strategic plan for academic advising - radford … to address common advising issues, discuss...

Strategic Plan for Academic Advising

2015-2018

Endorsed by AALT May 27, 2015

2

Background

During the 2013-2014 academic year, individuals representing multiple campus constituencies came together under the guidance of Dr. Dave Trites, Senior Consultant from Ruffalo Noel Levitz, to provide input for a Strategic Plan for Retention for Radford University. The Strategic Plan was completed by the Radford University Retention Committee (see Appendix A) in May 2014 and endorsed by Provost Minner and the Academic Affairs Leadership Team in August 2014. The plan included seven key strategies the University will employ in its efforts to increase the retention rates of new freshmen:

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 [emphasis added];

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

4. Identify and develop additional residential and non-residential learning community approaches that will expand access to the “power of the cohort” for new freshmen;

5. Develop a uniform, user-friendly, complete, single point of access for students who desire to work on campus;

6. 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; and

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 available alternatives for deciding students.

Near the end of the 2013-2014 academic year, with the concurrence of the University’s professional advising staff, the Retention Committee determined that, even as other individuals and groups would begin to take steps to implement the other six strategies in the plan, the 2014-2015 academic year would be devoted to developing a Strategic Plan for Advising. This decision was made for three reasons:

1. There is overwhelming research evidence that the quality of academic advising at an institution has significant impact upon student retention rates. Indeed, in 2004 Richard Light wrote that “Good advising may be the single most underestimated characteristic of a successful college experience.” Vincent Tinto (2009) has noted that “students are more likely to persist and graduate in settings that provide clear and consistent information about institutional requirements and effective advising about the choices students have to make regarding their programs of study and future career goals.” In 2010, the ACT published its most recent “What Works in Student Retention” report (ACT, 2010). Participating institutions were asked to indicate their on-campus retention practices and then indicate the degree to which the practice contributed to retention on their campus. Each of the top three practices were related to academic advising: having an academic advising center; providing an increased number of

3

academic advisors; and offering advising interventions with selected student populations. A 2012 study conducted by the Center for Public Education (see http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Staffingstudents/High-school-rigor-and-good-advice-Setting-up-students-to-succeed) found that three factors were good predictors of academic persistence in the first year. Two had to do with academic preparation: the completion of high-level math classes or Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate classes in high school. The third was academic advising; specifically, talking to an academic advisor in college either “sometimes” or “often” significantly improved freshmen’s chances to persist, with students from low socioeconomic backgrounds and low-academic achievement backgrounds demonstrating the greatest gains in persistence when they reported going to see an academic advisor in college. In fact, four-year institutions students who saw their academic advisor “often” instead of “never” were found to be 53 percent more likely to persist.

2. Student perceptions of advising at Radford University are significantly better than national averages for similar sector institutions and slightly, but not significantly, better than averages for similar institutions in the southeastern United States as measured in the fall 2013 Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI). However, RU students indicated greater dissatisfaction with academic advising than with other campus services on the SSI, and RU freshmen who took the Mid-Year Student Assessment (MYSA) in the fall of 2014 ranked “interaction with advisor” last in satisfaction among nine aspects of college life. It is critical to note that the sample size for each of these instruments was quite small. In addition, on the MYSA, students reported more satisfaction than dissatisfaction: their average level of satisfaction was 4.65 on a 1-7 Likert scale. Moreover, when asked following advising appointments to evaluate their advisors, most RU students have recently awarded them fairly high marks. However, it would appear to be very safe to argue that, even if RU is doing relatively well in advising, there remains room for improvement, especially given how critical it is to student retention.

3. The Academic Advising Committee (AAC), an internal governance committee which (as per page 16 of the Radford University Internal Governance Document) “plans, monitors, and evaluates all functions related to academic advising . . .” had already been working on a strategic plan for advising. While the pieces of the plan drafted by the AAC did not involve the extensive input from other campus constituencies that the current document reflects, the AAC had realized the need to establish a path forward for advising at RU, and its excellent work established a solid foundation for the current plan.

