) reports from 2011 and 2012;

• Student focus group surveys from 2012;

• Survey of Entering Student Engagement (SENSE) from 2009, 2010, and 2012 summary results;

• Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) from 2007, 2010, and 2012 summary results;

• Noel Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) gap summaries from 1999 through 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2013; and

• Spring Graduating Student Survey reports from 2009 through 2013.

The analysis of SCF’s broad-based, aggregate student research identified several crucial needs and opportunities as noted in Table 4.2. These summaries facilitated the team’s discussion of key considerations and possible topics for development of the QEP.

The Committee initially met September 23, 2013. Initial meetings included an overview of the eight steps that SACSCOC identifies as essential in the creation of an institutional QEP.

Orientation Meetings Using Terry O’Banion’s article entitled “Access, Success, and Completion” as a springboard, the Committee had two subsequent informal discussions concerning barriers to student engagement and success. The com-position of the QEP Committee included a broad-based range of experience from the perspective of faculty, staff, and administration. The group ethos informed these discussions, and four consistent and central themes emerged:

• State College of Florida, Manatee-Sarasota (SCF) needs to adopt a holistic approach in addressing students’ needs, especially during the first year, or they will experience confusion and be overwhelmed by the complexity of the college experience.

• Students who experience an early and significant connection with another person at the College are more likely to remain at SCF.

• Careful monitoring and early intervention throughout the first term is essential to ensure students’ successful progress.

• Students need strong foundational skills to help them successfully complete their courses.

During the conversations, these themes eventually morphed into the following “catch” phrases: getting students to the right location on campus; getting students what they need in a timely manner; and having an integrated system so that students don’t have to talk with five people in three buildings to find what they need. Creating a system by which students could predictably be in the right place and at the right time and with the right person (or R3) became the mantra for the Committee.

right place • right time • right person

right place • right time • right person

19

The QEP CommitteeSCF’s President selected the QEP Committee in September 2013. It consists of a representative cross-section of full-time and adjunct faculty, administrators, professional support staff, and students. (see Table 4.1).

name discipline or departmentFaculty RepresentativesLuci Frith, Chair Language and Literature

Del Carr Health Professions

Sheri Chejlyk Social and Behavioral Sciences

Kim Ghiselin Mathematics

John Lucado Business and Technology

Bob Minter Language and Literature, adjunct

Joni Pirnot Mathematics

Robin Rogers Language and Literature

Beth Smith Language and Literature

Maria Spelleri Language and Literature

Andy Swanson Natural Science

Matt Thomas Natural Science

Sue Wyar Art, Design, Humanities

Administrative Representatives Tracy Elliott Library Services

Dory Lock Resource Development

Jaquie McNeil Academic Resource Center

Heather Shehorn Advising

Sandra Shimp Financial Aid

Professional Support Staff Betty Christophel Academic Resource Center

Hayley Durham Informational Technology Services

Meg Hawkins Library

Richard Redding Advising

Denise Turcotte Advising

Student RepresentativeEvans Rimel President of Student

Government Association,

Vice President of Phi Theta Kappa

table 4.1

Page 11: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

2120

chapter 4identifying & selecting the QEP topic

right place • right time • right person

Institutional Process used to develop the QEP

Key Consideration TwoNew State laws defining meta-majors and their corresponding, designated gateway courses

Consistent with section(s) 1008.30, Florida Statutes (FS), Common Core Placement Testing for Public Postsecondary Education, meta-major academic pathways must be developed as a component of each Florida College System institution’s approved comprehensive advising plan. As of the Spring 2014 semester, students are required to “declare” a meta-major upon entry. Meta-major is defined as “a collection of programs of study or academic discipline groupings that share common foundational skills,” and a gateway course is defined as “the first course that provides transferable, college-level credit allowing a student to progress in his or her program of study” (Senate Bill 1720).

The Florida Administrative Code (FAC) rule 6A-14.065 identified eight meta-majors, including Arts, Humanities, Communication and Design; Business; Education; Health

Sciences; Industry/ Manufacturing and Construction; Public Safety; Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics; and Social and Behavioral Sciences and Human Services. The gateway course in English com-position for all meta-majors is English Composition I. The gateway courses in mathematics are aligned with the meta-major. The gateway courses for business are College Algebra or Elementary Statistics. The gate-way course for science, technology, engineering and

table 4.4

* Not reported due to the small number of enrollees taking this exam (<10).

Source: Institutional Research (SCF Fact Book, p. 21)

SCF FTIC Students Above Cutoff on Entry-Level Testing (Fall 2013)

Table 4.4 lists the results of all entry-level testing for students enrolled at SCF for Fall 2013. Key Consideration One

ReadinessConsistent with Florida state and national trends in education, 50 percent of SCF students enter college underprepared for college-level studies in mathematics, reading, and writing. The QEP Committee believes that if additional resources were provided to students during their first year, they may increase their chance to succeed.

Table 4.3 lists data on student readiness for college in mathematics, reading, and writing from Fall 2005 to Fall 2011 for Florida public high school graduates who enrolled at SCF and at other state/community colleges in the Florida College System (FCS).

Next, a general review of internal data from SCF’s Office of Institutional Research provided more specific information to the Committee related to student readiness, persistence, and retention rates. Additionally, two new state laws were reviewed in light of their potential impact on SCF’s QEP.

Research Summary of Common Themes and Opportunities for SCF

Early Connections (SENSE, CCSSE, and Graduating Student Survey)

Academic Advising / Clear Pathway / Plan (CCSSEE, SSI, and Graduating Student Survey)

Registration Effectiveness Admissions, Financial Aid, Scheduling Classes (SSI, Graduating Student Survey, Forums, and Focus Groups)

Instructional Effectiveness Engaged Learning, Student Faculty Interac-tion, Online, Developmental Classes and Adjuncts (Graduating Student Survey, Forums, Focus Groups)

Support for Learners Critical Support Services, Learning Communities, Academic and Social Support network (CCSSE, SSI and Focus Groups)

Engagement Outside Classroom/Student Life (CCSSE and SSI)

table 4.2 Source: Student Affairs

table 4.3Source: Florida Department of Education

FTIC Students Demonstrating Readiness in Math, Reading, and Writing

Page 12: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

23

chapter 4identifying & selecting the QEP topic

right place • right time • right person

Institutional Process used to develop the QEP

Table 4.5 provides multiple year student performance rates for students enrolled in College Preparatory mathematics (MAT 0018 and MAT 0028) and Writing (ENC 0015 and ENC 0025) prior to SB 1720. While the bill does not repeal non-credit, developmental courses, it does require colleges to “restructure” how developmental education options are offered; additionally, it is not yet known how the changes, combined with the new exemptions afforded by SB 1720, will impact the retention and success rates in gateway courses.

table 4.5 Source: Accountability Reports

SCF and State of Florida Success Rates for Students Enrolled in College Prep Courses

SCF Enrollment, Retention, and Success Rates in Gateway Courses in Math and English

Gateway Course

Enrolled Fall 2012

College Retention RatesFall 2012

Success RateFall 2012

Enrolled Fall 2013

CollegeRetention Rate Fall 2013

Success RateFall 2013

Difference in Retention Rates Fall to Fall

Difference in Success Rates Fall to Fall

MAT 1033 997 89% 59% 1030 89% 57% No change -2%

MGF 1106 271 93% 83% 256 91% 83% -2% No change

MGF 1107 186 94% 82% 240 90% 75% -4% -7%

ENC 1101 1735 91% 76% 1686 92% 77% 1% 1%

table 4.6

Table 4.6 shows enrollment, retention, and success rates for all SCF students in credit-bearing gateway mathematics and English courses.

The new law specifies that students who entered the 9th grade at a Florida public high school during the 2003-2004 school year, or any year afterward, and who graduated with a Florida standard high school di-ploma are exempt from being required to take college placement tests. The legislators believe that recent high school graduates are prepared for college-credit courses. Placement tests are also optional for students who are U.S. military service members on active duty at the point of application.

However, students who are not required to be tested or to enroll in developmental education may request assessment and may, if they wish, enroll in developmental education. Additionally, students may simultaneously be enrolled in developmental and college credit mathematics, reading, or English courses.

No benchmark data exists for the impact of Florida’s Senate Bill (SB) 1720 on gateway mathematics and English courses. The QEP Committee recognizes that in creating a plan to address engagement and success in the FTIC student cohort, several sets of internal benchmark data will need to be studied. Fall 2014 is the first academic year SB 1720 will be in effect; thus, benchmark data will be collected for only one year prior to piloting the QEP. Success and retention rates of students enrolled in college-ready mathematics and En-glish will be reviewed. These will form the benchmarks against which the effectiveness of the QEP, which will begin with a pilot cohort in Fall 2015, will be measured.

SCF’s internal reporting process includes the College retention rate and views it as a valuable indicator of student connection. Retention rate percentage, however, is not an indicator of course success, which is defined as having earned a passing grade of A, B, or C. The Committee believes having this discrete data will provide the opportunity for a richer analysis of the behavior of our students as the College decides where to allocate resources.

mathematics is College Algebra. The gateway courses for all other meta-majors are College Algebra, Liberal Arts Mathematics, or Elementary Statistics (FAC Rule 6A-14.065).

The overarching motivation behind identifying the meta-majors and the corresponding gateway courses is to advise students to enter college credit courses as soon as possible, limiting developmental education to the content needed for success in the meta-major. From the perspective of improving access and cost effectiveness, these efforts are fiscally prudent. Yet, our CCSSE and SENSE shows that only 38 percent of SCF students meet with an advisor or faculty member to develop an academic plan. The Committee realized that motivating more students to have an intentional and substantial conversation about their academic path-ways would be vital to success of SCF’s students.

Key Consideration Three Impact of Senate Bill 1720 on persistence and retention of first-time-in-college (FTIC) students in college prep and credit-bearing gateway courses

Florida Senate Bill 1720 decidedly restructures higher education in Florida because it exempts certain students from college placement tests, and it considerably limits the way in which college preparation instruction is delivered. Historically, SCF has required all new students to have placement test scores from the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), the American College Testing (ACT), the Postsecondary Educational Readiness Test (PERT), or the Florida College Entry Level Placement Test (FCELPT) to ensure enrollment in classes that are compatible with their skill level. Those students who did not pass a portion of the state’s college placement exams refreshed their skills in remedial mathematics, reading, or writing courses before beginning their college credit-bearing courses. As a result of Senate Bill 1720, passed by the Florida Legislature in 2013, this is no longer the case.

22

Page 13: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

2524

chapter 4identifying & selecting the QEP topic

right place • right time • right person

Institutional Process used to develop the QEP

Using a ranking survey and com-ment boxes, the QEP Committee next reduced the potential topic list to three. These three final-ists were used for the purposes of creating and administering a topic feedback survey during SCF’s Faculty/Staff Development Day on October 25, 2013. The three topic areas were as follows:

• Enhancing Student Learning and Development through Integrated Academic and Career Planning;

• Enhancing Student Learning by requiring a mandatory “Strategies for College Success” Course; and

• Enhancing Student Success through a structured and

collaborative “Early Alert” process that is supported by well-defined resources and communication pathways.

Faculty/Staff Development Day occurs once a year and provides the College with an invaluable opportunity to bring all the employees together. Given the diversity of knowledge and interests of the College community, members the QEP Committee determined that contex-tual descriptions of the topic areas would facilitate the gathering of broad-based feedback as listed below. The following descriptions were used.

Topic #1: Enhancing Student Learning and Development through Integrated Academic and Career Planning. Surveys of students indicate that freshman perceive their experience in college would be more successful if there were an academic planning process with structured pathways: i.e., sequence of courses with flexible course availability and multiple delivery systems.

Table 4.8 shows enrollment of FTIC students at SCF.

Next, the Committee identified that 83 percent of State College of Florida’s FTIC students have the goal of earning an A.A. degree. The initial exploration of the data summaries and key considerations served as a springboard that generated a list of 11 possible topic areas, including the following:

• Mini academic courses;

• Academic and Career Program pathways;

• Early Alert system with prescriptive referrals;

• Faculty Advising;

• Peer Tutoring;

• Supportive Learning Environment;

• Learning Communities;

• Mini courses in non-academic areas;

• Web tutorials for important college navigating information;

• College Freshman orientation course; and

• Revising first semester curriculum content to include college navigation support.

table 4.8

According to research, students who successfully complete their first credit-bearing mathematics and English courses early in their college career are more successful in their subsequent courses and are more likely to persist to graduation. In fact, studies by Goldrick-Rab (2010), Koch and Pistilli (2012), and Zeidentberg, Jenkins, & Calcagno (2007) confirmed that students who pass the gateway courses during their first semester are twice as likely to graduate.

Without a consistently applied standard to identify the skill level of students enrolling at SCF in developmental and/or college credit gateway courses, faculty cannot predict their success. SCF’s mathematics and English departments have designed diagnostic assessments administered during the first part of each semester. Faculty hypothesized that by communicating the assessment results and recommendations to students in the first weeks of the term, students will be more likely to make proactive choices to support their success. As indicated by SCF President Carol Probstfeld’s 2013 dashboard goals, student persistence and success are ongoing concerns. The QEP Committee recognized that

while some students leave college for reasons beyond institutional control, many do not persist because they encounter academic challenges that overwhelm them.

Narrowing the Topic Graduation and persistence rates of First-Time-In-College (FTIC) Cohort

In addition to the key considerations and research summaries, the Committee reviewed the SCF 2012-13 Fact Book as a guide for inquiry and identification of the College’s most problematic cohort in terms of its history and mission. It determined that addressing the engagement and success of the FTIC cohort, defined as students who have not previously been enrolled in any college credit classes and thus come to SCF with zero college credits, was a compelling issue of shared concern. During the past three years, 20 percent of FTIC students did not return for the second semester, and 40 percent did not return for the following fall.

Table 4.7 shows enrollment, retention, and success rates for FTIC students at SCF in credit-bearing gateway mathematics and English courses.

Enrollment, Retention Rate and Success Rate in Gateway courses in Math and Englishtable 4.7

Total headcount for FTIC students in Fall 2012: 1443Total headcount for FTIC students in Fall 2013: 1427

Source: Institutional Research

Gateway Course

Fall 2012 FTIC Student Enrollment

Percent retained2012–13

Success Rate 2012–13

Fall 2013 FTIC Student Enrollment

Percent retained2013–14

Success Rate2013–14

Difference in Retention Rates 2013–14 vs 2012–13

Difference in Success Rates Rates 2013–14 vs 2012–13

MAT 1033 492 84.6% 62.4% 479 91.7% 63.1% 7.1% 0.7%

MGF 1106 45 95.6% 91.1% 35 91.4% 71.4% –4.2% –19.7%

MGF 1107 25 96.0% 84.0% 29 96.6% 79.3% 0.6% –4.7%

ENC 1101 1077 79.0% 68.4% 984 89.3% 73.7% 10.3% 5.3%

Page 14: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

2726

chapter 4identifying & selecting the QEP topic

right place • right time • right person

Institutional Process used to develop the QEP

QEP Student Survey Prior to developing the implementation goals and strategies for the QEP, the Committee solicited student feedback about the main components of the plan. In addition to describing the SACSCOC review process, the survey defined the three elements of the plan with targeted questions about mentoring, early alert, and student support services. During the spring of 2014, more than 540 students enrolled in 30 gateway math-ematics and English courses were surveyed for their feedback. Overwhelmingly, the vast majority indicated that they would welcome the guidance of a faculty mentor and appreciate knowing early how they were doing in their courses; furthermore, most wanted to know more about SCF resources and services. Of the 540 respondents, approximately 60 percent identified themselves as first- or second-semester students. (See Student Survey for QEP, Appendix 4, and the results, Appendix 5).

In conjunction with the survey, QEP Committee members presented an “early alert” information and feedback session. SCF’s previous Title III Grant utilizing early alert in 2003 was described. Comments, observations, and questions were solicited from the audience. Discussion points included expanding early alerts that support non-academic needs; designating who could refer students for early alerts; examining resources for non-academic needs, such as child care; communicating class assessment results to advisers; and training faculty and staff to have a larger understanding of the experience of the student entering college.

Topic #3

Enhancing Student Success through a structured and collaborative “Early Alert” process that is supported by well-defined resources and communication pathways

Value Count Percent Totals: Rating of impact on Student Learning

Very High 101 52.1% Value of individual topic 86%

High 66 34 Comparable value Ranking 32.8%

Topic Selection Survey Results from Faculty/Staff Development Day

Topic #1

Enhancing Student Learning and Development through integrated Academic and Career Planning

Value Count Percent Totals: Rating of impact on Student Learning

Very High 91 46% Value of individual topic 88%

High 82 41% Comparable value Ranking 33.3%

table 4.9

Topic #2

Enhancing Student Learning by requiring a mandatory Strategies for College Success Course

Value Count Percent Totals: Rating of impact on Student Learning

Very High 103 52.6% Value of individual topic 82%

High 57 29.1% Comparable value Ranking 33.9%

QEP Focused Institutional Survey On October 25, 2013, during Faculty/Staff Development Day, the QEP Chair made a presentation to introduce the entire College to the QEP process and to identify the Committee members. Several presentations were given to various campus constituencies throughout the year. The power point presentations are located on the QEP College web pages along with committee minutes and committee work products (www.SCF.edu/FacultyStaff/QEP). The target group of first-time-in-college (FTIC) students was identified and participants were encouraged to complete the topic feedback survey (Appendix 3). Written feedback was solicited as well. For those unable to attend, the topic feedback survey was sent to all faculty, administration, and staff via email and they were given a week to respond. All participants were asked to do the following:

• rate the potential impact of each topic on student learning;

• offer any input about the feasibility of this topic; and

• identify the topic that they believe is most important to student success.

The 198 responses and comments were collected and entered into an online survey system. Of the total respondents, 43 percent represented the faculty, 29 percent were administrators, and 28 percent were staff. The results supported the anticipated importance of the three topic areas surveyed.

Table 4.9 provides the nearly equal percentage rank-ing results of the three choices. Since the three topics all received similar results, the Committee decided to investigate the feasibility of integrating all of them into the final QEP.

Topic # 2: Enhancing Student Learning by requiring a mandatory “Strategies for College Success” course. This course would be designed to help students develop and/or enhance the skills necessary for college engagement and success, such as navigating the library, the on-line Learning Management System (LMS), connecting with academic support services, improving study habits, time management, effective note-taking, test preparation skills, and financial aid.

Topic # 3: Enhancing Student Success through a structured and collaborative “Early Alert” process that is supported by well-defined resources and communication pathways. This would create a system to help first-year students identify academic problems or difficulties early in the semester and get them connected to appropriate college resources and services and encourage them to develop strategies for success.

