be advised! technical college of the lowcountry october 29

Be Advised!

Technical College of the Lowcountry

October 29—31, 2013


2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Technical College of the Lowcountry (TCL) is fortunate to serve approximately 2,500 students

from Beaufort, Colleton, Hampton, and Jasper counties on four campuses. With commitment to

the values of learning, integrity, service, excellence, stewardship, and diversity, we offer

numerous degree and certificate programs in a wide variety of transfer and career fields. TCL’s

faculty and staff take great pride in providing our students with face-to-face and online post-

secondary teaching, learning, and workforce development to ensure our region has an educated

population and globally competitive workforce. We are students.

TCL has welcomed the reaffirmation process not only as an opportunity to demonstrate

compliance with the core requirements and comprehensive standards of The Principles of

Accreditation, but also as an opportunity to enhance the quality of our programs and services.

TCL’s Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP), Be Advised!, is an action plan that focuses on five

institutional outcomes, enumerated below, to transform the culture of advising at TCL in the

areas of (a) intake advisory processes and procedures; (b) student retention; (c) graduation

rates; (d) advisement training; (e) new student orientation; and (f) advising support.

1. Revise the intake advisory process to enhance student academic planning skills

2. Coordinate course scheduling and sequence offerings to aid student progress through

curriculum to graduation

3. Create and implement a formal retention plan to aid student progression through curriculum

to graduation

4. Establish a college-wide advisement training program to improve and enhance existing

advising processes and procedures to foster student success

5. Strengthen new student orientation and advising support

From our data and through our research, we have found that our students need deliberate

actions to help them develop the knowledge, skills, behaviors, and values that will allow them to

succeed in college. Therefore, advising is an opportunity to teach students the crucial planning

skills that will be invaluable beyond their academic career. Our QEP, Be Advised!, is a

metaphor expressing the realization that advising is an essential tool in guiding each student’s

academic career through their chosen curriculum to graduation.

The complete journey of TCL’s QEP Steering Committee, QEP Best Practices and Literature

Review Workgroup, QEP Student Ambassadors Workgroup, QEP Marketing Workgroup, QEP

Implementation Team, QEP Professional Development Workgroup, QEP Assessment Team,

and the QEP Resource Allocation Workgroup is chronicled at http://www.tcl.edu/about-tcl/qep.

Be Advised!


Tonya R. Beckett, Ph.D.

Director of Institutional Effectiveness

[email protected]

http://www.tcl.edu/about-tcl/qep


3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 2

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ 3

List of Tables ................................................................................................................... 5

List of Charts ................................................................................................................... 6

The QEP Process............................................................................................................ 7

Leadership for Institutional Development of the QEP .................................................. 7

Selection of the QEP Topic .......................................................................................... 8

Development of the Specific Focus ........................................................................... 11

Needs Assessment .................................................................................................... 12

Admissions and Enrollment .................................................................................... 12

College Wide Advising ........................................................................................... 13

Pre-allied Health Advising ...................................................................................... 13

Other Health Sciences Programs Advising ............................................................ 13

Summary of Institutional Research Data ................................................................... 14

Academic Advising/Planning .................................................................................. 14

Student Behavior .................................................................................................... 15

College Support ..................................................................................................... 15

Student/Faculty/Staff Relationships ....................................................................... 16

Student Career Development ................................................................................. 17

Graduate Satisfaction ............................................................................................. 18

100% GRS Rates ................................................................................................... 19

SCCHE Success Rates .......................................................................................... 20

Trends in Completions ........................................................................................... 20

Literature Review and Best Practices on Student Advisement ...................................... 22

Introduction ............................................................................................................ 22

Advising Exploratory Students ............................................................................... 22

Advising Scanner Students .................................................................................... 22

Advising Foreclosure Students .............................................................................. 23

Combating Course Withdrawal............................................................................... 23

Advisor and Advisee Relationships ........................................................................ 23


4

Peer Advising ......................................................................................................... 24

Advising Traditional Students ................................................................................. 24

Advising Non-traditional Students .......................................................................... 25

Articulation with Four-Year Colleges and Universities ............................................ 26

Online Prerequisite Registration Systems .............................................................. 26

Collecting Advisement Data ................................................................................... 26

Summary ................................................................................................................ 27

QEP Institutional Outcomes and Implementation Plan with Timeline ............................ 27

Year One ................................................................................................................... 28

Year Two ................................................................................................................... 31

Year Three ................................................................................................................. 34

Year Four ................................................................................................................... 37

Year Five ................................................................................................................... 40

QEP Leadership Team .................................................................................................. 43

QEP Organizational Structure ....................................................................................... 44

QEP Assessment Plan .................................................................................................. 45

Year One ................................................................................................................... 45

Year Two ................................................................................................................... 49

Year Three ................................................................................................................. 54

Year Four ................................................................................................................... 59

Year Five ................................................................................................................... 63

QEP Resource Allocation .............................................................................................. 69

Budget Narrative ........................................................................................................ 69

Budget Summary and Timeline ................................................................................. 71

References .................................................................................................................... 74

Appendix A: Pilot Year ................................................................................................. 76

QEP Pilot Year Implementation Plan............................................................................. 76

Pilot Year ................................................................................................................... 76

Pilot Year Assessments ............................................................................................. 78

Budget Narrative ........................................................................................................ 81

Appendix B: Admissions Checklist ............................................................................... 83


5

Appendix C: The Compass .......................................................................................... 84

Appendix D: Admissions/Enrollment Services New/Readmit Application Process ....... 85

Appendix E: Arts & Sciences Division Advisory Committee ......................................... 86

Appendix F: Business Technologies Division Advisory Committees ............................ 87

Appendix F (Continued): Business Technologies Division Advisory Committees ........ 88

Appendix G: Industrial Technologies Division Advisory Committees ........................... 89

Appendix G (Continued): Industrial Technologies Division Advisory Committees ........ 90

Appendix H: Health Sciences Division Advisory Committees ....................................... 91

Appendix H (Continued): Health Sciences Division Advisory Committees ................... 92

Appendix I: QEP Steering Committee .......................................................................... 93

Appendix J: QEP Best Practices and Literature Review Workgroup ............................ 94

Appendix K: QEP Student Ambassadors Workgroup ................................................... 95

Appendix L: QEP Marketing Workgroup ....................................................................... 96

Appendix M: QEP Implementation Team ..................................................................... 97

Appendix N: QEP Professional Development Workgroup ............................................ 98

Appendix O: QEP Assessment Team .......................................................................... 99

Appendix P: QEP Resource Allocation Workgroup .................................................... 100

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. TCL’s Strategic Leadership Team .................................................................... 7

Table 2. September 2010 Faculty Forum QEP Ideas ..................................................... 8

Table 3: Phi Theta Kappa and Roteract Student QEP Suggestions ............................... 9

Table 4. September 2012 Faculty Forum QEP Ideas ..................................................... 9

Table 5. SALT Student QEP Suggestions .................................................................... 10

Table 6. SALT Staff QEP Suggestions ......................................................................... 10

Table 7. Advisory Committee Members QEP Topic Suggestions ................................ 10

Table 8. Area Commission QEP Topic Suggestions .................................................... 11

Table 9. SACSCOC Phase I QEP Topic Choice Survey Results ................................. 11

Table 10: Academic Advising/Planning: 2013 CCSSE TCL/National Comparison ....... 14

Table 11: Student Behavior: 2013 CCSSE TCL/National Comparison......................... 15

Table 12: College Support: 2013 CCSSE TCL/National Comparison .......................... 16


6

Table 13: Student/Faculty/Staff Relationships 2013 CCSSE TCL/National Comparison

...................................................................................................................................... 17

Table 14: Student Career Development TCL Comparison to National Average ........... 18

Table 15: Graduate Satisfaction Results ...................................................................... 19

Table 16: Graduates, Transfers, and/or Still Enrolled TCL Compared to State Average

...................................................................................................................................... 20

Table 17: Persistence and Retention Rates TCL Comparison to State Average ......... 21

Table 17. TCL’s QEP Leadership Team ....................................................................... 43

LIST OF CHARTS

Chart 1. Academic Advising/Planning .......................................................................... 14

Chart 2: Student Behavior ............................................................................................ 15

Chart 3: College Support .............................................................................................. 16

Chart 5: Student Career Development ......................................................................... 18

Chart 6: Graduate Satisfaction Data............................................................................. 19

Chart 7: Graduate Comparison Within 100% of Program Time .................................... 20

Chart 8: Number of Graduates and Awards ................................................................. 21

Chart 9: Persistence and Retention Rates ................................................................... 21


7

THE QEP PROCESS

Leadership for Institutional Development of the QEP

TCL’s Strategic Leadership Team, identified in Table 1, was charged with providing initial

oversight for the development of the Quality Enhancement Plan.

Table 1. TCL’s Strategic Leadership Team

Member Department Title

Mounfield, Gina Technical College of the Lowcountry Interim President

Wiser, Hayes Administrative Services Vice President

Weber, Nancy Student Affairs Vice President

Mounfield, Gina Academic Affairs Vice President

Eckstrom, Richard Industrial Technologies SACSCOC Accreditation Liaison

Tonya R. Beckett Institutional Effectiveness QEP Facilitator

From December 8 through 11, all except one member of TCL’s Strategic Leadership Team

(SLT) attended the 2012 SACSCOC Annual Meeting in Dallas, TX. On February 14, 2013, five

staff members (the Vice President of Academic Affairs, the Vice President of Student Affairs, the

Director of Institutional Effectiveness, the Admissions Manager, and the Enrollment Services

Manager) attended and participated in an Advisement Workshop sponsored by the South

Carolina Technical College System that featured Dr. Dana Zahorik from the National Academic

Advising Association (NACADA) who discussed and shared skills and techniques for advising

as teaching as well as advising underprepared students. Dr. Zahorik also accepted our request

to serve as our QEP Lead Evaluator.

After TCL identified the topic for the QEP, the SLT assigned the day-to-day responsibility for its

development to a selected group of individuals who had the greatest knowledge about and

interest in the ideas, content, processes, and methodologies to be developed in the QEP along

with expertise in planning and assessment as well as managing and allocating institutional

resources. As a result, the QEP Facilitator was appointed. Meetings were arranged to visit

Trident Technical College on March 20, 2013 and Horry Georgetown Technical College on

March 21, 2013 to inquire about lessons learned and potential pitfalls as they relate to the QEP

process.

On March 25, 2013, the Vice President of Academic Affairs and the Vice President of Student

Services recommended a core group of individuals to the QEP Facilitator. A list containing the

names of those faculty and staff members was presented by the Vice President of Academic

Affairs to the SLT for approval and formal appointment on March 26, 2013. Upon approval, that

core group of individuals, who are identified in Appendix H, formed TCL’s QEP Steering

Committee.

On March 14, 2013, March 28, 2013 and April 24, 2013, conference calls with Henderson

Community College, Aiken Technical College, and Greenville Technical College, respectively,

ensued to inquire of their QEP experiences as well as to solicit recommendations help facilitate

our QEP process.


8

In addition, each member of the QEP Steering Committee except one attended and participated

in the NACADA 2013 Region 3 Conference in Greenville, SC from May 14 through May 16.

Furthermore, the SACSCOC Accreditation Liaison attended and participated in the 2013

Institute on Quality Enhancement and Accreditation from July 21 through July 24 in Daytona

Beach, FL.

The highlight of the 2013 Convocation on August 13 was our QEP, Be Advised!

Selection of the QEP Topic

TCL’s QEP development included not only broad-based involvement institutional constituencies,

but also external institutional constituencies. Selection of the QEP topic began at the

September 17, 2010 Faculty Forum, which captured the QEP ideas presented in Table 2.

Table 2. September 2010 Faculty Forum QEP Ideas

Advising Process Streamline Developmental Education

Paperless System Technology in Learning Environment

Clarifying Online Education Marketing

Expanding Electives Faculty/Staff Continuing Education Needs

Simplify Enrollment/Registration Process Expand Alumni Office

Improve Distance Learning to Hampton Improved Faculty/Staff Interaction

Success/Retention for Online Students Physical Plant

Student Retention Better Communication with Other 15 Technical Colleges

More Intentional New Student Orientation Communication within Workplace

Improving Online Orientation Communication with K—12

Clarify Student Goals and Data Entry Transparency of Grade Review

Placement Tests Expand Counseling Service

Resources for Distance Learning More Support for Student Activities

Childcare for Students/Faculty/Staff More Interaction with Alumni

Critical Thinking and Math Skills More Student Recognition

During the February 21, 2012 Area Commission Meeting, which is TCL’s governing body; the

equivalent of a board of trustees, the President began discussing the reaffirmation process and

explaining the QEP process. In addition, TCL’s SACSCOC Accreditation Liaison was

appointed.

On March 2, 2012, the President met with Leadership Beaufort to inform them about the

SACSCOC QEP process and to request community input. A member suggested looking at

training the unemployed to get jobs.

At the March 16, 2012 Faculty Forum, TCL’s SACSCOC Accreditation Liaison advised faculty

members to wait until Fall 2012, when more detailed information would be available, to discuss

the QEP with Advisory Committee members. It was anticipated that the QEP developmental

teams and workgroups would be established by June 2013. The QEP developmental teams

and workgroups were established on two months earlier on April 30, 2013.


9

The 2012 Convocation on August 14 included a QEP discussion where possible topic ideas

were solicited from attendees.

On August 20, 2012, the President had lunch with the Phi Theta Kappa (PTK) and Roteract

students on the New River Campus to explain the QEP process and request possible topics to

consider for the QEP. Similarly, the President had breakfast with PTK and Roteract students on

the Beaufort Campus on August 27, 2012 in another effort to engage student input and support

for the QEP. The combined results of the students’ suggestions are identified in Table 3.

Table 3: Phi Theta Kappa and Roteract Student QEP Suggestions

Financial Aid Web Advisor

Course Offerings Limitations Blackboard Limitations

Scholarship Opportunities Course Registration

Lunch Room/Food Service at New River Tutoring

Expanded Library Hours Examine admissions to advising to financial aid

Advisors Free of Bias Availability of Courses at All Campus Locations

Steps Leading to Enrollment Misleading Web Advisor Information

More Interaction with Faculty Mentorship

Sports More Exercise Options and Healthy Eating Workshops

Admissions Advising

Registration

At the September 14, 2012 Faculty Forum, TCL’s SACSCOC Accreditation Liaison shared the

importance of identifying a college-wide QEP topic. Suggestions for ideas were requested via

email to the Executive Assistant to the President. Other QEP topics were generated as

identified in Table 4. It was announced that the Office of Institutional Research would be

responsible for drafting a survey of possible QEP topics for faculty and staff to rank. It was

anticipated that the QEP topic would be selected on or before December 14, 2012. The Office

of Institutional Research announced the QEP topic on December 11, 2012. The SACSCOC

Accreditation Liaison discussed an outline of the QEP process including identifying committees,

teams, and workgroups as well as recruiting members and piloting.