In sum, there was general consensus among the members of the AAC and those coordinating RU’s retention initiatives that enhancing the delivery of advising was “low-hanging retention fruit” we should pluck as soon as possible. The impetus provided by Radford University’s current collaboration with

http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Staffingstudents/High-school-rigor-and-good-advice-Setting-up-students-to-succeed


4

Ruffalo Noel Levitz—specifically, the expert guidance of Dr. Trites—offered the best opportunity to shape the future of advising at RU in ways that will positively impact the student experience and enhance retention rates, and this Strategic Plan for Advising offers a roadmap to shape that future.

History of Advising at RU

During the first two-thirds of Radford’s history, all students either advised themselves or received formal or informal academic guidance from faculty. With the dramatic growth of undergraduate enrollments at the University in the 1980s, a central advising office was created under the leadership of Dr. Belinda Anderson (and later, Dr. David Tukey). That office provided both direct guidance to students who were undecided about their majors and some degree of oversight for all advising at the institution. It became clear in the late 1980s that RU’s ability to effectively advise students was not able to keep pace with the enrollment growth; this became very evident when, in an exit survey, graduates indicated a significant level of dissatisfaction with academic advising. In response, the University considered a number of academic advising models. Shortly before he left RU, Dr. Tukey proposed addressing advising deficiencies by moving toward a centralized “University College” model, but his proposal never gained traction.

Rather, acknowledging that students’ advising needs vary widely across colleges, the University moved in the direction of a college advising center based model. Thus, when Dr. Tukey left RU, his position was not refilled. Rather, the office he headed became the Premajor (i.e., undecided student) Advising Center. Beginning with the College of Business and Economics (which initially used peers to advise freshmen and sophomores in the college through the BUSPAC—the Business Peer Advising Center), and the College of Education and Human Development, each undergraduate college eventually added its own center staffed by a coordinator and—over time—additional professional advisors. Each of the centers reports to its college dean.

In the early 1990s, the Academic Advising Committee became an Internal Governance Committee convened by the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs. Thus, while each advising center operates as a separate college-specific entity, the professional advisors have met regularly for over 20 years to address common advising issues, discuss academic policies and procedures, coordinate registration and orientation activities, etc.

The seven advising centers are now staffed by 18 professional advisors; most centers also employ graduate students, some of whom advise undergraduates. During the past four years, a few new professional advising positions have been created so that the reliance upon graduate students as advisors is gradually being eliminated.

The role of faculty in RU advising varies by college as to when students transition from professional advising to faculty advising, but all colleges utilize faculty advising at some point in the student’s experience, and all faculty are expected to advise. This lack of uniformity has evolved over time based upon informal assessments and impressions of what works best for students and faculty; e.g., some

5

majors have large numbers of students and relatively few faculty to advise them, so the advising center has assumed at least part of the responsibility for advising those majors, lest faculty be overburdened and students inconvenienced.

In sum, academic advising at Radford University in 2015 takes place within the context of a decentralized advising system characterized by Dr. Trites as a “modified split shared model,” in which some special populations, such as deciding students, are advised in the Premajor Advising Center, while most others are advised either by professional advisors in their college centers or by faculty advisors.

Development of the Strategic Plan for Advising

During his visit to campus on October 6 and 7, 2014, Dr. Trites met with the professional advisors to begin planning a broader conversation about advising involving multiple campus constituencies. In his follow-up report of October 13, he noted that “the discussion with advisors was very positive, and their passion for student success and commitment to improve advising was evident . . .,” a sentiment that is affirmed by anyone who has ever interacted with our professional advisors.

During his visit on November 10 and 11, 2014, Dr. Trites conducted 90-minute meetings with the professional advising staffs in each of the college advising centers (and the Premajor Advising Center). During these meetings, he learned about the advising approach and structure of each center. He also conducted, with the assistance of the advisors, a “force field” analysis which identified a set of “driving” (opportunities and strengths) and “restraining” (threats and weaknesses) for each. In his November 20 follow-up report, Dr. Trites reached the conclusion that:

While the current RU advising system includes many talented and passionate advisors and many excellent practices, the entire system would be improved by increased consistency, uniformity, and intentionality across the decentralized college advising centers. This “centralization of practices” can be expected to prevent many students from “falling through the cracks.”