Page 15: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

2928

chapter 4identifying & selecting the QEP topic

right place • right time • right person

Institutional Process used to develop the QEP

Faculty Mentoring and Early ConnectionResearch indicates that the role of faculty in student learning and retention is vital (McClenney, et al., 2012; O’Banion, 1994; Tinto, 1998). Students see faculty members as authority figures, mentors, and role models, and their influence over students can be significant. Deemed to be one of the “most methodologically rigorous quantitative mentoring studies to date,” Campbell and Campbell (1997) shows that after one year of mentoring by faculty, students have higher GPAs and are more likely to persist compared to academically similar students without mentors.

Reports on other college’s mentoring initiatives consis-tently described mentoring as an institutionally based approach rather than a specific list of recommended behaviors. The developmental needs of the particular student cohort and the resources of the institution guided the constellations of behaviors that were described. Coles (2011) depicts most faculty-student mentoring programs as loosely structured with minimal administrative responsibilities. Typically, programs tend to be designed to last a year and take place during the student’s first year of study, with the ultimate goal of increased engagement and success.

Mentoring programs aimed at FTIC students were crafted to encourage students to identify college procedures, programs, services, and opportunities, in addition to developing skills and behaviors that lead to academic success. Regardless of their differences, all the plans the Committee researched and reviewed championed mentors as making the college experience more “user friendly” and manageable. The mentor en-courages students to connect with the campus culture, supporting them during their transition to college life. As McClenney, et al. (2012) concluded, “Engagement doesn’t happen by accident; it happens by design.”

Aware of increasing student needs for mentoring and decreasing resources, the Faculty Mentoring team analyzed models that view institutional responsiveness

As the plan began to take shape, two additional long-term subcommittees were established: the Academic Pathway/Faculty Mentor team (to address Goals 1a and 1b) and the Early Alert/Student Support Modules team (to address Goals 2a and 2b). Their purpose was to research, report, and refine the QEP goals as the Committee moved toward establishing the Student Learning Objectives.

Academic Pathways After identifying the pertinent internal research from the CCSSE, SENSE, and SSI, the subcommittee on Academic Pathways/Faculty Mentoring investigated further. In the CCSSE 2013 report on student engagement, researchers concluded that developing an academic pathway could significantly affect student engagement and success rates. As mentioned earlier, the Florida Department of Education (FDOE) now requires that FTIC students declare a meta-major. The predominant motivation for this decision is faster completion of college and readying students for future employment. Yet, 50 percent of those college students that declare a major often change it two to three times. While indecisiveness can be costly, there are other mitigating factors for SCF’s students because many students are employed.

The College has career counseling, student advisors, and faculty with career field expertise, yet students are often unaware that they need early and sustained academic pathway and career guidance. With this goal in mind, the Faculty Mentoring team focused on early connections with a faculty mentor as the most salient and sustainable approach for the FTIC student. Faculty Mentors would support students in identifying their individual interests, while assisting them in accessing the College resources. Making early connections is key to academic and personal success and may make the difference between students who leave the College prior to graduation and those who persist (Gerdes and Mallinckrodt, 1994).

convenient time. Others confessed to “being uncom-fortable,” “not really knowing faculty on a personal level,” or “student pride” as being obstacles to talking to professors about a problem.

Nearly 74 percent of respondents indicated that it would be “extremely” or “very” useful to have a faculty member share resources that are available on campus to support student learning.

QEP Student Survey ConclusionsThe survey confirmed that students perceive that mentoring, early alert, and accessible learning resources and student services will serve their goals of being successful in attaining a degree. The Committee used the results to finalize the development of the student learning outcomes to implement the plan.

Developing the TopicAfter consolidating the survey rankings and written comments, four general goals were identified for further examination, discussion, and research.

Goal 1a: Create an Academic Pathway to Graduation

Goal 1b: Develop a Faculty Mentoring Program

Goal 2a: Establish an Early Alert System for FTIC students in identified gateway courses

Goal 2b: Create Learning Modules and Services in the Academic Resource Center that support essential FTIC needs and Early Alert needs

In November, the QEP subcommittee, dubbed the “Data Team,” examined the assessment results from the SENSE, CCSSE, and Noel Levitz SSI surveys for multiple years. This subcommittee had two objectives: first, to identify the most significant institutional gaps in meeting student needs and expectations; and second, to tease out the item numbers in the surveys that corresponded to the four general goals (Appendix 2).

Faculty Mentoring/ Academic PathwayWhen asked, “What would you like to learn from a faculty mentor,” the majority of student responses addressed three major themes: time management; academic/career success; and all those things students think they should know about SCF but do not. Regarding advising on academic or career success, students write that they want to know about the “best way to graduate” and “how to get into a good university” in addition to wanting to know “what classes to take for an individual’s career path” and “how to use [their] degree.” Finally, students want to know “how to get the most from [their] college experience” as well as “everything [they] need to know to succeed.” Fifty-six percent of students surveyed believe having the opportunity for a Faculty Mentor at SCF would be “extremely” or “very” important. When asked how they would prefer to interact with such a mentor, the majority of students responded “in person” (45 percent) and “individually” (25 percent) as opposed to groups.

Students were asked to rank, based on their experience at SCF, what advice they would give a friend or family member who is considering entering State College of Florida, Manatee-Sarasota. One of the most popular of the responses was “learn what academic courses are required for your academic plan.”

Early Alert/Student Support ServicesAn overwhelming majority of students (92 percent) in-dicated that they would like feedback other than tests or quizzes early in the semester. In general, students would prefer to be notified in person (42 percent) or by email (40 percent) if they were doing poorly in class.

Students were asked two open-ended questions at the end of the survey. The first, “What would prevent you from contacting a faculty member at SCF when you are having problems,” generally resulted in answers describing time/scheduling issues or personal issues. For example, many students expressed concern over their busy schedules and the availability of professors at a

Page 16: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

3130

chapter 4identifying & selecting the QEP topic

right place • right time • right person

Institutional Process used to develop the QEP

technology. Research from 2000 to 2008 (Campbell & Nutt, 2008; Creamer, 2000; Hagen & Jordon; and Lowenstein 2005) suggests that technology can sup-plement but not supplant the interpersonal interactions inherent in more traditional approaches. Sometimes “older is better.” The first challenge for the Early Alert / Student Support Modules subcommittee was to design a holistic communication process that would have the capacity to simultaneously connect the classroom instructor submitting an early alert with the student, the Faculty Mentor, and the Student Success Coordi-nator in the Academic Resource Center. Next, because students are often unfamiliar with campus resources that support them in strengthening their skills, faculty mentor training would include educating mentors about SCF resources so that they can knowledgably advise students to use the support services. Finally, the subcommittee systematically reviewed the available resources within the College and generated a master list, which identified current contact information and locations.

Alignment of the QEP R3 with SCF’s Mission, Vision, and Strategic GoalsThe Committee formulated the QEP goals so that they clearly connect to the institution’s Mission, Vision, and Strategic Priorities. The plan aligns with SCF’s Mission: “to provide engaging and accessible learning environ-ments that result in student success and community prosperity.” It also noted a clear correlation between the QEP and SCF’s Vision statement: to be recognized as “an innovative model of educational organization that hosts a dynamic continuum of academic and career pathways focused on student success and community responsiveness.” Finally, the Committee determined that the QEP supports the College’s Strate-gic Priorities.

Table 4.10 (on the following page) depicts the relationship between the goals and activities of the QEP and SCF’s Mission, Vision, and Strategic Priorities.

Summary The QEP Committee reviewed qualitative and quantitative data gathered from years of faculty, staff, and student surveys provided by the Office of Institutional Research. It researched and gathered data to identify a meaningful topic for the QEP. The Committee engaged the campus by surveying the faculty, staff, and administrators in October 2013. During the spring of 2014, students who were enrolled primarily in gateway mathematics and English courses were also surveyed. Two subcommittees were established, the Academic Pathway/Faculty Mentor team and the Early Alert/Student Support Modules team. Their goals were to research, report, and refine QEP R3, verifying its alignment with the College mission, vision, and strategic priorities. Three members of the Committee were charged with reviewing the pertinent literature and best practices. As the Committee directed its attention to developing Student Learning Outcomes, the purpose of the QEP crystallized. The purpose of QEP R3 is to connect FTIC students initially registered in the fall semester to the right place at the right time with the right person through Faculty Mentoring, Early Alerts, and individualized student learning resources and support services.

Early Alert and Course Performance FeedbackThe Noel Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) asks students to rank the services that are most important to them and to indicate what level of satisfaction they have experienced with those services while at the College. From 2005 through 2013, SCF students ranked being “notified early in the term if doing poorly” as their highest priority. Significantly, their highest priority was also the experience with which students are least satisfied, resulting in a continually increasing gap from 0.97 in 2005 to 1.21 in 2013. The results are clearly a mandate to act.

Nationwide, nearly 20 percent of community college students do not persist from the first to the second semester. FTIC students need academic support to persist and succeed, yet they are not taking the initiative to get it. Virtually 99 percent of colleges polled by CCSSE (2012) provide tutoring, yet just over 25 percent of students take advantage of that opportunity. According to the Community College Institutional Survey (CCIS), a national survey regarding “promising practices” conducted by the Center for Community College Student Engagement, 61 percent of colleges offer supplemental instruction, but only 31 percent of FTIC students participate. High impact practices are consistently identified in the plethora of research from the CCSSE and SSI, but a compelling gap remains between available services and student participation.

Instructors assert that they can often predict within the first few weeks of a class which students will succeed and which ones will struggle. Students transitioning from high school often fail to identify early in the semester that they need to seek assistance or that they are academically at risk. While SCF’s Academic Resource Center provides several options that support academic success, the College has yet to institute a formalized early notification system.

The Early Alert / Student Support Modules subcommit-tee investigated several “early alert” software products to determine which features were most compatible with the needs of our students and current College

to FTIC students as a shared responsibility. Regardless of who provided mentoring, there is a direct positive correlation between mentoring support and a student’s successful academic and social integration at his or her college. In developing an accessible and integrated strategy for a successful mentoring program, the Faculty Mentoring team considered the FTIC cohort characteristics. Most are young, underprepared, and diverse in ability and socioeconomic background. Students commute and work, so their time on campus is limited. Many are entering college with more and more personal issues that can impact their ability to be successful.

Although faculty and advisors need to be aware of the other things going on in the student’s life, they are not typically trained as counselors and, therefore, need to be knowledgeable about referral resources both on and off campus. Because it is unrealistic to expect one group to be responsible for all student needs and goals, the Committee recognized the need to design an integrated mentoring system to connect students to the right person, at the right time, with the right support services.

The Data Team’s review of the CCSSE, SENSE, and SSI surveys confirmed their concerns that SCF students are also in need of an early alert system to help them make timely connections and become aware of College services (Goals 2a and 2b). Six items on the SENSE and nine on the CCSSE demonstrate that SCF students are seeking assistance in successfully adapting to the college environment but are not satisfied with the services offered. Students also indicate a significant gap between their view of the importance of the following items identified on the SSI and their satisfaction with these at SCF:

• The college shows concern for the students as individuals;

• Financial aid counselors are helpful;

• My academic counselor is concerned about my success as an individual;

• Advisor helped me set goals to work toward; and

• Students are notified early in the term if they are doing poorly in class.

Page 17: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

identifying & selecting the QEP topic Institutional Process used to develop the QEP

to spring semester (and eventually into fall of a new academic year) and successful completion of gateway courses that pair students with Faculty Mentors (FM) and use the Early Alert (EA) system.

Table 5.1 shows the total enrollment and the FTIC enrollment at SCF for the last five years.

FTIC students represent between about 13 to 16 percent of the total number of SCF students enrolled in the College annually. Thus the QEP may potentially benefit a significant portion of the SCF student population; however, not all FTIC students enroll in gateway courses in their first semester. In fact, not all FTIC students are “college ready” in their first semester, so SCF offers developmental courses to help prepare students for gateway mathematics and English courses.

Table 5.2 (on the following page) shows the retention and success rates for all SCF students enrolled in gate-way mathematics and English courses as well as the number of FTIC students enrolled in these same courses for 2012 and 2013.

The QEP focuses on student engagement and success for first-time-in-college (FTIC) students enrolled in gateway mathematics and English courses at the State College of Florida, Manatee-Sarasota (SCF). FTIC is defined as students who have not previously been enrolled in any college credit classes and thus come to SCF with zero college credits; the FTIC cohorts will not include dual-enrolled students. Gateway courses include the following:

• MAT 1033: Intermediate Algebra

• MGF 1106: Topics in Mathematics *

• MGF 1107: Liberal Arts Mathematics *

• ENC 1101: Written Communication I

* Per SB 1720, “exempt” students may opt out of MAT 1033 in favor of either MGF 1106 or MGF 1107 if their meta-major does not require algebra or statistics.

Engagement and success will be measured by a num-ber of factors, including student persistence from fall

5baseline data and resources • chapter

SCF Total Student Enrollment and FTIC Enrollment

Students 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Total Enrollment 12,026 11,439 11,141 10,800 10,400

FTIC Enrollment 1,874 1,665 1,533 1,423 1,427

Percent of Students who are FTIC

15.6% 14.6% 13.4% 13.2% 13.7%

table 5.1

Source: SCF 2013-14 Fact Book

right place • right time • right person

33

table 4.10 Alignment of QEP R3 and SCF’s Mission, Vision, and Strategic Priorities

Enhance Student Development QEP R3’s individualized student-centered approach is designed to support FTIC students in developing their educational plans and goals.

Enhance Student Engagement and Success A desired result of QEP R3 is to increase student engagement and success as measured by persistence rates among FTIC students enrolled in the gateway mathematics and English courses.

Enhance Institutional Effectiveness Through the use of CRM technology, QEP R3 is designed to be data driven and results oriented. Through annual assessment and improvement, QEP R3 will enhance SCF’s performance-based culture of assessment and improvement.

Enhance Workforce Development By increasing English and mathematics proficiency levels, QEP R3 will prepare SCF students to enter the workforce.

Fiscal Responsibility The QEP R3 budget is fiscally responsible and compatible with the College’s mission, vision, and strategic priorities.

Employee Success By promoting professional development of faculty and staff at SCF, the QEP R3 will have a posi-tive impact on our students and the community that we serve. The implementation of QEP R3 will require administrators, faculty, and staff to apply their diverse talents and expertise to supporting the success of our students.

Strengthening the SCF Community The process of developing QEP R3 was a product of cross-campus inquiry, dialogue, and collaboration. As part of implementing the QEP R3, mathematics and English faculty, department chairs, and faculty mentors will participate in professional development and training. QEP R3 faculty will work collaboratively with Student Services, the Student Success Coordinator, and the Academic Resource Center.

32

Page 18: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

3534

chapter 5baseline data and resources

right place • right time • right person

baseline data that reflects the impact of SB 1720 on gateway courses in mathematics and English.

In addition to the unknown impact of SB 1720 on the plan, two major components of the QEP do not currently exist at SCF: the Faculty Mentor program and Early Alert (EA). The former has no precedent; the latter was tried several years ago in a different format with limited success. Effectiveness of the FM program and EA system will be measured by comparing student persistence and success rates of the cohort group to those of other FTIC students in gateway courses during the 2014-15 academic year.

Academic Resource CenterBradenton, Venice, and Lakewood Ranch (LWR) campuses each have an Academic Resource Center (ARC). The ARC Director has leadership of the ARCs on all three campuses, and an ARC Lab Manager oversees operations and makes regular visits to all three campuses. Both of these individuals are based in Bradenton.

The Bradenton ARC has six full-time and three part-time Lab Instructors; part-time instructors are

At the proposed rate of expansion, the QEP will serve approximately 70 percent of the FTIC students by Year 5. The major factor limiting expansion to 100 percent of FTIC students is the number of Faculty Mentors (FM) that will be required. Faculty members who become mentors will be carefully selected from a group of applicants; key features of the FM program are that only the best mentors are selected and that faculty participation is not mandatory. SCF has approximately 125 full-time faculty and 350 adjuncts, but the plan calls for only full-time faculty to serve as mentors. This issue, however, may be revisited in Year 4 or 5 of the QEP, allowing for expansion of the plan should the College find it effective in promoting student engagement and success.

Establishing New BaselinesSenate Bill (SB) 1720 is expected to exempt a significant number of students from placement testing or required enrollment in developmental courses. Fall 2014 is the first academic year the bill will be in effect, so no baseline data exist for its impact on retention or success rates of students enrolled in gateway courses. The first year of the QEP (2014-15) will require gathering new

Students, Courses, and Faculty Mentors in QEP Years 1 through 5

Year2014–15

Year 2015–16

Year 2016–17

Year 2017–18

Year 2018–19

# of Students in Cohort N/A 240 455 600 755

# of Mathematics Courses N/A 4 7 10 13

# of English Courses N/A 4 8 10 12

# of Faculty Mentors (FM) N/A 9–10 17–18 24 30

# of FTIC Students per FM N/A 24–27 25–27 25 25–26

table 5.3

Retention and Success Rates of Students Enrolled in Gateway Coursestable 5.2

Fall 2012

Gateway Course

Number of SCF Students

Number of FTIC Students

Percent of FTIC to SCF Students

Retention Rate of SCF Students

Retention Rate of FTIC Students

Success Rate of SCF Students

SuccessRate of FTIC Students

MAT 1033 997 492 49.3% 89% 84.6% 59% 62.4%

MGF 1106 271 45 16.6% 93% 95.6% 83% 91.1%

MGF 1107 186 25 13.4% 94% 96.0% 82% 84.0%

Percent of FTIC to SCF Studentsin Gateway Mathematics Courses 38.7%

ENC 1101 1735 1077 62.1% 91% 79.0% 76% 68.4%

Fall 2013

MAT 1033 1030 479 46.5% 89% 91.7% 57% 63.1%

MGF 1106 256 35 13.7% 91% 91.4% 83% 71.4%

MGF 1107 240 29 12.1% 90% 96.6% 75% 79.3%

Percent of FTIC to SCF Studentsin Gateway Mathematics Courses 35.6%

ENC 1101 1686 984 58.4% 92% 89.3% 77% 76.7%

Source: Institutional Research

The first cohort of FTIC students will be comprised of 240 students who are enrolled in one of the gateway mathematics and/or ENC 1101 courses selected for the pilot. Mathematics courses cap enrollment at 35 students; English courses cap enrollment at 25 students. The number of FTIC students in subsequent years of the QEP will increase by about 150 to 200 students per year, ending with 755 students in Year 5.

