consultant observations - web viewjerry lester, assistant director ... a final word. this plan does...

Retention Plan2014-2016

May 2014

Endorsed by AALT August 2014

Table of Contents

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………3

Planning Retreat Participant List………………………………………………………………….4

Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………………………5

Setting the Stage...……………………………………………………………………………………6

Radford University Vision and Mission……………………………………………………………6Recent History of Retention Efforts………………………………………………………………..7Consultant Observations…………………………………………………………………………..9Situation Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………10

Retention Benchmarks…………………………………………………………………...10RU Persistence and Retention Rates……………………………………………………..11RU Graduation Rates by Cohort…………………………………………………………12Retention and Graduation Rates at Virginia Public Universities……………………….12Goal Quantification Table……………………………………………………………….13

Constructing the Plan……………………………………………………………………………..14

Force Field Analysis……………………………………………………………………………...14SWOT Analysis……………………………………………………………………………………14Student Satisfaction Data…………………………………………………………………………15

The Student Satisfaction Inventory………………………………………………………15Student Focus Group Verbatim Suggestions for Improvement………………………….18

Retention Goals…………………………………………………………………………………..19Retention Strategy Action Plans………………………………………………………………….24

Enhance Academic Support Services…………………………………………………….25Improve the Quality of Academic Advising……………………………………………...29Increase the Potential of UNIV 100……………………………………………………..31Develop Additional Learning Communities……………………………………………..35Facilitating Student Access to Campus Employment……………………………………38Manage Enrollment Strategically………………………………………………………..40Integrate Career Awareness into Students’ First-Year Curricula……………………….43

2

A Final Word………………………………………………………………………………………...44

Appendix………………………………………………………………………………………………45

Radford University Retention Plan2014-2016

Introduction

This retention plan specifies goals, strategies, and responsibilities for improving the quality of student life and learning at Radford University (RU). The planning process can be conceptualized by the following evidence-driven improvement model that emphasizes the critical importance of fact-based improvement planning, focuses on only the vital few improvements during each cycle in order to increase the probability of full deployment, recognizes the continuous nature of effective improvement approaches, and emphasizes consensus-building through cross-functional participation during the plan development.

3

ACT (Institutionalize)We integrate the lessons learned from our study. We adjust our methods.

We identify what more we need to learn.

ASSESS (Evaluate)We monitor the outcomes,

testing the theory of our plan. We study the results for signs

of progress and success or unexpected outcomes. We look for lessons learned or

problems solved.

DO (Execute)We execute our plan,

undertaking the activities, introducing the

interventions, and applying our best

knowledge to the pursuit of our desired purpose.

and goals.

PLAN (Decide)We identify our purpose and

goals. We formulate our theory. We define how we will measure success. We

plan our activities.

This plan was developed with the direct involvement of the personnel listed below, who participated in a one-and-one-half-day planning retreat on October 31-November 1, 2013 that was facilitated by Dr. Dave Trites, Noel-Levitz Senior Associate Consultant. (Dozens of other members of the RU community had previously been part of focus groups or other activities with Dr. Trites; their names will be forwarded upon request.) Those who subsequently contributed to the development of strategy action plans are listed on the respective action plans below or are serving on the retention plan implementation task force, which includes the Retention Team and Faculty Retention Task Force. Their names are listed in the appendix at the end of this document.

Planning Retreat Participant List

Name Position

Ament, Suzanne Associate Professor of History

Bell, Courtney Coordinator, Disability Resource Office

Brunner, Matthew University Registrar

Burke, Tod Associate Dean, College of Humanities and Behavioral Sciences

Carter, Art Assistant Dean, College of Science and Technology; Chair, Information Technology

Christensen, Neils Professor of Psychology

Coulter, Megan Associate Registrar

Devore-Greene, Angela Director, Disability Resource Office

Dunn, Mike Director, New Student Programs

Estes, Loretta Assistant to the Dean and Advising Coordinator, Waldron College of Health and Human Services

Ferrari, Mary Professor of History

Hanlon, Joel Senior Assistant Director, New Student Programs

Hatfield, Lauren Assistant Director for Retention and Programming, Residential Life

Hudson, Susan Part-time Retention Specialist, Office of New Student Programs

Jenkins, Michele Associate Director, New Student Programs

Jennelle, Stephanie University Controller

Kennan, Bill Vice Provost

Koussis, Katrina Student

Lerch, Steve Interim Coordinator of Student Retention

Mattson, Tracey Director, Learning Assistance and Resource Center

Mekolichick, Jeanne Chair, Department of Sociology

Millar, Diane Chair, Communication Sciences and Disorders

Newcomer, April Assistant Advising Coordinator, Premajor Advising Center

Oliver, Donna Advising Coordinator, College of Visual and Performing Arts

Schwab, Nasim Advising Coordinator, College of Business and Economics

Shoemaker, Pat Dean, College of Education and Human Development

4

Skeens, Lindsay Assistant Director, Office of New Student Programs

Taylor, Ellen Director, Career Services and Community Engagement

Templeton, Debra Assistant Vice President and Director, Institutional Research, Reporting, and Assessment

Udd, Ed Chair, Recreation, Parks and Tourism

Underwood, Susan Advising Coordinator, College of Science and Technology

Webster-Garrett, Erin Professor of English; Director of Quality Enhancement Plan

Williamson, Patti Advising Coordinator, Premajor Advising Center

Executive SummaryRU planning participants reached consensus on both an overall goal and goals for several subpopulations they believed represented the best retention improvement opportunities:

The overall goal for Radford University is to achieve a retention rate of 76 percent for new full-time degree-seeking freshmen who entered the university fall 2013; 79 percent for the same population who will enter the University fall 2014; and 82 percent for the fall 2015 cohort.

The target subpopulations (detailed and quantified in the goal section of this plan) were identified as being at-risk following a Noel-Levitz analysis of data provided by the RU Office of Institutional Research. They include freshmen who commit to attending RU late in the admissions cycle; those majoring in departments in the College of Business and Economics and the College of Science and Technology; those with low high school grade point averages; those coming to RU from significant distances; those living in particular residence halls; those with large gaps between financial need and the financial aid they receive; and members of minority ethnic groups.

The planning participants identified seven “vital few” strategies that should be implemented to attain the retention goals. Planning participants completed an exercise using three weighted criteria (likely impact upon retention; likely cost effectiveness; and feasibility; i.e., within institutional control and timely) to prioritize the seven strategies. In priority order, the strategies the participants identified are:

1. Ensure the optimum availability of academic support services in support of student learning.

2. Develop more systematic, intentional, and seamless advising interactions for students, especially for new freshmen, that emphasize relationship building and high expectations.

3. Develop alternative approaches to increase the potential of UNIV 100 in order to reach more new students with “college knowledge” information critical to their success.

4. (tie) Identify and develop additional learning community approaches that will expand access to the “power of the cohort” for new students including, where feasible, themed residential life experiences.

4. (tie) Develop a uniform, user-friendly, complete, single point of access for students who desire to work on-campus.

6. Manage enrollment strategically by using data to align outreach approaches with desired retention outcomes; i.e., capacity of targeted majors, learning readiness of applicants, desired profile of entering class, and consideration of alternate entrance criteria for late applicants.

5

7. Integrate career awareness into all new students’ first-year curricula to ensure a more complete understanding of the chosen majors for decided students and of the available alternatives for deciding students.

Setting the StageI. Radford University Vision and Mission

Radford University is a comprehensive, midsize public university that is student-focused, providing its more than 9,900 students a diversity of outstanding academic programs. Well known for its strong faculty/student bonds, innovative use of technology in the learning environment and vibrant student life on a beautiful campus, Radford University offers many opportunities to get involved and succeed in and out of the classroom.

Radford University welcomes students from the Commonwealth of Virginia, across the country and around the world. Students find inspiration in the surroundings – the manicured green lawns on campus, the steady roll of the New River, the wonders along the Blue Ridge Parkway, the stately university buildings, and a quaint downtown. Radford’s more than 150 undergraduate and graduate programs offer every student the opportunity to discover new talents, develop leadership skills, and experience personal growth.

Radford University serves the Commonwealth of Virginia and the nation through a wide range of academic, cultural, human service, and research programs. First and foremost, the university emphasizes teaching and learning and the process of learning in its commitment to the development of mature, responsible, well-educated citizens. Radford University develops students’ creative and critical thinking skills, teaches students to analyze problems and implement solutions, helps students discover their leadership styles, and fosters their growth as leaders. Toward these ends, the university is student-focused and promotes a sense of caring and of meaningful interaction among all members of the University community. Research is viewed as a vital corollary to the teaching and learning transaction as it sustains and enhances the ability to teach effectively. Radford University believes in the dynamics of change and has a strong commitment to continuous review, evaluation, and improvement in the curriculum and all aspects of the university, so as to meet the changing needs of society.