Table 4. September 2012 Faculty Forum QEP Ideas

Critical Thinking Retention

Reading Comprehension Advisement

Transitioning from Developmental Education to College Courses College Preparation

High School to College Transitions Executive Skills

The Student Affairs Leadership Team (SALT) solicited staff and student input about the QEP in

September 2012. The results are identified in Tables 5 and 6, respectively. The QEP Student

Ambassadors Workgroup in Appendix J promoted the QEP and its branding as well as

stimulated the interest and participation of all students in the progress of the QEP to preserve

and increase loyalty and fellowship between the institution, its students, alumni, faculty, staff,

and community.


10

Table 5. SALT Student QEP Suggestions

Parking lot by the security office is a safety issue

Combine tutoring center into one location; increase volunteers and expand hours

Improve online educational opportunities with campus access

Buddy system to mentor new students—peer mentoring

Electronic record keeping Q&A on the website for resources and other help

Table 6. SALT Staff QEP Suggestions

Suggestion boxes around campus providing anonymous feedback about the campus community

Student advisement connected with admissions; academically trained and qualified

Freshman ambassador and peer mentor Better communication campus wide about events

Student Success Center Expand support services on Fridays

A campus image and workflow solution Reestablish campus activity hour

Holiday business hours

During Fall 2012, Deans reported to their Advisory Committee members that TCL was in the

process of developing its QEP. Each advisory member was invited to submit suggestions that

focus on learning outcomes and/or the environment supporting student learning for

consideration.

Fifteen of 17 advisory committees whose memberships are identified in Appendix D through G

as well as commissioners, administrators, full-time and part-time faculty and staff, and alumni

from Beaufort, Colleton, Hampton, and Jasper Counties contributed invaluable input into the

selection of the QEP topic. Due to lack of attendance, the Culinary Arts and Electronics

Advisory Committees did not meet in Fall 2012. Table 7 depicts suggestions from all Advisory

Committee Members.

Table 7. Advisory Committee Members QEP Topic Suggestions

Better Coordination with Financial Aid and Admissions

Better Use of Advisory Committees

Courtesy Shuttle Between Campuses Connecting Employers with Students

Follow Through with Students on Job Placement

Guest Speakers in Classrooms

Continuing Education Seminars on the history of the Sea Islands and Penn Center

Shooting videos of the day and the life at the county or hospital to share with potential students

Lunch roundtables to discuss different careers

During the 2012 Commission Planning Retreat, the President briefed the commissioners on the

QEP process and asked them for suggestions for consideration that focus on learning outcomes

and/or the environment supporting student learning. Table 8 depicts suggestions from the area

commission.


11

Table 8. Area Commission QEP Topic Suggestions

Transportation Barriers Passes with the regional transportation authority

Going Paperless Use of eBooks

Extending the Early College Opportunity to Other High Schools in the Service Area

Development of the Specific Focus

The Strategic Leadership Team (SLT) reviewed the total list of QEP topics solicited from internal

and external constituents on November 20, 2012. For the purpose of creating a college-wide

survey that was free from duplication, the SLT condensed the list from 54 possible topics to

reflect 28 topics that conform to the SACSCOC criteria of having a project life of five years and

sufficient budget support.

It was explained that the next step in the topic identification process would be to narrow the list

to the top five QEP topics leading to the ultimate selection of TCL’s QEP topic. It was believed

that once the top five QEP topics are identified, the Office of Institutional Research could report

the results and request constituents to further narrow the selections to their top choice during

Phase II of the selection process.

On November 28, 2012, the Office of Institutional Research emailed a link to the TCL

SACSCOC Phase I QEP Topic Choice Survey to all TCL full-time faculty and staff that included

an overview of the process and specific instructions. The survey closed on December 4, 2012.

The Office of Institutional Research anticipated identifying TCL’s QEP on or before December

14, 2012.

On December 11, 2012, the survey’s results, shown in Table 9, were emailed to all full-time TCL

faculty and staff. Surprisingly, the responses were clustered around the topic

advisement/retention. Given this strong indication from respondents, the SLT did not see the

need to narrow the selections through Phase II. As a result, student advisement surfaced as

TCL’s QEP topic.

Table 9. SACSCOC Phase I QEP Topic Choice Survey Results

Answer Options Response Percent

Response Count

Create a fully integrated system of student advising that assures students, in a step-by-step fashion, what to do and who to contact should they need assistance

47.7% 41

Strengthen the advisement process 34.9% 30

Develop a complete system for retaining students 33.7% 29

Improve faculty advisement for student 32.6% 28

Develop a sophisticated advisement map for entering students to follow on the ultimate goal of college completion

26.7% 23


12

Perhaps, O’Banion (2013) says it best

Academic advising is the second most important function in the community

college. If it is not conducted with the utmost efficiency and effectiveness, the

most important function in the college—instruction—will fail to achieve its

purpose of ensuring that students succeed in navigating the curriculum to

completion (p.3).

Thereafter, the QEP Best Practices and Literature Review Workgroup in Appendix I began its

research to ensure that the QEP was grounded in a review of best practices and provided

evidence of careful analysis of the institutional context in which student learning and/or

institutional outcomes would be implemented and in consideration of best practices related to

the advisement.

Needs Assessment

Admissions and Enrollment

When prospective students decide to apply for admissions to Technical College of the

Lowcountry (TCL), they are required to apply online at www.tcl.edu/apply. Within 24 hours,

Enrollment Services downloads the application from the CollegeNet database and enters it into

Datatel. Thereafter, the prospect is classified as a student (as long as he/she is a U.S. Citizen

or has legal presence in the U.S. and has a high school diploma or GED) and if a program is

declared, they are assigned an advisor within that program through Datatel. If a program is

undeclared, the student is assigned to the Admissions Manager to help him/her find a program

of study that fits his/her skill and desires. If the Admissions Manager determines that a career

assessment, the Self-Directed Search 4th Edition, needs to be administered, the student is

referred to the Career & Transfer Services Manager. Until official residency documents are

received, students are categorized as out of state.

Once the student is accepted, they receive an electronic acceptance letter from Enrollment

Services via CollegeNet that includes specific guidelines for proceeding to the next steps in the

enrollment process. Then, students are categorized as “Applied but not Registered”. However,

they are encouraged through multiple emails via CollegeNet and personal phone calls from the

Admissions Manager and faculty advisors to visit Enrollment Services to continue their

enrollment process. When they do, they are strongly encouraged to bring proof of U.S.

citizenship if they have not completed FAFSA and official residency documents, if they have not

yet done so.

At that time, students receive a hard copy of the Admissions Checklist in Appendix A with the

contact information and office location for their assigned Academic Advisor and a member of the

Enrollment Services staff discusses with the student whether or not he/she needs to take the

Compass. Students with SAT scores within the past five years of at least 480 in math and 440

in English and reading, ACT scores within the past seven years of at least 22 in math, 18 in

English, and 21 in reading/social sciences, or post-secondary transcripts on file are not required

to take the Compass. If the student does need to take the assessment, Enrollment Services

sends them to the Testing Center on the Beaufort Campus—appointments are required at the

http://www.tcl.edu/apply


13

New River and Hampton Campuses. If the student decides to take the COMPASS practice

assessments, an Enrollment Services staff member provides the information sheet in Appendix

B that includes a detailed description of the assessment as well as links to access the practice

assessments. Upon completion of the assessment, students are encouraged to bring their

scores to the Enrollment Services office to discuss the scores and to encourage students to

schedule a meeting with their assigned Academic Advisor. The Admissions/Enrollment

Services New/Readmit Application Flowchart in Appendix C illustrates this process. Thereafter,

student advisement begins.

College Wide Advising

According to the Academic Regulations & Information in TCL’s 2012—2013 Catalog & Student

Handbook, academic advising is described as follows:

Students are assigned a faculty advisor who helps them develop a plan that

leads to timely completion of the academic program. Students should confer with

their academic advisors prior to the start of each semester to monitor program

progress and plan for the subsequent semester. Students who place into three

developmental courses are assigned an academic advisor in the Arts and

Sciences Division. Students who place into at least one curriculum level course

numbered 101 or higher are assigned an academic advisor in the Division in

which their major is located. A student who does not meet the minimum

placement scores in English, reading, and/or mathematics is assigned an advisor

through the Admissions Office to develop a plan to remediate in areas of

deficient skills prior to retaking the placement assessments.

Pre-allied Health Advising

Pre-allied Health (PAH) students are referred to Health Sciences Administrative Support

(HSAS) and given the division’s office telephone number. When they contact HSAS via phone

or an in-person visit, an appointment is scheduled with the PAH advisor. Health Sciences is

fortunate to have a fulltime advisor for PAH students. When advising appointments are full,

students are scheduled for advisement with program faculty. All faculty members provide two to

three hours each week to assist with PAH students. An automated appointment schedule is

used to track students.

Other Health Sciences Programs Advising

Nursing, Radiologic Technology, Surgical Technology, Massage Therapy, and Physical Therapy

Assistant students are advised by program faculty. Students are assigned to a faculty advisor,

but may meet with other program faculty or with the dean when necessary.


14

Summary of Institutional Research Data

Academic Advising/Planning

The Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) from 2009 through 2012

measured the frequency, satisfaction, and importance of academic advising/planning at TCL.

As illustrated in Chart 1, the use of academic advising/planning at TCL increased by at least

0.02 annually. However, the level of students’ satisfaction remained steady in 2009 and 2010,

but decreased by 0.02 in 2011 before increasing by 0.04 in 2012. Meanwhile, the importance of

academic advising/planning increased in 2011 and 2012 by 0.10 and 0.08, respectively,

although it dropped 0.01 from 2009 to 2010. Even though TCL students used academic

advising/planning infrequently, they were generally satisfied with it and rated its importance as

moderately high. Recently, on July 31, 2013, TCL received the latest CCSSE data, shown in

Table 10. TCL exceeds the national average in these measures, and it is TCL’s goal to continue

to meet or exceed the national averages. The CCSSE report shows that our students have a

positive attitude toward TCL’s advising process, although as of now few participate in advising.

The reality, as will be shown, is that TCL needs to improve its persistance, retention, and

ultimately its program completion. TCL believes that greater participation in advising is the way

to do that.

Chart 1. Academic Advising/Planning

As the mean score approaches 3.00, the frequency, satisfaction, and

importance translate respectively to:

“Uses Often,” “Very Satisfied,” and “Very Important.”

Table 10: Academic Advising/Planning: 2013 CCSSE TCL/National Comparison

Frequency Satisfaction Importance

TCL 1.98 2.34 2.67

National Average 1.80 2.24 2.57

1.75 1.8 1.82 1.86

2.2 2.2 2.18 2.22

2.51 2.5 2.6

2.68

1

1.25

1.5

1.75

2

2.25

2.5

2.75

3

2009 2010 2011 2012

Me

an S

core

Academic Advising/Planning

Frequency

Satisfaction

Importance


15

Student Behavior

CCSSE also measured the frequency with which students talked about career plans with an

instructor or advisor as depicted in Chart 2: Student Behavior. From 2009 to 2010, the

frequency dropped 0.02. However, each year thereafter up to 2012, the frequency increased

0.17 and 0.03, respectively. The 2013 data, shown in Table 11, indicates that TCL exceeds the

national average, and it is the TCL benchmark to meet or exceed these averages.

Chart 2: Student Behavior

1 = Never 2 = Sometimes 3 = Often 4 = Very Often

Table 11: Student Behavior: 2013 CCSSE TCL/National Comparison

CCSSE Question 4m

TCL 2.25

National Average 2.10

College Support

Chart 3 depicts college support from 2009 to 2012, which also fluctuated significantly. On

several occasions, the four CCSSE benchmarks in the chart for college support decreased from

year to year—particularly in the area of helping students cope with non-academic

responsibilities (work, family, etc.). It is TCL’s goal to meet or exceed the national averages,

and again, in 2013, TCL exceeds the national average in these measure

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

2009 2010 2011 2012

Student Behavior

Talked about career plans with an instructor oradvisor


16

Chart 3: College Support

1 = Very Little 2 = Some 3 = Quite a Bit 4 = Very Much

Table 12: College Support: 2013 CCSSE TCL/National Comparison

Survey Items TCL

National Average

Providing the support you need to help you succeed at this college 3.11 3.01

Helping you cope with your non-academic responsibilities (work, family, etc.) 2.10 1.99

Providing the support you need to thrive socially 2.27 2.21

Providing the financial support you need to afford your education 2.87 2.58

Student/Faculty/Staff Relationships

When measuring the quality of relationships using CCSSE, TCL scores high in

Student/Faculty/Staff Relationships that students experience at TCL. These measures are

shown in Chart 4. TCL 2013 data in Table 13 indicate that faculty relationships exceed the

national averages, but staff relationships do not. It is our expectation that, through

improvements in our advising processes, TCL will meet or exceed the national averages in

these two measures.

2.93 3.00 3.06

2.99

2.04 2.00 1.99 1.97

2.20

2.00

2.21 2.25

2.70 2.70

2.91 2.84

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

2009 2010 2011 2012

College Support

Providing the supportyou need to help yousucceed at this college

Helping you cope withyour non-academicresponsibilities (work,family, etc.)

Providing the supportyou need to thrivesocially

Providing the financialsupport you need toafford your education


17

As the mean score approaches 7.00, the perception of

friendliness and support of people at TCL increases.

Table 13: Student/Faculty/Staff Relationships 2013 CCSSE TCL/National Comparison

Survey Item TCL National Averages

Instructors 5.84 5.69

Administrative personnel and offices 4.88 4.99

Student Career Development

Similarly, when measuring the perception of TCL’s contributions to developing clearer career

goals and gaining information about career opportunities using CCSSE, students are above the

average. Chart 5 shows students’ perception was above the 2.0 average, and Table 14 shows

it is above the national average. TCL’s benchmark in this measure is to meet or exceed the

national average.

5.83 5.90 5.83 5.75

4.86 5.00 4.76 4.80

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

2009 2010 2011 2012

Student/Faculty/Staff Relationships

Instructors

Administrativepersonnel andoffices


18

Chart 5: Student Career Development

As the mean score approaches 4.00, the perception of

TCL's contribution to the above areas increases.

Table 14: Student Career Development TCL Comparison to National Average

Survey Item TCL National Average

Developing clearer career goals 2.86 2.73

Gaining information about career opportunities 2.80 2.59

Graduate Satisfaction

As shown in Chart 6, between the 2010 and 2011 academic years, the level of satisfaction with

academic advisement provided by academic advisors dropped 0.19. The level of satisfaction

with academic advisement provided by instructors dropped 0.07.

The TCL Graduate Satisfaction Survey results indicate that satisfaction with new student

orientation increased 0.19 between 2010 and 2011. As of May 31, 2013, data for 2012 was

unavailable. Since the new student orientation is not fully realized, this initiative will be

extended, modified, redirected, and strengthened into the New V.I.P. Student Orientation and

will be piloted during the 2013-14 academic year.