He also noted that:

[Advising] remains undervalued and under resourced in its current state. This was astoundingly obvious in the current compensation and classification inequities that are in place for professional advisors, and in the lack of incentives and professional development requirements for faculty advisors.

As part of his December 8 and 9, 2014 visit, Dr. Trites facilitated a six-hour “advising conversation” retreat attended by nearly 50 members of the Radford University faculty, staff, and administration. (See Appendix B for a list of attendees.) Using multiple consensus-building techniques, the retreat concluded with widespread agreement that action plans should be developed around ten strategic priorities that have significant potential to enhance the delivery of academic advising at RU. In draft form (the final statement of each strategy was later finalized; see below), the priorities included:

6

1. Improve the value assigned to faculty advising by making it part of one’s teaching responsibility

instead of service; 2. Determine optimal advisor loads for both faculty and professional advisors and establish staffing

assignments that will conform to those standards; 3. Identify and implement a course enrollment management system to accurately predict student

demand based upon degree audit and “finish in four” information; 4. Develop a common set of uniform policies, procedures, training protocols, etc. for all advising

centers that would create a seamless system for freshmen and all students who change majors; 5. Improve the way advising is valued and evaluated (change RU culture in this regard); 6. Revise advisor classification and compensation schedules to ensure fair and equitable

treatment; 7. Revise the faculty advising model so only selected faculty advise; 8. Establish a uniform technology (Hobsons’ AgileAdvisor) to support all aspects of advising and

provide training to ensure optimal deployment; 9. Integrate essential advising information into the current UNIV 100 curriculum; and 10. Encourage additional collaboration between advising and residential life.

Subsequently, the Retention Committee and Dr. Trites agreed that detailed plans need not be developed for strategies eight and nine; a separate committee is working with Hobsons to effect the AgileAdvisor implementation scheduled for fall 2015, and revisions of the UNIV 100 curriculum began in fall 2014 (with more planned for fall 2015) as a result of strategy three in the Strategic Plan for Retention: “Develop alternative approaches to increase the potential of the UNIV 100 course in order to reach more new students with ‘college knowledge information critical to their success.’” The Retention Team also decided to delay the development of Strategy Ten pending conversations with the staff from the Office of Residential Life; these meetings took place during Dr. Trites’ March 10 and 11 and April 9 and 10, 2015 visits to campus, and an action plan for this strategy was subsequently drafted.

Each advising coordinator was randomly assigned to serve as “champion” for one of the first seven strategies. Champions assembled small ad hoc committees of faculty and staff (with a member of the Retention Committee assigned as liaison to each group), and during January and February 2015, these committees met to finalize the strategy statement, draft steps in the plan, assign responsibility for each step, propose completion dates, project budgetary implications, and state desired outcomes if the strategy were to be implemented. Action plans were shared with the Retention Committee and the professional advising staff and further refined during Dr. Trites’ March and April visits. As noted above, with the collaboration of Residential Life administrators, a plan for Strategy Ten was also drafted in April.

The Strategic Plan for Advising

The following pages include information for each of the eight “new” strategies in the Strategic Plan for Advising. To place the strategy in context, each is preceded by information briefly summarizing the issue that the strategy is designed to address.

7

Each action item includes “completion dates.” Lest we lose momentum, even though the plan has not been endorsed, work under the leadership of the “responsible persons” has moved forward under the oversight of the Interim Coordinator of Student Retention. (He takes sole responsibility if the Provost and Academic Affairs Leadership Team believe that any actions have been taken prematurely.) In no case has there been any investment of University financial resources. Costs are projected new costs and do not include the cost of time spent to effect the action. If/as appropriate, implementation progress that has already been made is noted.

8

Strategy I: Incentivizing Faculty Advising Detailed Description: Highlight the critical contribution of academic advising to student success and retention by positioning it more appropriately in the faculty evaluation and rewards structure. Background: In the RU evaluation system, academic advising is placed in the “University Service” category, and faculty can assign as little as five percent of their total evaluation to University Service. Therefore, there is no meaningful incentive for faculty advisors to do a good job as they execute this important responsibility. In fact, there may actually be disincentives: the primary “reward” for excellent advising is often an increased informal load of advisees, as students become aware of and seek out the best faculty advisors for assistance. More critically, students are ill-served by faculty advisors who do not want to advise, are not skilled advisors, and do not take their responsibilities as advisors seriously. While initially this strategy was focused upon making advising part of the faculty member’s teaching rather than University service responsibilities (as recommended by the National Academic Advising Association), the ad hoc committee working on this strategy decided that “advising as teaching” should be considered one means toward the end of incentivizing advising for faculty and opted not to close the door to other possibilities. Desired Outcome: Faculty and administrative perceptions of the value and incentives for advising will be improved no later than the fall of 2018.