II. Recent History of Retention Efforts

Radford University has always both challenged its students academically and offered them the support they need to persist and eventually graduate. Those efforts have paid dividends, especially over the past 20 years or so: data provided by RU’s Office of Institutional Research indicate that the institution’s four-year graduation rate has increased from 28.2 percent for the fall 1994 cohort to 42.2 percent for the fall 2006 cohort, and the six-year graduation rate has increased from 46 percent for the fall 1994 cohort to 60 percent for the fall 2006 cohort.

While the increases are significant and praiseworthy, there has been a general recognition at RU that we can do even better. Doing so is important for multiple reasons. The Commonwealth of Virginia has linked institutional funding to student persistence and graduation. Moreover, improving retention and

6

graduation rates makes economic sense for the University; since students who are retained do not have to be “recruited twice,” even relatively small increases in retention can pay significant dividends that our institution can invest in other areas. By far the most important reason, however, is the positive impact that the facilitation of students’ academic success can have upon their lives and the lives of their families. As analysts report that the average debt load for college graduates is approaching $30,000, there is an ethical imperative for institutions to ensure that they are providing students with every opportunity to succeed, lest those students leave without earning the academic credential that will enable them to repay what they owe.

Accordingly, the University recently has enhanced its commitment to student retention, especially the retention of new students. While retention rates and graduation rates do not measure precisely the same thing, students who are not retained at an institution are unlikely to graduate from that institution. Moreover, retention rates are universally lowest during students’ first year of enrollment, increasing each year thereafter. At Radford University, for example, new freshmen retention rates have averaged approximately 75 percent annually over the past ten years. Given our 60 percent six-year graduation rate, the implication is that while there is a 25 percent attrition rate during year one of enrollment, only another 15 percent of our students leave over the next five years. Clearly, a focus upon the retention of new students will almost inevitably eventually yield higher graduation rates.

In August 2012, Provost Sam Minner appointed Dr. Steve Lerch as part-time Interim Coordinator of Student Retention to provide oversight for the University’s retention efforts until the budget permitted a full-time coordinator to be hired. Dr. Lerch was initially charged with presenting the provost with a report on the current state of retention at RU. That report, co-authored by Dr. Lerch, Mike Dunn, the Director of New Student Programs, and Michele Jenkins, the Associate Director of New Student Programs with responsibility for the office’s retention initiatives, was presented to the provost and the Academic Affairs Leadership Team (AALT) in December 2012. While it acknowledged that students do not persist for many reasons, its focus was upon students who left the University for academic reasons.

The report did more than just describe the “lay of the land.” It also recommended that RU implement numerous initiatives to improve retention rates. Some of these recommendations were “proactive,” describing ways the RU culture might be shaped or reshaped through programmatic and other initiatives designed to minimize students’ risk of non-completion. Others were “reactive,” outlining ways the University could assist those struggling academically to find success and eventually earn their degrees. (Fortuitously, many of the recommendations in the internal retention report were consonant with the retention strategies that emerged a year later through the retention planning sessions facilitated by Dr. Trites.)

The proactive initiatives, which focused upon establishing an institutional culture fostering student success, were recommended in consideration of the work of Dr. Vincent Tinto, Distinguished University Professor of Sociology at Syracuse University, who has done extensive research on campus conditions that support students. Specifically, the report recommended that Radford University:

Establish high expectations for our students. The faculty and administration should understand our students’ backgrounds and then do our best to help them maximize their intellectual and personal potential before they complete their studies;

7

Enhance the quality of academic advising. The University should recognize the critical impact advising plays in the success of our students, carefully examining its current organization and delivery, reallocating resources to advising as appropriate, and regularly assessing its quality;

Offer additional academic support. RU has offered a wide array of support programs to students for many years. However, this support should be expanded and new programs that are consonant with best practices launched;

Involve students as valued members of the institution. The University should enhance its orientation and welcome programming and redouble its efforts to get students involved in activities that link them to the institution, like undergraduate research; and

Give students the opportunity to participate in settings that foster learning. RU should expand the number of “high impact” offerings like residential and non-residential learning communities.

The reactive initiatives proposed in the report were suggested in recognition of the fact that, despite the University’s best efforts, some students will face academic difficulties. The report recommended a review of current academic probation and suspension policies and a redesign of programming intended to support students’ efforts to return to good academic standing.

Provost Minner and the AALT accepted the vast majority of the recommendations in the report and authorized Dr. Lerch to work with campus constituencies to immediately pick off as much “low-hanging fruit” as possible. While limited resources have affected the institution’s ability to address many of the recommendations, with the support of Dr. Minner and many others in the campus community, Radford University implemented several changes in policies and practices during the 2013-2014 academic year. “Proactive” initiatives underway include:

Enhancing the quality of academic advising, by:

Implementing a plan to phase out assigning graduate students to serve as academic advisors, replacing them with full-time professional advisors;

Developing a systematic method through which advising is assessed; Investigating (for the likely future purchase of) Customer Relationship Management (CRM)

software that will facilitate the communication of advisors with students and with each other as they address student needs; and

Developing a May 2014 Advising Institute for faculty who will be advising students during Quest, so that student-profile data is effectively utilized to direct students to combinations of courses that give them a reasonable chance to succeed.

Offering additional academic and personal support, by:

Entering into a partnership with Link-Systems to provide NetTutor online tutoring to RU students to supplement and complement the face-to-face tutoring available since 2005 in RU’s Learning Assistance and Resource Center;

Refocusing UNIV 100, the one-hour introduction to higher education course taken by the vast majority of RU freshmen, so that critical learning outcomes for new students are universally addressed, and also piloting two-hour sections of the course. Effective fall 2014, UNIV 100 will continue through the entire semester instead of ending after the first ten weeks. Course instructors will have the opportunity to address matters like second semester registration and preparation for final exams, which have heretofore not been covered;

8

Hiring (in Student Affairs) an assistant director of residential life for retention to address the needs of at-risk students who live in residence halls; and

Revising the University’s “Early Alert” program so that students with academic, behavioral, or emotional problems can be identified and offers of assistance can be delivered in a more timely manner.

9

Involving students as valued members of the institution, by:

Planning for a more thorough orientation program in August 2014 for students who will not have attended orientation in June or July; and

Enhancing fall “Welcome Week” activities.

Giving students the opportunity to participate in settings that foster learning, by:

Launching the Office of Undergraduate Research and Scholarship (OURS) to encourage and support students interested in collaborating with faculty on scholarly and creative projects;

Expanding Living-Learning Communities. Based upon what the University learned through the administration of the College Student Inventory to biology majors last fall, RU will in fall 2014 pilot “Biology Connections,” a residential learning community in which as many as 48 biology majors will reside on the same floor of Stuart Hall, the residence hall which also houses their advising center. They will also take some of their classes in common in the building. Faculty will hold office hours and tutors help sessions in Stuart, the advising coordinator for the College of Science and Technology will personally advise each of the students in the community, and the residential life staff will design special programming with biology majors’ interests in mind; and

Fully implementing the Scholar-Citizen Initiative, the Quality Enhancement Plan RU submitted to the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools in 2012 as part of its efforts to receive reaccreditation.

“Reactive” initiatives implemented during 2013-2014 include:

Revising the institution’s academic probation and suspension policies for the first time since 1996, such that they both recognize the transition issues faced by new students and “raise the bar” for continuing students;

Eliminating exceptions to suspension and “SORTS,” the program designed to support students who would otherwise be suspended, while simultaneously developing and offering in spring 2014 a new course, UNIV 150, for new students on academic probation; and

Sending personal invitations to academically suspended students, inviting them to apply for readmission to RU if they are ready to do so, and offering them information about the readmission process.

III. Consultant Observations

The observations below are among those Dr. Trites made about student life and learning on the campus of Radford University during his September 17-18, 2013 visit and the initial visit conducted by the full Noel-Levitz team assigned to RU on May 6-7, 2013. It is apparent that improved retention will be important for achieving an overall enrollment goal of 10,000 students. RU should build off its current success by further developing a systematic, intentional, and organized way to improve the success rates for students.

As per Dr. Trites, there currently exists:

An experienced group of senior leaders who value and understand the essentials of student success and advocate practices that encourage continuous improvement. The consultant commends these leaders for initiating this partnership with Noel-Levitz as it is tangible evidence of the administration’s support and commitment to improving the quality of student life and learning at Radford University.

10

A Retention Team and Faculty Task Force who demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of student success essentials and a sincere commitment to increasing the quality of student life and learning at Radford University.

An increase in the most recent annual retention rate for the fall 2012 new student cohort (78%) that is slightly above the average return rate since 2006.

A recent report to the provost on current retention status and recommendations that demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of retention principles and essentials.

An organizational structure that appears to be effectively moving the RU student success agenda and is increasingly appreciated by key stakeholders.

Limited faculty discussion and consensus-building relative to some aspects of the university’s retention programming.

An understanding and acceptance of the critical role accountability plays in all high-performing organizations and its increasing influence in Virginia.