Communication about changes in academic programs and course schedules improved by 0.13

and 0.08, respectively, in 2010 and 2011. Furthermore, graduate satisfaction with the overall

registration process and student counseling services improved by 0.35 and 0.69, respectively.

2.68 2.80 2.81 2.87

2.61 2.70 2.79 2.76

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

2009 2010 2011 2012

Me

an S

core

Student Career Development

Developingclearer careergoals

Gaininginformationabout careeropportunities


19

Chart 6: Graduate Satisfaction Data

As the satisfaction score nears 5.00, the level of satisfaction increase to “Very

Satisfied.” A mean score of 3.00 or higher indicates satisfaction.

A comparison of these measures and the TCL benchmark of 4.00 is shown in Table 15.

Opportunities for improvements in new student orientation and counseling exist.

Table 15: Graduate Satisfaction Results

Survey Results 2009-2010 2010-2011 Benchmark

Advisement from advisor 4.19 4.00 4.00

Advisement from instructors 4.17 4.10 4.00

New student orientation 3.71 3.90 4.00

Changes in academic program 3.77 3.90 4.00

Changes in course schedule 3.92 4.00 4.00

Overall registration process 3.75 4.10 4.00

Student counseling services 3.21 3.90 4.00

100% GRS Rates

In the 2006 cohort of first-time, full-time, degree-seeking freshmen, Aiken Technical College

(ATC), Denmark Technical College (DTC), and the SC Technical College System (SCTCS) had

significantly higher graduation rates—at least a 5% improvement within 100% of the program

time—than TCL. However, in the 2007 cohort only DTC had improvement over TLC (by 3%).

In both the 2008 and 2009 cohorts, ATC and DTC had higher graduation rates in comparison to

TCL, 1% and 5%, respectively. Nevertheless, TCL and the SCTCS had the same Graduation

Rate Survey (GRS) rate for the 2008 cohort while the SCTCS increased 1% with the 2009

4.19 4.17 3.71 3.77 3.92 3.75

3.21

4 4.1 3.9 3.9 4 4.1 3.9

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5

Me

an S

core

s Graduate Satisfaction

2009-2010

2010-2011


20

cohort as illustrated in Chart 7. TCL’s benchmark is to meet or exceed the state system

averages.

Chart 7: Graduate Comparison Within 100% of Program Time

SCCHE Success Rates

Based on South Carolina Commission on Higher Education (SCCHE) Success Rates as

reported in IPEDS (Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System), there was a 23%

increase in the percentage of first-time, full-time, degree-seeking freshmen at TCL who were still

enrolled, graduated, and/or transferred to a college or university from the 2005 to 2006 cohort.

In the 2007 cohort, there was a significant decrease of 15% in the same type of students. The

2008 cohort raised the success rates modestly. However, the 2009 cohort showed another

significant decrease. TCL had a record of being above the state average except in this latest

cohort. TCL’s benchmark is to meet or exceed the state average.

Table 16: Graduates, Transfers, and/or Still Enrolled TCL Compared to State Average

GRS Cohort/As of/Reporting Year TCL State Average

2005/2008 44% 41%

2006/2009 67% 47%

2007/2010 52% 47%

2008/2011 54% 47%

2009/2012 43% 47%

Trends in Completions

As illustrated in Chart 8: Number of Graduates and Awards, since the academic year ending in

2009, the number of graduates and the number of awards conferred annually increased each

year, based on the latest confirmed data available. TCL’s enrollment has declined in recent

years, and this trend in increased awards is not likely to continue. Thus the college is

challenged to define appropriate measures to analyze this trend.

6%

9%

1%

6%

7%

11%

8%

6% 6%

10%

5% 5%

6%

10%

5%

6%

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.1

0.11

ATC DTC TCL SCTCS

Pe

rce

nta

ges

Graduate Comparison Within 100% of Program Time

2006 /2008/2009

2007/2009/2010

2008 /2010/2011

2009/2011/2012


21

Chart 8: Number of Graduates and Awards

Chart 9 illustrates that Fall to Spring persistence rates from the academic year ending in 2009

through 2012 fluctuated annually with changes from +3% to -1% and back to +3%. Meanwhile,

the Fall to Fall retention rates increased only in 2010, but decreased in 2011 and 2012. But both

measures are basically flat within a small range. Recent 2013 data from IPEDS for Fall-to-Fall

retention rates for Fall 2012 first-time, full-time, degree seeking freshman indicate that TCL

retained 48% of this group whereas the SCTSC average is 51%. TCL’s benchmark is to meet or

exceed the state average. TCL believes this measure has a high potential for gains with

improvements in the advising system.

Chart 9: Persistence and Retention Rates

Table 17: Persistence and Retention Rates TCL Comparison to State Average

2012-2013 Fall to Fall Retention

TCL 48%

State Average 51%

0 100 200 300 400 500

2008 -2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

288

317

342

343

360

447

448

474

Number of Graduates and Awards

Awards Conferred Graduates

68% 71% 70% 73%

51% 52% 50% 49%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012

Persistence and Retention Rates

Fall to Spring Persistence Rate Fall to Fall Retention Rate


22

LITERATURE REVIEW AND BEST PRACTICES ON STUDENT ADVISEMENT

Introduction

This literature review, which was conducted by TCL’s QEP Best Practices and Literature

Review Workgroup in Appendix I, addresses the issue of student advisement. Two points

should be noted prior to reading. First, nearly all of the studies discussed here were conducted

with small sample groups and many of the authors conclude by calling for more research.

Second, while some of the research focuses on community college students exclusively or at

least considers two-year programs, many of the studies and discussions covered concentrate

on advisement in four-year institutions. Because community colleges encounter many of the

same challenges as four-year institutions in the area of advisement, this research is still relevant

to the issue.

Much of the recent literature in the area of student advisement concentrates on the challenges

inherent in interacting with students who come from a variety of backgrounds and hold different

views (positive and negative) on their academic and career trajectories. Research suggests

that through collaboration between departments and use of technology, advisors can provide

assistance to advisees in terms of immediate needs (class scheduling, program requirements,

etc.) while at the same time leading advisees to a broader view of their academic and vocational

future.

Advising Exploratory Students

Several recent studies address how advisors should go about understanding the various

attitudes and outlooks they encounter in their advisees. Starling and Miller’s (2011) study

delves into the pessimistic attitudes (with regard to career choice) of incoming community

college students who are undecided on a major. In their survey of 60 community college

students using the Career Thinking Inventory assessment tool, the authors found that

“community college students with undecided majors exhibited a significantly greater degree of

negative thinking about career choices than did the average US college student” (p. 766). The

authors state that while advisors should help students understand the basics of how academic

status works (e.g., maintaining a minimum GPA and avoiding academic probation), a

collaborative approach to advising may help to address the larger issue. They suggest that

academic advisors and counselors work together to address not just students' academic

statuses but their mindsets as they set career goals (pp. 765-766).

Advising Scanner Students

Bloom, Tripp, and Shaffer (2011) define a “scanner” as a student who finds selecting just one

interest or career path to be overwhelming (p. 55). Scanners have a relentless desire to pursue

new interests or passions and feel trapped by making just one career choice. These students

feel that if they make that “one” choice of an academic major or career path, they may miss out

on another, more rewarding option or a new, intriguing area of interest in the career world. This

condition can be self-defeating since the student has an expanding set of interests, which

prevents him/her from concentrating on any one specific major, therefore ending in failure (p.

55). Advisors should encourage students with strong “scanner” tendencies to consider

subsequent careers and jobs instead of ultimate ones (p. 59).


23

Advising Foreclosure Students

On the other end of the spectrum from the "scanner" is the "foreclosure" student. Shaffer

(2011) discusses the task of advising "foreclosure" students whose failure to explore personal

and vocational identity may threaten their academic success. These students have prematurely

committed themselves to an academic major or career path without exploring their options. A

foreclosure student’s “certainty of commitment to a specific major or career may mask an

illusory and unsatisfactory state of identity development” (p. 62). Foreclosure students have

committed to someone else’s (e.g., parents, partners, peers, and siblings) values, beliefs, and

roles and are blindly guided in a direction that they would otherwise not have taken. Therefore,

because their identity is not based on self-exploration, but rather on someone else’s views and

dreams, these students tend to be less secure in their identities. Moreover, they often lack the

academic profile to achieve these false goals and end in failure (p. 69). The authors

recommend the use of probing questions to explore advisees' true feelings about the major they

have chosen and referral to a campus counselor if the situation warrants (pp. 72-73).

Combating Course Withdrawal

This issue of students' reliance on parents and peers as sources of information to the exclusion

of advice from instructors and advisors is also illuminated by Wheland, Butler, Qammar, Bobkoff

Katz, and Harris's (2012) study of students' feelings surrounding course withdrawal. In addition

to revealing the feelings of failure that students experience upon withdrawing from classes,

statements from follow-up interviews indicate that students often prefer to consult parents and

peers over advisors and instructors when it comes to making decisions about whether or not to

withdraw from a class. “Students rarely mentioned academic advisors as sources of

information, seeing them as unrelated to immediate decisions but as consultants for future

direction” (p. 22). The authors offer four recommendations to advisors facing the course

withdrawal issue: 1) educate others on campus (administrators, instructors, and students) about

the problems that accompany course withdrawal (e.g., negativity and feelings of failure in the

student); 2) impress upon students the fact that course withdrawal is often an indicator that

academic problems may continue in the future; 3) show students the value of advisors as

sources of information; and 4) use the crises of confidence that accompany course withdrawal

decisions as teachable moments—to “capitalize on moments of affective dissonance caused by

course withdrawal and guide students through learning and development processes that

positively inform their decision-making processes” (p. 24).

Advisor and Advisee Relationships

The notion of "challenging" students in the course of the advisement process is a common

thread throughout the research discussed to this point—that is, helping students to broaden or

narrow their focus and to change course as needed. Hughey (2011) discusses this issue

explicitly in her study of the qualities that make for successful advisors pulling together research

on effective interpersonal relations and offering suggestions tailored to the advisement process.

She pays particular attention to the types of probing questions advisors may need to ask in

order to help advisees set and achieve goals and urges advisors to delve into advisees'

personal stories and to help students build confidence in their own skills in order to set up a

more positive outlook for the future (pp. 26-27). Advisement sometimes also involves

confronting students with unpleasant truths (such as unwelcome changes in academic offerings


24

or career requirements) or pointing out issues with an advisee's habits or thinking (such as

failure to seek help or tutoring even when facing possible failure in a class). Hughey addresses

the potentially confrontational interactions that may stem from such challenges and stresses the

importance of creating a non-judgmental attitude and environment (p. 28).

In her speech to the 2011 National Academic Advising Association (NACADA) Annual

Conference, Pamela Shockley-Zalabak (2012) also discusses the advisor-advisee relationship.

She suggests that advisors focus on interaction design—that is, that they take a closer look at

what actually happens in interactions between students and advisors, be it in one-on-one

sessions, orientations, or online meetings, and come up with creative options for how best to

connect with students (pp. 15-16). Shockley also contends that many institutions are not

designed to facilitate communication between departments and services (academic advisement,

financial aid advisement, career planning, etc.), that they “do not meet modern efficiency and

productivity standards. More importantly, they do not meet effectiveness standards because

they do not help students with a whole experience. Simply put, most institutions are not

designed correctly” (p. 14).

Furthermore, the Noel-Levitz (2010) National Student Satisfaction and Priorities Report, which

focuses on responses from 229,000 students at 248 two-year community colleges, "perceptions

of academic advising are more critical at community colleges than they are typically at four-year

private and public institutions.” Community college advisors often do not forge a strong

connection with students that allows them to be seen by their advisees as more than simply the

bearers of course schedule information (p. 7).

Peer Advising

Latino and Unite (2012) suggest a collaborative relationship between academic advisors and

peer advisors. The authors discuss a variety of ways in which peers mentors may be valuable

to incoming students—as part of the orientation process, as tutors, and as academic coaches.

The authors focus on four-year institutions, but note that a system of peer advisement may be

useful at all institution types and sizes, particularly where faculty members have a full course

and advisement load. Peer advisement is not intended to replace faculty advising but to

enhance it: “Common components of a peer advising program include peer advisor-advisee

partners within the same major [and] regular communication between peer advisors and faculty

partners” (p. 37). Using peer mentors in the advisement process might prove one viable

strategy in helping students to view the advisement process as holding as much value as advice

from parents and friends.

Advising Traditional Students

Much of the literature points to differences between various groups of students and how an

understanding of these differences may help advisors to provide guidance that is more effective.

Montag, Campo, Weissman, Walmsley, and Snell’s (2012) study on the advisement

expectations of millennial students in a four-year institution has implications for any school

catering to this particular generation. The authors propose a split model of advising with a staff

advisor to help students adjust to life on campus and a faculty advisor to help students

determine a major (p. 32). The study also points out several key traits of millennials that are

more broadly relevant, such as an expectation of individualized attention from advisors (p. 29),


25

an appreciation of teamwork (leading the authors to suggest that peer mentors might be a

useful part of the advising process), and a continued dependence on their parents (p. 33).

Advising Non-traditional Students

Ryan, Carlstrom, Hughey, and Harris (2011) discuss the role of Schlossberg’s transition model

in effectively advising veterans and nontraditional students. Military veteran enrollment at two-

year public colleges is higher than any other type of higher education institution (p. 55).

Advisors play an important role in helping student-veterans to navigate the various transitions

involved in higher education. Under the Schlossberg model, the four factors that influence the

quality of the transition for these students are: situation, self, support, and strategies (p. 56).

Academic advisors can ask specific questions when advising these students. Topics of

discussion may include (a) demographic characteristics; (b) forms of social and economic

support; and (c) how the transition into higher education is viewed (i.e., positively or negatively

and/or with confidence or apprehension) (p. 56). Nontraditional and student-veterans may need

to experience a specialized orientation to relearn study skills and become reacquainted with the

classroom and academic load (p. 57).

In his address to the 2011 NACADA Annual Conference, James Applegate (2012) of the

Lumina Foundation argues that advisement programs should fit the needs of the 21st century

student who may commute rather than live on campus and who often has work and family

responsibilities to contend with in addition to academics (pp. 7-8). Given the financial

challenges facing this type of student, advisors should advocate for their institutions to become

more adult-learner friendly. Applegate’s five suggestions for advisors are to 1) advocate for

adult learners; 2) push for thorough and open reporting of advisement data in their institutions;

3) investigate how the institution spends financial aid money and suggest that it be channeled

into avenues that support student completion; 4) steer the campus toward a primary focus on

completion and success rather than enrollment rates; and 5) revamp their own advising with the

21st century student in mind. This final point is broken down into further steps including setting

up partnerships with high schools to start the advisement process as early as possible and

simplifying academic options for students who become frustrated with complex course catalogs

(pp. 9-10).