Table 5.3 (on the following page) shows the number of students, courses, and Faculty Mentors forecast for each year of the QEP.

The QEP will include only those FTIC students who begin SCF in the fall term and enroll in one or more gateway courses. Historically, more FTIC students enroll in the English gateway course during their first semester than enroll in the mathematics gateway courses. This may account for the lower average retention and success rates for FTIC students in ENC 1101 than in the mathematics courses. Through a combination of Faculty Mentoring, Early Alert, and increased awareness and access to SCF resources, the QEP is designed to improve student engagement and success in both mathematics and English gateway courses.

Page 19: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

chapter 5baseline data and resources

Career Resource CenterThe Career Resource Center (CRC) offers SCF students and alumni career advice and assessments as well as portfolio, cover letter, and résumé review services. In addition, the CRC assists students with their job search and maintains a list of employment opportunities, both for on-campus and off-campus jobs, including internships. The CRC lab in Bradenton is equipped with 25 computers and three printers dedicated for student use; the lab in Venice has 18 computers and two printers. Students may use the lab computers, software, websites, and reference books to explore and research careers and majors. CRC advisors offer workshops on résumé building, selecting a major, and social media and networking. Advisors also offer tours of the lab for new-student orientation and for instructors and their classes.

The Bradenton CRC has four full-time employees and two student assistants; the Venice CRC has two full-time employees and two student assistants. Expanding the number of CRC personnel to serve the needs of the QEP is not anticipated at this time.

The CRC tracks the number of students who visit the labs with AccuTrack. See Table 5.6 for the number of students who have used the Bradenton and Venice campus CRCs from 2009 through 2013.

Semester # Workshops # Students Attending

Fall 2011 35 233

Fall 2012 84 546

Fall 2013 157 843

Spr 2012 62 452

Spr 2013 118 831

Spr 2014 159 592

Sum 2012 47 370

Sum 2013 60 429

Sum 2014 72 488

table 5.5

Source: Academic Resource Center

ARC Workshop Attendance (Bradenton)

Number of Students who used the Career Resource Center

Campus 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Bradenton 5,368 5,989 4,863 2,595 2,553

Venice 4,620 5,116 5,061 3,463 2,417

TOTAL 9,988 11,105 9,924 6,058 4,970

table 5.6

Source: Career Resource Center

right place • right time • right person

37

The number of tutoring sessions reported above includes only tutoring in open lab; it does not in-clude attendance at workshops, developmental labs (mathematics, reading, writing), or any tutoring by appointment for Accounting, the Reading Center, or the Writing Center. The Writing Center, for example, accounts for another 996 individual conferences with 502 students (5-year average for fall and spring semes-ters from 2009 through 2014).

Currently, the ARC schedules workshops on a variety of topics and will offer impromptu workshops for small groups of students who gather in the ARC as well as workshops-by-request. In the last year, the ARC offered weekly reviews for Pre-Algebra, Elementary Algebra, Intermediate Algebra, College Algebra, Statistics, Ap-plied Calculus (and others by request), Test Reviews (by request), and a Final Exam Cram (Sundays before finals week) in addition to the following regularly scheduled workshops:

• Secrets of the Graphing Calculator (Algebra Ed)

• Secrets of the Graphing Calculator (Statistics Ed)

• Undo the Fraction Freeze

• Factoring Made Fun

• Ten Secrets of Successful Mathematics Students

• Improving your ESQ (Editing Skills Quotient)

Table 5.5 (on the following page) shows the number of workshops offered at the Bradenton campus ARC in the last three years and the attendance by semester. Workshop data is listed by semester to show the growth of this program, begun in response to student and faculty requests.

considered “temporary” employees contracted through Advance Talent Solutions, and the number of hours these employees work varies by semester. The Bradenton ARC typically employs eight to ten Peer Tutors (student employees) who are supervised jointly by the Lab Manager and Lab Instructors. Ultimately, all employees report to the Lab Manager.

The Venice ARC has one Lab Site Coordinator, two full-time Lab Instructors, five part-time Lab Instructors, and five to six Peer Tutors. The Lakewood Ranch ARC does not have any dedicated full-time employees; however, one of the Bradenton full-time Lab Instructors floats between the Bradenton and LWR campuses. The LWR ARC has two part-time Lab Instructors and two to three Peer Tutors. Expanding the number of ARC personnel to serve the needs of the QEP is not anticipated at this time.

The ARC tracks the number of students who visit the centers with AccuTrack, a College-owned tracking system that records student ID numbers. See Table 5.4 for the number of students, visits, and tutoring sessions at the Bradenton campus ARC between calendar years 2011 and 2014.

Number of Students, Visits, and Tutoring Sessions at the Bradenton ARC

2011 2012 2013 2014

# of Students 8,614 6,984 5,890 2,986 *

# of Visits 90,811 59,863 43,380 23,073 *

# of Tutoring sessions 28,270 32,933 26,108 13,267

* Does not include Fall 2014. Source: Academic Resource Center

table 5.4

36

Page 20: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

39

chapter 6

right place • right time • right person

38

baseline data and resources

become more self-aware and intentional in developing the non-academic skills needed for their success. Most challenging is prioritizing the competing responsibilities of balancing their personal life and work obligations with the expectations of college. Foundational academic skills are designed to assist students in developing the capacity for college-level work; these include writing, research, critical thinking and problem solving, and an enlarged worldview of the arts and sciences.

With attention to these three desired student behaviors, the Committee developed the Student Learning objectives that supported the QEP goals of engagement and success.

SLO #1: The student will establish early connections through a faculty mentoring relationship

Collaborative MentorshipThe faculty mentor-mentee relationship should be reciprocal and adaptive, adjusting to the student’s specific and situational needs for information, guidance, and encouragement. With an emphasis on empowering students to be more self-determining, the committee made the a priori assumption that there is positive value in intentionally and consistently soliciting student feedback. They referred to this concept as the “push-pull” principle. While the concept of mentoring is not new, a consistent and comparable definition for mentoring does not exist in the scholarly literature. All agreed that the key to successful mentoring is caring. After considerable discussion, the Faculty Mentor was defined as “a role model who supports and encourages the mentee in academic and personal growth.” Mentoring includes elements of teaching, advising, modeling, and guiding, and empowering students to flourish in the college environment. Student Learning Objectives supporting the forging of early connections are listed below.

Table 6.1 (on the following page) shows the student learning outcomes that support early connections with Faculty Mentors.

Goal of QEP R3 right place, right time, right person

Developing the Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) is guided by the need to discriminate between those practices that enhance the environment that supports learning and the outcomes of those practices. Student learning in mathematics and English is regularly reviewed at SCF through a variety of assessment instruments, including rubrics, exams, papers, research projects, and presentations. An essential component of the QEP plan is to design SLOs that are observable, measureable, and documented so that the College strategically plans curriculum development and resource allocation that is data-driven and results-oriented. While the main focus of the QEP Committee was on increasing engagement and success in the FTIC cohort, it was ever mindful of the complexity of achieving college persistence, SCF’s current institutional capabilities, and the potential impact of SB 1720 (see “Key Consideration Three” described in Chapter 4, page 22).

Supporting Student Engagement in CollegeSeveral Committee members have extensive experience in Student Engagement, and their familiarity with best practices and previous College initiatives contributed to the design of the SLOs. The Committee was convinced that engagement is an essential prerequisite for student investment in acquiring necessary skills. Three specific skills were identified as basic for students’ success: 1) orientation; 2) self-awareness monitoring; and 3) foundational academic skills. One of the goals of the QEP is to sustain early connections beyond the mandatory orientation for FTIC. To assist in orientation, Faculty Mentors will be dedicated to empowering students by sharing their knowledge and experiences about how the College operates; where services are located; and what expectations, norms, and social skills are necessary to enhance the quality of their interaction in the classroom and on campus. Because poor study habits and ineffective time management can limit engagement, FTIC students often need to

desired student learning outcomes •

Expanding the number of library personnel to serve the needs of the QEP is not anticipated at this time.

The library security system currently tracks the number of students who pass through its doors. It does not have the capability to identify individual students by ID number. Historically, the library kept records of the number of students who attended workshops, but it did not identify them individually; beginning in Fall 2014, the library will begin collecting ID numbers of students who attend workshops or consult with a librarian. See Table 5.8 for the number of students who have used the Bradenton and Venice campus libraries from 2009 through 2013.

SummaryThe QEP will focus on FTIC students who are enrolled in gateway courses in the fall term; it will not include dual-enrolled students. Students will be paired with a Faculty Mentor (FM) for two consecutive semesters: fall and spring. Instructors in the selected gateway courses will use the Early Alert system within the first half of the semester to notify students, Faculty Mentors, and the Student Success Coordinator if the students are struggling in their courses. Faculty Mentors will work with students to offer advice and/or access to resources necessary to aid in students’ success. The pilot will begin in Year 2 (2015-16) and include 240 students in 10 gateway courses with 9 or 10 FMs; it will expand through Year 5 (2018-19) to include 755 students in 25 gateway courses with 30 FMs. Effectiveness of the QEP will be measured by increased persistence and success of FTIC students in gateway courses as well as an upward trend in student use of academic and support resources and services, such as the Academic Resource Center, Career Resource Center, and SCF Library.

LibraryLibraries are located on the Bradenton and Venice campuses. The SCF Library offers workshops to students in a number of formats: lectures scheduled with faculty bringing their students to the library; a librarian going to classrooms; and walk-in (unassigned) workshops led by staff in the library. The goal of these workshops is to show students how to find, evaluate, and use information for their assignments (papers, speeches, projects, etc.).

Table 5.7 shows the number of workshops for the last four academic years and the number of students who attended those workshops.

In addition to the many resources the SCF Library has to offer, the QEP proposes creation of additional learning support modules that address topics necessary for student engagement and success. The library will serve as a repository for these learning tools. The proposed modules are listed below:

• improving study habits

• time management

• anxiety management

• effective note-taking

• test preparation skills

The library staff is not assigned to a single location. It has ten full-time employees and eight part-time employees that service the Bradenton and Venice campus libraries, distance learning, and dual enrollment.

SCF Library Workshops for Students

Academic Year

Number of Sessions

Number of Students

2010 – 11 371 9,276

2011 – 12 311 7,773

2012 – 13 247 6,175

2013 – 14 204 5,099

table 5.7

Source: SCF Library

SCF Library Visits

Campus 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13

Bradenton 277,339 413,806 438,433 422,154

Venice 80,553 78,442 90,098 104,415

TOTAL 357,892 492,248 526,531 526,569

table 5.8

Source: SCF Fact Book

Page 21: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

4140

chapter 6desired student learning outcomes

right place • right time • right person

SLO #3 The student will identify and engage in activities that support learning and academic achievement

The Florida legislature defines “gateway courses” as foundational in nature and credit bearing. Students’ definitions are far more colorful and predictably devoid of educational jargon and neutral descriptions. Although the gateway courses in mathematics and English have high enrollments, they also have high drop-out and failure rates. During 2012-13, nearly one out of three (340 of 1077) FTIC students in ENC 1101 and nearly 38 percent (185 of 492) of FTIC students in MAT 1033 did not succeed. These figures are only slightly better for the 2013-14 academic year, with 26 percent (259 of 984) of FTIC students in ENC 1101 and 37 percent (177 of 479) of FTIC students in MAT 1033 not succeeding in the gateway courses. The Committee cannot predict whether the new state college placement procedures will be reliable indicators of student ability. Therefore, both the pre-SB 1720 success rates in the gateway courses and the post-SB 1720 success rates for the gateway courses will be used as benchmarks.

In preparation for formulating the best approach to address this gap and generating Student Learning Objectives, the Early Alert/Student Support Modules

SLO #2 correlates to the SCF general education com-petency for “Critical Thinking and Problem Solving Skills” as it relates to students’ application of “higher order critical thinking and problem solving skills across the curriculum” (SCF Catalog). Measurement of SLO #2 includes both quantitative and qualitative data that will be created by the student and Faculty Mentor, initially maintained by the Faculty Mentor and Student Services, and subsequently collected, maintained, and analyzed by the Student Success Coordinator.

• Students will complete two surveys, one at the beginning of the mentor-mentee relationship and one at the end

• Faculty Mentors and Student Services will maintain records of the student’s meta-major

• Faculty Mentors will maintain records of the student’s academic plan

• Faculty Mentors will complete a final report with a list of mentoring activities

• Student Services will maintain records of student’s course schedule and grades, which will indicate persistence and success

• Office of Planning and Institutional Effectiveness will maintain aggregate records of retention and success of FTIC students

table 6.2 SLO #2 The student will create an academic pathway with the assistance of a Faculty Mentor

QEP Plan Goal #2 Support students in developing their educational plans and goals.

2.1 Identify a meta-major 2.2 Identify gateway courses for a meta-major and create a second-semester academic plan 2.3 Identify academic and career goal interests

2.4 Progress successfully from fall semester to spring semester

SLO #2 The student will create an academic pathway with the assistance of a Faculty Mentor

The Florida Department of Education (FDOE) and the Florida legislature are developing new college ratings and funding systems predicated on the assumption that colleges and students should be held more accountable and responsible for making progress toward a degree. The educational paradigm of college as an opportunity for exploration has shifted and been transformed into a cost-benefit analysis based on performance. Financial aid and performance-based funding and scholarships are being used as incentives to keep students on track. But they will have limited success if students are not encouraged to develop realistic educational and career goals. A feature of the faculty mentoring relationship is to encourage students to identify their academic and career interests and to connect them with those resources that will best serve their interests. Thus, supporting students in developing their educational plans will be a key component of the mentor-mentee relationship with the following specific student learning objectives.

Table 6.2 (on the following page) illustrates the student learning outcomes that support developing educational pathways.

SLO #1 correlates to the SCF general education competency for “Communication Skills” as it relates to students’ “effective oral and written communication and interpersonal skills, including teamwork” (SCF Catalog). Measurement of SLO #1 includes both quantitative and qualitative data that will be created by the student and Faculty Mentor, initially maintained by the Faculty Mentor, and subsequently collected, maintained, and analyzed by the Student Success Coordinator.

• Faculty Mentors will maintain meeting calendars and notes

• Faculty Mentors will complete a final report with a list of mentoring activities

• Students will complete two surveys, one at the beginning of the mentor-mentee relationship and one at the end

table 6.1 SLO #1 The student will establish early connections through a faculty mentoring relationship QEP Plan Goal #1 Forge early connections with Faculty Mentors (FM) and build relationships with advisors and the campus community.

1.1 Meet with Faculty Mentor face to face at least three times each in Fall and Spring semester 1.2 Collaborate with Faculty Mentor to define the expectations and responsibilities of the mentor-mentee relationship

1.3 Participate in the entering and exit student feedback surveys

Page 22: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

4342

chapter 6desired student learning outcomes

right place • right time • right person

SummaryThe College’s QEP is designed to increase the engage-ment and success of FTIC students in the gateway mathematics and English courses. QEP R3 is a three part, integrated approach that includes 1) forging early supportive connections between faculty and students through Faculty Mentoring; 2) implementing an Early Alert communications system for students who may be struggling during the first half of the semester; and 3) increasing awareness and access to existing learning support resources, including the Academic Resource Center, Career Resource Center, and library, student support services, and creating learning modules that target specific academic skills essential for the success of FTIC students.

SLO #3 correlates to the SCF general education compe-tency for “Quantitative and Scientific Reasoning Skills” as it relates to students’ application of “mathematical and scientific methods of reasoning to analyze and interpret data and use the results logically to solve real world problems” (SCF Catalog). Measurement of SLO #3 includes both quantitative and qualitative data that will be created by the student and Faculty Mentor, Academic Resource Center, Career Resource Center, and SCF Library; maintained by the Faculty Mentor and other support services; and subsequently collected, maintained, and analyzed by the Student Success Coordinator.

• Students will complete two surveys, one at the beginning of the mentor-mentee relationship and one at the end

• Faculty Mentors will complete a final report with a list of mentoring activities, including academic resources and services discussed and/or used

• Academic Resource Center, Career Resource Center, SCF Library will maintain records of individual QEP cohort students by ID number and aggregate numbers of students using these resources

• Student Services will maintain records of student’s grades, which will indicate success

• Office of Planning and Institutional Effectiveness will maintain aggregate records of retention and success of FTIC students

to identify students who are struggling. In addition, faculty may initiate an Early Alert at any time during the first half of a semester. The challenge for the group was to design a communication process that would have the capacity to simultaneously connect the classroom instructor who submits an Early Alert with the student, the Faculty Mentor, and the Student Success Coordi-nator in the Academic Resource Center. (QEP R3 Visual Plan Model in Appendix 6).

The Early Alert/Student Support Modules team defined student support modules as “instructional opportunities and services designed to enhance specific aspects of student learning.” These may include workshops, tutorials, tutoring, labs, and career testing. Many of these resources and services already exist at SCF: Academic Resource Center, Career Resource Center, and the library. In addition, special modules designed to help students with academic skills will be created and offered through online or face-to-face workshops by the ARC or library.

The following Student Learning Objectives were crafted to support the goal of increasing student awareness and use of student support services. Table 6.3 depicts the student learning outcomes that support the aware-ness and use of Student Support Services.

team interviewed a team member that was part of SCF’s Title III Grant that included Early Alert in 2003. In addition to becoming knowledgeable about the variety of early alert systems throughout the country, the team invited the Associate Vice President of Student Development to provide general information about the early alert capacity that exists within the Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system that SCF uses. The purpose was to determine whether the system was user-friendly for faculty and students and capable of retrieving data.

The CRM “Retain” software was also described and demonstrated to faculty during the Faculty Develop-ment Day workshop in February 2014. To address poor performance in the gateway courses, the Committee formulated an integrated, focused, timely Early Alert process designed to support collaborative learning.

The Early Alert/Student Support Modules team be-gan by defining Early Alert as a process that informs students about their academic standing in class early enough that they have time to access the appropriate student support services recommended by their Early Alert notifications. The team recommends that requests be sent to participating faculty three times during the first half of a semester (before the withdrawal deadline)

table 6.3 SLO #3 The student will identify and engage in activities that support learning and academic achievement

QEP Plan Goal #3 Facilitate student awareness and use of the essential support services necessary for their academicsuccessinidentifiedcourses(ENC 1101, MAT 1033, MGF 1107, MGF 1106).