Evidence of an awareness of the importance of focusing retention programming not only on freshmen, but also on sophomores and juniors in order to encourage successful transition toward graduation for these cohorts of students.

Many excellent programs that serve to support RU students. Several of these are supported or have been incubated by the Office of New Student Programs, including a UNIV 100 one-credit course which is taken by a majority of new students and whose success has been well-documented. Also present is an extensive campus life/student activities program with more than 250 clubs and organizations available to students.

Agreement that data-informed decision-making is essential to improving student success and that focusing on a “vital few” retention strategies that clearly align with targeted underperforming student subpopulations will optimize the opportunity to achieve the desired outcomes.

The establishment of a new student retention goal of 82 percent by 2018, with no specific subpopulations targeted for achieving this goal.

IV. Situation Analysis

Retention Benchmarks

Radford University retention and graduation rates have been essentially stable for several years and compare favorably with national four-year public colleges with traditional admissions selectivity.

The following tables document benchmark rates provided by American College Testing (ACT) and the recent retention and graduation history at Radford University. These rates are comparable only in a general way; ACT collects annual return on new, first-time degree-seeking freshmen, while RU’s Fact Book contains rates for all freshmen in each cohort. Moreover, the ACT reports five-year graduation rates, but RU graduation rates in the table below are for six years (i.e., 150 percent of the traditionally expected time from matriculation to graduation), which is consistent with national Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) reporting practices. The RU Fact book tables demonstrate a modest increase in graduation rates between five- and six-year reporting periods.

11

Annual Return RateAdmissions Selectivity BA MA PhD

Highly Selective 87.5 89.5

Selective 81.3 82.9 82.9

Traditional 69.5 71.2 73.6

Liberal 60.3 65.8 62.0

Open 58.8 66.3 75.6

Source: Compiled from ACT Institutional Data File, 2011

Cohort Graduation Rate

Admissions Selectivity BA MA PhD

Highly Selective 77.8 78.7

Selective 60.3 55.4 54.8

Traditional 40.7 37.2 39.6

Liberal 28.1 36.5

Open 12.0 33.6 41.0

Source: Compiled from ACT Institutional Data File, 2011 – graduation in three years for associate degree; five years for BA/BS

RU Persistence and Retention Rates

Radford University persistence and retention rates, illustrated in the table below, have been very stable for several years and compare favorably with retention rates nationally for four-year public universities.

University Retention Rate Fall-to-Fall

Fall Term

All Freshmen

Retained Next Fall

All Sophomores

Retained Next Fall

All Juniors

Retained Next Fall

Overall Retention

2011 2,398 73.2% 1,834 83.6% 1,812 89.5% 81.2%

2010 2,066 75.0% 1,632 85.0% 1,965 90.1% 83.1%

2009 1,755 73.5% 1,950 84.8% 1,955 90.4% 83.2%

2008 2,228 75.9% 1,955 85.1% 1,848 90.4% 83.3%

2007 2,194 76.6% 1,863 84.4% 1,874 90.2% 83.4%

2006 2,117 74.9% 1,939 86.3% 1,865 91.0% 83.7%

2005 2,320 72.0% 1,959 83.1% 1,939 90.2% 81.2%

2004 2,177 75.9% 1,941 84.6% 2,001 90.3% 83.3%

2003 2,204 74.7% 2,074 84.5% 1,872 87.0% 81.7%

2002 2,247 75.7% 2,050 82.0% 1,816 87.4% 81.3%

2001 2,347 74.9% 1,992 82.3% 1,689 88.8% 81.2%

12

2000 2,193 76.4% 1,739 84.1% 1,719 89.6% 82.8%

1999 2,097 72.6% 1,728 82.5% 1,662 88.8% 80.6%

1998 1,970 73.0% 1,733 83.9% 1,643 87.4% 81.0%

Source: Radford 2013 Fact Book – A student was counted as retained if he/she enrolled the following fall or graduated before the next fall. For the purposes of this table, freshmen are students who have completed 0-25 credit hours; sophomores, 26-55; juniors, 56-85; and seniors, 86 or more.

RU Graduation Rates by Cohort

The following graduation rates illustrate a very stable rate for the most recent cohorts of RU students.

Six-year Graduation Rate by Cohort

Cohort Graduated Six Years

Six-Year Graduation Rate

Fall 2006 Cohort 1,730 1,040 60%

Fall 2005 Cohort 1,890 1,054 56%

Fall 2004 Cohort 1,828 1,035 57%

Fall 2003 Cohort 1,800 1,020 57%

Fall 2002 Cohort 1,813 1,083 60%

Fall 2001 Cohort 1,875 1,055 56%

Fall 2000 Cohort 1,753 987 56%

Fall 1999 Cohort 1,655 849 51%

Fall 1998 Cohort 1,518 857 56%

Fall 1997 Cohort 1,619 890 55%

Fall 1996 Cohort 1,419 751 53%

Fall 1995 Cohort 1,381 719 52%

Fall 1994 Cohort 1,529 700 46%

Source: Radford 2013 Fact Book – Graduation in 150 percent of traditional time.

Retention and Graduation Rates at Virginia Public Universities

Radford University retention and graduation rates, as illustrated in the table below, are lower than several other public universities in Virginia.

Institution Retention Rate (Fall 2011 Cohort)

Six-Year Graduation Rate (2004 Cohort)

University of Virginia—Main Campus 97% 93%

College of William and Mary 95% 90%

James Madison University 91% 82%

Virginia Tech 91% 80%

13

George Mason University 87% 63%

Virginia Military Institute 87% 70%

Virginia Commonwealth University 86% 50%

University of Mary Washington 85% 75%

Christopher Newport University 84% 60%

Old Dominion University 80% 50%

Longwood University 78% 59%

Radford University 76% 57%

Norfolk State University 73% 34%

Virginia State University 71% 41%

The University of Virginia’s College at Wise

63% 48%

Source: Appendix D of 2012 RU Retention Report to the Provost

Goal Quantification Table

The table below offers trend data provided by the RU Office of Institutional Research for subpopulations identified through a Noel-Levitz analysis of data for recent RU cohorts as at-risk. These trend data helped the Retention Team quantify the goal statements.

Goal Category Annual Return Rate Trend Leading Indicators Goals (see pages 19-23) for detail

Fall 2009 cohort annual return retentionStudents who are part of the fall 2009 cohort who enrolled fall 2010




Fall 2012 cohort term persistence

Students who are part of the fall 2012 cohort enrolled spring 2013

Fall 2013 cohort term persistence

Students who are part of the fall 2013 cohort enrolled spring 2014

Goal fall 2013 cohort



I. Overall Retention (new first-time-in- college freshmen)

76.0% 76.1% 74.3% 78.1% 89.2% 88.0% 76% 79% 82%

II. Late Commits(Registered for classes or after July 10)

64.9% 67.3% 53.8% 69.9% 82.0% 80.7% 70% 72% 74%

IIIa. College Major or Subdivision (COBE) 73.0% 71.0% 68.5% 76.4% 89.4% 82.7% 75% 78% 80%

IIIb. College Major or Subdivision (CSAT) 73.6% 73.1% 70.1% 75.9% 88.5% 83.0% 75% 78% 80%

14

IV. HS GPA(2.92 or less)

66.0% 64.1% 65.0% 72.4% 84.6% 83.9% 68% 71% 74%

V. Residence Hall (Madison, Muse, Draper, Washington, Tyler, Jefferson)

75.2% 73.6% 73.4% 77.6% 88.2% 87.1% 75% 78% 80%

VIa. Pell Grant 76.1% 74.3% 73.5% 77.5% 89.4% 86.5% 75% 76% 78%

VIb. Stafford Loan but not Pell 72.2% 74.8% 70.1% 78.4% 90.5% 89.2% 75% 76% 78%

VII. Ethnicity(Black or African American)

74.3% 73.5% 69.5% 88.3% 92.4% 90.6% 76% 79% 82%

Constructing the Plan

I. Force Field Analysis

Planning participants were asked to participate in a force field analysis early in the planning process as part of a “level setting” of the current enrollment state at Radford University and to support honest reflection on the underlying roots of the retention challenges. The driving and restraining forces provided by participants are documented below.

Issue: Achieving Optimum Retention of Radford University Students

Driving Restraining

List of driving forces: Moral obligation Caring faculty and staff Win-win Student focused Beautiful campus Community oriented Faculty/student collaboration Education is the answer Administrative support

List of restraining forces: Federal and state pressures Lack of resources Communication structure Battle fatigue Students are unprepared for college work Unwillingness to change Training Technology consistency in advising records Time Faculty/student interaction

II. SWOT Analysis

Planning participants were asked to construct a SWOT analysis as a summative activity to prepare for strategy idea generation. Those strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats are listed below as they appeared on the flip charts.