Additional Steps Responsibility Completion Date Cost Progress Research and develop a rationale to promote this goal that can be used to encourage conversation with key

constituencies

Deborah Kitts May 15, 2015 None Ongoing (virtually complete)

Identify a nucleus of excellent faculty advisors (including award-winning advisors) and conduct focus groups with them to discuss potential changes in the ways advising is

evaluated and rewarded

Deborah Kitts, Steve Lerch, and Bri Ruggles, in

conjunction with “Selected Faculty Advise”

committee

September 1, 2015 None

A 12-person focus group of outstanding faculty advisors has been

scheduled for May 12, 2015. The two committees subsequently plan to survey

all faculty in the late summer or early fall 2015.

Determine stages of review and implementation, including consideration by the Faculty Issues Committee

and the full Faculty Senate

Deborah Kitts, Steve Lerch and Bri Ruggles, in conjunction with

“Selected Faculty Advise” committee

December 1, 2015 None

9

Strategy I: Incentivizing Faculty Advising (cont’d)

Additional Steps Responsibility Completion Date Cost Progress

Recommend revisions to the Teaching and Research Faculty Handbook (especially sections 1.4, “Evaluation,”

and 2.0 “Faculty Privileges and Responsibilities”) as appropriate

Faculty Senate May 1, 2016 None, unless incentives are monetary

Champion Deborah Kitts, Advising Coordinator, College of Humanities and Behavioral Sciences Retention Committee Liaison Bri Ruggles, Assistant Director of New Student Programs Other Committee Members Justin Anderson, Associate Professor of Biology Court Bosworth, Associate Professor and Media Studies Coordinator, School of Communication Jeff Willner, Professor of Psychology

10

Strategy II: Better Equalize Advising Loads Detailed Description: Determine optimal advising loads for both faculty and professional advisors, and establish staffing assignments that will conform to those standards. Background: Even accounting for differences in the numbers of majors across departments, schools, and colleges, there are wide variations in the numbers of student advisees assigned to both professional and faculty advisors, and there are examples in which the assigned loads are clearly excessive. While it is unrealistic to expect that loads will ever be perfectly equal, unless advisee loads are reasonable, advisors simply do not have the time to build the critical relationships with students that will enable them to help students navigate the University experience. Desired Outcome: Advising loads will progressively conform to optimal staffing plans.


Research advising load national standards and best practices nationally

Susan Underwood March 1, 2015 None Complete

Using a list of majors at RU, determine how each major program assigns advisors

Susan Underwood, in collaboration with

advising coordinators and department and school

administrative assistants

May 15, 2015 None

Request that programs take steps to make sure that advising assignments in the RU database are accurate

Susan Underwood, in collaboration with

advising coordinators and department and school

administrative assistants

May 1, 2015 None Complete

Request a report from the Office of Institutional

Research sorted by advisor to determine current advising loads

Niels Christensen July 1, 2015 None Report has been received and is being analyzed

Develop a standard advising syllabus template that applies to all students but recognizes variation in student

needs by program

Susan Underwood and a subcommittee of the

Academic Advising Committee


11

Strategy II: Better Equalize Advising Loads (cont’d)


Develop a needs-driven advising staffing plan to achieve optimal advising load standards

Susan Underwood and Advising Load Subcommittee

September 15, 2015

If, as anticipated, it is

discovered that additional advisors are

needed to equalize loads, there will be

budgetary implications that are at this juncture

unknown. A staffing plan would have to be

addressed over time through new budget

initiatives.