3.1 Identify resources in Academic Resource Center, Library, and Career Resource Center

3.2 Identify areas of academic challenge and, as appropriate, develop a plan

3.3 Use academic support activities (Modules, tutors, workshops) that are identified in the Early Alert

3.4 Complete assigned class work in gateway/designated courses

Page 23: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

4544

chapter 7organizational structure

right place • right time • right person

Assessment Team

• Students

• Faculty Mentors

• Mathematics and English Faculty

• Department Chairs

• SSC

• ARC Director

• Student Advising Director

• Admissions Director

• Institutional Research

Faculty Mentor Professional Training Team

• Students

• Faculty Mentors

• Professional Development Comm. Chair

• Student Advisors

• Web Services Personnel

Early Alert Development Team

• Students

• Faculty Mentors

• Mathematics and English Faculty

• Department Chairs

• SSC

• Student Advising Director

• CRM Manager

Resources /Academic Achievement (REACH) Student Support Team

• Students

• Faculty Mentors

• Mathematics and English Faculty

• ARC Director & Staff

• Library Services Director

• SSC

• Lab Managers

• Library Staff

• CRC Director & Staff

SCF President

Vice President Vice President Vice President Student Affairs Strategic Initiatives Academic Affairs

QEP Coordinator

QEP Implementation Team • Students • Faculty Mentors • Mathematics and English Faculty • QEP Coordinator • Student Success Coordinator (SSC) • Director, Academic Resource Center (ARC) • Lab Coordinator, Academic Resource Center (ARC) • Director, Admissions • Director, Advising Services • Director, Career Resource Center (CRC) • Director, Library Services • Professional Development Committee Chair • Director, Institutional Research

table 7.1Organizational StructureMentors based on the meta-major chosen. While

Faculty Mentors should be knowledgeable about the options and requirements for meta-majors, they are not the only sources of information for students and will work closely with student advisors to meet not only student needs but also state requirements regarding the selection of meta-majors. Key mathematics and English faculty using the Early Alert process will provide feedback and leadership to the Early Alert and Student Support implementation teams.

Vice President of Strategic InitiativesFor the success of the QEP, a ranking administrative presence is essential. The VPSI will represent the importance of the QEP in the College’s infrastructure, strategic planning, budgeting, and public relations. In concert with the Vice President of Student Affairs (VPSA) and the Vice President of Academic Affairs (VPAA), the VPSI will oversee the implementation of the plan by encouraging the ownership of the QEP in those departments or areas essential to its success. The VPSI will provide the President’s Advisory Council (PAC) with monthly status reports on the development, implementation, and maintenance of the QEP.

QEP CoordinatorThe QEP R3 Coordinator is a full-time Language & Literature professor, who will be given reassigned time to fulfill the coordinator’s role of program administrator, cross-functional coordinator, and liaison with SCF’s senior leadership. Under the supervision of the VPSI, the QEP Coordinator will be responsible for the following:

• Provide leadership for the implementation teams by facilitating departmental communication and coordination, identifying the resources necessary for implementation, and establishing timelines with clearly defined deadlines;

• Oversee and meet regularly with the QEP Implementation Teams to review the progress on the implementation;

• Maintain records of QEP Implementation Team meetings and post to the QEP website;

The implementation and maintenance of QEP R3 at the State College of Florida, Manatee-Sarasota (SCF) will involve the participation of students; faculty mentors and instructors in mathematics and English; student advisors; and professional support, development, and institutional research staff. The Vice President of Strategic Initiatives (VPSI) is responsible for the administrative oversight of the plan; the QEP Coordinator, a new position that has already been filled by a full-time faculty member accepting a temporary re-assignment for the duration of the QEP, will provide leadership for the Implementation Team, management of the three-part plan, and assessment of data; and the Student Success Coordinator, a new full-time position that will initially be filled in Spring 2015, will be responsible for following up on Early Alerts and collecting and analyzing assessment data. The leadership for the QEP ensures that the departments throughout the College have an administratively supported and systematic approach for meeting deadlines and allocating the necessary resources to implement the QEP. Table 7.1 depicts the organizational structure for implementing the QEP.

Designated Responsibilities of Implementation Team FacultyFaculty Mentors and those teaching designated mathematics and English gateway courses are the most visible and prominent elements in institutionalizing the QEP. They will provide their expertise and experience to the teams charged with developing and implementing the plan’s strategies for assessment, Faculty Mentor training, the Early Alert process, and academic and student support services. Faculty who volunteer to be mentors will receive release or reassigned time comparable with teaching a class. As the program expands and/or faculty leave the program or SCF, additional Faculty Mentors will be trained. The plan does not require that students be paired with Faculty

Page 24: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

4746

chapter 7organizational structure

right place • right time • right person

4) Resources / Academic Achievement (REACH) Student Support: Team members will meet several times in 2014-15 (and at least once per semester thereafter) to provide input on the following:

• creation of student support modules—such as improving study habits, time management, anxiety management, effective note-taking, and test prepa-ration skills—designed to enhance student success

• recommendations for improvement of any of the above

The teams will meet regularly to develop annual plans, ensure that the timelines within the plans are met, review progress on implementation efforts, identify and discuss issues related to the implementation, review/analyze data, and determine necessary changes to the QEP based on evaluation/assessment data.

SummaryThe State College of Florida, Manatee-Sarasota (SCF) has designed its QEP to engage and support the FTIC students. The focus of the plan is to strengthen the learning environment through the combined and integrated efforts of Student Support Services, Advising, and Faculty Mentors. The expectation is one of increased engagement and success for the FTIC cohort. The organizational structure establishes an administratively supported and fiscally sound framework that will support the implementation and the continuation of the QEP. The preponderance of the literature concludes that the primary reason for students’ lack of persistence is that they are not engaged in the college community, have little sense of a clearly defined academic pathway, are generally disoriented, and are most often not aware of the corrective solutions that are available to them. QEP R3 is a comprehensively planned, integrated, and supportive learning environment designed to remedy that perception. The College is making a commitment to transform SCF’s infrastructure with the expectation that the QEP will have a profound and enduring impact on our FTIC students.

• design and content of mentor-mentee expectations and responsibilities

• structure of Faculty Mentor and student feedback sessions

• design and content of Faculty Mentor notes and final report

• software program selection for Faculty Mentor time logs

• course syllabus explanation of QEP for mathematics and English gateway courses in FTIC cohort

• CRM workshop materials for mathematics and English faculty teaching gateway courses

• design and content of academic pathway template

• recommendations for improvement of any of the above

2) Faculty Mentor (FM) Professional Training: Team members will meet several times in 2014-15 (and at least once per semester thereafter) to provide input on the following:

• design and content of welcome letter to FTIC student cohort and explanation of QEP

• FM application and interview questionnaire

• FM interview and recommendations

• selection of a professional trainer to lead Spring 2015 FM training and help design FM handbook and training materials

• recommendations for improvement of any of the above

3) Early Alert Development: Team members will meet several times in 2014-15 (and at least once per semester thereafter) to provide input on the following:

• CRM entry process training and protocols for Faculty Mentors as well as mathematics and English faculty teaching gateway courses

• recommendations for improvement of any of the above

• Collaborate with the QEP Implementation Team, the QEP Coordinator, and the mathematics and English faculty to develop Early Alert protocols;

• Track Early Alerts in the CRM for data assessment and analysis for the Early Alert process;

• Compile data for the progress reports and semes-ter evaluations of the FTIC cohort student learning outcomes associated with the Early Alert;

• Coordinate with the Student Services CRM manager, the QEP Coordinator, and as needed, the Profes-sional Development Team Chair to provide training for the faculty using Early Alerts;

• Assign referrals to appropriate ARC personnel, receive student progress reports and documents student activities for teaching faculty in gateway courses and Faculty Mentors via the CRM;

• Collaborate with faculty, Student Support Services, and the College library staff to identify and develop student support modules, workshops, and on-line tutorials that are most needed for student success in the gateway courses and/or those identified by the plan;

• Coordinate with the QEP Director and the ARC director in tracking and reporting student use of ARC student support services;

• Participate in developing and marketing the student support services modules throughout the campus.

QEP Implementation TeamsThe QEP Committee identified the need for four implementation teams to lead the development and implementation, evaluation, and continuous improvement of SCF’s plan. The four teams shown in Table 7.1 address the following aspects of the QEP:

1) Assessment: Team members will meet several times in 2014-15 (and at least once per semester thereafter) to provide input on the following:

• design and content of student entrance and exit surveys

• Conduct the collection, compilation, analysis, and dissemination of data from FTIC cohort: Faculty Mentor entrance and exit surveys, mentor notes, faculty feedback sessions, student focus groups, and final reports;

• Meet with institutional research personnel and department chairs to gather data for the FTIC cohort engagement and success rates in the gateway courses in mathematics and English;

• Monitor the QEP budget;

• Provide regularly scheduled updates of the QEP to the VPSI;

• Collaborate with IT and the marketing departments to continue to publicize the QEP at the College;

• Update the College community about the progress of the plan via the QEP web pages, written reports, emails, and oral presentations, as necessary (e.g., Vice President’s Academic Advisory group, College Leadership Team meetings, All College Day, Faculty Development Day);

• Collaborate with Professional Development to arrange for fall and spring faculty focus groups to collect the feedback related to Faculty Mentoring and Early Alert and disseminate information; and

• Collaborate with the Implementation Team to implement necessary changes to the QEP based on evaluation/assessment data.

Student Success Program CoordinatorThe Student Success Coordinator (SSC) is a new full-time position; the SSC will be responsible for following up on Early Alerts and collecting and analyzing assessment data. Under the supervision of the VPSI and the QEP Coordinator, the SSC will be responsible for the following:

• Conduct the collection, review, analysis, and reporting of QEP data from the FTIC cohort in the gateway courses;

Page 25: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

49

chapter 8QEP R3 action

right place • right time • right person

Mentor

• Forge early connections with mentees and build relationships w/ campus community.

• Advising: Support students; listen, encourage, and empathize in developing their educational plans and goals; maintain meet-ing notes, second semester planning, college procedures, and W dates.

• Student Development: Facilitate student awareness, access, and use of student support / community services and resources necessary for their academic success (Early alerts from designated course).

• Assist students in recognizing areas of academic challenge, developing action plans, assessing progress, and discussing career aspirations.

• Connect w/ appropriate faculty, staff, and services (clubs, scholarships, professional organizations, employment opportunities).

Shared

• Advising: Provide general guidance toward meta-major pathways and intended interest/major at upper level. May provide guidance on entrance requirements for A.A. and A.S. programs and appropriate referrals to advisors and program managers.

• Student Development: Access student data. Educate students on SCF resources and providing guidance to connections at the college.

• Provide general guidance on institutional policies/procedures that may impact a student.

• Support students throughout the registration process for course selection (examples: add/drop classes).

• Offer creative and engaging workshops.

Advisor

• Orientation: Participate in new student orientation initiatives through the offering of group advisement sessions.

• Advising: Provide academic and developmental advising (individual and group) to all students with the goal of increased student retention (such as 2nd advisement campaign, advising special cohorts; i.e., international students, athletes and/or veterans).

• Coordinate and provide full array of academic advising and career support (individual and group) for meta-major pathways, intended interest/major at the upper level, transfer advising, and use of the resources within the college advising center.

• Provide academic advising for mapping academic coursework and AS prerequisite coursework.

• Student Development: Coordinate and provide advocacy/conflict resolution (SCF procedures 4.14.01).

• Coordinate and provide advocacy/ crisis intervention referrals that support the code of conduct /conflict resolution policies and procedures. Advise and provide oversight and referrals for students with personal, social, or academic concerns that may interfere with satisfactory academic progress (examples: CARE team and Comprehensive MedPsych Systems referrals).

table 8.1Roles of Faculty Mentors and Student Advisors• The learning partnership between faculty and students should be provided during the entire first year, beginning in the fall semester;

• Compensation will be essential to recruit interested, motivated, and qualified faculty;

• Funding for a carefully designed training program for faculty mentoring training is crucial to the success of the QEP;

• A primary element of the plan is a collaborative relationship between faculty mentors, gateway course instructors, and student advisors. The QEP will be embedded in both the academic and student services units on the campus; and

• The evaluation process of faculty mentoring should be both quantitative and qualitative.

Table 8.1 Describes the roles of faculty mentors and student advisors.

The QEP Committee developed a detailed plan, including the appropriate sequencing of activities to develop, implement, assess, and improve strategies and initiatives that support the College’s QEP R3 goals and student learning outcomes (SLOs). The following narrative addresses information in the plan’s three SLOs in order to provide a framework for the timetables contained in Tables 8.2 through 8.6.

Implementing SLO #1: The student will establish early connections through a faculty mentoring relationship.

The goal of SLO #1 is for FTIC students in gateway courses to forge early connections with Faculty Mentors and build relationships with advisors and the campus community. The Committee established several principles and priorities as it developed the action steps to implement the faculty mentoring process:

• The mentoring process is designed to offer psycho-logical and emotional support, facilitate academic and social integration, increase student satisfaction and support goal setting and academic pathways;

• Mentoring is voluntary and should be clearly structured, targeted to the FTIC student, and suitable to the current College culture;

48

Page 26: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

5150

chapter 8QEP R3 action

right place • right time • right person

content, lab, on-line tutorials, and/or a tutor who can assist students in improving the skills necessary for their success in gateway courses. In addition to offering foundational academic skill building in mathematics and English, the College resources should include learning modules that support student development in such areas as study and time management skills, career planning, and research skills. The goal of the implementation approach is to create the environment in which students retain contact with their professors, librarians, tutors, and faculty mentors. The goal of the QEP is to create a learning environment that empowers students to be in the right place, at the right time, with the right person.

TimelineOn the following pages are Tables 8.2 through 8.6, which present the year-by-year activities for QEP R3, followed by the resources SCF has committed to the implementation of this program, including the proposed budget for each year.

Resources

State College of Florida, Manatee-Sarasota (SCF) has developed a QEP program that creates a learning environment that enhances the support for academic success and engagement of FTIC students. The program has the support of the President’s Advisory Council (including all vice presidents and the SCF general counsel), and a budget of $622,925 has been developed for a period of the next five years. This budget will augment the commitment of existing personnel. The QEP R3 Coordinator is currently a full-time Language & Literature professor and the budget reflects the cost of hiring adjunct professors to cover 100 percent of her teaching load each fall and spring for the next five years. In addition to providing 100 percent of the funding for the Student Success Coordinator, the plan will provide reassigned time for the faculty mentors by funding replacement faculty to teach one three-credit course each fall and spring semester for each of the Faculty Mentors. The budget

• Providing time management, study skills, financial aid assistance, and stress management is likely to build confidence that can lead to academic success;

• Identifying struggling students holistically by being alert to their academic, social, and emotional issues offers more predictable student success;

• Developing an early alert program that targets students in identified courses will increase student engagement and success;

• Having a supportive campus environment with wide ranging and multiple-delivery options will raise the performance of academically underprepared students;

• Instituting a collaborative relationship between fac-ulty mentors, teaching faculty, and student support services is essential to the success of the QEP;

• Evaluating faculty mentoring should be both quantitative and qualitative.

With the goal of creating a proactive approach to academic student success in the identified courses, the Early Alert/Student Support Modules team examined the best practices of early alerts in light of the existing resources available on campus. It recommended using the Customer Relationship Management “Retain” software. It is capable of simultaneously connecting the classroom instructor who submits an early alert with the student, the Faculty Mentor, and the Student Success Coordinator. Training in the Early Alert process should include an overview of the QEP; an explanation of the College’s existing CRM early alert protocols that identify when and how to use an early alert; standards for communicating an early alert message to students; an understanding of the follow-up procedures; and methods of assisting students in connecting to the available resources. Generally, early alert training requires one to two hours of hands-on experience.

The use of learning resources by underprepared students was positively correlated with both persistence and academic performance (McClenney, et al.). This QEP proposes that customized referrals from classroom instructors will connect students with the specific

Implementing SLO #2: The student will create an academic pathway with the assistance of a Faculty Mentor.

The goal of SLO #2 is for FTIC students in gateway courses to collaborate with their Faculty Mentor to create a personalized educational plan and establish academic goals. The Committee established several principles and priorities as it developed the action steps to assist students in identifying their educational goals:

• It is critical that the messages concerning meta-majors and educational pathways are aligned and consistently communicated via accessible resources;

• The College needs to institute ongoing professional development for faculty and staff to stay abreast of state changes in declaring meta-majors and their accompanying gateway courses;

• The primary element of the plan is the collaborative relationship between Faculty Mentors and student advisors; the QEP will be embedded in both the academic and student services departments; and

• The evaluation process of the impact of mentors’ supporting students in developing an educational pathway should be both quantitative and qualitative.

Implementing SLO #3: The student will identify and engage in activities that support learning and academic achievement.

The goal of SLO #3 is for FTIC students in gateway courses to demonstrate an increased awareness and use of essential support services necessary for their academic success. The Committee established several principles and priorities as it developed the action steps designed to increase student awareness and use of essential support services:

• Offering social and emotional support is not sufficient to increase engagement of FTIC students;

The Faculty Mentoring team reviewed dozens of college web sites, including the University of Rhode Island, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, University of Buffalo, Oregon State University, Penn State, Wellesley College, University of Michigan, Plymouth State University, North Carolina Community College, Prince George’s Community College, NYU Borough of Manhattan Community College, and CUNY Hostos Community College. It accessed national organizations, including National Association of Student Financial Aid Administration (NASFAA) and National Academic Advising Association (NACADA), that promote the development of quality mentoring programs. As result, the team determined that funding for a carefully designed training program for training faculty mentors is crucial to the success of the QEP.

The Committee is convinced that while faculty will be compensated for their mentoring, the choice to mentor should be voluntary. It anticipates that mentors will recruit, network, schedule end-of-semester focus groups, and continuously expand the repertoire of mentoring resources. Preferably, volunteers would represent a variety of disciplines and academic departments. Because the role of Faculty Mentor involves release time, department chairs must be consulted. As the Committee considered the working materials that would be needed for planning and implementation of the QEP, it discussed recommendations for the composition of the faculty mentor selection committee and crafted a sample of the faculty mentor application (see Appendix 7) and a proposed table of contents for a mentor manual.

To establish measurable outcomes to gauge the success of the mentoring cycle, the Committee developed both “Entrance” and “Exit” surveys for participating students (see Appendix 8 and Appendix 9). Additionally, Faculty Mentors will enter a “Final Mentor Report” for each mentee in the Customer Relationship Management system (CRM). This will provide invaluable feedback from the experience of both the mentor and mentee (see Appendix 10).