Strengths Weaknesses Willingness to spend time with students Teaching student’s responsibility

Lack of communication – collaborations that go

15

Willingness to look to better programs Excellent staff, faculty and instruction Excellent advising UNIV 100 Beautiful campus Advisors rock!! Excellent institutional research – data on which to

base decisions Faculty involvement with students inside and

outside class Staff helping and caring Passion for the students NSP Distribution of information

together – how a message is conveyed…live phone answers in critical offices (no phone tree), financial aid, admissions, student accts.

Determining classes needed for our students Providing classes students want in freshman year Admit into major No real solutions for students who cannot make it

in their major Lack of training (technology) Unwilling to change or merge to meet goals What is the RU experience? Knowing who we are Staffing and resources for student support centers Infrastructure – staffing Not doing enough to help students to better

understand their major Technology issues in advising Non vocal students slip through the cracks Great resources but under resourced ($, staff)

Opportunities Threats Re-think how work study/campus jobs are

administered Willingness to improve services Improve our interactions with freshmen Hook students into career services in their freshman

year Build on FYE successes: scale up and out Do more programming the first weekend (move-in

weekend) Enrollment management – target majors Distance education Mentoring Utilize QEP to create student engagement

opportunities in the early part of the RU experience

Demographic changes Funding – that provides resources to both students

and staff/faculty Divisions over curriculum, research vs. teaching

focus, general lack of coherent and cohesive use of institutional vision/mission to guide decisions

Student-focused but not attentive to climate: race/ethnicity

Provincialism, egocentrism, silo-mentality Financial aid system $$ Recruitment – moving away from target population Resistance to change No money More staff student advising and support (AP not

classified) Emphasis on front-line services (e.g., financial aid,

compensation)

III. Student Satisfaction Data

The Student Satisfaction Inventory

In fall 2013, RU students were asked to complete Noel-Levitz’s Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI). Although less than 10 percent of RU students completed the instrument, the feedback they provided can help RU identify the areas students perceive as strengths and those to which additional attention should be devoted. The table below notes (in order) specific areas of strength and challenge.

StrengthsItem Number Item

16 The instruction in my major field is excellent.8 The content of courses within my major is excellent.33 My academic advisor is knowledgeable about requirements in my major.7 The campus is safe and secure for all students.29 It is an enjoyable experience to be a student on this campus.68 Nearly all of the faculty are knowledgeable in their field.

16

39 I am able to experience intellectual growth here.55 Major requirements are clear and reasonable.6 My academic advisor is approachable.69 There is a good variety of courses provided on this campus.72 On the whole, the campus is well-maintained.45 Students are made to feel welcome on this campus.76 On the whole, classrooms are well-equipped with up-to-date instructional technology. (This was an

item RU added to the SSI.)65 Faculty are usually available after class and during office hours.26 Computer labs are adequate and accessible.

Challenges34 I am able to register for classes I need with few conflicts.66 Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment.17 Adequate financial aid is available for most students.47 Faculty provide timely feedback about student progress in a course.12 Financial aid awards are announced to students in time to be helpful in college planning.53 Faculty take into account student differences as they teach a course.5 Financial aid counselors are helpful.19 My academic advisor helps me set goals to work toward.21 The amount of student parking space on campus is adequate.73 Student activities fees are put to good use.23 Living conditions in the residence halls are comfortable (adequate space, lighting, heat, air, etc.)28 Parking lots are well-lighted and secure.38 There is an adequate selection of food available in the cafeteria.

Noel-Levitz benchmarks each institution’s SSI data against similar institutions in its region. As compared to those institutions, it was gratifying to learn that RU students express higher satisfaction with their student experience on multiple items, and are less satisfied with only one:

Benchmarked SSI Data: Higher Satisfaction vs. Four-Year Public Institutions in the SouthItem Number Item

16 The instruction in my major field is excellent.8 The content of the courses within my major is valuable.33 My academic advisor is knowledgeable about requirements in my major.7 The campus is safe and secure for all students.29 It is an enjoyable experience to be a student on this campus.68 Nearly all of the faculty are knowledgeable in their field.36 Security staff respond quickly in emergencies.39 I am able to experience intellectual growth here.55 Major requirements are clear and reasonable.58 The quality of instruction I receive in most of my classes is excellent.69 There is a good variety of courses provided on this campus.72 On the whole, the campus is well-maintained.45 Students are made to feel welcome on this campus.25 Faculty are fair and unbiased in their treatment of individual students.47 Faculty provide timely feedback about student progress in a course.65 Faculty are usually available after class and during office hours.49 There are adequate services to help me decide upon a career.2 The campus staff are caring and helpful.59 This institution shows concern for students as individuals.35 The assessment and course placement procedures are reasonable.53 Faculty take into account student differences as they teach a course.

17

26 Computer labs are adequate and accessible.73 Student activities fees are put to good use.

Benchmarked SSI Data: Lower Satisfaction vs. Four-Year Public Institutions in the SouthItem Number Item

21 The amount of student parking space on campus is adequate.

Data from the SSI were also benchmarked against those from southern four-year public institutions to gauge the comparative overall level of satisfaction of RU students. Students responded on a Likert scale, in which choosing “1” indicated the least satisfaction, and “7” indicated the greatest. Once again, relative to students at similar institutions, RU students appear quite satisfied:

SSI Summary Questions Radford University SSI

National Four-Year Publics—Southern SSI

Difference

So far, how has your college experience met your expectations? (1 to 7 Likert scale) 4.97 4.65 0.32***

1=Much worse than expected 1% 2% 2=Quite a bit worse than I expected 1% 2% 3=Worse than I expected 5% 10% 4=About what I expected 29% 36% 5=Better than I expected 30% 23% 6=Quite a bit better than I expected 19% 12% 7=Much better than expected 13% 13%Rate your overall satisfaction with your experience here thus far. 5.69 5.31 0.38***

1=Not satisfied at all 0% 2% 2=Not very satisfied 1% 3% 3=Somewhat dissatisfied 4% 7% 4=Neutral 6% 10% 5=Somewhat satisfied 15% 18% 6=Satisfied 49% 38% 7=Very satisfied 21% 19%All in all, if you had it to do over, would you enroll here again? 5.77 5.36 0.41***

1=Definitely not 1% 4% 2=Probably not 4% 6% 3=Maybe not 4% 5% 4=I don’t know 6% 9% 5=Maybe yes 11% 11% 6=Probably yes 31% 27% 7=Definitely yes 39% 34%

***Difference statistically significant at the .001 level.

18

Student Focus Group Verbatim Suggestions for Improvement

The following verbatim written responses were provided and organized by a focus group of RU freshmen students who had been on campus for just a few weeks in response to the question: What should be done to improve student success at RU? They were first written on post-it notes, placed into an affinity diagram (i.e., organized into categories), and subsequently transcribed by the consultant.

Employment

We need connections to job possibilities

Central area to access work-study would help a lot

It is hard to find a campus job here

We need more campus work-study

A work-study job fair would be help us find work on campus

Some campus jobs have bad hours requiring late work

I would like to work but can’t find a job

RU needs to keep organized about who is interested in working

Infrastructure

WiFi signs you off too fast

Improvement on internet

Professors and students have a few problems with D2L

Parking at night…need closer lots

The campus PD assistance is good

Better Wi-Fi

Tell students which version of Windows is being used so students aren’t late with assignments trying to download the software

Learning

I like online tests

Gen eds should be cut down, because I am in the pre-nursing program and half the gen eds don’t even matter for me and my future career; we don’t want to pay for classes that have no point for our career

Teachers need to be realistic about assignments

Some required assignments are not relevant

There is confusion about the core curriculum

More time to complete tests is needed

We are not provided enough information about resources that support learning

Tutoring is very helpful

I need test anxiety management help

I would like more study guides in my classes

19

Advising

I have no idea who my advisor is

We need help from career services figuring out what my major should be

Credit transfer is not assured so can be a waste of time and money

My credit transfer questions have gone unanswered

More assistance in choosing classes for new students is needed

Group advising is not effective

Some students are double majors or trying to balance more majors and need leniency with scheduling

The different advising requirements in different departments is confusing

Students who have transferred credits should still have just as much time to decide a major

Communicating with Students

Provide a process for one single individual to join intramurals…it is hard for one person

Increase size/area at the club fair

Create a club fair directory or group areas by subject

Maybe require a tour of certain halls/buildings

Pre-nursing is good at communicating

Club fair is good

IV. Retention Goals

Following the analysis of available data and many hours of thoughtful conversation, the RU Retention Team reached consensus on reasonable overall short- and long-range retention goals. They also identified several populations they believed represented the best retention improvement opportunities. Following are those populations and draft goal statements for each. All of these potential populations will need to be reviewed prior to inclusion in the final plan, in consultation with institutional research, to ensure they accurately reflect goals that are specific, measurable, and attainable and to ensure full alignment with priority strategies. Following each statement, we present table(s) of data that participants used to inform the draft goal selection. (These goals are summarized above in the table on page 13.)

A. Overall Goals

1. Radford University will achieve an overall retention rate of 76 percent for new freshmen who entered the university fall 2013 and 79 percent for new full-time degree-seeking students who enter the university fall 2014.