Hanover Research (2013) in its Academic Advising for Adult Students report summarizes how

the needs of adult students differ from those of “traditional students,” emphasizing the time and

work pressures that face adult learners. “Perhaps to a greater extent than even traditional

students, adult students place a very high priority on achieving their degree in the least amount

of time possible” (p. 9). Suggestions for working with adult students include preparing advisors

to address issues such as financial aid and career goals in addition to providing more traditional

academic advisement (p. 11).

Noel-Levitz (2011) finds in its survey of adult learners (using data from 29,679 students at 61

four-year institutions and 4,749 students from 18 two-year institutions) that adult students see

advisement as in need of improvement. Satisfaction among adult learners in community

colleges is high when it comes to understanding expectations for individual classes, but low with

regards to receiving information that encompasses the many elements that guide the college

experience, such as financial aid information and program requirements (p. 9).


26

Articulation with Four-Year Colleges and Universities

This theme of dissatisfaction is echoed in Gard, Paton, and Gosselin's (2012) research into the

role advisement plays in the successful transfer of community college students to four-year

institutions. The authors interviewed and surveyed a small group of students who were in the

process of transferring from community colleges to an upper-level program in a research

university. Responses were mixed on the subject of advisement with some students reporting

negative experiences. “Advisors would tell students that they could take certain courses but

when it came time to transfer to the university, the credits were not accepted. In addition, some

felt that because of the poor quality of advising and being told to take whatever courses they

wanted, it took four years to finish at the community college” (p. 838). A follow-up survey

showed that a majority of the students were dissatisfied with the advisement process within the

community college at least as it pertained to the transfer process (pp. 843-844).

Online Prerequisite Registration Systems

The advising process may also benefit from registration and planning technology, particularly as

online registration systems provide students with the chance to examine their options prior to

seeing an advisor. Soria and Mumpower (2012) posit that “prerequisite registration systems

can lay a foundation for developmental advising opportunities between advisors and students”

(p. 32). The authors observed the grades and retention status of students in a four-year

university with no mandatory advisement system before and after the institution of a prerequisite

registration system and found that GPAs and re-enrollment likelihood both increased the

semester after the system’s implementation (pp. 34-35). It should be noted that other factors

may have played a role in this positive result and a correlation between online registration

systems and grades cannot be assumed without further study. The authors also found,

however, that students who were kept from enrolling in a desired class due to failure to

complete prerequisites often sought out their advisors. “As a result of the prerequisite system,

advisors said they could spend more time in a developmental advising capacity,” meaning that

advisors were able to concentrate more on the student’s overall educational plan (p. 37). It

should also be noted that this positive outcome depends on the student being directed to speak

to an advisor after an unsuccessful attempt to register for a class.

In his examination of the Virginia Community College System’s development and use of the

Virginia Education Wizard, an online career and educational planning tool, Herndon (2011)

presents self-service technology (SST) as a way of meeting the needs of students in a time of

shrinking budgets and resources. The career and academic planning component of the

system’s SST has proved a popular application for successful students and a valuable

timesaver for staff. "In looking exclusively at community college students, an examination of the

first-term grade point average (GPA) among Wizard users and nonusers identified that 46

percent of users earned a GPA of 3.0 or greater while only 38 percent of nonusers earned a

GPA of 3.0 or greater” (p. 24).

Collecting Advisement Data

Tracking student satisfaction in the area of advisement must be part of any plan to improve an

advisement program. Bitz (2010) discusses the use of a survey to determine students' level of

satisfaction with their advisor. Bitz’s survey of freshmen attending a small four-year university

focuses on “perceptions of the advising relationship including advisor concern, advisor contact,


27

and advising relationship quality” (p. 54). The survey itself is included in the article and may be

a useful tool in measuring student perceptions of their advisors.

Summary

Several threads run through the research discussed here. First, advisors should gain an

appreciation for the different attitudes, situations, and backgrounds of the students coming to

them. Second, a satisfactory advisement experience involves both a grasp of immediate needs

(e.g., courses and program requirements) and an ability to help students see the big picture in

terms of their careers and academic future (as well as how this fits with their financial options).

The "academic" piece of advisement must fit with a holistic advisement package that pays

attention not only to the next step in the student's path through the institution but to the student's

financial situation, career goals, and general life circumstances. Third, collaboration between

departments (and even other institutions such as high schools and four-year colleges and

universities) and the use of advisement technology may ease some of the burdens of the

academic advisor.

Collectively, the research suggests that one size does not fit all—some students may expect

and need a great deal of personal time and attention. Others may simply need accurate

information about courses but may be able to take care of much of the registration process

themselves. Each student's situation is different. Nothing can replace people skill—the ability

to listen and offer non-judgmental guidance and the ability to ask the right questions—but

advisors should maintain contact with multiple departments (financial aid, student support

services, career planning, etc.) in order to help students reach a full understanding of their

educational and career options.

QEP INSTITUTIONAL OUTCOMES AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN WITH TIMELINE

TCL’s QEP Steering Committee in Appendix H was charged with overseeing and ensuring the

smooth and successful production of a draft QEP document for review by (a) an on-site editor,

(b) TCL’s Strategic Leadership Team, (c) an off-site blind reader, and (d) the SACSCOC On-

Site Committee that culminates in the reaffirmation of accreditation for TCL and in significant

advancement for the quality of our programs and operations. More specifically, the QEP

Steering Committee established the following five institutional outcomes:


2. Coordinate course scheduling and sequence offerings to aid student progress through


3. Create and implement a formal retention plan to aid student progression through


4. Establish a college-wide advisement training program to improve and enhance existing

advising processes and procedures that foster student success


Similarly, TCL’s QEP Implementation Team in Appendix L implemented and amends as

necessary all initiatives as outlined in the QEP Implementation Plan. The following 15 pages

outline year by year our institutional outcomes and their associated implementation plan and is

inclusive of the contributions of the QEP Professional Development Workgroup in Appendix M.


28

YEAR ONE

2014—2015

Institutional Outcome Implementation Actions Time Line Person(s) Responsible


1a. Demonstrate to students how to correctly use program evaluations to assist with registration

July 2014 November 2014

May 2015 June 2015

Admissions Manager, All Faculty Advisors

1b. Teach students how to access program evaluations through WebAdvisor by offering an online tutorial and virtual communication (i.e., email, FaceBook, website, YouTube, etc.) before each registration period


May 2015 June 2015

Admissions Manager

2. Coordinate course scheduling and sequence offerings to aid student progress through curriculum to graduation

2a. Identify courses not offered every semester and publish the list via appropriate publications and on the website

February 2015

AS Dean, BUS/IND Dean, HS Dean, Director of PR

2b. Develop a sequenced curriculum profile for each program and update as needed

AOT CET CRJ

April 2015 AOT Program Coordinator, CET Program Coordinator, CRJ Program Coordinator

3. Create and implement a formal retention plan to aid student progression through curriculum to graduation

3a. Analyze existing retention interventions

June 2015 Director of IR, Retention Coordinator

3b. Implement a professional development plan for full-time and adjunct faculty as it relates to improving student success

August 2014 January 2015

Retention Coordinator, QEP Professional Development Workgroup

3c. Implement the Early Alert System college wide using BlackBoard and/or Datatel January 2015—

June 2015

Retention Coordinator, Director of IT, VP of SA, AS Dean, HS Dean, ,


29

2014—2015


BUS/IND Dean

3d. Publish online ADA video tutorials to showcase support services and/or resources

June 2015 Retention Coordinator, Director of PR, Director of Federal Programs & Student Development, PILAU Manager, Campus Counselor, Campus Life Manager, Career & Transfer Services Mgr.

4. Establish a college-wide advisement training program to improve and enhance existing advising processes and procedures to foster student success

4a. Implement effective use of the Student Remarks field (STRK) in Datatel to reflect pertinent student information

July 2014—June 2015

All Datatel Users

4b. Adapt, modify, and implement Fox Valley Technical College’s Academic Advising Training Series Manual to use in professional development Series 100

Advising 101—Introduction

Advising 102—Skills & Technique

Advising 103—Student Development

August 2015

AS Dean, BUS/IND Dean, HS Dean, Retention Coordinator, PILAU Manager, SSS Academic Coordinator, Director of FA, Career & Transfer Services Manager, Campus Counselor, QEP Professional Development Workgroup


5a. Implement new Student Orientation

August 2014 November 2014

April 2015 Admissions Manager

5b. Identify, publish, and update annually a list of support services for special student populations

May 2015 Director of Federal Programs & Student Development, Director of PR


30

2014—2015


including but not limited to

Developmental

Nontraditional

First Generation

Minority

Gender

Socio-Economic

Military

ADA

5c. Develop TCL Admissions to Advisement Roadmaps by program

AOT CET CRJ

April 2015 Admissions Manager, Enrollment Services Manager, BUS/IND Dean, AOT Program Coordinator, CET Program Coordinator, CRJ Program Coordinator

5d. Offer online orientation May 2015—June 2015

Admissions Manager

5e. Develop and implement an annual marketing plan to increase attendance at orientation

June 2015 Director of PR, Admissions Manager


31

YEAR TWO

2015—2016





May 2016 June 2016




May 2016 June 2016

Admissions Manager



February 2016



AA AHS COS

April 2016 AS Dean, HS Dean, COS Program Coordinator







3c. Implement the Early Alert System college wide using BlackBoard and/or Datatel July 2015—

June 2016

Retention Coordinator, Director of IT, VP of SA, AS Dean, HS Dean, BUS/IND Dean


32

2015—2016


3d. Publish online tutoring video tutorials to showcase support services and/or resources





All Datatel Users


Advising 104—Using Internal Resources and Making Referrals

Advising 105—Using Datatel for Advising

Advising 106—Legal and Ethical Issues

August 2016






5b. Identify, publish, and update annually a list of support services for special student populations including but not limited to



33

2015—2016


Developmental

Nontraditional

First Generation

Minority

Gender

Socio-Economic

Military

ADA


AA AHS COS

April 2016 Admissions Manager, Enrollment Services Manager, AS Dean, HS Dean, COS Program Coordinator

5d. Offer online orientation July 2015—June 2016

Admissions Manager




34

YEAR THREE

2016—2017





May 2017 June 2017




May 2017 June 2017

Admissions Manager



February 2017



CPT ECE PARA

April 2017 CPT Program Coordinator ECE Program Coordinator PARA Program Coordinator








June 2017



35

2016—2017


3d. Publish online counseling video tutorials to showcase support services and/or resources





All Datatel Users


Advising 201—Advising Roles and Tasks

Advising 202—Advanced Communication and Relational Skills

Advising 203—Advising Special Populations

August 2017









36

2016—2017


Developmental

Nontraditional

First Generation

Minority

Gender

Socio-Economic

Military

ADA


CPT ECE PARA

April 2017

Admissions Manager, Enrollment Services Manager, CPT Program Coordinator, ECE Program Coordinator, PARA Program Coordinator


Admissions Manager




37

YEAR FOUR

2017—2018





May 2018 June 2018




May 2018 June 2018

Admissions Manager



February 2018



BCT CAD

April 2018 BCT Program Coordinator CAD Program Coordinator








June 2018



38

2017—2018


3d. Publish online career services video tutorials to showcase support services and/or resources





All Datatel Users


Advising 204—Problem Solving and Referral

Advising 205—Alternate Advising Delivery Strategies

Advising 206—Student Advocacy and Advanced Legal and Ethical Issues

August 2018









39

2017—2018


Developmental

Nontraditional

First Generation

Minority

Gender

Socio-Economic

Military

ADA


BCT CAD

April 2018 Admissions Manager, Enrollment Services Manager, AS Dean, BCT Program Coordinator CAD Program Coordinator


Admissions Manager




40

YEAR FIVE

2018—2019





May 2019 June 2019




May 2019 June 2019

Admissions Manager



February 2019



AS EEM

GTEC HVAC

April 2019

AS Dean, BUS/IND Dean, EEM Program Coordinator, HVAC Program Coordinator







3c. Implement the Early Alert System college wide using BlackBoard and/or Datatel


Retention Coordinator, Director of IT, VP of SA, AS Dean, HS Dean,


41

2018—2019


BUS/IND Dean

3d. Publish online campus life video tutorials to showcase support services and/or resources





All Datatel Users






Developmental

Nontraditional

First Generation

Minority

Gender

Socio-Economic

Military

ADA



April 2019 Admissions Manager, Enrollment Services Manager,


42

2018—2019


AS EEM

GTEC HVAC

AS Dean, BUS/IND Dean, EEM Program Coordiantor, HVAC Program Coordinator


Admissions Manager




43

QEP LEADERSHIP TEAM

It is essential that there is a college-wide group responsible for the structure and improvement

of student advisement. With four campuses and online learning, someone must lead the effort

to ensure a consistent and effective implementation plan and corresponding assessment plan.

The QEP Leadership Team, identified in Table 17, is responsible for this collaboration and for

bringing the implementation plan to fruition.

Table 17. TCL’s QEP Leadership Team


Beasley, Sharon Health Science Nursing Instructor

Burgess, Michael New River Campus Campus Administrator

Faubion, Ashley Enrollment Services Admissions Manager

McClellan, Debby Student Records Registrar

Smith, Karen Business Technologies Computer Technology Instructor

A denotes the team’s chair.


44

QEP ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

Since student advisement is the joint responsibility of the divisions of Student Affairs and Academic Affairs, TCL’s Strategic

Leadership Team recommends that the QEP Leadership Team report directly to the QEP Steering Committee. In addition, the QEP

Leadership Team must have a strong relationship with the Vice President of Student Affairs and the Vice President of Academic

Affairs as personnel under both of these divisions will provide some degree of student advisement. The organizational structure of

the QEP Leadership Team is depicted in the figure below.

TCL's Strategic Leadership Team

QEP Steering Committee

QEP Leadership Team

QEP Best Practices and Literature

Review Workgroup

QEP Student Ambassadors Workgroup

QEP Marketing Workgroup

QEP Implementation

Team

QEP Professional Development Workgroup

QEP Assessment Team

QEP Resource Allocation

Workgroup


45

QEP ASSESSMENT PLAN

TCL’s QEP Assessment Team in Appendix N helps articulate the value of assessment, use appropriate methodology, develop a

comprehensive, understandable assessment tool, and clarify how the results can be used toward institutional effectiveness and/or

continuous improvement. The assessment plan for Be Advised! is outlined on the following pages.

YEAR ONE

2014-2015

Institutional Outcome

Baseline Assessment Measure Analysis Person(s)

Responsible Timeline


1a.1. Percentage of students who accessed and used program evaluations to assist them with Fall 2013 or Spring 2014 registration

Quantitative comparison analysis of Spring 2014 and Spring 2015 survey results

To what extent did the percentage of students who reported accessing and using program evaluations to assist them with registration increase from Spring 2014 to Spring 2015?