Page 27: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

53

chapter 8QEP R3 action

right place • right time • right person

Preparation Action Timeline Responsible Person College Resources

Appointment of QEP Coordinator

Summer 2014

Vice President of Strategic Initiatives

Faculty Release Time

Establish Implementation Team

Fall 2014 QEP Coordinator N/A

Promote QEP R3 to SCF students, faculty, and staff

Fall 2014 QEP Implementation Team SCF website and emailSCF ConvocationSCF Faculty Development Day

Identify and establish parameters for Early Alert and create CRM protocols

Fall 2014 QEP Coordinator

Early Alert Development Team

CRM Retain software

Draft Faculty Mentor Handbook, create FM materials and surveys, and create FM training materials

Fall 2014 QEP Coordinator

Faculty Mentor Professional Training Team

SCF Faculty Development DayFM Workshops & Training

Design pilot parameters and assessments

Fall 2014 QEP CoordinatorAssessment Team

N/A

Create student learning modules

Fall 2014 QEP Coordinator

Resources / Academic Achievement (REACH) Student Support Team

SCF Library SCF website

Solicit Faculty Mentor applicants

Fall 2014 QEP Implementation Team SCF website and emailSCF ConvocationSCF Faculty Development Day

Hire Student Success Coordinator

Fall 2014 –Spring 2015

Vice President of Strategic Initiatives

QEP Coordinator

Director, Academic Resource Center

N/A

Update QEP webpage Fall 2014 –Spring 2015

QEP CoordinatorWeb Services Personnel

SCF website

Interview, select, and train 9 to 10 Faculty Mentors

Spring 2015 QEP Coordinator

Faculty Mentor Professional Training Team

Assessment Team

Faculty Release Time

Professional Development Trainer

Identify 8 gateway course sections (240 students)

Spring 2015 QEP Coordinator

Student Advising

BannerCRM Retain

Select and train 8 gateway course instructors

Spring 2015 QEP Coordinator

Early Alert Development Team

BannerCRM RetainWorkshops & Training

YEAR 1continued next page

table 8.2Year 1 • 2014-15also provides funds to support faculty professional development for both Faculty Mentors and in-class instructors, which will be provided by consultants who are experts in faculty mentoring and the use of the Early Alert functions of the College’s Customer Relationship Management system (CRM). The budget will also support marketing and recruitment materials, initial web page development, and the production of assessment instruments used in program evaluation.

The QEP R3 Coordinator will be given reassigned time to fulfill the coordinator’s role of program administrator, cross-functional coordinator, and liaison with SCF’s senior leadership. The new full-time position, the Student Success Coordinator, is supported 100 percent by the QEP R3 budget. This key position requires a Bachelor’s degree from a regionally accredited four-year college or university and two or more years of experience with an integrated student information system in a community college or university setting. A Master’s degree is preferred. The individual must also have two or more years of experience as a “lead employee” with responsibility for scheduling and assigning work, training new employees, and assisting others with problems. The duties of these positions are detailed in Chapter 7.

The SCF QEP R3 plan calls for a comprehensive and integrated approach to student support designed to provide holistic services to QEP cohorts for their entire first year of studies at SCF with the goal of increasing the percentage of FTIC students who successfully

complete their gateway course, succeed in their other classes, transition to the spring semester, and return for the following fall in good academic standing. Learning environment enhancements include the integrated support of trained faculty mentors, academic advisors, in-class faculty, library, academic resource center, career services, and student services support. These personnel will develop or modify tools to facilitate the plan: assessment tools, educational planning materials, mentoring and advising guidelines, an early alert system and the use of technology to communicate effectively with students and program stakeholders, document student learning outcomes, access academic support services and acquire learning and life skills. The vice presidents that lead the academic, administrative, and student services units involved in the QEP have made the commitment that their units will support the QEP initiative. The considerable capacity of each unit to address the needs of FTIC students will be enhanced by the coordinated and comprehensive nature of the plan and should impact FTIC student success and engagement, creating a template for expansion to other student populations.

52

Page 28: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

54

chapter 8QEP R3 action

YEAR 2continued next page

table 8.3Year 2 • 2015-16

Preparation Action Timeline Responsible Person College Resources

Update and/or revise Faculty Mentor Handbook and FM materials and survey

Fall 2015 –Spring 2016

QEP Coordinator

Faculty Mentor Professional Training Team

QEP web pageFM Workshops & Training

Analyze and/or redesign pilot parameters, assessments, and tracking systems

Fall 2015 –Spring 2016

QEP Implementation Team

Assessment Team

BannerCRM RetainAccuTrack

Update and/or create new student learning modules

Fall 2015 –Spring 2016

QEP Coordinator

Resources / Academic Achievement (REACH) Student Support Team

SCF LibrarySCF website

Update QEP webpage Fall 2015 –Spring 2016

QEP Coordinator

Web Services Personnel

SCF website

Interview, select, and train 7 to 9 new Faculty Mentors (and replacements, as necessary)

Spring 2016 QEP Coordinator

Faculty Mentor Professional Training Team

Assessment Team

FM Workshops & Training

Identify 7 additional gateway course sections (15 sections total; +205 students for 445 students total)

Spring 2016 QEP Coordinator

Student Advising

BannerCRM Retain

Select and train 7 additional instructors for gateway courses (and replacements, as necessary)

Spring 2016 QEP Coordinator

Early Alert Development Team

BannerCRM RetainWorkshops & Training

55

right place • right time • right person

COST and DESCRIPTION AMOUNT EXPLANATION

PERSONNEL

QEP R3 CoordinatorRelease/Reassign Time

$20,000 Payment for five courses reassigned for both fall 2014 and spring 2015.

Student Success Coordinator $30,000 Estimated hire date January 2015. This is half annual salary to cover January – June 2015.

TRAINING & PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Faculty and Staff $10,000 Training and development of faculty mentors and gateway courses faculty.

MARKETING & ASSESSMENT

Marketing & Recruitment Materials $500 Estimate for processing and distribution of program information.

Web Page Development Release/Reassign Time

$2,425 Payment for reassignment of one summer class to develop Web page.

Assessment Measures Surveys Materials

$500 Processing and distribution costs.

TOTAL : $63,425

Year 1 • 2014-15budgettable 8.2 continued

Page 29: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

5756

chapter 8QEP R3 action

right place • right time • right person

table 8.3 continuedYear 2 • 2015-16

Student Learning Outcome

Implementation Action

Assessment & Data Collection

Goals & Analysis

2 The student will create an academic pathway with the assistance of a Faculty Mentor

2.1 Identify a meta-major

• Question 1.a on SCF Entering Student Survey

• Question 1.a on End-of-Semester Student Survey

• Question 2.d on SCF Faculty Mentor Review

• 100% of Mentees indicate satisfied or very satisfied with discussion with FM about selecting a meta-major

• 100% of Mentors indicate satisfied or very satisfied that mentee selected a meta-major

2.2 Identify gateway courses for a meta-major and create a second-semester academic plan

• Question 1.b and Question 1.c on SCF End-of-Semester Student Survey

• Question 2.e on SCF Faculty Mentor Review

• 70% of Mentees report satisfied or very satisfied with FM’s assistance in identifying gateway courses and creation of a second semester academic plan

• Mentors report satisfaction that 70% of Mentees iden-tified gateway courses and created a second semester academic plan

2.3 Identify academic and career goal interests

• Question 1.d on SCF End-of-Semester Student Survey

• Question 2.f on SCF Faculty Mentor Review

• 70% of Mentees report satisfaction that FM helped identify academic and career goal interests

• Mentors report satisfaction that 70% of Mentees identi-fied academic and career goal interests

2.4 Progress successfully from fall semester to spring semester

• SCF Equity Report and Non-returning Student Report: Retention and success rates; A.A. GPA

• Question 1.e on SCF End-of-Semester Student Survey

• Question 2.g on SCF Faculty Mentor Review

• Persistence rate target: 82.5%

• Success rate target: 90%

• QEP Coordinator, Student Success Coordinator, and Faculty Mentors review and revise target rates and GPAs

• 70% of Mentees report satis-faction that FM assisted with successfully progressing from the previous semester

• Mentors report satisfaction that 65% of Mentees were retained and 90% were successful

Responsible Person:

• QEP Coordinator

• Student Success Coordinator

• Faculty Mentors

• Students

• Advising Services

• Institutional Research Director

• Faculty Mentor Professional Training Team

• Assessment Team

YEAR 2continued next page

Year 2 • 2015-16table 8.3 continued

Student Learning Outcome

Implementation Action

Assessment & Data Collection

Goals & Analysis

1 The student will establish early connections through a faculty mentoring relationship

1.1 Meet with Faculty Mentor face to face at least three times each in Fall and Spring semester

• Question 1 and Question 2.a on SCF Faculty Mentor Review submitted each semester for each Mentee

• 70% of Mentees meet with Faculty Mentor targeted number of times

• QEP Coordinator, Student Success Coordinator, and Faculty Mentors review and revise participation rate

1.2 Collaborate with Faculty Mentor to define expectations and responsibilities of a mentor/mentee relationship

• Question 3 on SCF End-of-Semester Student Survey

• Question 2.b on SCF Faculty Mentor Review

• End-of-semester focus group with Mentees

• End-of-semester Mentor meeting with Coordinators

• Campus-wide SENSE Survey and CCSSE Survey

• 70% of Mentees indicate that their expectations were met by the mentor-mentee relationship on the items on Question 3

• Mentors indicate on Question 2.b of the Mentor Review satisfaction with 70% of their relationships with Mentees

• Qualitative data collected and ana-lyzed each semester through Focus Groups conducted by Coordinators

• Coordinators analyze campus-wide SENSE and CCSSE Survey data

1.3 Participate in the entering and exit student feedback surveys

• SCF Entering Student Survey

• SCF End-of-Semester Student Survey

• 90% of Mentees complete Entering Student Survey

• 70% of Mentees complete End-of- Semester Survey

Responsible Person:

• QEP Coordinator • Student Success

Coordinator • Faculty Mentors • Students• Institutional

Research Director• Faculty Mentor

Professional Training Team

• Assessment Team

YEAR 2continued

Page 30: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

5958

chapter 8QEP R3 action

right place • right time • right person

Year 2 • 2015-16budget table 8.3 continued

COST and DESCRIPTION AMOUNT EXPLANATION

PERSONNEL

QEP R3 CoordinatorRelease/Reassign Time

$20,000 Payment for five courses reassigned for both fall 2015 and spring 2016.

Student Success Coordinator $60,000 Salary for 12-month position.

Faculty MentorsRelease/Reassign Time (FT Faculty)

$20,000 Payment for 10 reassigned classes.

TRAINING & PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Faculty and Staff $7,500 Training and development of additional faculty mentors and gateway courses faculty.

MARKETING & ASSESSMENT

Marketing & Recruitment Materials $500 Estimate for processing and distribution of program information.

Assessment Measures Surveys Materials

$500 Processing and distribution costs.

TOTAL: $108,500

Student Learning Outcome

Implementation Action

Assessment & Data Collection

Goals & Analysis

3 The student will identify and engage in activities that support learning and academic achievement

3.1 Identify resources in Academic Resource Center, Library, and Career Resource Center

• Question 1.a on SCF End-of-Semester Student Survey

• Question 2.h and Question 3 on SCF Faculty Mentor Review

• 70% of Mentees indicate satisfaction with FM identify-ing resources in ARC, Library, and CRC on End-of-Semester Survey

• 70% of FM Reviews indicate satisfaction that Mentees identified resources in ARC, Library, CRC

3.2 Identify areas of academic challenge and, as appropriate, develop a plan

• Question 1.g on End-of-Semester Mentee Survey

• Question 2.i on SCF Faculty Mentor Review

• 70% of Mentees indicate satisfaction with FM’s helping them identify areas of academic challenge and developing a plan

• Mentors report satisfaction that 70% of Mentees iden-tified areas of academic challenge and developed a plan

3.3 Use academic support activities (Modules, tutors, workshops) that are identified in the Early Alert

• Question 2 on End-of-Semester Mentee Survey

• Question 2.j and Question 3 on SCF Faculty Mentor Review

• 70% of Mentees identified in Early Alert indicate they used academic support activities

• Mentors indicate satisfac-tion that 70% of Mentees identified in Early Alert used academic support activities

3.4 Complete assigned class work in gateway courses

• Banner Student Grade Reports; store in CRM

• Retention and success rates in gateway mathematics and English courses

• SCF Equity Report and Non-returning Student Report

• Persistence rate targets

MAT 1033: 87% MGF 1106: 98% MGF 1107: 98% ENC 1101: 82%

• Success rate targets:

MAT 1033: 64% MGF 1106: 93% MGF 1107: 86% ENC 1101: 70%

Responsible Person:

• QEP Coordinator

• Student Success Coordinator

• Faculty Mentors

• Students

• Advising Services

• Institutional Research Director

• Faculty Mentor Pro-fessional Training Team

• Assessment Team

• Early Alert Development Team

• Resources / Academic Achievement (REACH) Student Support Team

Year 2 • 2015-16table 8.3 continued

YEAR 2continued

Page 31: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

61

chapter 8QEP R3 action

right place • right time • right person

YEAR 3continued next page

table 8.4 continuedYear 3 • 2016-17

Student Learning Outcome

Implementation Action

Assessment & Data Collection

Goals & Analysis

1 The student will establish early connections through a faculty mentoring relationship

1.1 Meet with Faculty Mentor face to face at least three times each in Fall and Spring semester

• Question1and Question2.aonSCF Faculty Mentor Review submitted each semester for each Mentee

• 75% of Mentees meet with Faculty Mentor targeted number of times

• QEP Coordinator, Student Success Coordinator, and Faculty Mentors review and revise participation rate

1.2 Collaborate with Faculty Mentor to defineexpectations and responsibilities of a mentor/mentee relationship

• Question3onSCF End-of-Semester Student Survey

• Question2.bonSCF Faculty Mentor Review

• End-of-semesterfocusgroup with Mentees

• End-of-semester Mentor meeting with Coordinators

• Campus-wideSENSE Survey and CCSSE Survey

• 75% of Mentees indicate thattheirexpectationsweremetbythementor-menteerelationship on the items on Question3

• MentorsindicateonQuestion2.boftheMentorReviewsatisfaction with 75% of their relationships with Mentees

• Qualitativedatacollectedand analyzed each semester through Focus Groups con-ducted by Coordinators

• Coordinatorsanalyze campus-wideSENSE and CCSSE Survey data

1.3 Participateintheenteringandexit student feedback surveys

• SCFEntering Student Survey

• SCFEnd-of-SemesterStudent Survey

• 90% of Mentees complete EnteringStudentSurvey

• 75% of Mentees complete End-of-SemesterSurvey

Responsible Person:

• QEPCoordinator• StudentSuccess

Coordinator • FacultyMentors• Students•Institutional

Research Director•FacultyMentor Professional Training Team

•AssessmentTeam

Year 3 • 2016-17table 8.4

YEAR 3continued

Preparation Action Timeline Responsible Person College Resources

Update and/or revise Faculty Mentor Handbook and FM materials and surveys

Fall 2016 –Spring 2017

QEP Coordinator

Faculty Mentor ProfessionalTrainingTeam

QEP webpageFM Workshops & Training

Analyzeand/orredesignpilotparameters, assessments, and tracking systems

Fall 2016 –Spring 2017

QEPImplementationTeamAssessmentTeam

BannerCRM RetainAccuTrack

Update and/or create new student learning modules

Fall 2016 –Spring 2017

QEP Coordinator

Resources/Academic Achievement(REACH) Student Support Team

SCF LibrarySCF website

Update QEP webpage Fall 2016 –Spring 2017

QEP CoordinatorWebServicesPersonnel

SCF website

Interview,select,andtrain7to8new Faculty Mentors (and replacements,asnecessary);expandFM to Venice and LWR campuses

Spring 2017 QEP Coordinator

Faculty Mentor ProfessionalTrainingTeam

AssessmentTeam

FM Workshops & Training

Identify5additionalgatewaycoursesections;expandto Venice and LWR campuses(20sectionstotal;+155 students for 600studentstotal)

Spring 2017 QEP CoordinatorStudentAdvising

BannerCRM Retain

Select and train 5 additional instructors for gateway courses (and replacements, as necessary);expandtoVenice and LWR campuses

Spring 2017 QEP Coordinator

EarlyAlert Development Team

BannerCRM RetainWorkshops & Training

60

Page 32: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

6362

chapter 8QEP R3 action

right place • right time • right person

YEAR 3continued next page

table 8.4 continuedYear 3 • 2016-17

Student Learning Outcome

Implementation Action

Assessment & Data Collection

Goals & Analysis

3 The student will identify and engage in activities that support learning and academic achievement

3.1 Identify resources in Academic Resource Center, Library, and Career Resource Center

• Question 1.a on SCF End-of-Semester Student Survey

• Question 2.h and Question 3 on SCF Faculty Mentor Review

• 75% of Mentees indicate satisfaction with FM identify-ing resources in ARC, Library, and CRC on End-of-Semester Survey

• 75% of FM Reviews indicate satisfaction that Mentees identified resources in ARC, Library, CRC

3.2 Identify areas of academic challenge and, as appropriate, develop a plan

• Question 1.g on End-of-Semester Mentee Survey

• Question 2.i on SCF Faculty Mentor Review

• 75% of Mentees indicate satisfaction with FM’s helping them identify areas of academic challenge and developing a plan

• Mentors report satisfaction that 75% of Mentees iden-tified areas of academic challenge and developed a plan

3.3 Use academic support activities (Modules, tutors, workshops) that are identified in the Early Alert

• Question 2 on End-of-Semester Mentee Survey

• Question 2.j and Question 3 on SCF Faculty Mentor Review

• 75% of Mentees identified in Early Alert indicate they used academic support activities

• Mentors indicate satisfac-tion that 75% of Mentees identified in Early Alert used academic support activities

3.4 Complete assigned class work in gateway courses

• Banner Student Grade Reports; store in CRM

• Retention and success rates in gateway math and English courses

• SCF Equity Report and Non-returning Student Report

• Persistence rate targets

MAT 1033: 89% MGF 1106: 98% MGF 1107: 98% ENC 1101: 84%

• Success rate targets:

MAT 1033: 66% MGF 1106: 95% MGF 1107: 88% ENC 1101: 72%

Responsible Person:

• QEP Coordinator

• Student Success Coordinator

• Faculty Mentors

• Students

• Advising Services

• Institutional Research Director

• Faculty Mentor Pro-fessional Training Team

• Assessment Team

• Early Alert Development Team

• Resources / Academic Achievement (REACH) Student Support Team

Year 3 • 2016-17table 8.4 continued

YEAR 3continued

Student Learning Outcome

Implementation Action

Assessment & Data Collection

Goals & Analysis

2 The student will create an academic pathway with the assistance of a Faculty Mentor

2.1 Identify a meta-major

• Question 1.a on SCF Entering Student Survey

• Question 1.a on End-of-Semester Student Survey

• Question 2.d on SCF Faculty Mentor Review

• 100% of Mentees indicate satisfied or very satisfied with discussion with FM about selecting a meta-major