Champion Susan Underwood, Advising Coordinator, College of Science and Technology Retention Committee Liaison Niels Christensen, Professor of Psychology and Associate Director of the Honors Academy Other Committee Members Tara Phelps-Durr, Associate Professor of Biology Randy Taylor, Assistant Advising Coordinator, College of Humanities and Behavioral Sciences

12

Strategy III: Better Anticipate Course Demand Detailed Description: Identify and implement a course enrollment management system to accurately predict student demand based on degree audit and “finish in four” information. Background: Course availability is a key component of student success, and advisors cannot meet students’ needs for “success-friendly” schedules if the courses students need are not available. New software facilitating the creation of plans of study for each student can be expected to help address this challenge, especially if schools and departments demonstrate a willingness to schedule courses based on student demand/need as opposed to faculty preference. Desired Outcomes: Schedule classes in response to course demand, as determined by students’ four-year plans, by fall 2017.


Take an inventory of majors to determine the current extent of course preregistration prior to Quest

Steve Lerch and the Office of Retention

March 15, 2015 None Complete

Determine the feasibility of providing predetermined complete or partial first-semester class schedules for

additional categories of new freshmen

Mike Dunn (New Student

Programs), with information provided through the Office of Admissions, and the Academic Advising

Committee

May 1, 2015 None Complete

Register new freshmen between May 1 and the beginning of Quest (as appropriate)

College Advising Staffs June 15, 2015 None

Require all new freshmen to use DegreeWorks to develop a four-year plan prior to the conclusion of their

sophomore year

Loretta Estes and the

Assessment Subcommittee of the


May 1, 2016 None

13

Strategy III: Better Anticipate Course Demand (cont’d)


Use course demand information generated by students’ four-year plans to inform the scheduling of future course

offerings

Matthew Brunner of Registrar’s Office,

department chairs, and school directors

October 1, 2016

None. In the long run,

this action plan may generate cost savings for

RU, since the more accurate prediction of course demand should result in fewer under-enrolled sections of

courses and the need to hire fewer adjunct

faculty.

In order for course demand prediction to be as accurate as possible, develop a long-range plan to reduce the

number of post-Quest admission offers to new freshmen, using knowledge about retention rates to inform

enrollment goals

James Pennix, Office of

Admissions; Steve Lerch, Office of Retention; and Chad Reed, Division of

Finance and Administration


Champion Donna Oliver, Advising Coordinator, College of Visual and Performing Arts Retention Committee Liaison Susan Hudson, Special Retention Projects Coordinator, Office of New Student Programs Other Committee Members Matthew Brunner, University Registrar Tiffany Lide, Assistant Advising Coordinator, College of Science and Technology

14

Strategy IV: Seamless Access to Advising Detailed Description: Develop a common set of uniform policies, procedures, training protocols, etc., for all advising centers that would create a seamless system for freshmen and all students who change majors. Background: Many advising procedures at RU are standardized. However, owing largely to RU’s decentralized advising system, even some of the most basic procedures are not uniform across colleges, including scheduling of advising appointments, advising record keeping, and business practices (e.g., protocols for changing majors; dropping, adding, and withdrawing from courses; utilization of graduate assistants; and expectations for advisors and advisees). Even within the context of a decentralized advising system, the development of common standards has the potential to improve the advising experience for many students, especially for those who change majors, which typically includes at least half of RU students. Desired Outcome: A published, transparent, seamless advising model will be provided to all new freshmen students and a training protocol for all new faculty and professional advisors will be articulated.


Construct a template to submit to college and pre-major advising staff to gather information about advising

procedures conducted and protocols followed in each advising center and by faculty advisors

Susan Hudson; “Seamless

Action Plan” subcommittee,

spearheaded by Melanie Butler and Rachel Hall

June 1, 2015 None

Using template (above), conduct inventory of existing procedures to determine where a lack of seamlessness

occurs

Susan Hudson; Melanie Butler, Mike Dunn, and

“Seamless Action Plan”

subcommittee

July 1, 2015 None

Identify improvement opportunities: areas in which advising centers and faculty advisors should adopt

uniform protocols, policies, and procedures

Mike Dunn and the seamless action subcommittee


Integrate uniform instruction about the importance of advising and the responsibilities of the student advisee

into the UNIV 100 curriculum

Mike Dunn, Michele Jenkins, Brianna Kuhn, and Patti Williamson


15

Strategy IV: Seamless Access to Advising (cont’d)


In conjunction with the adoption of AgileAdvisor, determine specific best practices that must be used by all professional and faculty advisors, including appointment scheduling software, student education plans posted on

DegreeWorks, electronic advising notes, etc.