Director of IR July 2015

1a.2. Percent of new students who had at least one administrative course withdrawal during Fall 2013 and Spring 2014

Quantitative analysis of Fall 2014 and Spring 2015

What was the percent of new students who had at least one administrative course withdrawal during Fall 2014 and Spring 2015?


1b. Percentage of students who accessed and used online tutorials and virtual communication before Fall 2014 and Spring 2015 registration

Quantitative data analysis of Spring 2015 survey results

To what extent did the students access and use online tutorials and virtual communication before Fall 2014 and Spring 2015 registrations?


2. Coordinate course scheduling and

2a. Not applicable Verification of published list of courses not offered every semester

To what extent has the list of courses been published in appropriate publications

Deans, Director of PR

February 2015


46

2014-2015




sequence offerings to aid progression through curriculum to graduation

and on the TCL website?

2b. Not applicable

Verification of availability of sequenced curriculum profiles and updates for AOT, CET, and CRJ programs

To what extent has a sequenced curriculum profile for AOT, CET, and CRJ programs been made available and updated as needed?

AOT Program Coordinator, CET Program Coordinator, CRJ Program Coordinator

April 2015


3a. Quantitative and qualitative analysis of existing retention interventions as of April 2015

A final report discussing the quantitative and qualitative analysis of existing interventions has been completed

To what extent has the analysis been completed and reported by June 2015?

Director of IR, Retention Coordinator

June 2015

3b. Survey results on professional development implementation

Verification that the professional development plan has been implemented by surveying faculty and staff

To what extent has the professional development plan been implemented?


August 2014, January 2015

3c. Early Alert System implemented college wide using BlackBoard and/or Datatel

Verification that the Early Alert System has been implemented college wide

To what extent has the Early Alert System been implemented college wide in January 2015 and June 2015?


January 2015—June 2015

3d. Publication of online ADA video tutorial

Verification that online ADA video tutorial has been published

To what extent has the online ADA video tutorial been published?

Retention Coordinator, Director of PR, Director of Federal Programs &

June 2015


47

2014-2015




Student Development, PILAU Manager, Campus Counselor, Campus Life Manager, Career & Transfer Services Mgr.


4a. Implementation of effective use of the Student Remarks field (STRK) in Datatel to reflect pertinent student information

Using random sampling of student records, research and verify that the STRK field is being used

To what extent has the STRK field been used to reflect pertinent student information?

Director of IR July 2014—June 2015

4b. Adaption, modification, and implementation of the following training modules from Fox Valley Technical College’s Academic Advising Training Series Manual




Verify that




have been adapted, modified, and implemented

To what extent have




been adapted, modified, and implemented?


August 2015


48

2014-2015






5a.1. Percent of new students who participated in the Fall 2013 New Student Orientation

Quantitative comparative analysis of Fall 2013 and Fall 2014 new student orientation participation

What percent of new students participated in new student orientation in Fall 2014 as compared to Fall 2013?

Director of IR, Admissions Manager

September 2014

5a.2. Number of Fall 2013 New Student Orientation participants who took the NSO pre-assessment and increased their NSO post-assessment scores

Quantitative analysis of the pre- and post-assessments from Fall 2014

To what extent did the assessment scores improve?


September 2014

5b. Published and updated list of support services for special student populations

Verify that list has been published and updated to show support services for special student populations

To what extent has the list of support services been published and updated?

Admissions Manager

May 2015

5c. Admissions Advisement Roadmaps have been developed for AOT, CET, and CRJ programs

Verification that the Admissions Advisement Roadmaps have been developed for AOT, CET, and CRJ programs

To what extent have the Admissions Advisement Roadmaps been developed for AOT, CET, and CRJ programs?

Admissions Manager, Enrollment Services Manager, AS Dean, Computer Technology Instructor, HS Academic

April 2015


49

2014-2015




Program Coordinator, CAD Instructor

5d. Number of available online orientations offered

Quantitative analysis of the number of online orientations being offered

How many online orientations were available between July 1, 2014 and June 30, 2015?


July 2015

5e. Number and percent of participants in attendance at the Fall 2013 new student orientation

Quantitative analysis

What percent of participants attended the new student orientation during Fall 2014 new student enrollment?


October 2014

YEAR TWO

2015-2016






Quantitative comparison analysis between baseline and Spring 2016 survey results

To what extent did the percentage of students who reported accessing and using program evaluations to assist them with registration increase from baseline to Spring 2016?



50

2015-2016





Quantitative comparative analysis between baseline and Fall 2015 and Spring 2016 data

What was the percent of new students who had at least one administrative course withdrawal during Fall 2013 and Spring 2014 compared to Fall 2015 and Spring 2016?



Quantitative comparative analysis of Spring 2015 and the Spring 2016 survey results

To what extent did the students access and use online tutorials and virtual communication before Fall 2014 and Spring 2015 registration as compared to Fall 2015 and Spring 2016?


2. Coordinate course scheduling and sequence offerings to aid progression through curriculum to graduation

2a. Not applicable 2a. Verification of published list of courses not offered every semester

To what extent has the list of courses been published in appropriate publications and on the TCL website?

Academic Deans Director of Public Relations

February 2016

2b. Not applicable Verification of availability of sequenced curriculum profiles for the AA, AHS, and COS programs

To what extent has a sequenced curriculum profile for AA, AHS, and COS programs been made available and updated as needed?

AA Program Coordinator, AHS Program Coordinator, COS Program Coordinator

April 2016

3. Create and implement a formal retention plan to aid student


A final report discussing the quantitative and qualitative analysis of existing interventions has been completed



June 2016


51

2015-2016




progression through curriculum to graduation

3b. Survey results on professional development implementation by August 2014 and January 2015

Verification that the professional development plan has been implemented by surveying faculty and staff participation



3b. August 2015, January 2016

3c. Early Alert System has been implemented college wide using BlackBoard and/or Datatel


To what extent has the Early Alert System been implemented college wide in January 2016 and June 2016?


January 2016—June 2016

3d. Publication of online tutoring video tutorial

Verification that online tutoring video tutorial has been published

To what extent has the online tutoring video tutorial been published?

Retention Coordinator, Director of PR, Director of Federal Programs & Student Development, PILAU Manager, Campus Counselor, Campus Life Manager, Career & Transfer Services Mgr.

June 2016

4. Establish a college-wide

4a. Implementation of effective use of the

Using random sampling of student records, research

To what extent has the STRK field been used to

Director of IR July 2015-


52

2015-2016




advisement training program to improve and enhance existing advising processes and procedures to foster student success

Student Remarks field (STRK) in Datatel to reflect pertinent student information

and verify that the STRK field is being used

reflect pertinent student information?

June 2016

4b. Adaption, modification, and implementation of the following modules from Fox Valley Technical College’s Academic Advising Training Series Manual



Advising 106—Legal and Ethical Issues have been adapted, modified, and implemented

Verify that



Advising 106—Legal and Ethical Issues have been adapted, modified, and implemented

To what extent have



Advising 106—Legal and Ethical Issues



August 2016



Quantitative comparative analysis of Fall 2013 to Fall 2015

Quantitative analysis of Fall 2014, Spring 2015, and Summer 2015 new student orientations

To what extent did participation increase from Fall 2013 to Fall 2015?


September 2015, February 2016, May 2016


53

2015-2016




participation


Quantitative analysis of the pre- and post-assessments from Fall Fall 2015

To what extent did the assessments scores improve?

Director of Institutional Research, Admissions Manager

September 2015




Admissions Manager

May 2016

5c. Admissions Advisement Roadmaps have been developed for AA, AHS, and COS programs

Verification that the Admissions Advisement Roadmaps have been developed for AA, AHS, and COS programs

To what extent have the Admissions Advisement Roadmaps been developed for AA, AHS, and COS programs?

Admissions Manager, Enrollment Services Manager, AA Dean, HS Academic Program Coordinator, COS Instructor

April 2016


54

2015-2016








July 2016


Quantitative analysis What percent of participants attended the new student orientation during Fall 2015 new student enrollment?


October 2015

YEAR THREE

2016-2017





1a.1. Percentage of students who accessed and used program evaluations to assist with Fall 2013 or Spring 2014 registration





Quantitative comparative analysis between the baseline and Fall 2016 and Spring 2017 data

What was the percent of new students who had at least one administrative course withdrawal during Fall 2013 and Spring 2014 compared to Fall 2016 and



55

2016-2017




Spring 2017?



To what extent did the students access and use online tutorials and virtual communication before Fall 2015 and Spring 2016 registrations as compared to Fall 2016 and Spring 2017?






February 2017

2b. Not applicable Verification of availability of sequenced curriculum profiles and updates for the CPT, ECE, and PARA programs

To what extent has sequenced curriculum profiles for CPT, ECE, and PARA programs been made available and updated as needed?

CPT Program Coordinator, ECE Program Coordinator, PARA Program Coordinator

April 2017



A final report discussing the quantitative and qualitative analysis of existing interventions



June 2017

3b. Survey results on professional development implementation by August

Verification that the professional development plan has been implemented by

To what extent has the professional development plan been implemented

Retention Coordinator, QEP Professional



56

2016-2017




2014 and January 2015 surveying faculty and staff participation

Development Workgroup



To what extent has the Early Alert System been implemented college wide?


January,, 2017 and June 2017

3d. Publication of online counseling video tutorial

Verification that online counseling video tutorial has been published

To what extent has the online counseling video tutorial been?


June 2017

4. Establish a college-wide advisement training program to

4a. Implementation of effective use of the Student Remarks field (STRK) in Datatel to reflect pertinent student


To what extent has the STRK field been used?



57

2016-2017




improve and enhance existing advising processes and procedures to foster student success

information

4b. Adaption, modification, and implementation of the following modules from Fox Valley Technical College’s Academic Advising Training Series Manual




Verify that




To what extent have






August 2017




Quantitative analysis of Fall 2016, Spring 2017, and Summer 2017 new student orientations participation

To what extent did participation increase from the previous to the current?




58

2016-2017





Quantitative analysis of the pre- and post-assessments from Fall 2016?



September 2016




Admissions Manager

May 2017

5c. Admissions Advisement Roadmaps have been developed for CPT, ECE, and PARA programs

Verification that the Admissions Advisement Roadmaps have been CPT, ECE, and PARA programs

To what extent have the Admissions Advisement Roadmaps been developed for CPT, ECE, and PARA programs?

Admissions Manager, Enrollment Services Manager, CPT Program Coordinator, ECE Program Coordinator, PARA Program Coordinator

April 2017





July 2017

5e. Number and percent of participants in attendance at the Fall 2013 new student

5e. Quantitative analysis What percent of participants attended the new student orientation during Fall 2016 new


October 2016


59

2016-2017




orientation student enrollment?

YEAR FOUR

2017-2018









1a.2. Number of new students who had at least one administrative course withdrawal during Fall 2013 and Spring 2014

Quantitative comparative analysis between the baseline and Fall 2017 and Spring 2018 data



1b. Percentage of students who accessed and used online tutorials and virtual communication before Fall 2014 and Spring


To what extent did the students access and use online tutorials and virtual communication before Fall 2016 and Spring 2017 registration as compared to



60

2017-2018




2015 registration Fall 2017 and Spring 2018?





February 2018

2b. Not applicable Verification of availability of sequenced curriculum profiles and updates for BCT and CAD programs?

To what extent has sequenced curriculum profiles for BCT and CAD been made available and updated as needed?

BCT Program Coordinator, CAD Program Coordinator

April 2018



final report discussing the quantitative and qualitative analysis of existing interventions

To what extent has the analysis been completed and reported?


June 2018


Verification that the professional development plan has been implemented by surveying faculty and staff participation


3b. Retention Coordinator, QEP Professional Development Workgroup


3c. Early Alert System has been implemented college wide using



Retention Coordinator, Director of IT,

January,, 2018—June 2018


61

2017-2018




BlackBoard and/or Datatel

VP of SA, AS Dean, HS Dean, BUS/IND Dean

3d. Publication of online career services video tutorial

Verification that online career services video tutorial have been published

To what extent has the online career services video tutorial been published?


June 2018

4. Establish a college-wide advisement training program to improve and enhance existing advising processes and procedures to





4b. Adaptation, modification, and implementation of the following modules of Fox Valley Technical

Verify that


To what extent have


Advising 205—Alternate


August 2018


62

2017-2018




foster student success

College’s Academic Advising Training Series Manual







Advising Delivery Strategies


have been adapted, modified, and implemented?



5a.1. Quantitative comparative analysis of Fall 2013 to Fall 2017


To what extent did participation increase from the previous to the current?




Quantitative analysis of the pre- and post-assessments from Fall 2017?



September 2017

5b. Published and updated list of support

Verify that list has been published and updated to

To what extent has the list of support services been

Admissions Manager

May 2018


63

2017-2018




services for special student populations

show support services for special student populations

published and updated?

5c. Admissions Advisement Roadmaps have been developed for BCT and CAD programs

Verification that the Admissions Advisement Roadmaps have been BCT and CAD programs

To what extent have the Admissions Advisement Roadmaps been developed BCT and CAD programs?

Admissions Manager, Enrollment Services Manager, BCT Program Coordinator, CAD Program Coordinator

April, 2018





July 2018


Quantitative analysis What percent participants attended the new student orientation during Fall 2017 new student enrollment?


October 2017

YEAR FIVE

2018-2019




1. Revise the intake advisory process to enhance

1a.1. Percentage of students who accessed and used program evaluations to assist them

Quantitative comparison analysis between baseline Spring 2014 and Spring 2019 survey

To what extent did the percentage of students who reported accessing and using program evaluations



64

2018-2019




student academic planning skills

with Fall 2013 or Spring 2014 registration

results to assist them with registration increase from baseline Spring 2014 to Spring 2019?


Quantitative comparative analysis between baseline Fall 2013 and Spring 2014 and Fall 2018 and Spring 2019 data




Quantitative comparative analysis of baseline Spring 2014 and the Spring 2019 survey results

To what extent did the students access and use online tutorials and virtual communication before Fall 2014 and Spring 2015 registrations as compared to Fall 2018 and Spring 2019?






February 2019

2b. Not applicable Verification of availability of sequenced curriculum profiles and updates for AS, EEM, GTEC, and HVAC programs

To what extent has sequenced curriculum profiles for AS, EEM, GTEC, and HVAC programs been made available and updated as needed?

AS Dean, BUS/IND Dean, EEM Program Coordinator, HVAC Program Coordinator,

April 2019


65

2018-2019






A final report discussing the quantitative and qualitative analysis of existing interventions



June 2019


Verification that the professional development plan has been implemented by surveying faculty and staff participation by August 2018 and January 2019








January 2019,

June 2019

3d. Publication of online campus life video tutorial

Verification that online campus life video tutorial

To what extent has the online campus life video tutorial been published?