2. Radford University will achieve a retention rate of 82 percent for new freshmen who enter the university fall 2015. Retention rates will remain in the 82-84 percent range, as targeted by senior leaders at the institution, for subsequent cohorts.

20

B. Goals for Subpopulations

1. Students committing to the university late in the admissions cycle. Radford University will achieve a retention rate of 72 percent for those fall 2013 entering students and 74 percent for fall 2014 entering students who are admitted within 180 days of the beginning of the fall term.

21

Fall Term Retention Rate (%)

2016 82.00 + (Goal)

2015 82.00 (Goal)

2014 79.00 (Goal)

2013 76.00 (Goal)

2012 78.00

2011 74.35

2010 76.10

2009 75.95

2008 78.24

2007 78.06

2006 76.80

2005 73.73

2004 78.47

2003 75.86

2002 77.49

2001 77.52

2000 79.08

1999 73.14

1998 75.88

1997 74.38

1996 75.30

1995 72.47

1994 68.10

1994-2012 Average 75.72

Retention Rates for Freshmen in Fall 2010, 2011, and 2012 Cohorts by Number of Days as an Admitted Student

Rank

Days Between Admission and First Day of Classes

Total Number

Number Persisted

Persistence Rate (%)

1 257 or greater 1698 1413 83.222 210 to 256 1858 1452 78.133 181 to 209 1672 1226 73.334 180 or fewer 1930 1359 70.41

Total 7158 5450 76.14

In addition, Radford University will achieve a retention rate of 70 percent for fall 2013 freshmen students who registered for classes on or after July 10; 72 percent for similar students in the fall 2014 cohort; and 74 percent for students in the fall 2015 cohort.

2. Students entering RU with declared majors in selected colleges. Radford University will achieve an annual retention rate of 75 percent for fall 2013 entering students, 78 percent for fall 2014 students, and 80 percent for fall 2015 students who have declared majors in the College of Business and Economics and the College of Science and Technology.

Retention Rates for Freshmen in Fall 2010, 2011, and 2012 Cohorts by College of Declared Major at Census Date

Rank College Total Number Number Persisted Persistence Rate (%)1 CVPA 674 554 82.202 CEHD 1080 871 80.653 WCHHS 751 593 78.964 CHBS 1387 1055 76.065 PMAJ 1445 1071 74.126 CSAT 888 644 72.527 COBE 933 662 70.95

Total 7158 5450 76.14

3. Students entering RU with marginal high school GPAs. Radford University will achieve an annual retention rate of 68 percent for students who enter fall 2013 with a high school GPA of 2.92 or less; 71 percent for similar students in the 2014 cohort of entering freshmen; and 74 percent for those entering RU in fall 2015. (The data in the table below reflect “equal bins” of data as analyzed by Noel-Levitz. The 2.92 GPA was recommended by RU’s Office of Institutional Research as being a more appropriate cut point for RU populations.)

Retention Rates for Freshmen in Fall 2010, 2011, and 2012 Cohorts by High School Grade Point AverageRank GPA Total Number Number Persisted Persistence Rate (%)

1 3.45 or higher 1741 1446 83.062 Missing 10 8 80.003 3.15 to 3.44 1803 1406 77.984 2.88 to 3.14 1766 1347 76.275 2.87 or lower 1838 1243 67.63

Total 7158 5450 76.14

22

4. Students living in Madison, Muse, Draper, Washington, Tyler and Jefferson residence halls. These halls have historically had lower retention rates than others at RU. (As indicated below, Pocahontas and Bolling have also had low rates, but they will be offline in the near future because of renovations.) Radford University will achieve 75, 78, and 80 percent retention rates for freshmen in the 2103, 2014, and 2015 cohorts, respectively, who live in these residence halls.

Retention Rates for Freshmen in Fall 2010, 2011, and 2012 Cohorts by Residence HallRank Building Total Number Number Persisted Persistence Rate (%)

1 Floyd 328 286 87.202 Ingles 238 198 83.193 Norwood 39 31 79.494 Trinkle 307 244 79.485 Stuart 318 252 79.256 Peery 381 301 79.007 Moffett 639 494 77.318 Madison 117 88 75.219 Draper 507 380 74.9510 Muse 2819 2102 74.5711 Pocahontas 287 214 74.5612 Washington 408 303 74.2613 Tyler 254 188 74.0214 Jefferson 147 108 73.4715 Off-campus 277 196 70.7616 Bolling 92 65 70.65

Total 7158 5450 76.14

5. Students whose financial aid is insufficient to meet their needs. Radford University will achieve a retention rate of 74 percent for fall 2013 entering freshmen with a $2,208.01 or greater gap between financial need and financial aid offered. The retention rate will increase to 76 percent for fall 2014 entering freshmen and 78 percent for fall 2015 entering freshmen in this situation.

Retention Rates for Freshmen in Fall 2010, 2011, and 2012 Cohorts by Financial Aid GapRank Gap Between Financial Need and

Financial Aid OfferedTotal Number Number Persisted Persistence Rate

(%)1 -$932.00 or less 1344 1074 79.912 -$931.99 to $0.00 1957 1507 77.013 Missing data 1784 1353 75.844 $0.01 to $2,208.00 730 540 73.975 $2,208.01 or more 1343 976 72.67

Total 7158 5450 76.14

6. Students who are African-American. Radford University will achieve a retention rate of 76 percent for freshmen Black or African-American students in the fall 2013 cohort; 79 percent for those in the fall 2014 cohort; and 82 percent for those in the fall 2015 cohort. (While other ethnic groups also have lower than average retention rates and will benefit

23

from retention strategies, the numbers of Black students at the RU makes that ethnic group a notably sizable subpopulation of the total student body.)

Retention Rates for Freshmen in Fall 2010, 2011, and 2012 Cohorts by EthnicityRank Ethnic Group Total Number Number Persisted Persistence Rate

(%)1 American Indian or Alaska Native 36 35 92.112 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 27 22 81.483 White Caucasian 5993 4615 77.014 Hispanic of any race 256 193 75.395 Non-resident alien 4 3 75.006 Refused to disclose 81 60 74.077 Black or African-American 455 328 72.098 Two or more races 148 100 67.579 Asian 146 89 60.9610 Race and ethnicity unknown 10 5 50.00

Total 7158 5450 76.14

24

V. Retention Strategy Action Plans

An essential step in the retention planning process is the formulation of appropriate key retention strategies and action plans designed to achieve the goals that have been established. Strategies represent the broad class of actions with long-term outcomes and are followed by detailed action plans which represent the immediate, short-term action steps that collectively form each strategy. Developing good activity/action plans is the most important, detailed, and time-consuming part of the quality enhancement (retention) planning process. The activity/action plans that follow are the heart of this plan.

The action plans were developed in early 2014 by ad hoc teams of individuals representing RU faculty, staff, and students who refined the work of larger groups who participated in discussions and workshops led by Dave Trites in fall 2013. Each team was chaired by a “champion.” The initial action plans included some overlap, so the Retention Team examined and further clarified the plans in March and April 2014; it also prioritized actions within each of the strategies. Each plan includes the following:

Additional Steps: what specific actions should we take as we adopt each retention strategy?

Responsibility: who should have primary responsibility for making sure that the recommended actions are taken? (We recognize that the individuals listed may delegate this responsibility to someone who reports to him/her.)

Completion date: what is a realistic date by which the action should be completed? (Note that multiple actions are already in various stages of completion.)

Cost: if available, what is the Retention Team’s best estimate of the cost of implementation of the actions? Some actions, such as determining gaps in academic support services, involve doing data analysis or further investigation. Other than the time of the individuals involved, these actions are low- or no-cost. Other actions, like the expansion of learning communities, could vary considerably in cost depending upon how complicated the community is, whether the community is residential or not, etc. (For example, learning communities such as the existing non-residential Core Connections program and the new Biology Connections community referenced above forge connections between existing courses and utilize existing facilities and personnel. These programs can therefore be offered at virtually no additional cost. However, more expansive future programs may require renovations or new construction, and these campus makeovers and additional compensation for faculty-in-residence and other providers could prove quite costly. As reflected below, during the two-year life of this plan, we envision the creation only of learning communities that take full advantage of existing resources, and can therefore be offered at minimal cost.) Still other actions, such as bringing back Supplemental Instruction, will clearly require a significant allocation of resources.

Outcome assessment: which of the goal categories (i.e., RU populations or subpopulations; see page 13, above) have the potential to be positively impacted if the actions are taken? The Office of Academic Assessment has been involved in conversations about the assessment of outcomes, and specific assessment plans will be developed as action plans are approved and implemented.

The plans are listed on the pages that follow in the priority order recommended at the October 31-November 1 Noel-Levitz workshop. As noted above, within strategies, items are listed in priority order.

25

Priority 1: Enhance Academic Support ServicesKey Strategy: Ensure the optimum availability of academic support services in support of student learning.