Rachel Hall and the AgileAdvisor college

liaisons


Provide training in uniform protocols, procedures, and practices for all current advisors




Formalize a training protocol for all new professional and faculty advisors that promotes the use of university-wide

practices and procedures



August 1, 2016 None

Co-Champions Nasim Schwab, Advising Coordinator, College of Business and Economics Melanie Butler, Assistant Advising Coordinator, College of Business and Economics Retention Committee Liaison Mike Dunn, Director of New Student Programs Other Committee Members Megan Coulter, Associate Registrar Rachel Hall, Assistant Advising Coordinator, Pre-Major Advising

16

Strategy V: Improve the Way Advising is Valued at Radford University Detailed Description: Improve the status of advising on campus; i.e., change RU culture so that students, faculty, and administrators better appreciate the critical role it serves. Background: Survey data suggest that RU students consider their advising experience to be the most important of all their experiences. However, advising appears undervalued from an institutional perspective. Advising improvement can be expected to be encouraged if there is a greater appreciation for the role advising plays in promoting student success. Desired Outcome: Perceptions of advising importance will be improved on the Institutional Priorities Survey™ (IPS) in future administrations of the instrument (in the fall of odd-numbered years).


Develop a communication plan within the academic advising community to: a) ensure that professional and

faculty advisors are kept informed about changes in policies, protocols, and procedures; b) share practices that may impact academic advising and information

about best practices in advising; and c) share pertinent information through the Academic Advising Committee

on the first Thursday of each month

Patti Williamson and a committee with

representation from professional advising,

faculty, Faculty Development, NSP, and

Residential Life

Create committee by June 1, 2015 to create a

detailed communication plan for 2015-16

academic year by August 1, 2015

None

Review the composition of the Academic Advising

Committee (AAC) to ensure representation of all key constituencies and recommend changes as necessary to add colleagues from unrepresented groups. Recommend that the faculty representative to the AAC be a member

of the Faculty Senate

Advising Committee, with oversight by Steve Lerch

October 1, 2015 None

Request that a professional advisor become a non-voting

member of the Faculty Senate

Steve Lerch


17

Strategy V: Improve the Way Advising is Valued at Radford University (cont’d) Additional Steps Responsibility Completion Date Cost Progress

Recommend that each college’s advising coordinator

serve as a non-voting member of the college’s leadership team and serve as a consultant to the college curriculum

committee

Steve Lerch


Recommend that a professional advisor serve as a non-

voting member of the Undergraduate Catalog and Curriculum Review Committee

Steve Lerch


Collaborate with University Relations to develop an

internal public relations campaign (potentially, linked to RU’s emerging “brand”) to highlight the importance and

value of advising for the campus community. The campaign would include a promotional video that can be

posted on the academic advising webpage, used at recruitment events, shown in UNIV 100, etc.

April Newcomer and University Relations;

representatives of Academic Advising

Committee

December 1, 2015

Unknown, but should not be significant.

Increase faculty and professional advisor recognition and reward possibilities

(This action is also included in Strategy VII.)

Advising Coordinators, with oversight by Tabitha

Greear

May 1, 2016

The cost of recognition should be minimal—a plaque per college per year, possibly a small

honorarium, etc. Foundation accounts

could be the source of funds.

Champion Patti Williamson, Advising Coordinator, Pre-Major Advising Center Retention Committee Liaison Irvin Clark, Associate Vice President for Student Affairs and Dean of Students Other Committee Members Mike Roche, Public Relations and Marketing Specialist, Office of University Relations Carter Turner, Associate Professor and Interim Chair, Departments of Philosophy and Religious Studies and Sociology

18

Strategy VI: Professional Advisor Classification and Compensation Detailed Description: Revise professional advisor classification and compensation schedules to ensure fair and equitable treatment. Background: Some professional advisors at RU are administrative and professional faculty, while others with identical responsibilities are classified staff. In addition, there are unexplained compensation disparities within and across categories. While there is no doubt that classified employees at RU complete many important tasks, given the impact of the advisor-advisee relationship upon student success and retention, the roles professional advisors fill are far too critical to be considered merely clerical. Desired Outcome: Advisor classification and compensation equity will exist across the University.