Retention Coordinator, Director of PR Director of Federal Programs & Student Development, PILAU Manager, Campus Counselor,

June 2019


66

2018-2019




Campus Life Manager, Career & Transfer Services Mgr.







5a1. Percent of new students who participated in the Fall 2013 New Student Orientation



To what extent did participation increase from the Fall 2013 to current?




67

2018-2019




5a2. Number of Fall 2013 New Student Orientation participants who took the NSO pre-assessment and increased their NSO post-assessment scores




September 2018




Admissions Manager

May 2019

5c. Admissions Advisement Roadmaps have been developed for AS, EEM, GTEC, and HVAC programs

Verification that the Admissions Advisement Roadmaps have been AS, EEM, GTEC, and HVAC programs

To what extent have the Admissions Advisement Roadmaps been developed AS, EEM, GTEC, and HVAC programs?

Admissions Manager, Enrollment Services Manager, AS Dean, EEM Program Coordinator, GTEC Program Coordinator, HVAC Program Coordinator

April 2019





July 2019

5e. Number and percent of participants in attendance at the Fall

Quantitative comparative analysis of the Fall 2013 to the Fall 2018 new

To what extent did the percentage of new student participation increase from


October 2018


68

2018-2019




2013 new student orientation

student orientation participation

Fall 2013 to Fall 2018?


69

QEP RESOURCE ALLOCATION

Budget Narrative

TCL’s QEP Resource Allocation Workgroup in Appendix O provides a fiscal pathway for the

QEP Implementation Plan and the QEP Resource Allocation Plan.

TCL has identified $5,000 from the operating budget that will be used to directly support the

QEP in our Year One. We anticipate this level of funding being available in each of the

following four years culminating in a five-year funding allocation of $25,000. Additional funds

from a grant will also be available to support QEP; they are shown as indirect funds in the

budget table.

In our allocation of resources, we will handle personnel time in two ways. First, for many of the

Implementation Actions, the time required is a refocus of the job duties of existing positions to

support the QEP. As a result, the salaries and fringe benefits of these positions do not appear

in the budget summary. In theory, we are already incurring the cost of the positions and the

duties of the positions simply take a somewhat new direction. Secondly, when staff are asked

to perform duties that directly support the QEP which are not a normal part of the staff’s typical

responsibilities—these costs are an in-kind contribution towards implementation of the QEP. In

addition, these staff members are not under the direct supervision of the QEP Leadership

Team. As a result of this indirect cost, we identify those funds in the indirect subcategory.

The remainder of this narrative is specific to each of the Institutional Outcomes and

Implementation Actions.

Institutional Objective 1 Implementation Action 1a and 1b

No funds from the operating budget will be allocated toward these implementation actions

although there is some indirect support from staff. One thousand dollars is included in Year

One to develop the necessary materials to help students understand these implementation

actions, with $2,600 in personnel time allotted to deliver these services to students in each of

the five years. An additional $500 is provided in the category of Other Direct Costs for

additional questions on our CCSSE survey that will be used to gauge progress in our

assessment plan each year.


No direct or indirect funding is allocated to these implementation actions.

Institutional Objective 3 Implementation Action 3a


Institutional Objective 3 Implementation Action 3b

This implementation action focuses on faculty development. We anticipate we will complete at

least part of this implementation action by continuing to register and support attendance to the

National Academic Advising Association (NACADA) Region 3 Conference. We anticipate being

able to support the attendance of up to five faculty members using the $3,000 allocated in the

Travel category each year. In addition, we will contract with advising subject matter experts (in

an amount not to exceed $700 per year as identified in the Contractual Direct category) to


70

present at our Fall 2014 and Fall 2016 Convocation. For resource allocation purposes only, this

expense is identified each year although we anticipate it occurring in the aforementioned years.

Institutional Objective 3 Implementation Action 3c

TCL has current licensing for the Early Alert System; however, there is an annual cost for

upgrading and maintenance. Funds to do the necessary maintenance are available from a

source other than the college’s operating budget and will be paid from our existing “Pilau” grant.

The associated costs of $3,800 are identified as Contractual Indirect.

Institutional Objective 3 Implementation Action 3d

Two hundred dollars per year is allocated for Supplies to assist with the development of the

video tutorials.


No direct or indirect costs are associated with this implementation action.


Four hundred dollars is allocated in the Personnel Indirect category each except Year Five.

Institutional Objective 5 Implementation Action 5a, 5b, 5c, and 5d

No direct or indirect costs are associated with these implementation actions.

Institutional Objective 5 Implementation Action 5e

Operating budget funds in the amount $800 per year is allocated in Supplies to support items

such as promotional material for student orientation as well as media buys. In addition, one

thousand dollars is allocated in the Personnel Indirect category each year to recognize the in-

kind contribution of the college’s Public Relations Department in creating and implementing the

QEP marketing plan.


71

Budget Summary and Timeline

Year One 2014—2015

Expenses Time Line

Personnel Indirect

Travel Direct

Supplies Direct

Contract Direct

Contract Indirect

Other Direct

Indirect Line $ Total

Direct Line $ Total

$1,650 $1,650 July 2014

$400 $700 $400 $700 August 2014

$650 $650 November 2014

$3,800 $3,800 January-June 2015

$3,000 $500 $3,500 February 2015

$650 $650 May 2015

$1,650 $800 $1,650 $800 June 2015

Semi-TOTAL $8,800 $5,000

Year Two 2015—2016

Expenses Timeline

Personnel Indirect

Travel Direct

Supplies Direct

Contract Direct

Contract Indirect

Other Direct


Direct Line $ Total

$1,650 $1,650 July 2015

$400 $700 $400 $700 August 2015

$650 $650 November 2015

$3,800 $3,800 January-June 2016

$3,000 $500 $3,500 February 2016

$650 $650 May 2016

$1,650 $800 $1,650 $800 June 2016

Semi-TOTAL $8,800 $5,000


72

Year Three 2016—2017

Expenses Timeline

Personnel Indirect

Travel Direct

Supplies Direct

Contract Direct

Contract Indirect

Other Direct


Direct Line $ Total

$1,650 $1,650 July 2016

$400 $700 $400 $700 August 2016

$650 $650 November 2016

$3,800 $3,800 January-June 2017

$3,000 $500 $3,500 February 2017

$650 $650 May 2017

$1,650 $800 $1,650 $800 June 2017

Semi-TOTAL $8,800 $5,000

Year Four 2017—2018

Expenses Timeline

Personnel Indirect

Travel Direct

Supplies Direct

Contract Direct

Contract Indirect

Other Direct


Direct Line $ Total

$1,650 $1,650 July 2016

$400 $700 $400 $700 August 2016

$650 $650 November 2016

$3,800 $3,800 January-June 2017

$3,000 $500 $3,500 February 2017

$650 $650 May 2017

$1,650 $800 $1,650 $800 June 2017

Semi-TOTAL $8,800 $5,000


73

Year Five 2018—2019

Expenses Timeline

Personnel Indirect

Travel Direct

Supplies Direct

Contract Direct

Contract Indirect

Other Direct


Direct Line $ Total

$1,650 $1,650 July 2017

$700 $700 August 2017

$650 $650 November 2017

$3,800 $3,800 January-June 2018

$3,000 $500 $3,500 February 2018

$650 $650 May 2018

$1,650 $800 $1,650 $800 June 2018

Semi-TOTAL $8,400 $5,000


74

REFERENCES

Applegate, J. L. (2012). Graduating the 21st century student: Advising as if their lives (and our

future) depended on it. NACADA Journal, 32(1), 5-11. Retrieved from

http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Journal.aspx

Bitz, K. (2010). Measuring advisor relationship perceptions among first-year students at a small

Midwestern university. NACADA Journal, 30(2), 53-64. Retrieved from


Bloom, A. J., Tripp, P. R., & Shaffer, L. S. (2011). Academic and career advising of scanners.

NACADA Journal, 31(2), 55-61. Retrieved from


Gard, D. R., Paton, V., & Gosselin, K. (2012). Student perceptions of factors contributing to

community-college-to-university transfer success. Community College Journal of Research and

Practice, 36(11), 833-848. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10668920903182666

Hanover Research. (2013). Academic advising for adult students. Retrieved from

www.hanoverresearch.com/

Herndon, M. C. (2011). Leveraging web technologies in student support self-services. New

Directions for Community Colleges, (154), 17-29. doi: 10.1002/cc.443

Hughey, J. (2011). Strategies to enhance interpersonal relations in academic advising.

NACADA Journal, 31(2), 22-32. Retrieved from


Latino, J. A., & Unite, C. M. (2012). Providing academic support through peer education. New

Directions For Higher Education, (157), 31-43. doi:10.1002/he.20004

Montag, T., Campo, J., Weissman, J., Walmsley, A., & Snell, A. (2012). In their own words:

Best practices for advising millennial students about majors. NACADA Journal, 32(2), 26-35.

Retrieved from http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Journal.aspx

Noel-Levitz. (2010). National student satisfaction and priorities report: Executive summary.

Retrieved from https://www.noellevitz.com/papers-research-higher-education/research-reports

Noel-Levitz & CAEL. (2011). 2011 national adult learners satisfaction-priorities report.

Retrieved from https://www.noellevitz.com/papers-research-higher-education/2012/2012-adult-

and-online-learner-satisfaction-priorities-reports

O’Banion, T. (2013). Academic advising: The key to student success. Washington, DC:

Community College Press.

Ryan, S. W., Carlstrom, A. H., Hughey, K. F., & Harris, B. S. (2011). From boots to books:

Applying Schlossberg’s model to transitioning American veterans. NACADA Journal, 31(1), 55-

63. Retrieved from http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Journal.aspx




http://www.hanoverresearch.com/



https://www.noellevitz.com/papers-research-higher-education/research-reports

https://www.noellevitz.com/papers-research-higher-education/2012/2012-adult-and-online-learner-satisfaction-priorities-reports

https://www.noellevitz.com/papers-research-higher-education/2012/2012-adult-and-online-learner-satisfaction-priorities-reports



75

Shaffer, L. S., & Zalewski, J. M. (2011). “It’s what I have always wanted to do.”: Advising the

foreclosure student. NACADA Journal, 31(2), 62-77. Retrieved from


Shockley-Zalabak, P. (2012). Advisors as interaction designers. NACADA Journal, 32(1), 12-

17. Retrieved from http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Journal.aspx

Soria, K. M., & Mumpower, L. (2012). Critical building blocks: Mandatory prerequisite

registration systems and student success. NACADA Journal, 32(1), 30-42. Retrieved from


Starling, P. V., & Miller, G. (2011). Negative thought patterns of undecided community college

students: Implications for counselors and advisors. Community College Journal of Research

and Practice, 35(10), 756–772. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10668920903381839

Wheland, E. R., Butler, K. A., Qammar, H., Bobkoff Katz, K., & Harris, R. (2012). What are they

thinking? Students’ affective reasoning and attitudes about course withdrawal. NACADA

Journal, 32(2), 17-25. Retrieved from http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Journal.aspx






76

APPENDIX A: PILOT YEAR

QEP PILOT YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

TCL is planning several pilot year activities listed in the following table mainly to gather baseline material and to set the framework for

the QEP activities going forward in the implementation years of 2014 through 2019.

PILOT YEAR

2013—2014



1a. Develop guides to use to demonstrate to students how to use program evaluations to assist with registration

February 2014


1b. Evaluate current online tutorials used to teach students how to access program evaluations through WebAdvisor

May 2014 Admissions Manager QEP Leadership Team



October 2013


2b. Develop ability to diagram critical path through certificate, diploma, or degree

February 2014

AS Dean, BUS/IND Dean, HS Dean

2c. Identify possible courses to pair to reduce scheduling conflicts for students

October 2013 AS Dean, BUS/IND Dean, HS Dean,


3a. Identify existing retention interventions

January 2014 Director of IR, Retention Coordinator

3b. Define the framework of a professional development plan for full-time and adjunct faculty related to improving student success

February2014 Retention Coordinator, QEP Professional Development Workgroup


77

2013—2014


3c. Determine the platform for Early Alert System college wide using BlackBoard and/or Datatel

October 2013 Retention Coordinator, Director of IT, VP of SA,


No pilot activities


5a. Pilot new Student Orientation August 2013 November

2013 April 2014

Admissions Manager

5b. Identify and publish initial list of support services for special student populations including but not limited to

Developmental

Nontraditional

First Generation

Minority

Gender

Socio-Economic

Military

ADA


5c. Develop TCL Admissions to Advisement Roadmap Template

April 2014 Admissions Manager, Enrollment Services Manager, BUS/IND Dean, HS Dean AS Dean

5d. No pilot activities

5e. Develop and implement a marketing plan to increase attendance at orientation and promote awareness of the QEP

July 2013-June 2014

Director of PR, Admissions Manager


78

PILOT YEAR ASSESSMENTS

2014-2015 Institutional Outcome

Baseline Assessment Measure Analysis Person(s) Responsible

Timeline


1a.1. Percentage of students who accessed program evaluations to assist them with Fall 2013 or Spring 2014 registration

Quantitative analysis of survey results

To what extent did the students access and use program evaluations to assist them with registration for Fall 2013 or Spring 2014?

Director of IR June 2014

1b. Percentage of students who accessed and used online tutorials and virtual communication before Spring 2014 registration

Quantitative data analysis of Spring 2014 survey results

To what extent did the students access and use online tutorials and virtual communication before Spring 2014 registrations?

Director of IR March 2014





February 2014

2b. Not applicable Verification of training for critical path development

To what extent has critical path training been disseminated to program coordinators?

Deans February 2014

2c. Not applicable Verification of course pairing list

To what extent has course pairing list been used to develop class schedules for Fall 2014?


February 2014

3. Create and implement a formal retention plan to aid student

3a. Not applicable A final report describing the existing interventions has been completed

To what extent has the report been completed by January 2014?


February 2014


79



Timeline

progression through curriculum to graduation 3b. Not applicable

Verification that the framework of a professional development plan for full-time and adjunct faculty related to improving student success has been defined

To what extent has the professional development plan been defined?


February 2014

3c. Early Alert System platform selected and implementation plan developed

Verification that the Early Alert System initiated

To what extent has the Early Alert System implementation plan been developed?

Retention Coordinator, Director of IT, VP of SA

March 2014


No pilot activities


5a.1. Percent of new students who participated in the Fall 2013, Spring 2014 New Student Orientation

Quantitative comparative analysis of Fall 2013 and Spring 2014 new student orientation participation

What percent of new students participated in new student orientation in Spring 2014 as compared to Fall 2013?


February 2014


80



Timeline



To what extent did the assessment scores improve?


September 2013

5b. Published list of support services for special student populations

Verification that a list has been published that shows the support services for special student populations


Admissions Manager

May 2014

5c. Admissions Advisement Roadmap template has been developed

Verification that the Admissions Advisement Roadmap template has been developed

To what extent have the Admissions Advisement Roadmap template been disseminated to program coordinators?