Description/Explanation:IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/TIMETABLEAdditional Steps Responsibility Completion Date Cost AssessmentDevelop a program of Supplement Instruction (SI) to augment tutoring support (ID faculty, courses, training). Identify coordination of SI to ensure full and complete deployment.

Office of the Provost Fall of 2015 $100,000 per year Goal categories I-VII

Increase staffing to ensure sufficient professional staff to provide administrative oversight and sufficient student tutors/SI peer leaders to meet demand during peak and non-peak times.

Office of the Provost Summer 2014 Reassigned time for a faculty member (estimate $15,000 per year) + $15,000 stipend

Possible administrative assistant ($25-30,000)

Cost of additional student tutors/leaders determined by implementation of the SI

Goal categories I-VII

Create a search database of existing supportive options associated with need (integrating forms of support to encourage access). Developing specific marketing plans for supportive services.

Steve Lerch in conjunction with admissions and offices providing academic support

Summer 2014 Time Goal categories I-VII

26

Conduct a data analysis to determine salient gaps and need for academic support services. Develop rules of engagement (screening criteria) for supportservices (face-to-face or virtual) to ensure efficient alignment of student needs with available resources.

Susan Hudson

Academic Support Offices will gather data supplemented by Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory

Summer 2014 Time Goal categories I-VII

Create an administrative position with oversight of academic support services, including but not limited to academic advising. Determine the appropriate organizational structure of those services.

Mike Dunn and Steve Lerch

Fall 2014 $100,000 + benefits per year


Integrate additional synchronous and asynchronous online approaches to support creative tutoring efforts.

Tracey Mattson Online tutoring was initiated in January 2014

Ongoing cost: $26 per hour, or approximately $65,000 per year


27

Identify a centralized, welcoming location for potentially combined academic services. Possibilities: a renovated existing building such as Whitt or Russell or a new Academic Support Building. Tenants would include DRO, LARC, SI offices, career services, pre-major advising, and other offices providing academic support.

Mike Dunn and Steve Lerch

Office of Finance and Administration, with input from Office of the Provost and the Academic Support Offices

Fall 2018 $30,000,000 (???) Goal categories I-VII

Champion: Rachel Hall, Freshmen Advisor, Pre-major Advising Center

Ad Hoc Committee: Catherine Costello (Student representative) Jason Davis, Assistant Professor of Biology (Faculty representative) Angela DeVore-Greene, Director, Disabilities Resource Center David Horton, Assistant to the Dean, College of Science and Technology Steve Lerch, Interim Coordinator of Student Retention (NSP representative) Jackie McNabb, Director of Enterprise Systems

28

Priority 2: Improve the Quality of Academic AdvisingKey Strategy: Develop more systematic, intentional, and seamless advising interactions for students (especially for new freshmen) that emphasize relationship building and high expectations.

Description/Explanation:IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/TIMETABLEAdditional Steps Responsibility Completion Date Cost Outcome AssessmentReexamine and evaluate the human resource classification system (and pay) for advising to eliminate turnover of professional advisors.

Connie Phillips in consultation with Bill Kennan, Human Relations, and the Office of Finance and Administration

By the end of the 2014-2015 academic year

Dependent upon money needed to appropriately adjust compensation and create new professional advising positions


Provide seamless technology support for advising.

Jackie McNabb As soon as a new CRM (Hobsons?) can be purchased

Cost of the software package and RU Information Technology support staff


Create adherence to an essential list of advisingrequirements; e.g., every student knows the name of his/her academic and faculty advisors (mentor).

Loretta Estes, otheradvising coordinators, and April Newcomer (keeper of the advising website)

Spring and Summer 2014 none Goal categories I-VII

Develop a process to increase the course availability based on student demand; i.e., wait listing in registration and scheduling courses and sections based on degree audits.

Matthew Brunner Begin Spring 2014 Money to fund additional courses if needed. (Wait listing will help us better meet course demand, and trends will identify disciplines in which additional faculty should be hired.)


29

Identify alignment options for increasing uniformity of advising services (i.e., online advising module for all students, advising at Quest, and advising topics in UNIV 100)

Marc Jacobsen, Mike Dunn and advising coordinators

Summer and fall 2014 Initial cost of $12,500 funded by New Student Programs to compensate Quest Faculty Advisors for participation in the May 15, 2014 Quest Advising Institute


Develop increased opportunities for advising prospective (new, admitted) students for success (prior to enrollment).

Marc Jacobsen, Mike Dunn, Joel Hanlon

Begin in spring 2014 No additional cost; during Quest 2014, will use data from instruments made available through Noel-Levitz partnership


Provide additional professional development to ensure advisors share best practices including access to needed data and information (professional travel for full-time and faculty advisors, faculty training, incl. an online module).

Donna Oliver and Deborah Kitts (assisted by other Advising Coordinators)

Research travel budget during summer 2014; create online faculty advising module summer 2014

Cost of travel Goal categories I-VII

Define the difference between mentoring and advising, define mentoring standards, and provide for a clear role for faculty mentors and professional advisors – this could be college (or department) based. Assess place of advising in faculty evaluation system and recommend changes to system if/as appropriate

Advising coordinators (with input from deans and chairs) and Faculty Senate

Begin discussions, and planning, in 2014-2015 academic year

Cost of hiring more professional advisors; potentially more incentives for faculty (those who keep advising and those who want to become mentors) – could be monetary or other types of compensation


30

Identify data needs to inform advising conversations (e.g., % of current freshmen advised by professional advisors).

Deborah Kitts; Institutional Research

Spring 2014 none Goal categories I-VII

Increase integration of career advising into advising process (including job shadowing) and integration of career experiences (more involvement with Career Services, review of COED 260 courses and adding “Intro to Major” courses.

Ellen Taylor and advising coordinators

Discussions in 2014-2015 academic year. “Distributed” model of career advising by college will begin in fall 2014.

Potential cost of additional staff in Career Center; cost of offering additional COED 260 courses and “Intro to Major” courses


Identify opportunities and receptivity in colleges to advance ambassadors and other peers to provide mentorship opportunities for students.

Loretta Estes (and other Coordinators)

Discussions have begun spring 2014; ambassadors should be functioning in all colleges by the end of the 2014-2015 academic year

None unless students are compensated for mentoring


Champion: Loretta Estes, Advising Coordinator and Assistant to the Dean, Waldron College of Health and Human Services

Ad Hoc Committee: Emily Guise (Student representative) Marc Jacobsen, Associate Director, New Student Programs (NSP representative) Deborah Kitts, Advising Coordinator, College of Humanities and Behavioral Sciences Jackie McNabb, Director of Enterprise Systems Diane Millar, Chair, Communication Sciences and Disorders (Faculty representative) Donna Oliver, Advising Coordinator, College of Visual and Performing Arts

31

Priority 3: Increase the Potential of UNIV 100 (see note below)Key Strategy: Develop alternative approaches to increase the potential of the UNIV 100 program in order to reach more new students with “college knowledge” information critical to their success.

Description/Explanation:IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/TIMETABLEAdditional Steps Responsibility Completion Date Cost Outcome AssessmentInvestigate the potential to reorganize UNIV 100 so it runs to the end of the semester – two-credits.

Michele Jenkins UNIV 100 will run until the end of the semester in fall 2014. However, it will remain only one credit hour: instead of meeting twice per week for ten weeks, it will meet twice per week for seven weeks and once per week for seven weeks. There will be exploration of expanding the course to two credit hours during the 2014-2015 academic year.

Approximately $70,000: double the cost of the current UNIV 100 (moving from one credit to two credits)


Develop a credentialing system for UNIV 100 instructors to ensure consistency of delivery, outcomes, and assessment.

Mike Dunn; Michele Jenkins

Fall 2015 $37,500 for stipend to train instructors (75 x $500)


Develop two-hour UNIV 100 sections with particular themes for specific subpopulations of students, possibly linked to introductory courses in disciplines

Lauren Hatfield and new NSP position with assistance from appropriate college or department

Fall 2015 Additional $16,000 to pilot 10 sections at two credits

Goal categories II-VI

32

Examine sub-population success rates of themedsections of UNIV 100.

Mike Dunn NSP Fall 2016 none Goal categories II-V

Develop SRP 2014 predictive model.

Mike Dunn June 1, 2014 Part of Noel-Levitz collaboration


Document the ROI that UNIV 100 provides.

Institutional Research, in collaboration with New Student Programs

Ongoing It currently costs approximately $120,000 to offer UNIV 100. What is the ROI because of the impact of the course on retention rates?