Develop a template to include key elements in the official job descriptions for advising coordinators and assistant

coordinators

Loretta Estes and the Academic Advising

Coordinators

May 15, 2015 None

Develop and promote to key constituencies a rationale

for changing advisors in classified staff positions to administrative/professional faculty positions


Coordinators

May 15, 2015 None

Examine the impact of the modification of working job

titles; e.g., “Advising Coordinator” to “Director of Advising [for the College of...],” and “Assistant Advising

Coordinator” to “Academic Advisor”


Coordinators

May 15, 2015 None

Examine the current compensation of all professional academic advisors at RU in light of their qualifications and years of service and CUPA data for those in similar

positions nationwide

JaRenae Whitehead June 15, 2015 None

19

Strategy VI: Professional Advisor Classification and Compensation (cont’d)


If salary adjustments are warranted, prepare a budget initiative for a phased plan to increase the salaries of

professional advisors beginning on July 1, 2016

Steve Lerch October 1, 2015

Assuming an average

salary for the 18 professional advisors of $40,000, and assuming

that a 10 percent increase in compensation for each

is warranted, the total cost in increased salary

alone would be $72,000. However, any budget initiative to increase compensation could

phase the increases over multiple years, with the

advisors identified as the most underpaid being the

first to receive raises.

Champion Loretta Estes, Advising Coordinator and Assistant to the Dean, Waldron College of Health and Human Services Retention Committee Liaison Steve Lerch, Interim Coordinator of Student Retention Other Committee Members Corey Cassidy, Associate Professor of Communication Sciences and Disorders and Associate Dean, Waldron College of Health and Human Services Dana Trask, Assistant Advising Coordinator, College of Visual and Performing Arts JaRenae Whitehead, Associate Director, Human Resources

20

Strategy VII: Expect Only Selected Faculty to Advise Students Detailed Description: Revise the faculty advising model so that while all faculty are expected to professionally mentor students, only selected faculty will serve as academic advisors. Background: All RU faculty are expected to advise students as part of their “University Service” responsibilities, as per Section 2.5 of the Teaching and Research Faculty Handbook, which states that: “Tenured and tenure-track faculty members, and other faculty for whom university service is identified as a specific responsibility in their appointment, are expected to participate in the work of their departments, schools, and colleges outside of the classroom, to provide academic advising to students, and to serve in governance of the University.” [Emphasis added.] The professional advising staffs, deans, and department chairs/school directors acknowledge that many teaching faculty at RU are exceptional advisors: caring, competent, and well-versed in the RU curriculum and academic policies. However, others do not meet the high RU expectations for advising. In many cases, this is through no fault of their own; given their other responsibilities, it is difficult for the typical faculty advisor to keep up with changes in curricula and University policies and procedures. Clearly, a student who has a faculty advisor who either prefers not to advise or who is not a skilled advisor is unlikely to establish the critical relationship that could be the difference between goal attainment and attrition. Desired Outcome: All students will have an advisor who is selected, trained, and competent.


Identify research supporting best practice faculty advising

Donna Dunn and

“Selected Faculty Advise” committee

May 15, 2015 None

Determine whether or not all colleges can/will initiate an “Outstanding Faculty Advising Award” for spring 2016 by

speaking to college deans or college leadership teams (could use criteria currently used for the University

Faculty Advisor Award) (This action is also included in Strategy V.)

Advising coordinators with oversight by Tabitha

Greear

May 15, 2015

The cost of recognition should be minimal—a plaque per college per year, possibly a small

honorarium, etc. Foundation accounts

could be the source of funds.

21

Strategy VII: Expect Only Selected Faculty to Advise Students (cont’d)


Assess faculty interest in changing advising model (survey or focus groups)

“Selected Faculty Advise” committee spearheaded

by Diane Millar, in partnership with the “Incentivizing Faculty Advising” committee


A 12-person focus group of outstanding faculty advisors has been

scheduled for May 12, 2015. The two committees subsequently plan to survey

all faculty in the late summer or early fall 2015.