• 100% of Mentors indicate satisfied or very satisfied that mentee selected a meta-major

2.2 Identify gateway courses for a meta-major and create a second-semester academic plan

• Question 1.b and Question 1.c on SCF End-of-Semester Student Survey

• Question 2.e on SCF Faculty Mentor Review

• 75% of Mentees report satisfied or very satisfied with FM’s assistance in identifying gateway courses and creation of a second semester academic plan

• Mentors report satisfaction that 75% of Mentees iden-tified gateway courses and created a second semester academic plan

2.3 Identify academic and career goal interests

• Question 1.d on SCF End-of-Semester Student Survey

• Question 2.f on SCF Faculty Mentor Review

• 75% of Mentees report satisfaction that FM helped identify academic and career goal interests

• Mentors report satisfaction that 75% of Mentees identi-fied academic and career goal interests

2.4 Progress successfully from fall semester to spring semester

• SCF Equity Report and Non-returning Student Report: Retention and success rates; A.A. GPA

• Question 1.e on SCF End-of-Semester Student Survey

• Question 2.g on SCF Faculty Mentor Review

• Persistence rate target: 85%

• Success rate target: 90%

• QEP Coordinator, Student Success Coordinator, and Faculty Mentors review and revise target rates and GPAs

• 75% of Mentees report satis-faction that FM assisted with successfully progressing from the previous semester

• Mentors report satisfaction that 70% of Mentees were retained and 90% were successful

Responsible Person:

• QEP Coordinator

• Student Success Coordinator

• Faculty Mentors

• Students

• Advising Services

• Institutional Research Director

• Faculty Mentor Professional Training Team

• Assessment Team

Page 33: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

65

chapter 8QEP R3 action

right place • right time • right person

YEAR 4continued next page

table 8.5Year 4 • 2017-18

Preparation Action Timeline Responsible Person College Resources

Update and/or revise Faculty Mentor Handbook and FM materials and surveys

Fall 2017 –Spring 2018

QEP Coordinator

Faculty Mentor Professional Training Team

QEP web pageFM Workshops & Training

Analyze and/or redesign pilot parameters, assessments, and tracking systems

Fall 2017 –Spring 2018

QEP Implementation TeamAssessment Team

BannerCRM RetainAccuTrack

Update and/or create new student learning modules

Fall 2017 –Spring 2018

QEP Coordinator

Resources / Academic Achievement (REACH) Student Support Team

SCF LibrarySCF website

Update QEP webpage Fall 2017 –Spring 2018

QEP CoordinatorWeb Services Personnel

SCF website

Interview, select, and train 5 new Faculty Mentors (and replacements, as necessary)

Spring 2018 QEP Coordinator

Faculty Mentor Professional Training Team

Assessment Team

FM Workshops & Training

Identify 5 additional gateway course sections (25 sections total; +155 students for 755 students total)

Spring 2018 QEP CoordinatorStudent Advising

BannerCRM Retain

Select and train 5 additional instructors for gateway courses (and replacements, as necessary)

Spring 2018 QEP Coordinator

Early Alert Development Team

BannerCRM RetainWorkshops & Training

Year 3 • 2016-17budgettable 8.4 continued

COST and DESCRIPTION AMOUNT EXPLANATION

PERSONNEL

QEP R3 CoordinatorRelease/Reassign Time

$20,000 Payment for five courses reassigned for both fall 2016 and spring 2017.

Student Success Coordinator $60,000 Salary for 12-month position.

Faculty MentorsRelease/Reassign Time (FT Faculty)

$36,000 Payment for 18 reassigned classes.

Data Entry Personnel $15,000 Payment for part-time position.

TRAINING & PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Faculty and Staff $13,500 Training and development of additional faculty mentors and gateway courses faculty.

MARKETING & ASSESSMENT

Marketing & Recruitment Materials $500 Estimate for processing and distribution of program information.

Assessment Measures Surveys Materials

$500 Processing and distribution costs.

TOTAL: $145,500

64

Page 34: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

6766

chapter 8QEP R3 action

right place • right time • right person

YEAR 4continued next page

table 8.5 continuedYear 4 • 2017-18

Student Learning Outcome

Implementation Action

Assessment & Data Collection

Goals & Analysis

2 The student will create an academic pathway with the assistance of a Faculty Mentor

2.1 Identify a meta-major

• Question 1.a on SCF Entering Student Survey

• Question 1.a on End-of-Semester Student Survey

• Question 2.d on SCF Faculty Mentor Review

• 100% of Mentees indicate satisfied or very satisfied with discussion with FM about selecting a meta-major

• 100% of Mentors indicate satisfied or very satisfied that mentee selected a meta-major

2.2 Identify gateway courses for a meta-major and create a second-semester academic plan

• Question 1.b and Question 1.c on SCF End-of-Semester Student Survey

• Question 2.e on SCF Faculty Mentor Review

• 80% of Mentees report satisfied or very satisfied with FM’s assistance in identifying gateway courses and creation of a second semester academic plan

• Mentors report satisfaction that 80% of Mentees iden-tified gateway courses and created a second semester academic plan

2.3 Identify academic and career goal interests

• Question 1.d on SCF End-of-Semester Student Survey

• Question 2.f on SCF Faculty Mentor Review

• 80% of Mentees report satisfaction that FM helped identify academic and career goal interests

• Mentors report satisfaction that 80% of Mentees identi-fied academic and career goal interests

2.4 Progress successfully from fall semester to spring semester

• SCF Equity Report and Non-returning Student Report: Retention and success rates; A.A. GPA

• Question 1.e on SCF End-of-Semester Student Survey

• Question 2.g on SCF Faculty Mentor Review

• Persistence rate target: 87.5%

• Success rate target: 90%

• QEP Coordinator, Student Success Coordinator, and Faculty Mentors review and revise target rates and GPAs

• 80% of Mentees report satis-faction that FM assisted with successfully progressing from the previous semester

• Mentors report satisfaction that 80% of Mentees were retained and 90% were successful

Responsible Person:

• QEP Coordinator

• Student Success Coordinator

• Faculty Mentors

• Students

• Advising Services

• Institutional Research Director

• Faculty Mentor Professional Training Team

• Assessment Team

Year 4 • 2017-18table 8.5 continued

YEAR 4continued

Student Learning Outcome

Implementation Action

Assessment & Data Collection

Goals & Analysis

1 The student will establish early connections through a faculty mentoring relationship

1.1 Meet with Faculty Mentor face to face at least three times each in Fall and Spring semester

• Question 1 and Question 2.a on SCF Faculty Mentor Review submitted each semester for each Mentee

• 80% of Mentees meet with Faculty Mentor targeted number of times

• QEP Coordinator, Student Success Coordinator, and Faculty Mentors review and revise participation rate

1.2 Collaborate with Faculty Mentor to define expectations and responsibilities of a mentor/mentee relationship

• Question 3 on SCF End-of-Semester Student Survey

• Question 2.b on SCF Faculty Mentor Review

• End-of-semester focus group with Mentees

• End-of-semester Mentor meeting with Coordinators

• Campus-wide SENSE Survey and CCSSE Survey

• 80% of Mentees indicate that their expectations were met by the mentor-mentee relationship on the items on Question 3

• Mentors indicate on Question 2.b of the Mentor Review satisfaction with 80% of their relationships with Mentees

• Qualitative data collected and analyzed each semester through Focus Groups con-ducted by Coordinators

• Coordinators analyze campus-wide SENSE and CCSSE Survey data

1.3 Participate in the entering and exit student feedback surveys

• SCF Entering Student Survey

• SCF End-of-Semester Student Survey

• 90% of Mentees complete Entering Student Survey

• 80% of Mentees complete End-of-Semester Survey

Responsible Person:

• QEP Coordinator • Student Success

Coordinator • Faculty Mentors • Students• Institutional

Research Director• Faculty Mentor

Professional Training Team

• Assessment Team

Page 35: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

6968

chapter 8QEP R3 action

right place • right time • right person

Year 4 • 2017-18budget table 8.5 continued

COST and DESCRIPTION AMOUNT EXPLANATION

PERSONNEL

QEP R3 CoordinatorRelease/Reassign Time

$20,000 Payment for five courses reassigned for both fall 2017 and spring 2018.

Student Success Coordinator $60,000 Salary for 12-month position.

Faculty MentorsRelease/Reassign Time (FT Faculty)

$48,000 Payment for 24 reassigned classes.

Data Entry Personnel $15,000 Payment for part-time position.

TRAINING & PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Faculty and Staff $18,000 Training and development of additional faculty mentors and gateway courses faculty.

MARKETING & ASSESSMENT

Marketing & Recruitment Materials $500 Estimate for processing and distribution of program information.

Assessment Measures Surveys Materials

$500 Processing and distribution costs.

TOTAL: $162,000

YEAR 4continued

Year 4 • 2017-18table 8.5 continued

Student Learning Outcome

Implementation Action

Assessment & Data Collection

Goals & Analysis

3 The student will identify and engage in activities that support learning and academic achievement

3.1 Identify resources in Academic Resource Center, Library, and Career Resource Center

• Question 1.a on SCF End-of-Semester Student Survey

• Question 2.h and Question 3 on SCF Faculty Mentor Review

• 80% of Mentees indicate satisfaction with FM identify-ing resources in ARC, Library, and CRC on End-of-Semester Survey

• 80% of FM Reviews indicate satisfaction that Mentees identified resources in ARC, Library, CRC

3.2 Identify areas of academic challenge and, as appropriate, develop a plan

• Question 1.g on End-of-Semester Mentee Survey

• Question 2.i on SCF Faculty Mentor Review

• 80% of Mentees indicate satisfaction with FM’s helping them identify areas of academic challenge and developing a plan

• Mentors report satisfaction that 80% of Mentees iden-tified areas of academic challenge and developed a plan

3.3 Use academic support activities (Modules, tutors, workshops) that are identified in the Early Alert

• Question 2 on End-of-Semester Mentee Survey

• Question 2.j and Question 3 on SCF Faculty Mentor Review

• 80% of Mentees identified in Early Alert indicate they used academic support activities

• Mentors indicate satisfac-tion that 80% of Mentees identified in Early Alert used academic support activities

3.4 Complete assigned class work in gateway courses

• Banner Student Grade Reports; store in CRM

• Retention and success rates in gateway math and English courses

• SCF Equity Report and Non-returning Student Report

• Persistence rate targets

MAT 1033: 90% MGF 1106: 98% MGF 1107: 98% ENC 1101: 86%

• Success rate targets:

MAT 1033: 68% MGF 1106: 95% MGF 1107: 90% ENC 1101: 74%

Responsible Person:

• QEP Coordinator

• Student Success Coordinator

• Faculty Mentors

• Students

• Advising Services

• Institutional Research Director

• Faculty Mentor Professional Training Team

• Assessment Team

• Early Alert Development Team

• Resources / Academic Achievement (REACH) Student Support Team

Page 36: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

7170

chapter 8QEP R3 action

right place • right time • right person

YEAR 5continued next page

table 8.6 continuedYear 5 • 2018-19

Student Learning Outcome

Implementation Action

Assessment & Data Collection

Goals & Analysis

2 The student will create an academic pathway with the assistance of a Faculty Mentor

2.1 Identify a meta-major

• Question 1.a on SCF Entering Student Survey

• Question 1.a on End-of-Semester Student Survey

• Question 2.d on SCF Faculty Mentor Review

• 100% of Mentees indicate satisfied or very satisfied with discussion with FM about selecting a meta-major

• 100% of Mentors indicate satisfied or very satisfied that mentee selected a meta-major

2.2 Identify gateway courses for a meta-major and create a second-semester academic plan

• Question 1.b and Question 1.c on SCF End-of-Semester Student Survey

• Question 2.e on SCF Faculty Mentor Review

• 80% of Mentees report satisfied or very satisfied with FM’s assistance in identifying gateway courses and creation of a second semester academic plan

• Mentors report satisfaction that 80% of Mentees iden-tified gateway courses and created a second semester academic plan

2.3 Identify academic and career goal interests

• Question 1.d on SCF End-of-Semester Student Survey

• Question 2.f on SCF Faculty Mentor Review

• 80% of Mentees report satisfaction that FM helped identify academic and career goal interests

• Mentors report satisfaction that 80% of Mentees identi-fied academic and career goal interests

2.4 Progress successfully from fall semester to spring semester

• SCF Equity Report and Non-returning Student Report: Retention and success rates; A.A. GPA

• Question 1.e on SCF End-of-Semester Student Survey

• Question 2.g on SCF Faculty Mentor Review

• Persistence rate target: 87.5%

• Success rate target: 90%

• QEP Coordinator, Student Success Coordinator, and Faculty Mentors review and revise target rates and GPAs

• 80% of Mentees report satis-faction that FM assisted with successfully progressing from the previous semester

• Mentors report satisfaction that 80% of Mentees were retained and 90% were successful

Responsible Person:

• QEP Coordinator

• Student Success Coordinator

• Faculty Mentors

• Students

• Advising Services

• Institutional Research Director

• Faculty Mentor Professional Training Team

• Assessment Team

Year 5 • 2018-19table 8.6

YEAR 5continued

Preparation Action Timeline Responsible Person College Resources

Update QEP webpage Fall 2018 –Spring 2019

QEP CoordinatorWeb Services Personnel

SCF website

Finalize assessment and develop plan for sustaining QEP R3

Spring 2019 QEP Implementation TeamAssessment Team

BannerCRM RetainAccuTrack

Prepare QEP report for SACSCOC review

Spring 2019 Vice President of Strategic Initiatives

QEP Coordinator

Student Success Coordinator

BannerCRM RetainAccuTrackInstitutional Research

Student Learning Outcome

Implementation Action

Assessment & Data Collection

Goals & Analysis

1 The student will establish early connec-tions through a faculty mentoring relationship

1.1 Meet with Faculty Mentor face to face at least three times each in Fall and Spring semester

• Question 1 and Question 2.a on SCF Faculty Mentor Review submitted each semester for each Mentee

• 80% of Mentees meet with Faculty Mentor targeted number of times

• QEP Coordinator, Student Success Coordinator, and Faculty Mentors review and revise participation rate

1.2 Collaborate with Faculty Mentor to define expectations and responsibilities of a mentor/mentee relationship

• Question 3 on SCF End-of-Semester Student Survey

• Question 2.b on SCF Faculty Mentor Review

• End-of-semester focus group with Mentees

• End-of-semester Mentor meeting with Coordinators

• Campus-wide SENSE Survey and CCSSE Survey

• 80% of Mentees indicate that their expectations were met by the mentor-mentee relationship on the items on Question 3

• Mentors indicate on Question 2.b of the Mentor Review satisfaction with 80% of their relationships with Mentees

• Qualitative data collected and analyzed each semester through Focus Groups con-ducted by Coordinators

• Coordinators analyze campus-wide SENSE and CCSSE Survey data

1.3 Participate in the entering and exit student feedback surveys

• SCF Entering Student Survey

• SCF End-of-Semester Student Survey

• 90% of Mentees complete Entering Student Survey

• 80% of Mentees complete End-of-Semester Survey

Responsible Person:

• QEP Coordinator • Student Success

Coordinator • Faculty Mentors • Students• Institutional

Research Director• Faculty Mentor

Professional Training Team

• Assessment Team

Page 37: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

7372

chapter 8QEP R3 action

right place • right time • right person

COST and DESCRIPTION AMOUNT EXPLANATION

PERSONNEL

Student Success Coordinator $60,000 Salary for 12-month position.

Faculty MentorsRelease/Reassign Time (FT Faculty)

$60,000 Payment for 30 reassigned classes.

TRAINING & PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Faculty and Staff $22,500 Training and development of additional faculty mentors and gateway courses faculty.

MARKETING & ASSESSMENT

Marketing & Recruitment Materials $500 Estimate for processing and distribution of program information.

Assessment Measures Surveys Materials

$500 Processing and distribution costs.

TOTAL: $143,500

Year 5 • Fall 2018budget table 8.6 continuedYear 5 • 2018-19table 8.6

YEAR 5continued

Student Learning Outcome

Implementation Action

Assessment & Data Collection

Goals & Analysis

3 The student will identify and engage in activities that support learning and academic achievement

3.1 Identify resources in Academic Resource Center, Library, and Career Resource Center

• Question 1.a on SCF End-of-Semester Student Survey

• Question 2.h and Question 3 on SCF Faculty Mentor Review

• 80% of Mentees indicate satisfaction with FM identify-ing resources in ARC, Library, and CRC on End-of-Semester Survey

• 80% of FM Reviews indicate satisfaction that Mentees identified resources in ARC, Library, CRC

3.2 Identify areas of academic challenge and, as appropriate, develop a plan

• Question 1.g on End-of-Semester Mentee Survey

• Question 2.i on SCF Faculty Mentor Review

• 80% of Mentees indicate satisfaction with FM’s helping them identify areas of academic challenge and developing a plan

• Mentors report satisfaction that 80% of Mentees iden-tified areas of academic challenge and developed a plan

3.3 Use academic support activities (Modules, tutors, workshops) that are identified in the Early Alert

• Question 2 on End-of-Semester Mentee Survey

• Question 2.j and Question 3 on SCF Faculty Mentor Review

• 80% of Mentees identified in Early Alert indicate they used academic support activities

• Mentors indicate satisfac-tion that 80% of Mentees identified in Early Alert used academic support activities

3.4 Complete assigned class work in gateway courses

• Banner Student Grade Reports; store in CRM

• Retention and success rates in gateway mathematics and English courses

• SCF Equity Report and Non-returning Student Report

• Persistence rate targets

MAT 1033: 90% MGF 1106: 98% MGF 1107: 98% ENC 1101: 86%

• Success rate targets:

MAT 1033: 68% MGF 1106: 95% MGF 1107: 90% ENC 1101: 74%

Responsible Person:

• QEP Coordinator

• Student Success Coordinator

• Faculty Mentors

• Students

• Advising Services

• Institutional Research Director

• Faculty Mentor Professional Training Team

• Assessment Team

• Early Alert Development Team

• Resources / Academic Achievement (REACH) Student Support Team

Page 38: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

7574

chapter 9assessment

right place • right time • right person

colleges across the country to determine the effects of institutional practices on their experiences. In addition to questions about student services, the SENSE also asks students about their relationships with instructors and advisors and about work that challenges them. SCF students take this survey in the fall semester. SCF participates in this data collection to improve student learning outcomes and to benchmark its services to comparable institutions. The Coordinators and Mentors will focus on the questions on the SENSE that align with the SCF QEP R3 student learning outcomes, specifically Question 18h, “A college staff member talked with me about my commitments outside of school to help me figure out how many courses to take”; Question 19e, “How often did I participate in supplemental instruction”; Question 19m, “How often did I discuss an assignment or grade with an instructor”; and Question 20.2d, “How often did I use face to face tutoring.” Each of these questions had a lower response rate than the national average in 2010 and 2012.