Admissions Manager, Enrollment Services Manager, Deans

April 2014

5d. No pilot year activities

5e. Not applicable

Verification that a marketing plan has been developed and implemented

To what extent has a plan be developed and implemented?

Director of PR, Admissions Manager

June 2014


81

Budget Narrative

TCL has identified $5,000 from the operating budget that will be used to directly support the

QEP in our Pilot Year. Additional funds from a grant will also be available to support QEP; they

are shown as indirect funds in the budget table.

The remainder of this narrative is specific to each of the Institutional Outcomes and

Implementation Actions.


No funds from the operating budget will be allocated toward these implementation actions

although there is some indirect support from staff. One thousand dollars is included in the Pilot

Year to develop the necessary materials to help students understand these implementation

actions, with $2,600 in personnel time allotted to deliver these services to students in the pilot

year. An additional $500 is provided in the category of Other Direct Costs for additional

questions on our CCSSE survey that will be used to gauge progress in our assessment plan in

this year.

Institutional Objective 2 Implementation Action 2a, 2b, and 2c





This implementation action focuses on faculty development. We anticipate we will complete at

least part of this implementation action by continuing to register and support attendance to the

National Academic Advising Association (NACADA) Region 3 Conference. $3,300 is allocated

in the Travel category.

Institutional Objective 3 Implementation Action 3c

TCL has current licensing for the Early Alert System; however, there is an annual cost for

upgrading and maintenance. Funds to do the necessary maintenance are available from a

source other than the college’s operating budget and will be paid from our existing “Pilau” grant.

The associated costs of $3,800 are identified as Contractual Indirect.

Institutional Objective 5 Implementation Action 5a, 5b, and 5c

No direct or indirect costs are associated with these implementation actions.

Institutional Objective 5 Implementation Action 5e

Operating budget funds in the amount $1200 is allocated in Supplies to support items such as

promotional material for student orientation as well as media buys. In addition, one thousand

dollars is allocated in the Personnel Indirect category to recognize the in-kind contribution of the

college’s Public Relations Department in creating and implementing the QEP marketing plan.


82

BUDGET

Pilot Year 2013—2014

Expenses Timeline

Personnel Indirect

Travel Direct

Supplies Direct

Contract Direct

Contract Indirect

Other Direct


Direct Line $ Total

$1,650 $400 $1,650 $400 July 2013

$650 $650 November 2013

$3,800 $3,800 January-June 2014

$3,300 $500 $3,800 February 2014

$650 $650 May 2014

$1,650 $800 $1,650 $800 June 2014

Semi-TOTAL $8,400 $5,000


83

APPENDIX B: ADMISSIONS CHECKLIST

Apply

Complete application on-line at: www.tcl.edu/apply Proof of U.S. Citizenship (please submit one of the following to be copied) *please provide any legal documents (e.g., marriage certificate) if there is a change from your birth name.

Military Active Duty: Military ID, US Passport (unexpired), Birth Certificate, or DOD ID

Retired Military: Military ID Card, Birth Certificate, US Passport (unexpired), DD-214, or DOD ID Card

Spouses*/Dependents: Birth Certificate, US Passport (unexpired) or Certificate of US Citizenship or Permanent Resident Card

Non-Military: Birth Certificate, US Passport (unexpired), or SC Driver’s License only if you were born on or after January 1, 1986 (certain states are not accepted – please check with Enrollment Services if you do not have a SC Driver’s License or State Identification card)

Proof of SC Residency (please submit two or more of the following to be copied) * In order to receive the in-state tuition rate, all supporting and necessary documentation must be

submitted prior to the first day of class for the term for which you are seeking in-state status.

Original Military Orders/Web Orders are acceptable as well

SC Driver’s License

SC Vehicle Registration (must be issued at least 12 months ago or more)

SC Voter’s Registration

High School or College Transcript (for the past 12 months) Request Official Transcripts* * Depends on academic program, check with an Enrollment Services Representative first Mail to: Enrollment Services ● PO Box 1288 ● Beaufort, SC 29901

High School or GED Transcript

College(s)

Take Placement Test

COMPASS Testing - Beaufort Campus, Bldg. 1, Testing Center/843.525.8344; Hampton Campus – Front Office, or call 803.943.4262; New River Campus – Schedule an appointment by calling 843.470.6002. Allow yourself at least 2 hours to take all 3 parts of the COMPASS test; see back of this sheet.

Schedule an appointment with your Academic Advisor:

* Advisor’s Name & Phone number: __________________________________________________

REGISTER FOR YOUR CLASSES WITH YOUR ACADEMIC ADVISOR

http://www.tcl.edu/apply


84

APPENDIX C: THE COMPASS

What is the COMPASS? The COMPASS is a computer-adaptive placement test measuring skills in reading, English and mathematics. This test is not timed. The computer selects questions for you on the basis of your answers to previous questions. COMPASS is “user friendly,” requiring no experience with computers.

1. Testing of all 3 parts of the test usually takes approximately 2 to 2 ½ hours. On the day of your assessment, you should plan to arrive at least 15 minutes before the testing hour.

2. Bring some form of picture identification (a driver’s license, a state ID card, a work ID card, or a passport) with you. Also, you should know your social security number.

Helpful Testing Tips:

Have a positive attitude!

You will be able to concentrate better on the test if you get plenty of rest and eat properly before the test.

You should arrive about 15 minutes early so you can find the testing area, bathrooms, etc., and have time to gather your thoughts before the test begins.

Relax! The COMPASS is designed to help you succeed in school. Your scores help you and your academic advisor determine which courses are most appropriate for your current level of knowledge and skills. Once you identify your academic strengths and weaknesses, you can get the help you need to improve underdeveloped skills before they interfere with your learning.

Be sure you understand the directions for each test before that test session begins. Ask questions if you need to.

Read each question carefully until you understand what the question is asking. If answering an item requires several steps, be sure you consider them all.

How Are COMPASS Scores Used? COMPASS is not used like a traditional test. There is generally no "passing score." Rather, COMPASS scores indicate areas in which you are strong and areas in which you may need help. Thus, COMPASS can identify problems in major subject areas before they disrupt your educational progress, giving you the opportunity to prepare more effectively for needed courses. You and your institution can use scores from COMPASS tests to prepare a course of study that will be appropriate, relevant, and meaningful for you. Are calculators permitted? You may use a calculator on all of the COMPASS mathematics tests. Calculator use is not required; all problems on the upper-level math tests can be solved without using a calculator. Calculators are not provided; you must bring your own and may not share. Can you study for the test? You should not try to learn new skills before taking the test, but if you have been out of school for a year or more, a review of the subjects may prove to be helpful.

The writing portion consists of choosing whether a passage is written correctly or should be rewritten according to an alternative paragraph or sentence. The reading portion consists of passages to read and questions to answer about the content. The math portion includes addition, subtraction, division, multiplication of fractions, decimals, whole numbers and integers, word problems and basic algebra.

You may choose to review on your own by working the sample exercises at the link below: http://www.tcl.edu/admissions/placement-testing

When do you receive the results? After taking COMPASS, your results can be discussed with an Admissions representative immediately. You also will receive an advising report that summarizes the information of the test and recommends courses for you.

http://www.tcl.edu/admissions/placement-testing


85

APPENDIX D: ADMISSIONS/ENROLLMENT SERVICES NEW/READMIT APPLICATION PROCESS

Pull Down/Receive application from

CollegeNet/Walk-in

File application alphabetically by

term.

Input into SHAP, end the 'HS' restriction in PERC, &

provide your initials, or click the time & date

Input Manual information

into Datatel.

Make copies of resicency documents to attach to admissions application &

update Status to In-State.

AreResidency &

Citizenship documents

Are transcripts

included?

Yes

No

No

Scan alltranscripts into

ScanDocs.

Forward Copies of College Transcripts to

Registrar for transfer of credit (TOC)

Original transcripts remain with Enrollment Services and are

attached to the student's application to be included with new

file once created. If applicant does not enroll within 1 year, the

application & transcripts will be destroyed.

If no high school transcript, place 'HS' block in PERC dated for the day before the registration date of the upcoming

Admissions/Enrollment Services

New/Readmit Application Process

(Updated as of 10-24-12)

Yes

ResidencyRemain coded as

Out-of-State.

CitizenshipDo not enter 'CIT'

into PERC.

No

Proof of Citizenship doucment is received,

make a copy to attach to application, enter 'CIT' into

PERC along with required coding, & enter your

Yes


86

APPENDIX E: ARTS & SCIENCES DIVISION ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Arts & Sciences Advisory Committee