Goal categories i-VII

Champion: Courtney Bell, Coordinator, Disabilities Resource Office

Ad Hoc Committee: Dan Davidson, Chair, Department of Accounting and Finance (Faculty representative) Betty Dore, Professor, School of Teacher Education and Leadership (Faculty representative) Michele Jenkins, Associate Director of New Student Programs (NSP representative) Ashley Light, student representative Dana Trask, Assistant Advising Coordinator, College of Visual and Performing Arts

A Special Note about UNIV 100 and the College Student Inventory

Clearly, the most important campus-wide retention initiative we can put into place immediately will involve more effectively using Noel-Levitz data in UNIV 100. The vast majority of new freshmen enroll in UNIV 100, and the course already plays an enormous role in the retention of new students: data from Institutional Research show that those who have completed the course since its inception in 1995 have been approximately 11 percent more likely to be retained for their sophomore year than those who did not. Moreover, while there will undoubtedly be other resource-dependent initiatives we will want to put into place during 2014-2015, none will be as costly; the other “big-ticket” action items that are part of this plan—like reviving Supplemental Instruction—will almost certainly take an entire year to put into place.

Noel-Levitz has developed the College Student Inventory (CSI) to enable institutions to gather information from entering freshmen very early in their college careers. In addition to demographic data, the CSI uses students’ self-reported data so that institutions can assess their academic motivation, ability to cope, and receptivity to support services. This information, in combination with the student’s Student Retention Predictor (SRP)—a score that takes into account factors that have identified previous cohorts of students at the institution as being “at-risk”—can be used to recognize individual students and groups of students who could benefit from early institutional intervention.

33

The retention dimensions of Noel-Levitz’s partnership with Radford University were initiated when Dr. Trites made his second visit to the institution on August 12 and 13, 2013. Owing to the shortness of time between his visit and the beginning of the fall semester, rather than attempting a full administration, the CSI was piloted at RU in the fall of 2013 in a small group of UNIV 100 and BIOL 160 classes. (The latter were included at the request of the dean and department chair, who expressed special concern about the retention of biology majors.) Students completed the CSI in a computer lab during the second week of classes. Staff from the New Student Programs then visited the classes, distributing students’ individual reports and debriefing the class as a group. Students were given an assignment that involved responding to a question like: “Now that you know more about your strengths and potential challenges, how will you use your strengths (e.g., the fact that you appear to be very receptive to receiving academic assistance) to address areas of weakness (e.g., the fact that your verbal and writing confidence is shaky)?

The ideal situation, of course, is for every entering student to take the CSI and spend time with a faculty or staff member who will have at least one one-on-one conversation with him/her about his/her report. That is, in fact, the plan for the administration of the CSI going forward. Specifically:

1. Noel-Levitz’s College Student Inventory (CSI) will be administered to all new students during Quest 2014. Administration of the CSI to all students is included in RU’s contract with Noel-Levitz, so there will be no additional cost incurred.

2. UNIV 100 has been expanded such that it does not end after ten weeks of the semester. It will meet twice weekly for the first seven weeks of the semester and once weekly for the next seven. Instructors have indicated their preference that the course continue through the semester so that they can better assist students with matters like working with advisors, registration for spring classes, and preparing for finals, which currently occur after the course is over. Significantly, the extension of the class over the full semester will enable students to take Noel-Levitz’s Mid-Year Student Assessment (MYSA), which complements the CSI and should be administered during the last few weeks of the fall. The MYSA will also be administered at no additional cost to RU. (UNIV 100 is the only course in which most new freshmen are enrolled, and unless we administer the MYSA as part of a course, response rates are likely to be miniscule.) Comparing CSI to MYSA data will help us see where our students have grown and where they still need help.

There will be 21 class meetings of UNIV 100 instead of the current 20. If UNIV 100 instructors are paid equivalent to RU’s lowest-paid adjuncts, they would earn $900/credit hour. However, while students will continue to receive one hour of credit, the 21 course meetings will be equivalent to the number in a course worth 1.5 hours of credit. Therefore, each instructor should receive an instructional stipend of $1,350.

3. Fifteen “CSI experts” will be trained during the summer to visit UNIV 100 classes and do group debriefs of the CSI results early in the fall. Each will receive $100 for the training and class visits. Three members of the New Student Programs staff did this for the pilot of 16 sections last year, but we need more “experts” to cover 70 sections early in the semester.

34

4. UNIV 100 instructors will be trained to do individual CSI debriefs with their students. At a minimum, we want them to have meetings with the five or so students in each class identified by the CSI as being most at-risk. Ideally, they will spend at least some one-on-one time with each student, regardless of his/her level of risk. We would propose adding $200 to each instructor stipend to cover summer training and the time they will spend discussing CSI results with individual students.

In fall 2013, Faculty Instructors received $1,000 stipends. Therefore, apart from Peer Instructor stipends—which will be unchanged for 2014—the cost to deliver 70 sections of UNIV 100 was $70,000. Beginning in 2014, each faculty instructor would receive an instructional stipend of $1,350 to cover the delivery of the course plus an additional $200 for work with students using the CSI, for a total of $1,550. Over 70 sections of the course, the additional cost is $550 x 70, or $38,500. Adding the stipends of the “CSI experts” (15 x $100, or $1,500), the cost of implementing this initiative next year will be an additional $40,000 beyond the current UNIV 100 budget. The assumption is that financial support for this initiative will come from state funding earmarked for retention.

At some point during the 2015-2016 academic year, students in the fall 2014 freshmen cohort will be administered a third Noel-Levitz instrument, the Second-Year Student Assessment (SYSA). The method through which the SYSA will be administered has not yet been determined. However, as with the CSI and the MYSA, the costs of our students taking the MYSA and its analysis by Noel-Levitz are included in RU’s contract with Noel-Levitz.

35

Priority 4 (tie): Develop Additional Learning CommunitiesKey Strategy: Identify and develop additional residential and non-residential learning community approaches that will expand access to the “power of the cohort” for new freshmen students.

Description/Explanation: These learning community options should include both residential and nonresidential experiencesIMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/TIMETABLEAdditional Steps Responsibility Completion Date Cost Outcome AssessmentResidential life realities need to be studied to determine capacity for developing residential learningCommunities.

Mike Dunn and Lauren Hatfield meet with key individuals in Residential Life

Early February 2014; result was location of Biology Connections; a pilot learning community for fall 2014, in Stuart Hall

none Goal categories I-VII

Identify faculty who may be interested in participating in learning communities.

Mike Dunn and Susan Hudson (in conjunction with Joel Hagen for Biology Connections)

February 2014 none Goal categories I-VII

Determine if residential halls could be limited to freshmen and sophomores.

Mike Dunn, Lauren Hatfield, and other members of Residential Life staff

March 2014 none Goal categories I-VII

Investigate/research past learning communitysuccess at Radford and best practices at other institutions to determine what “works.”

Mike Dunn and Steve Lerch from NSP; Irvin Clark and Residential Life staff

March 2014 none Goal categories I-VII

36

Determine potential access to residential classroomsin the context of safety and security and other areasthat are natural places for learning communities to be located; remodel sites if/as needed

Lauren Hatfield Mid-march 2014 None, unless building renovations are required


Conduct focus group of freshmen to ID learningcommunity preferences.

New NSP position Fall 2014 none Goal categories I-VII

Redo training for residential life staff who will work in learning communities to emphasize theme-related programming.

Mike Dunn and Lauren Hatfield

Summer 2014 for staff working with Biology Connections; future summers as new residential communities come online


Promote/market learning communities to encourage student participation.

Susan Hudson for Biology Connections; new NSP position for future communities.

May 2014 for Biology Connections

Minimal costs for flier development and mailing


Identify ways to integrate student life and professionalactivities into learning communities.

New NSP position; Lauren Hatfield and other Residential Life staff

May 2015 none Goal categories I-VII

Investigate connecting learning community with autobiographical writing class to accelerate personal connections with individual stories.

New NSP position May 2015 none Goal categories I-VII

37

Evaluate retention rates for two-credit UNIV100 students for out-of-state and at-risk students offered during fall 2014.

Mike Dunn and Susan Hudson

Summer 2014 none Goal categories I-VII

Compare retention rates for dual enrollment students enrolled and not enrolled in Core Connections

Mike Dunn and Institutional Research

Fall 2014 none Goal categories I-VII

Evaluate reasons why students are and are not academically successful in learning communities at RU.

Lauren Hatfield, new NSP position, and Institutional Research

Ongoing. Data for Biology Connections community will be available in Fall 2015


Identify coordination options for expanding residential and non-residential learning communities….creative options may be appropriate.

New NSP position; Mike Dunn; Lauren Hatfield

Fall 2014. New options for fall 2015 should be identified by late in the fall 2014 semester


Champion: Donna Dunn, advising coordinator, College of Education and Human Development

Ad Hoc Committee: Niels Christensen, Assistant Director of the Honors Academy and Professor of Psychology (Faculty Representative) Megan Coulter, Associate Registrar Mike Dunn, Director, New Student Programs (NSP representative) Lauren Hatfield, Assistant Director of Residential Life for Retention Alexis Male (Student representative) Pat Shoemaker, Dean, College of Education and Human Development

38

Priority 4 (tie): Facilitate Student Access to Campus EmploymentKey Strategy: Develop a uniform, user-friendly, complete, single point of access for students who desire to work on-campus.