7. Administer CCSSE: A companion survey to the SENSE and also developed by the Center of Community College Student Engagement, the Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) asks students about practices and behaviors that have been shown by past research to correlate with student learning and retention. Again, SCF administers this survey to its students in the spring semester. The Coordinators and the Mentors will focus on the questions in the CCSSE that measure the specific student learning outcomes in the SCF QEP R3. One of these questions overlaps with the SENSE: Question 4l, “How often have you discussed grades or assignments with an instructor?” Question 9b asks, “How much does this college emphasize providing you the support you need to help you succeed?” On both of these questions, SCF students in 2010 and 2012 rated these items lower than their national peers.

2. Create SCF End-of-Semester Student Survey: At the end of their first and second semesters, mentees will take the locally developed SCF End-of-Semester Student Survey. Like the En-tering Survey, the End-of-Semester Survey questions directly link to the SCF QEP R3 student learning outcomes. The survey also contains a question about mentor characteristics that Galbraith & James (2004) have found to be crucial to a productive mentor-mentee relationship. A copy of the survey is in Appendix 9.

3. Create SCF Faculty Mentor Review: Each mentor will complete a locally developed review on each mentee at the end of every semester to provide data on the mentor/mentee relationship. The survey questions align with the SCF End-of-Semester Student Survey and include a question about the mentee characteristics that Galbraith & James (2004) have found to be crucial to a productive mentor mentee relationship. A copy of the survey is in Appendix 10.

4. Establish suggested Protocol for End-of-Semester Mentee Focus Group: The Coordinators will conduct a focus group near the end of each semester with a group of Mentees to obtain qualitative feedback on the QEP R3. A suggested protocol of questions to ask the Mentees is in Appendix 11.

5. Establish suggested Protocol for Fac-ulty Mentor Meeting: The Coordinators will meet with the Faculty Mentors at the end of each semester to obtain qualitative feedback on the QEP R3 and share quantitative data from the surveys and CRM. A suggested protocol of questions to ask the Mentors is in Appendix 11.

6. Administer SENSE: The Survey of Entering Student Engagement (SENSE), developed by the Center for Community College Student Engagement at the University of Texas at Austin, systematically collects information on the earliest experiences of students at community and technical

plan. The Coordinators will document the changes that resulted from assessment data and revise any assessment procedures, if needed, to continuously evaluate the impact of the changes on student learning outcomes.

Assessment ToolsSCF already collects data on students through multiple means. The College will use Hobsons Education Customer Relationship Management (CRM “Retain”) software to facilitate purposeful communications with SCF students. It is a tool that assists staff in improving student services. SCF pulls student data into the CRM on a regular basis from Banner, SCF’s computerized student information system that tracks student progress from admissions to registration to curriculum management to advising to assessment and graduation. To simplify extraction of fields from Banner, the Registrar’s Office will flag, with a cohort code, each mentee who enters the QEP R3 study by enrolling in one of the designated courses. During the course of the pilot, the Coordinators will determine if the CRM has enough additional fields available to house all of the QEP student data. If not, the Coordinators will develop an Access database to facilitate statistical analyses of the data to provide feedback to Faculty Mentors on a semester-by-semester basis.

In addition to the demographic and academic data fields, the Coordinators will collect pertinent information from the following instruments by student identifier to allow for meaningful analysis. Those instruments directly related to the Faculty Mentor program must be created. The SENSE and CCSSE surveys exist and are regularly administered by SCF.

1. Create SCF Entering Student Survey: During their second week of class, Mentees will take the locally developed SCF Entering Student Survey of five questions that align directly to the student learning outcomes of the SCF QEP R3. A copy of the survey is in Appendix 8.

Assessment of QEP R3: right place, right time, right person Comprehensive and flexible assessment over the next five years is critical to the success of State College of Florida, Manatee-Sarasota’s QEP R3: right place, right time, right person. The process of ongoing assessment assisted SCF to identify the first-year experience as the area in need of improvement and to formulate the enhancement plan. Early in the identification process, the QEP Committee prioritized the need for the plan to be designed to accommodate continuous review and revision. The assessment system focuses on: 1) the achievement of student learning outcomes and 2) the effectiveness of the overall QEP initiative. The assessment plan includes multiple methods of quanti-tative and qualitative measurement collected at critical intervals. However, adjustments may be made based on findings during the pilot and analyses during each semester of review.

Assessment Role of the QEP Coordinator and Student Success CoordinatorThe QEP Coordinator and the Student Success Coordinator will be accountable for assessment of the Student Learning Outcomes in collaboration with the Faculty Mentors. In addition, the Student Success Coordinator will be: 1) tracking the number of Early Alerts, 2) determining whether students used the services recommended by the gateway course faculty, and 3) if they did, recording what results occurred. Both Coordinators will also assume responsibility for assessment of the implementation documentation and revisions to the QEP plan based on data described in Chapter 8. Each semester the two Coordinators will collect and compile the assessment data and share the resulting information on how well the student learning outcomes are being met with the Mentors. After discussion, suggestions from faculty and other QEP stakeholders may result in changes to the QEP

Page 39: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

7776

chapter 9assessment

right place • right time • right person

right place

right time

right person

Student Learning Outcomes, Assessments, and GoalsThe QEP Team decided upon the best means to assess each student learning outcome in the QEP R3. Then it analyzed any available baseline data to determine realistic targets for improvement during the Pilot year. Each semester, the Coordinators and Faculty Mentors will re-evaluate the targets in light of student performance and reset them as needed for continuous improvement. In Chapter 8 are tables for each of the three broad student learning outcomes, showing the implementation action, assessment and data collection, as well as goals and analysis.

SB 1720 is expected to have a significant impact on gateway courses, beginning in Fall 2014. Therefore, no previous benchmark data exist for the gateway mathematics and English courses. To address engagement and success in the FTIC student cohort, the QEP Committee did review student performance in the courses that existed between 2009 and 2012 and used those results as its baseline data to develop targets for the gateway courses.

Through implementation of QEP R3, the State College of Florida, Manatee-Sarasota hopes to improve stu-dent engagement and success through the creation of a supportive environment so that students reach and exceed their educational goals.

…many

first-time-

in-college students,

as they encounter the

increasing complexity of

the college experience,

either “drop out”

during that first year

or, if they remain in

classes, still do not

succeed.

Page 40: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

7978

right place • right time • right person

McClenney, K., Marti, C. N., & Adkins, C. (2012). Student Engagement and Student Outcomes: Key Findings from” CCSSE” Validation Research. Austin, TX: Community College Leadership Program, University of Texas: Community College Survey of Student Engagement.

Na’Gambi, D., & and Brown, I. (2009). Intended and unintended consequences of student use of an online questioning environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(2):316-28.

Nick, J. M., Delahoyde, T. M., Prato, D. D., Mitchell, C., Ortiz, J., Ottley, C., Siktberg, L. (2012). Best practices in academic mentoring: A model for ex-cellence. Nursing Research & Practice. 1-9.

O’Banion, T. (2013). Access, success, and completion. Chandler, AZ: League for Innovation in the Community College.

Reardon, R. C., Lenz, J. G., Sampson, J. P., Jr., & Peter-son, G. W. (2011). Big questions facing vocational psychology: A cognitive information processing perspective. Journal of Career Assessment, 19(3), 240–250.

Tinto,V. (1988) Stages of Student Departure: Reflection on the Longitudinal Character of Student Leaving. Journal of Higher Education 59 (4) 438-455.

Wright, M. C., McKay, T., Hershock, C., Miller, K., & Tritz, J. (2014). Better than expected: Using learning analytics to promote student success in gateway science. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 46(1), 28-34.

Zeidenberg, M., Jenkins, P. D., & Calcagno, J. C. (2007). Do student success courses actually help commu-nity college students succeed? Community College Research Brief, (36): 1-6.

Herndon, M. C. (2011). Leveraging web technologies in student support self-services. New Directions for Community Colleges, 154, 17–29.

Hollis, L. P. (2009). Academic advising in the wonderland of college for developmental students. College Student Journal, 43(1), 31-35.

Hu, S., & Ma, Y. (2010). Mentoring and student persis-tence in college: A study of the Washington state achievers program. Innovative Higher Education, 35(5), 329-341.

Hughes, K. L., & Karp, M. M. (2004). School-based career development in the age of accountability: A synthesis of the literature. New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Institute on Education and the Economy.

Jaggars, S. S., Jacobs, J., Little, J., & Frega, M. (2012, April). Tweaking the process: Reducing institutional complexity to increase student success. Session pre-sented at the 92nd Annual American Association of Community Colleges Convention, Orlando, FL.

Johnston, N. (2010). Is an online learning module an effective way to develop information literacy skills? 2010. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 43 (3): 207-218.

Karp, M. (2013). Entering a program: Helping students make academic and career decisions. CRC Working Paper No. 59. Columbia University, NY: Community College Research Center.

Koch, A., & Pistilli, M. (2012, September 27). Analytics and Gateway Courses [Webinar]. Wash-ington, DC: Inside Higher Ed.

Kraemer, E. W., Lombardo, S.V., & Lepkowski, F.J. (2007). The librarian, the machine, or a little of both: A comparative study of three information literacy pedagogies at Oakland University. College Resource Library, 60(4): n.p. July 2007.

Lowenstein, M. (2005). If advising is teaching, what do advisors teach? NACADA Journal, 25(2), 65–73.

Margolin, J., Miller, S. R., & Rosenbaum, J. E. (2013). The community college website as virtual advisor: A usability study. Community College Review, 41(1), 44–62.

appendix 1appendix 1 bibliography

D’Achiardi-Ressler, C. (2008). The impact of using the Kuder career planning system: School performance, career decision making, & educational transitions. Kuder User News, 6(4). Re-trieved from http://ww2.kuder.com/news/vol6_no4/Impact.html

Domínguez-Flores, N., & Wang, L. (2011). Online learning communities: Enhancing undergraduate students’ acquisition of information skills. The Jour-nal of Academic Librarianship, 37(4): 495-503.

Durso, T. (2010). Following freshmen. University Busi-ness, (5): 68.

Einfalt, J., & Turley, J. (2009). Developing a three- way collaborative model to promote first-year student engagement and skill support. E-Journal of Business Education and Scholarship of Teaching, 3(2): 41-48.

Galbraith, M. W., & James, W. B. (2004). Mentoring by the community college professor: One role among many. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 28(8), 689-701.

Gerdes, H., & Mallinckrodt, B. (1994). Emotional, Social, and Academic Adjustment of College Students: A Longitudinal Study of Retention. Journal of Coun-seling & Development, 72(3), 281-288.

Goldrick-Rab, S. (2010). Challenges and opportunities for improving community college student success. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 437-469.

Gore, P., & Metz, A. (2008). Advising for career and life planning. In V. N. Gordon, W. R. Habley, & T. J. Grites (Eds.) (2013). Academic advising: A comprehensive handbook (2nd ed.) San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Grubb, W. (2006). Like, what do I do now?: The dilemmas of guidance counseling In T. Bailey & V. Morest (Eds.). Defending the community college equity agenda (pp. 195-222). Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.

Hagen, P. L., & Jordan, P. (2008). Theoretical foundations of academic advising. In V. N. Gordon, W. R. Habley, & T. J. Grites (Eds.), Academic advising: A comprehensive handbook (2nd ed., pp. 17–35). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

references

Anderson, K. & May, F. A. (2010). Does the method of instruction matter? An experimental examination of information literacy instruction in the online, blended, and face-to-face classrooms. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36(6): 495-500.

Bettinger, E., & Baker, R. (2011). The effects of student coaching in college: An evaluation of a randomized experiment in student mentoring (NBER Working Paper No. 16881). Cambridge, MA: National Bu-reau of Economic Research.

Burkhardt, J., Kinnie, J., & Cournoyer, C. (2008). Infor-mation literacy successes compared: Online vs. face to face. Journal of Library Administration, 48(3-4), 379-389.

Campbell, S. M., & Nutt, C. L. (2008). Academic advis-ing in the new global century: Supporting student engagement and learning outcomes achievement. Association of American Colleges and Universities, 10(1), 4–7.

Center for Community College Student Engagement (CCCSE). (2012). A matter of degrees: Promising practices for community college student success: A first look. Austin, TX: Center for Community College Student Engagement.

Center for Community College Student Engagement (CCCSE). (2013). A matter of degrees: Engaging practices, engaging students: high-impact practices for community college stu-dent engagement. Austin, TX: CCCSE.

Clark, S. & Chinburg, S. (2010). Research performance in undergraduates receiving face to face versus on-line library instruction: A citation analysis. Journal of Library Administration, 5 0 (5-6): 530-542.

Creamer, D. G. (2000). Use of theory in academic advising. In V. N. Gordon & W. R. Habley (Eds.), Ac-ademic advising: A comprehensive handbook (pp. 18–34). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Crisp, G. (2010). The impact of mentoring on the success of community college students. The Review of Higher Education, 34(1): 39-60.

Page 41: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

appendix 2

*All two-year colleges that were surveyed throughout U.S.

Data Source Item Number • Variable Scale

2010 2012SCF All* Diff. SCF All* Diff.

CCSSE 4m In the current school year, how often have you: Talked about career plans with an advisor (1=Never, 2=Sometimes, 3=Often, 4=Very Often)

1.95 2.04 .09 1.96 2.08 .12

CCSSE 9b College emphasize-Providing the support you need to help you succeed at this college (1=very little, 2=some, 3=quite a bit, 4=very much)

2.94 2.98 .04 2.88 3 .12

CCSSE 9d College emphasize-Helping you cope with your non-academic responsibilities

1.83 1.95 .12 1.80 1.97 .17

CCSSE 11b Quality of your relationships with: Instructors (1=unfriendly, unsupportive, sense of alienation 7=friendly, supportive, sense of belonging)

5.49 5.67 .18 5.52 5.68 .16

CCSSE 11c Quality of your relationships with: Administrative personnelandoffices

4.80 4.99 .19 4.72 4.97 .25

CCSSE 12n Your experience in this college contributed to developing clearer career goals (1=very little, 2=some, 3=quite a bit, 4=very much)

2.52 2.68 .16 2.57 2.71 .14

CCSSE 12o Your experience in this college contributed to gaining information about career opportunities

2.38 2.56 .18 2.38 2.58 .20

CCSSE 13.1.a How often do you use Academic advising (1=rarely/never, 2=sometimes, 3=often)

1.75 1.77 .02 1.66 1.79 .13

CCSSE 13.1.b How often do you use Career Counseling 1.41 1.43 .02 1.33 1.44 .11

Academic Pathway and Student Mentoring CCSSE

81

right place • right time • right person

appendix 2 SCF institutional research support for QEP topic from SENSE, SSI, and CCSSE

Data Source

Item Number • Scale: 1 to 7

(1= not important/not satisfied at all to 7= very important/ very satisfied)

2007 2013 > than 0.5 gap

NL-SSI 12 My academic advisor helps me set goals to work toward. 1.08 .94 07, 13

NL-SSI 16 The college shows concerns for students as individuals 0.88 0.93 07, 13

NL-SSI 25 My academic advisor is concerned about my success as an individual.

1.09 1.08 07, 13

NL-SSI 32 My academic advisor is knowledgeable about my program requirements.

1.10 0.97 07, 13

NL-SSI 80 The advising services staff is knowledgeable about program pathways to earn my associates degree.

0.32 (’05) *no data in ’07)

0.74 13*

Academic Pathway and Student Mentoring Noel Levitz SSI

Data Source Item Number • Variable Scale

2010 2012SCF All* Diff. SCF All* Diff.

SENSE 8d. Convenient times to meet w/advisors [1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neutral, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree]

3.48 3.68 .20 3.69 3.71 .02

SENSE 18e. Advisor helped me select course of study, program, or major.

3.13 3.60 .57 3.42 3.63 .21

SENSE 18f. Advisor helped me to set academic goals and to create a plan for achieving them.

2.89 3.13 .41 3.03 3.19 .16

SENSE 18g. Advisor helped me to identify the courses I needed totakeduringmyfirstsemester/quarter.

3.39 3.81 .42 3.68 3.84 .16

SENSE 18h. College staff member talked with me about my commitments outside of school (work, children, dependents,etc.)tohelpmefigureouthowmany courses to take.

2.60 2.73 .13 2.67 2.79 .12

SENSE 20.2a How often did you use… academic advising/ planning [1=never, 2=once, 3=two or three times, 4=4 or more times]

1.59 1.75 .16 1.64 1.78 .14

Academic Pathway and Student Mentoring SENSE

*All two-year colleges that were surveyed throughout U.S.

80

Page 42: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

8382

right place • right time • right person

appendix 3

TOPIC: Enhancing Student Success through a structured and collaborative “early alert” process that is supported by well definedresourcesandcommunicationpathways.

This would create a system to help first-year students identify academic problems or difficulties early in the semester and get them connected to appropriate college resources and services and encourage them to develop strategies for success.

5. Rate the potential impact of this topic on student learning. ___ very high ___ high ___ average ___ low ___ very low

6. Do you have any input about the feasibility of this topic?

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

7. Please check the topic that you believe is the most important to our student’s success at SCF.

___ Enhancing Student Learning and Development through Integrated Academic and Career Planning

___ Enhancing Student Learning by requiring a mandatory Strategies for College Success Course

___ Enhancing Student Success through a structured and collaborative “early alert” process that is supported by well-defined resources and communication pathways.

8. Please identify your position on campus

___ Administrative/ Professional ___ Faculty ___ Career

9. Please identify your division on campus

___ Business ___ Student Affairs ___ Academic Affairs

Additional Comments:

Thank You!

appendix 3 faculty /staff development day QEP survey (fall 2013)

TOPIC: Enhancing Student Learning and Development through Integrated Academic and Career PlanningSurveys of students indicate that freshman perceive their experience in college would be more successful if there were an academic planning process with structured pathways (i.e. sequence of courses with flexible course availability, and multiple delivery systems.)