Name Affiliation County Alumni

Richardson, Kelly Battery Creek High School Beaufort

Burns, Edmund Battery Creek High School Beaufort

Smith, Kathy Hilton Head High School Beaufort

Footman, Kimberly Thunderbolt Career & Technology Center Colleton

Holmes, Aswan Beaufort High School Beaufort

Joyner, Quinnesian K. Bluffton High School Beaufort

Thompson, Christy Jasper County School District Jasper


87

APPENDIX F: BUSINESS TECHNOLOGIES DIVISION ADVISORY COMMITTEES

Administrative Office Technology Advisory Committee


Brown, Almetia Beaufort High School Beaufort

McKeown, Denise Beaufort County School District Beaufort

Mintner, Georgeanne Wade Hampton High School Hampton

Reeves, Kristy Human Resources Beaufort

Harley, Lynette SC Works Hampton

McKerley, Katherine SC Dept. of Employment & Workforce Beaufort

Tuten, Teresa Tower Services, Inc. Hampton

McMahon, Jamie Beaufort Memorial Hospital Beaufort

Criminal Justice Technology Advisory Committee


Tanner, P.J. (Sheriff) Beaufort County Sheriff’s Office Beaufort

Baxley, Neil (Lieutenant) Beaufort County Sheriff’s Department Beaufort

Carson, Rob (Lieutenant) Beaufort Police Department Beaufort

Beach, Alan (Chief) Port Royal Police Department Beaufort

McCall-Tanner, Angela Bluffton Police Department Beaufort

Russell, Anthony (Captain) Hampton County Sheriff’s Department Hampton

Barrow, Christopher Beaufort County School District Beaufort

Cohen, LeVorn (Warden) Ridgeland Correctional Institute Jasper

Beach, Allen (Chief) Port Royal Police Departments Beaufort

Smalls, T. C. (Sheriff) Hampton County Sheriff’s Department Hampton

Massey, A. J. (Sergeant) Port Royal Police Department Beaufort

Clancy, Matt (Chief) Beaufort Police Department Beaufort

Johnson, Richard SLED Orangeburg

Stanfield, Ted Colleton County Sheriff’s Department Colleton

Gooding-Newton, Samantha Jasper County Detention Center Jasper

Cohen, LeVern (Warden) Ridgeland Correctional Institute Jasper


88

APPENDIX F (CONTINUED): BUSINESS TECHNOLOGIES DIVISION ADVISORY COMMITTEES

Computer Technology Advisory Committee


Morgan, Daniel Multi-Government Center Beaufort

Phillips, Dorian Beaufort Memorial Hospital Beaufort

Anselmi, Alex Wentworth Property Management Beaufort

Anderson, Ted Beaufort

Ricks, Edward Beaufort Memorial Hospital Beaufort

Chinn, Daniel Internet Services of the Lowcountry Beaufort

Richards, Charlene Computer Outlet Beaufort

General Business Advisory Committee


Kilpatrick, Carl SCB&T Beaufort

Lovell, Jay First Citizens Bank Beaufort

Petrucci, Joan Strecansky & Co. Inc. Beaufort

Paralegal Advisory Committee


Frischen, Jennifer Griffith, Sadler, & Sharp, PA Beaufort


89

APPENDIX G: INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES DIVISION ADVISORY COMMITTEES

Computer Aided Design Advisory Committee


Smith, Catherine (Dr.) Bluffton High School Beaufort

Adams, David NetOpsis, Inc. Beaufort

Diggins, Donovan TCL Adjunct Beaufort

Plank, Dough Beaufort High School Beaufort

Leroy, Philip Geo-Structural Engineering, LLC. Beaufort

Lataille, Ralph Beaufort County School District Beaufort

Winslow, Richard Specialty Building Component Beaufort

Carlin, Robert Whale Branch Early College High School Beaufort

Tedford, Robert S. American Institute of Architect Hilton Head

Smith, Senfronia Battery Creek High School Beaufort

Brunecz, Stephen Cambridge Beaufort

Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning Advisory Committee


Easson, Don Coastal GeoExchange Beaufort

Foster, Dick Zone First Beaufort

Boyle, Richard RSB Cooling/Heating Jasper

Check, Frank KFI Mechanical Beaufort

Bootle, Bill Bootle Air Systems Beaufort

Tuckwiller, John Carolina Air Beaufort

Drummond, Doug East Coast Metals Beaufort

Compton, Joe Palmer-Dickerson Beaufort

Cosmetology Advisory Committee


Ballington, Brad Bliss Salon Beaufort

Calhoun, Angie Community Member Beaufort

Cook, Diane Hair Designers at Wexford Beaufort

Goodman, Mark Hair Designers at Wexford Beaufort

Watson, Kathy Veranda Beach Salon Beaufort

Mervin, Mia Licensed Cosmetologist Jasper

Henderson, Michelle JCPenney Beaufort

Smith, Christine Licensed Cosmetologist Beaufort

Colella, Michelle Licensed Cosmetologist Beaufort


90

APPENDIX G (CONTINUED): INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES DIVISION ADVISORY COMMITTEES

Civil Engineering Technology Advisory Committee


Andrews, Steve Andrews & Burgess, Inc. Beaufort

Burgess, Gary Andrews & Burgess, Inc. Beaufort

Hatchell, Terry Surveying Consultants, Inc. Beaufort

Kraft, Hal Hussey, Gay, Bell, & DeYoung Chatham County, GA

McFee, Robert Beaufort County Engineering & Infrastructure

Beaufort

Powers, Wright Thomas & Hutton Engineering Chatham County, GA

Youmans, David Beaufort Surveying, Inc. Beaufort

Renew, Mark Sea Island Land Surveying Inc. Beaufort

Smith, William Justin

T Square Group Inc. Beaufort

Moulton, Dan’l Moulton, Clemson, Jones Engineers Beaufort

Sommerville, Ann US Navy Beaufort

Hobbs, Charles Beaufort


91

APPENDIX H: HEALTH SCIENCES DIVISION ADVISORY COMMITTEES

Surgical Technology Advisory Committee


Krueger, Gordon (Dr.) Coastal Carolina Surgical Associates Beaufort

Cooper, Kathleen RN Consultant Beaufort

Damrow, Charlotte Hilton Head Regional Medical Center Beaufort

Deaton, Rowena Hilton Head Regional Medical Center Beaufort

Al-Aseer Fahey, Deborah Merle Norman Cosmetics Beaufort

Chappell, Cecil Beaufort Memorial Hospital Beaufort

Gray, Cynthia TCL Adjunct Beaufort

Zeman, Andrea Beaufort Memorial Hospital Beaufort

Rose, Hazel Consultant Beaufort

Dehaney, Dahlia Beaufort Naval Hospital Beaufort

D’Ottavio, Dominick Beaufort Memorial Hospital Beaufort

Graves, Barbara Coastal Carolina Medical Center Beaufort

Miller, Emily TCL Student Beaufort

Kubik, Donna Colleton County Medical Center Colleton

Nursing Advisory Committee


Bennett, Catherine Beaufort Memorial Hospital Beaufort

McCleary, Andrea Hilton Head Medical Center Beaufort

DiGrazia, Judy Colleton Medical Center Colleton

Gohagen, Jackie Hampton Regional Medical Center Hampton

Green, Jonetta Beaufort Memorial Hospital Beaufort

Hastings, Elaine Hilton Head Medical Center Beaufort

Jarmulowicz, May Ann Univ. of SC—Beaufort Beaufort

Medzie, Robert Coastal Empire Community Mental Health Beaufort

Razo, Diane Beaufort Memorial Hospital Beaufort

Schott, Julie Beaufort Memorial Hospital Beaufort

Trask, Marcellene Beaufort Memorial Hospital Beaufort

Weilenman, Shelly Coastal Carolina Hospital Beaufort

Brasington, Jenny Hospice Care of the Lowcountry Beaufort

Physical Therapist Assistant Advisory Committee


Giammona, Steve Beaufort Memorial Hospital Beaufort

Padgett, Shannon United Rehab Hampton

Stacy, Michael Coastal Carolina Hospital Jasper

Toomin, Kristy National Healthcare Corp. Beaufort

Tomlin, Denny Retired Community Member Beaufort

Trpcic, Joe Beaufort Memorial Hospital Beaufort


92

APPENDIX H (CONTINUED): HEALTH SCIENCES DIVISION ADVISORY COMMITTEES

Radiologic Technology Advisory Committee


Angelino, Elena Hilton Head Hospital Beaufort

Esquibel, Anthony Beaufort Naval Hospital Beaufort

Morehead, Becky Colleton Medical Center Colleton

Blalock, Phillip (Dr.) Beaufort Memorial Hospital Beaufort

Dawson, Missy Beaufort Memorial Hospital Beaufort

Estep, Hassel Beaufort Naval Hospital Beaufort

Roberts, Sharon Beaufort Memorial Hospital Beaufort

Henderson, Meredith Consultant Colleton

Hunt, Rick Beaufort Memorial Hospital Beaufort

Mach, Linda Beaufort Memorial Hospital Beaufort

Ouimette, Jane Coastal Carolina Hospital Jasper

Poston, Julie Hampton Regional Medical Center Hampton

Pocian, Mary Lowcountry Medical Group Beaufort

Roblyer, Joni Beaufort Jasper Hampton Comprehensive Health Beaufort

Rotunda, Kevin Hampton Regional Medical Center Hampton

Songco, Roberto Beaufort Naval Hospital Beaufort

Anderzack, Kathy Hilton Head Hospital Beaufort

Miley, Mary Beth Hilton Head Hospital Beaufort

Hammond, Erika Beaufort Memorial Hospital Beaufort

Knight, Cecil Colleton Medical Center Colleton

Massage Therapy Advisory Committee


Allen, Demetria Celadon Spa Beaufort

Fetzner, Raye The Inn at Palmetto Bluff Beaufort

Frawley, Laura The Inn at Palmetto Bluff Beaufort

Keyes, Katy Fitness One Chatham, GA

McCracken, Kathryne Massage Envy Beaufort

Sadler, Cheryl Joint Effort Chiropractic Beaufort

Spencer, J. Brad Ocean Tides Spa Beaufort


93

APPENDIX I: QEP STEERING COMMITTEE

Purpose

TCL’s QEP Steering Committee is charged with overseeing and ensuring the smooth and

successful production of a draft QEP document for review by (a) an on-site editor, (b) TCL’s

Strategic Leadership Team, (c) an off-site blind reader, and (d) the SACSCOC On-Site

Committee that culminates in the reaffirmation of accreditation for TCL and in significant

advancement for the quality of our programs and operations.

Responsibilities

QEP Steering Committees frequently establish teams and/or workgroups that focus on

particular aspects of the development process. For example, one group may conduct a

literature review, another may examine the strategies for professional development, a third may

develop the assessment plan, a fourth may detail the budget, and yet another work on a

marketing plan.

Expectations

The QEP Steering Committee will need to have the support and active contributions from many

constituencies across the college. All TCL divisions, departments, offices, and personnel are

expected to thoroughly respond promptly to the committee’s requests for assistance.

Duration

The QEP Steering Committee is expected to operate through the time that the college receives

official notification of its accreditation status from SACSCOC, which is tentatively expected in

June 2014.


Adams, Rodney Student Support Services Director of Federal Programs & Student Development Functions

Beasley, Sharon Health Sciences Nursing Instructor

Beckett, Tonya R. Institutional Effectiveness Director

Burgess, Michael New River Campus Campus Administrator

Cole, Rhonda Enrollment Services Enrollment Services Manager

Daniels, James Arts & Sciences Math Instructor

Eckstrom, Richard Industrial Technology Civil Engineering Instructor

Faubion, Ashley Enrollment Services Admissions Manager

Fletcher, Wesla Arts & Sciences Dean

Flick, Kenneth Business & Industrial Technologies

Dean

Herkenham, Pat Business Technologies Business Instructor

McClellan, Debby Student Records Registrar

Sapp, Marge Health Sciences Dean

Pace, Roxane Instructional Support Services Academic Success Assistance Program Coordinator

A denotes the committee’s chair.


94

APPENDIX J: QEP BEST PRACTICES AND LITERATURE REVIEW WORKGROUP

Purpose

TCL’s QEP Best Practices and Literature Review Workgroup ensures that the QEP is grounded

in a review of best practices and provide evidence of careful analysis of the institutional context

in which student learning and/or institutional outcomes will be implemented and of consideration

of best practices related to the topic.

Responsibilities

QEP Best Practices and Literature Review Workgroups research published literature on best

practices in the context of student learning outcomes in a particular subject area within a certain

time period. Workgroups are also charged with writing at least a 5-page single-spaced literature

review in APA format that combines summary (a recap of the important information of the

source) and synthesis (a new unified whole resulting from the combination of different ideas,

influences, or objects), which might give a new interpretation of old material or combine new

with old interpretations. The literature review must also include a bibliography (also in APA

format) of current literature (not older than 2010) used to research the topic.

Workgroups may decide to supplement the literature review with conversations with current

practitioners who not only add an interactive element to this part of the development process,

thereby confirming or refuting initial impressions, but also helps to uncover potential consultants

for the professional development component of the QEP or to find that specialized QEP

evaluator for the on-site review.

Expectations

TCL’s QEP Best Practices and Literature Review Workgroup is expected to thoroughly respond

promptly to requests for assistance and attend all scheduled meetings.

Duration

TCL’s QEP Best Practices and Literature Review Workgroup is expected to operate through

approval of the literature review by the QEP Steering Committee.


Cole, Rhonda* Enrollment Services Enrollment Services Manager

Flick, Kenneth* Business & Industrial Technologies

Dean

Bishop, Sasha Instructional Support Services Librarian

Levicki, Glenn Health Sciences Radiologic Technology Coordinator An asterisk (*) denotes membership on the QEP Steering Committee as well.

A denotes the workgroup’s chair.


95

APPENDIX K: QEP STUDENT AMBASSADORS WORKGROUP

Purpose

TCL’s QEP Student Ambassadors Workgroup promote the QEP and its branding as well as

stimulate the interest and participation of all students in the progress of the QEP to preserve

and increase loyalty and fellowship between the institution, its students, alumni, faculty, staff,

and community.

Responsibilities

QEP Student Ambassadors Workgroups (a) serve as a resource for current students; (b) host

on-campus QEP Student Focus Groups; (c) communicate the holistic expressed and/or implied

concerns and interests of the student body to the QEP Steering Committee; and (d) work with

other developmental teams and/or workgroups as necessary.

Expectations

TCL’s QEP Student Ambassadors Workgroup is expected to thoroughly respond promptly to

requests for assistance and attend all scheduled meetings.

Duration

TCL’s QEP Student Ambassadors are expected to actively operate through the SACSCOC On-

Site Review, which is scheduled in October 2013.


Adams, Rodney * Student Support Services Director of Federal Programs & Student Development Functions

Herkenham, Patricia* Business Technologies Business Instructor

McGrew, Mackenzie Student Affairs Campus Life Manager

Burgess, Michael* New River Campus Administrator An asterisk (*) denotes membership on the QEP Steering Committee as well.



96

APPENDIX L: QEP MARKETING WORKGROUP

Purpose

TCL’s QEP Marketing Workgroup designs solutions to communicate the QEP brand with high

visual impact and to create branding strategies and tools to increase brand awareness at each

campus and among faculty, staff, students, and the community.

Responsibilities

QEP Marketing Workgroups may establish a marketing plan to include a timeline and conduct

research on how to promote the QEP throughout each campus and the communities they serve.

Expectations

TCL’s QEP Marketing Workgroup is expected to thoroughly respond promptly to requests for

assistance and attend all scheduled meetings.

Duration

TCL’s QEP Marketing Workgroup is expected to actively operate through the SACSCOC On-

Site Review, which is scheduled in October 2013.


Copeland, Leigh Public Relations Director

Faubion, Ashley* Enrollment Services Admissions Manager

Burgess, Michael* New River Campus Campus Administrator

Pace, Roxane* Instructional Support Services Academic Success Assistance Program Coordinator

Daniels, James* Arts & Sciences Physical Therapy Instructor An asterisk (*) denotes membership on the QEP Steering Committee as well.



97

APPENDIX M: QEP IMPLEMENTATION TEAM

Purpose

TCL’s QEP Implementation Team implements and amends as necessary all initiatives as

outlined in the QEP Implementation Plan.

Responsibilities

QEP Implementation Teams bring in change. They are comprised of individuals who have

the skills and knowledge to implement a new method or process within the institution across

single or multiple divisions, department, and/or locations.

Expectations

TCL’s QEP Implementation Team is expected to thoroughly respond promptly to requests

for assistance and attend all scheduled meetings.

Duration

TCL’s QEP Implementation Team is expected to actively operate through the five-year

implementation cycle.


Faubion, Ashley* Enrollment Services Admissions Manager

McClellan, Debby* Student Records Registrar

O’Sullivan, Margaret Health Sciences Academic Program Coordinator

Bible, Colleen Health Sciences Nursing Instructor

Locke, Joy Arts & Sciences Speech Instructor

Brown, Joan Hampton Campus Administrative Support

Pace, Roxane* Instructional Support Services

Academic Success Assistance Program Coordinator

Istoc, Daniel Instructional Support Services

Assistant Coordinator for Academics Success Assistance Program

Lyle, Janice Student Services Retention Coordinator An asterisk (*) denotes membership on the QEP Steering Committee as well.



98

APPENDIX N: QEP PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT WORKGROUP

Purpose

TCL’s QEP Professional Development Workgroup ensures all types of facilitated learning

opportunities including but not limited to coaching, conferences, consultation, in-service

training, mentoring, reflective supervision, technical assistance, and/or workshops.

Responsibilities

QEP Professional Development Workgroups are responsible for increasing the

effectiveness of all who are engaged, actively and/or passively, in the teaching and learning

process. To this end, each member of the workgroup must develop maximum knowledge

and skill and provide a positive environment that encourages each professional staff

member to participate.

Expectations

TCL’s QEP Professional Development Workgroup is expected to thoroughly respond

promptly to requests for assistance and attend all scheduled meetings.

Duration

TCL’s QEP Professional Development Workgroup is expected to actively operate

extensively during the pre-planning year and through the first year of implementation.

Thereafter, the workgroup operates as needed and as long as a need for professional

development as it relates to the QEP exists.


Eichinger, John Health Sciences Radiologic Technology Coordinator/Instructor

Adams, Rodney* Student Support Services Director of Federal Programs & Student Development Functions

Daniels, James* Arts & Sciences Math Instructor

Cole, Rhonda* Enrollment Services Enrollment Services Manager An asterisk (*) denotes membership on the QEP Steering Committee as well.



99

APPENDIX O: QEP ASSESSMENT TEAM

Purpose

TCL’s QEP Assessment Team helps others articulate a need for an assessment, use

appropriate methodology, develop a comprehensive, understandable assessment tool, and

clarify how the results can be used toward institutional effectiveness and/or continuous

improvement.

Responsibilities

QEP Assessment Teams promote and support quality assessment activities for the

improvement of programs, services, and operations throughout the institution. TCL’s

Assessment Team coordinates the QEP Assessment Plan to support all QEP initiatives

including determining appropriate measures, documenting findings, and recommending

courses of action for continuous improvement.

Expectations

TCL’s QEP Assessment Team is expected to thoroughly respond promptly to requests for

assistance and attend all scheduled meetings.

Duration

TCL’s QEP Assessment Team is expected to actively operate through the five-year

implementation cycle.


Beasley, Sharon* Health Sciences Nursing Instructor

Beckett, Tonya R.* Institutional Effectiveness Director

Sapp, Marge* Health Sciences Dean

Myers, Camille Institutional Research Director

Chastain, Candice Business Technologies Business/Hospitality Instructor

Weiss, Heather Arts & Sciences English Instructor

Newcomb, Cora Business Technologies Administrative Office Technology Instructor

An asterisk (*) denotes membership on the QEP Steering Committee as well.



100

APPENDIX P: QEP RESOURCE ALLOCATION WORKGROUP

Purpose

TCL’s QEP Resource Allocation Workgroup provides a fiscal pathway for the QEP

Implementation Plan and the QEP Resource Allocation Plan.

Responsibilities

QEP Resource Allocation Workgroups come together to discuss, plan, and develop a

comprehensive financial plan within institutional capacity that brings the QEP Implementation

Plan to fruition. They are responsible for identifying and dealing with any concerns, events,

and/or problems that may arise as it relates to QEP fiscal issues.

Expectations

TCL’s QEP Resource Allocation Workgroup is expected to thoroughly respond promptly to

requests for assistance and attend all scheduled meetings.

Duration

TCL’s QEP Resource Allocation Workgroup is expected to actively operate extensively during

the pre-planning year. Thereafter, the workgroup operates as needed and if or when QEP fiscal

issues warrant significant changes in resource allocation.


Fletcher, Wesla* Arts & Sciences Dean

Eckstrom, Richard* Industrial Technology Civil Engineering Instructor

Wiser, Hayes Administrative Services Vice President

Mounfield, Gina Academic Affairs Vice President An asterisk (*) denotes membership on the QEP Steering Committee as well.


be advised! technical college of the lowcountry october 29

Documents