Description/Explanation:IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/TIMETABLEAdditional Steps Responsibility Completion Date Cost Outcome AssessmentWork with RU administration to develop policies that ensure that all student employment opportunities are posted on a centralized access point.

Steve Lerch and Carolyn Sutphin, in collaboration with appropriate representatives from Financial Aid, Student Affairs, and Finance and Administration


Determine the best place to manage and maintain the access point that provides maximum campus employment access for students.

Jaime Hunt, Carolyn Sutphin and representative from Financial Aid


Educate campus about and advertise the central point of access (for students and employers).

University Relations May 2015 none Goal categories I-VII

Develop hiring practices that allow fair and equal access to existing positions. Examine logistics underlying individual department hiring processes

Teresa Slaughter, in conjunction with Financial Aid and all RU divisions and colleges

May 2015 none Goal categories II and IV

Inventory all campus employment opportunities that exist and determine the impact of campus employment on retention. (i.e., sub-populations)

Cindy Eller, in conjunction with IR, HR, Financial Aid, and NSP


Tag employment opportunities to allow students to match their needs and qualifications with job requirements (including service, freshmen friendly and volunteer opportunities).

John Liptak and Tim Filbert


39

Determine a process that connects freshmen with campus employment opportunities matched to their set of needs and attributes.

Mike Dunn May 2015 none Goal categories I-VII

Champion: Alice Coughlin, Associate Director for Student Activities Operations

Ad Hoc Committee: Suzanne Ament, Associate Professor of History (Faculty representative) Joel Hanlon, Senior Assistant Director, New Student Programs (NSP representative) Laura Jacobsen, Associate Professor, School of Teacher Education and Leadership (Faculty representative) Jerry Lester, Assistant Director of Financial Aid Kaleb Newago (Student representative) Barbara Porter, Director of Financial Aid Carolyn Sutphin, Career Services and Community Engagement

40

Priority 6: Manage Enrollment StrategicallyKey Strategy: Manage enrollment strategically, especially for first-time, degree-seeking, academically underprepared, and late admit students by using data to align outreach approaches with desired retention outcomes; e.g., capacity of targeted majors, learning readiness of applicants, desired profile of entering class, and consideration of alternate entrance criteria for late applicants.

Description/Explanation: This approach will balance input financial management with student-centered outcome management considerations.IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/TIMETABLEAdditional Steps Responsibility Completion Date Cost Outcome AssessmentExamine admissions criteria focusing on those indicators that are highly correlated to retention.

James Pennix and Damian Allen

December 2014 none Goal categories II and IV

Encourage the University to strategically expand the recruitment market and align growth with appropriate supportive services.

James Pennix July 2014 Additional names can be purchased for $.34 each. It is estimated a minimum of 50,000 additional names will be needed. Total estimate $17,000.

Goal category I

Provide special orientation, transition services, and advising support for late commits and other at-risk populations.

Mike Dunn and Loretta Estes

Fall 2014 (pilot) Current resources will be reallocated to accommodate separate sessions for identified at-risk populations.

Goal category II

Investigate the nature of the late commit challenge: Answer the question of why the late commits are leaving and their reasons for departure. Also, investigate the impact of financial considerations on the enrollment of late commits.

Damian Allen December 2014 none Goal categories I-VII

41

Refine a communication flow that focuses the attention of late admits on financial aid issues.

Allison Pratt and Barb Porter

Fall 2014 none Goal categories I-VII

Use campus employment as retention strategy for late committing and enrolling students.

Ellen Taylor and Barb Porter

Plan in place by March 2015


Investigate specific yield strategies to decrease number of late commits.

James Pennix and Damian Allen

Summer/Fall 2015 none Goal categories I-VII

Develop a strategic financial aid plan to increase retention.

Wendy Lowe, Allison Pratt and Barbra Porter

July 1, 2014 (Plan) forfall 2015 class

While additional resources will be necessary to expand the University’s internal financial aid pool, no additional cost will be incurred in the development of the plan.

Champion: Debra Templeton, Assistant Vice President and Director of Institutional Research

Ad Hoc Committee: Damian Allen, Reporting and Faculty Data Warehouse Manager, Institutional Research Kim Butterfield (Student representative) Art Carter, Associate Dean, College of Science and Technology and Chair, Information Technology (Faculty representative) Tabitha Greear, assistant advising coordinator, Waldron College of Health and Human Services James Pennix, Dean of Admissions/Doug Brady, Associate Director of Admissions Chad Reed, Director, Office of Budget and Financial Planning Lindsay Skeens, Assistant Director, New Student Programs (NSP representative)

42

Priority 7: Integrate Career Awareness into all Students’ First Year CurriculaKey Strategy: Integrate career awareness into all new student’s first-year curriculum to ensure a more complete understanding of the chosen majors for decided students and of available alternatives for deciding students.

Description/Explanation:

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/TIMETABLEAdditional Steps Responsibility Completion Date Cost Outcome AssessmentInvestigate the persistence reporting of pre-major retention to inform understanding of the transition process into the student’s major choice

Patti Williamson, Nasim Schwab, Susan Hudson, and new NSP position

December 2014 none Goal categories I, II, and III.

Create additional opportunities for students to learn more about majors during the intake process (electronic and otherwise). Review the assignments of advisees to ensure identification of new student assignments.

Steve Lerch, and individual advising coordinators or department chairs for each college

Fall term 2014 none Goal category I and III.

Integrate advising practice issues into (Hobsons) CRM ongoing training and support.

Jackie McNabb August 2014 decision anticipated

Part of cost of Hobsons contract


43

Development of the career coaching approach,including assignments and development of coaching,résumé prep, alumni bridge development, advisory boards, internships and programming that are college specific.

Ellen Taylor in coordination with individual college leadership (college deans, advising coordinators, and leadership teams)

Conversations with College Leadership will begin spring 2014. The implementation strategy is contingent upon new funding request, currently under consideration.

Dependent upon level of funding received through new funding initiative.

Goal categories III and VII

Develop a required career- related experience for all majors (Intro to Career).

Susan Underwood and Justin Anderson; Nasim Schwab; Patti Williamson

Fall 2015 development;fall 2016 Implementation

Will vary by college Goal categories II, III and V

Use the CSI and other information to informeducational planning and major choices…early in the intake process.

Susan Hudson; new NSP position

Summer 2014 none Goal category I-VII

Champion: Nasim Schwab, Advising Coordinator, College of Business and Economics

Ad Hoc Committee: Justin Anderson, Assistant Professor of Biology (Faculty representative) Dan Davidson, Chair, Department of Accounting and Finance (Faculty representative) Susan Hudson, Retention Projects Manager (NSP representative) James Lollar, Chair, Department of Marketing (Faculty representative) Brittni McMillian (Student representative) Ellen Taylor, Director of Career Services and Community Engagement Susan Underwood, Advising Coordinator, College of Science and Technology Patti Williamson, Advising Coordinator, Pre-major Advising Center

44

VI. A Final Word

This plan does not ensure results. It would be folly for this or any plan to guarantee retention outcomes. However, it does document a disciplined appraisal of current retention realities at Radford University. It also reflects thoughtful goal setting taking those realities into account.

Utilizing our knowledge of the characteristics of RU students and best practices in student retention, this document identifies priority improvement targets and outlines specific strategies and attendant action plans. It was developed through a careful planning effort involving representatives of diverse RU constituencies, all of whom are dedicated to facilitating student success. Upon approval, this plan will serve as a communication tool that describes what RU expects to achieve and how it will accomplish it.

Radford University has already committed significant financial and human resources to improving student retention. This plan proposes specific future retention goals, points RU in a direction that should enable our institution to achieve those goals, and recommends a direct and practical route the University should take to reach its destination. Continuing investment by the RU community is crucial for the success of this plan. We are confident that our investment will pay significant dividends for our institution and—more importantly—for the students who attend our University and the families who entrust their sons and daughters to us.

45

APPENDIX

Radford University Retention Committee

Neils Christensen, Associate Director, RU Honors Academy, and Professor of Psychology Irvin Clark, Associate Vice President for Student Affairs and Dean of Students Mike Dunn, Director, New Student Programs Loretta Estes, Assistant to the Dean and Advising Coordinator, Waldron College of Health and

Human Services Lauren Hatfield, Assistant Director of Residential Life for Retention Susan Hudson, Retention Projects Manager, New Student Programs (part-time) Michele Jenkins, Associate Director, New Student Programs Steve Lerch, Interim Coordinator of Student Retention (part-time)

Radford University Faculty Retention Task Force

Art Carter, Associate Dean, College of Science and Technology, and Associate Professor and Chair, Department of Information Technology

Mary Ferrari, Professor of History Jessica Goldsmith, Assistant Professor, Department of Interior Design and Fashion Dale Henderson, Associate Professor and Chair, Department of Management Kevin LoPresto, Associate Professor, School of Teacher Education and Leadership Diane Millar, Professor and Chair, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders

46

consultant observations - web viewjerry lester, assistant director ... a final word. this plan does...

Documents