1. Rate the potential impact of this topic on student learning. ___ very high ___ high ___ average ___ low ___ very low

2. Do you have any input about the feasibility of this topic?

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

TOPIC: Enhancing Student learning by requiring a mandatory Strategies for College Success CourseThis course would be designed to help students develop and/ or enhance the skills necessary for college persistence and success such as navigating the library, the online Learning Management System (LMS), connecting with academic support services, improving study habits, time manage-ment, effective note-taking, test preparation skills, and financial aid.

3. Rate the potential impact of this topic on student learning. ___ very high ___ high ___ average ___ low ___ very low

4. Do you have any input about the feasibility of this topic?

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Faculty / Staff Development Day QEP Survey Fall 2013

Page 43: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

8584

right place • right time • right person

appendix 4

4. If so, how would you like to be notified if you are doing poorly in class?

a. ___ in person b. ___ text c. ___ email d. ___ other

Academic Support /Modules: Instructional opportunities and services designed to enhance specific aspects of student learning. These may include workshops, tutorials, tutoring, labs, and career testing

5. Based on your experience at SCF, what advice would you give a friend or family member who is considering entering SCF? (Rank with 1 being the highest).

a. ___ learn the locations of important sites on campus

b. ___ learn how to use college resources (Academic Resource Center, Advising Center, Library, Career Resource Center)

c. ___ learn what academic courses are required for your academic plan

d. ___ know how to manage time, plan efficiently, and balance college and other responsibilities

6. How useful would it be if a faculty member shared with you resources that are available on campus to support your learning?

a. ___ extremely b. ___ very c. ___ neutral d. ___ somewhat e. ___ not at all

Tell us what you think.

1. What would prevent you from contacting a faculty member at SCF when you are having problems? _____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

2. What would you like to learn from a faculty Mentor? ________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

Thank You!

appendix 4 student feedback survey for QEP (spring 2014)

Student Feedback Survey for Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP)

What is SCF’s Quality Enhancement Plan?Every 10 years, SCF goes through an extensive re-accreditation process, which involves creating a QEP plan to improve student learning. After reviewing college data and analyzing feedback from students, faculty, and staff, the QEP Committee is proposing a Plan designed to support your goals.

QEP R3 …connecting you to the right place… at the right time… with the right person…

The idea behind QEP R3 includes your having a faculty mentor, who will be your individual resource, guide, and supporter. And it includes implementing an early alert communications system that will let you know early in the semester if you need extra help and where you can get it.

Please give us your feedback about our plan. How many semesters have you attended SCF?

____ 1 ____ 2 ____ 3 ____ 4 ____ +5

Mentor: A faculty member who serves as a role model and encourages students in academic and personal growth. Mentoring provides guidance and empowers students to become an integral part of student life and college experience.

1. If you had the opportunity for a faculty member to serve as a mentor throughout your time at SCF, how important would this be to you?

a. ___ extremely b. ___ very c. ___ neutral d. ___ somewhat e. ___ not at all

2. How would you prefer to interact with a faculty Mentor? (Select all that apply)

a.______ in person d. _____ individual b. _____ on-line e. _____ group c. _____ phone other ________________________________________

Early Alert: Process that informs students about their academic progress early enough that they can be provided with individualized recommendations that support and encourage their learning.

3. Would you like to get feedback (other than tests and quizzes) about how you are doing in class early in the semester?

a. ___ yes b. ___ no

Page 44: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

8786

right place • right time • right person

appendix 5

4. If so, how would you like to be notifiedifyouaredoingpoorlyinclass?

Sem # a. in person b. text c. email d. other Total %

1 74 24 62 3 163 24.6%

2 93 45 97 0 235 35.4%

3 19 8 18 0 45 6.8%

4 46 17 54 5 122 18.4%

5 47 15 35 2 99 14.9%

Total 279 109 266 10 664 100%

% 42.0% 16.4% 40.1% 1.5% 100%

6. How useful would it be if a faculty member shared with you resources that are available on campus to support your learning?

Sem #a. extremely b. very c. neutral

d.somewhat

e. not at all Total %

1 39 45 25 8 1 118 22.4%

2 69 83 35 11 0 198 37.6%

3 13 10 10 0 2 35 6.7%

4 23 41 21 6 0 91 17.3%

5 36 30 9 8 1 84 16.0%

Total 180 209 100 33 4 526 100%

% 34.2% 39.7% 19.0% 6.3% 0.8% 100%

5. Based on your experience at SCF, what advice would you give a friend or family member who is considering entering SCF? (Rank 1, 2, 3, 4, with 1 being the highest)

Sem #

a. learn the locations of important sites on campus

b. learn how to use college resources (ARC, Advising, Library, CRC)

c. learn what academic courses are required for your academic plan

d. know how to manage time, plan efficiently, and balance college and other responsibilities

Total

1 345 243 184 196 968

2 522 315 273 285 1395

3 82 63 47 56 248

4 258 190 125 142 715

5 196 153 136 100 585

Total 1403 964 765 779 3911

% 35.9% 24.7% 19.6% 19.9% 100%

Rank 4 3 1 2

appendix 5 student feedback survey for QEP results (spring 2014)

1. If you had the opportunity for a FM to serve as a mentor throughout your time at SCF, how important would this be to you?

Sem #a. extremely b. very c. neutral

d.somewhat

e. not at all Total %

1 30 33 35 9 6 113 22.0%

2 46 59 63 22 8 198 38.5%

3 9 13 13 0 1 36 7.00%

4 19 28 30 6 5 88 17.1%

5 23 27 17 7 5 79 15.4%

Total 127 160 158 44 25 514 100.00%

% 24.71% 31.1% 30.7% 8.6% 4.9% 100%

2. How would you prefer to interact with a Faculty Mentor?

Sem # a. in person b. online c. phone d. individual e. group other Total %

1 99 29 10 45 23 1 207 22.6%

2 155 45 14 89 36 1 340 37.1%

3 27 8 6 20 5 0 66 7.2%

4 63 21 13 40 18 0 155 16.9%

5 65 20 11 35 17 0 148 16.2%

Total 409 123 54 229 99 2 916 100%

% 44.7% 13.4% 5.9% 25.0% 10.8% 0.2% 100%

3. Would you like to get feedback (other than tests or quizzes) about how you are doing in class early in the semester?

Sem # a. yes b. no Total %

1 116 3 119 22.7%

2 182 17 199 38.0%

3 33 3 36 6.9%

4 84 6 90 17.2%

5 67 13 80 15.3%

Total 482 42 524 100%

% 92.0% 8.0% 100%

Page 45: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

8988

right place • right time • right person

faculty mentor application 7 appendix

Faculty Mentor Application

Name _____________________________________ Title _______________________________________

Department _____________________________ Chair Name ____________________________________

Phone __________________ Email ______________________________ Campus ___________________

Why do you want to be a Faculty Mentor?

Have you ever been a mentor or mentee? Please describe your experience.

What background/skills would make you an effective Faculty Mentor?

What strategies or approaches are you willing to use to build relationships with Mentees? Please check all that apply.

Text Meeting in office Sharing a meal in the Student union

Email Individual meeting or library cafe

Phone Group meetings Other. If other, what?

Meeting on campus

On which campuses would you be willing to mentor students?

Bradenton Venice LWR

appendix 6 QEP R3 visual plan model

Faculty MentorParticipating in QEP

• Mentors those students in identified classes

• Participates in Professional Development (mentoring)

• Knowledgeable about gateway courses recom-mended by meta-majors

• Can initiate a student request menu

• Knowledgeable of student support services on campus

• Monitors Early Alert feedback in CRM

• Acts as connection/ personal resource

#1 Early Alert, Classroom Faculty of Gateway Courses

• Trained to use “Early Alert”

• Identifies student needing extra support thru CRM

• Includes Referral prescription/ recommendations in journal notes

• References needed services

• Records notes

• Can provide students w/ a request menu

Student Support/Learning Modules

• Designed w/ student feedback

• Curricular and non-curricular offerings

• Develop on-line tutorials, multiple platforms

• Student Success Coordinator receives Early Alert

• Reports student use of services and progress to faculty

• Assigns services

• Receives and records notes

• Marketing plan

#2

#3

Students enrolled in QEPidentifiedGen Ed courses ENC 1101, MAT 1033

• FTIC students

• Excludes dual- enrolled students

• PT or FT

• Identified at registration

• Student cohort selected by course enrollment

r3 right place • right time • right person February 28, 2014

CRM (Retain)

Page 46: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

9190

right place • right time • right person

QEP Mentee End-of-Semester Survey

Directions: To help State College of Florida Manatee-Sarasota better serve you, please take a moment to let us know how satisfied you are with your SCF academic experience. WE VALUE YOUR OPINION. Your answers will be kept in strictest confidence and only released in aggregate form. Please direct any questions to Robin Rogers, Language and Literature, [email protected], 752-5475. Thank you!

1. Please indicate how satisfied you were with your faculty mentor and his/her assistance to you by indicating (4) Very Satisfied, (3) Satisfied, (2) Unsatisfied, (1) Very Unsatisfied, (0) Did not receive assistance

a. Identifying a meta-major b. Developing a second semester course plan c. Identifying personal and career interests/goals d. Transitioning successfully from semester to semester e. Identifying campus student support services f. Identifying areas of academic challenge and developing an action plan

2. Please indicate how satisfied you were with the accessibility, convenience, and helpfulness of the following by indicating (4) Very Satisfied, (3) Satisfied, (2) Unsatisfied, (1) Very Unsatisfied, (0) Did not receive assistance:

a. Test Review Workshops f. Grammar Skills Labs b. One-on-one Tutoring in Math or Science g. Study Skills Workshops c. Tutoring in the Writing Center h. Library Resources d. Math Skills Labs i. Career Resources e. Reading Skills Labs

3. Please indicate how strongly you agree with the following statements about your faculty mentor by indicating (4) Strongly Agree, (3) Agree, (2) Disagree, (1) Strongly Disagree, (0) Did not meet with him/her (SLO 3.1)

a. My mentor cared about me as a person. b. My mentor was available at times that were convenient for me. c. My mentor made a positive impact on my academic performance at SCF. d. My mentor referred me to helpful people and services. e. I would recommend my mentor to other students needing assistance.

4. I would recommend SCF to another student interested in attending college? Yes / No

5. If you are not returning to SCF next semester, what are your plans?

a. Transfer to another college/university. Name? (20 characters) b. Return to SCF in a later semester c. Work with no plans to return d. Other. Explain (30 characters)

6. If you are not enrolling at SCF or any college/university next semester, what is your reason:

a. Academic difficulties b. Financial issues c. Family responsibilities d Other. Explain: (30 characters)

7. Please comment on any of your answers above or on ways SCF could have better served you academically. (100 characters)

QEP mentee end-of-semester survey 9 appendixappendix 8 QEP mentee entering-student survey

QEP Mentee Entering-Student SurveyDirections: To help State College of Florida Manatee-Sarasota better serve you, please take a moment to let us know more about how we can help you succeed academically. WE VALUE YOUR OPINION. Your answers will be kept in strictest confidence. Please direct any questions to Robin Rogers, Language and Literature, [email protected], 752-5475. Thank you!

1. Please indicate “Yes” or “No” whether you would like someone at SCF to assist you in:

a. Discussing your chosen meta-major (SLO 2.1) b. Identifying gateway courses for a meta-major (SLO 2.2)c. Developing a second semester academic plan (SLO 2.2)d. Identifying academic and career goal interests (SLO 2.3)e. Transitioning successfully from semester to semester (SLO 2.4)f. Identifying resources in ARC, Library, Career Center (SLO 3.1)g. Identifying areas of academic challenge and developing a written action

plan for college success (SLO 3.2)h. Completing assigned class work in gateway/designated courses (SLO 3.4)

2. Please indicate “Yes” or “No” whether you think that the following services would help you succeed here at SCF: (SLO 3.3)

a. Test Review Workshops

b. Tutoring in Math

c. Tutoring in Science

d. Tutoring in Writing

e. Math Skills

f. Reading Skills

g. Grammar Skills

h. Computer Skills

i. Study Skills Workshops

j. Library Resources

k. Career Resources

l. Veterans Services

m. Disability Services

n. Financial Information

o. Advising Center

p. Other support services related to your academic success. Please explain. (30 characters)

3. If employed, how many hours per week are you typically on the job? (2 characters)

4. What is your TOP reason for choosing to attend SCF? (30 characters)

5. Please comment on any of your answers above or on ways SCF can help you academically. (100 characters)

Page 47: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

9392

right place • right time • right person

appendix 10

4. Please indicate how strongly you agree with the following statements about your mentee by indicating (4) Strongly Agree, (3) Agree, (2) Disagree, (1) Strongly Disagree, (0) No opportunity to observe. (SLO 1.2) Taken from Galbraith & James.

My mentee:a. wanted to work toward academic goals i. engaged in good listeningb. wanted to learn new things. and communication skills.c. worked hard and juggled several things. j. had a positive attitude.d. was open to different points of view. k. demonstrated the ability to e. was willing to accept help. handle set backs.f. sought out my advice. l. was mature in how he/she approachedg. was cooperative the mentor/mentee relationshiph. carried out mutually determined

objectives and activities.

5. Are you aware of any of the following that interfered with your mentee taking courses at SCF?a. Academic difficulties Y/Nb. Financial issues Y/Nc. Family responsibilities Y/Nd. Work conflicts Y/Ne. Other. Please explain: (30 characters)

If you are aware that your mentee will NOT be returning to SCF next semester, please answer questions 6 and 7.

6. Is he or she planning to attend another college/university? Y/N If yes, which one? (30 characters)

7. If he or she is not planning to attend another college/university, please indicate which of the following statements apply:

a. My mentee plans to return to SCF in a later semester.b. My mentee has met his or her educational goals and does not plan to return to college.c. My mentee is unsure of his or her plans d. Other. Please explain (50 characters)

8. Please comment on any of your answers above or on ways SCF could have better served you and your mentee. (100 characters)

appendix10 QEP mentor end-of-semester review

QEP Mentor End-of-Semester ReviewDirections: Please complete the following information on each of your mentees at the end of each semester. Your answers will be kept in strictest confidence. Please direct any questions to Robin Rogers, Language and Literature Department, [email protected], 752-5475. Thank you!

Your Name _____________________________________ Semester (Please circle) Fall Spring

Name of Mentee ________________________________ Year _________

1. How many times did you and your mentee meet with each other in-person this semester? (SLO 1.1)a. None d. Three timesb. Once e. More than three timesc. Twice Please provide number of times: _____

2. Please indicate how satisfied you were with your mentee and his/her progress on the following by indicating (4) Very Satisfied, (3) Satisfied, (2) Unsatisfied, (1) Very Unsatisfied, (0) Did not provide assistance

a. Meeting with me face-to-face at least three times during the semesterb. Collaborating with me to define the expectations and responsibilities of the

mentor-mentee relationship c. Participating in the entering and exit student feedback surveys d. Identifying a meta-major e. Identifying gateway courses for a meta-major and need for a second semester

academic plan f. Identifying academic and career goal interestsg. Transitioning successfully from semester to semester h. Identifying resources in ARC, Library, Career Center i. Identifying areas of academic challenge and, as appropriate, developing a plan j. Using academic support activities (modules, tutors, workshops) that are identified in the Early

Alert k. Completing assigned class work in gateway/designated courses

3. Please indicate whether or not you referred this mentee during the semester to the following services. (Y/N) (SLO 3.1 and SLO 3.3)

a. Test Review Workshops g. ARC Resources b. Math Skills development h. Library Resourcesc. Reading Skills development i. Career Resourcesd. Writing Skills development j. Veterans Servicese. Study Skills Workshops k. Disability Servicesf. Advising Center l. Financial Aid

Page 48: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting

9594

right place • right time • right person

abbreviationsARC Academic Resource Center

ACT American College Testing

AVP-PIE Associate Vice President of Planning and Institutional Effectiveness

CCIS Community College Institutional Survey

CCCSE Center for Community College Student Engagement

CCSSE Community College Survey of Student Engagement

EA Early Alert

FAC Florida Administrative Code

FDD Faculty Development Day

FDOE Florida Department of Education

FM Faculty Mentor

FS Florida Statute(s)

FSDD Faculty Staff Development Day

FTIC First-Time-in-College (does not include dual enrollment students)

FYE First Year Experience

IT or ITS Information Technology Services

NASFAA National Association of Student Financial Aid Administration

NACADA National Association of Academic Advising Association

OPIE Office of Planning and Institutional Effectiveness

PAC President’s Advisory Council

PERT Post-Secondary Educational Readiness Test

SABR Student Activity Budget Review

SB Senate Bill

SENSE Survey of Entering Student Engagement

SSC Student Success Coordinator

SSI Noel Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory

VPAA Vice President of Academic Affairs

VPSA Vice President of Student Affairs

VPSI Vice President of Strategic Initiatives

termsPersistence Describes students that attend from Fall to Spring semester

Retention Describes students that remain enrolled in a course until the n n n n n n n n n n n n n end of the semester

Success Describes students that have passed a course

glossary of abbreviations and terms 12 appendixappendix 11 suggested protocol for mentee focus group & faculty mentor meeting

Focus GroupDirections: At the end of each semester the QEP Coordinator and two members of the QEP Committee will lead a focus group of two randomly selected students in each course. After discussion, the focus group leaders will report their findings back to the QEP Committee, which will make any needed revisions to the SCF QEP R3 and determine how best to assess the results of the changes.

Date of Focus Group: _____________________________

QEP Members in Attendance: ______________________

Mentees in Attendance: __________________________

Semester (Please circle): Fall Spring Year: _____

1. What went well with your Mentor-Mentee relationships this semester?

2. What were problems that you experienced this semester? Do you have suggestions that would prevent these problems in the future?

3. What feedback do you have from Mentees on the various services that they used this semester?

4. How can the QEP Coordinator support your mentorship activities better next semester?

Faculty Mentor MeetingDirections: At the end of each semester the QEP Committee will meet with the Faculty Mentors to ask them the following questions. After discussion, the QEP Committee will make revisions to the SCF QEP R3 and determine how best to assess the results of the changes.

Date of Meeting: _________________________________

Mentors in Attendance: ___________________________

Semester (Please circle): Fall Spring Year: _____

1. What went well with your Mentor-Mentee relationships this semester?

2. What were problems that you experienced this semester? Do you have suggestions that would prevent these problems in the future?

3. What feedback do you have from Mentees on the various services that they used this semester?

4. How can the QEP Coordinator support your mentorship activities better next semester?

Page 49: right place right time right person - Home - State College ... · 4 5 right place • right time • right person executive summary chapter 1 QEP R3 will be implemented by selecting