Determine criteria which must be met to be selected as a faculty advisor, who will nominate faculty, and who will

make the actual selection

Donna Dunn, Steve Lerch, and the advising

coordinators, “Selected Faculty Advise”

committee, Faculty Representatives


Determine training to be required of selected faculty advisors

Diane Millar, Roby Page in collaboration with Mike Dunn, and the seamless

collaboration ad hoc


Develop evaluation criteria for selected faculty advisors

Diane Millar, advising coordinators, “Selected

Faculty Advise” committee, Institutional Research representative


Determine reward system to be used for selected faculty (stipend, release time, etc.)

Diane Millar, Roby Page, advising coordinators,

“Selected Faculty Advise” committee,

faculty representatives

October 15, 2015

It is impossible to

estimate budgetary implications until optimal

advising loads are determined and the

reward system is addressed.

22

Strategy VII: Expect Only Selected Faculty to Advise Students (cont’d) Additional Steps Responsibility Completion Date Cost Progress

Determine how college advising centers fit into this plan (Do the centers’ professional advisors advise all freshmen

and sophomores? What will their advising load look like? How will advising

centers handle career advising since they are not specialists in all the fields offered by their colleges? etc.)

Advising coordinators, with oversight by Donna

Dunn, Susan Underwood, and Tabitha Greear


Recommend revisions to the Teaching and Research Faculty Handbook (especially sections 1.4, “Evaluation,”

and 2.0 “Faculty Privileges and Responsibilities”) as appropriate

Steve Lerch and Faculty Senate

May 1, 2016 None

Champion Donna Dunn, Advising Coordinator, College of Education and Human Development Retention Committee Liaison Lauren Hatfield, Assistant Director for Retention, Office of Housing and Residential Life Other Committee Members Tabitha Greear, Assistant Advising Coordinator, Waldron College of Health and Human Services Diane Millar, Professor and Chair, Communication Sciences and Disorders Edwin “Roby” Page, Assistant Professor, Sociology David Sallee, Associate Professor, Health and Human Performance

23

Strategy X: Collaborate in Early Interventions for At-Risk Students Detailed Description: Design cross-divisional interventions early in the experience of new students that will encourage improved student persistence, retention, and graduation rates. Background: Radford University is fortunate to be characterized by a culture in which there is an outstanding partnership between the divisions of Academic Affairs and Student Affairs. As part of RU’s enhanced retention initiatives, the professional advising staff (Academic Affairs) and the professional staff in Housing and Residential Life (Student Affairs) have piloted ad hoc collaborative efforts to identify freshmen residential students who are at risk and then design and implement appropriate interventions to effect positive change in those students’ academic and personal lives. Those pilot collaborations should now be developed, expanded, and structured within a more formal intervention protocol. Desired Outcome: Early and seamless interventions by academic advisors and Residential Life professionals to ensure that at-risk residential students are contacted in a timely fashion and are informed about the paths they can take to recovery.


Formalize a communication plan between academic advising centers and the Office of Housing and

Residential Life

Loretta Estes, Bri Ruggles, and Lauren Hatfield September 1, 2015 None

Create a clear protocol for interaction with identified at-risk students, determining who is responsible for what action, what follow through will be effected, and what

kinds of communication between “interventionists” and students will take place

Loretta Estes, Bri Ruggles, and Lauren Hatfield September 1, 2015 None

Establish collaboration protocol to communicate

observable “at-risk” behaviors to appropriate intervention sources

Steve Lerch and Lauren Hatfield September 1, 2015 None

Investigate the best options to ensure timely and

effective interventions are systematically completed for all identified at-risk students

Steve Lerch September 1, 2015 None

24


Improve communications to parents/families to support timely interventions for “at-risk” students

Amanda Anderson, Bri Ruggles, and Steve Lerch September 1, 2015 None

Integrate additional focus on academic success culture

attributes during the first weeks of each new freshman’s experience

Mike Dunn, Bri Ruggles, and Matt Dunleavy September 1, 2015 None

Co-Champions Loretta Estes, Advising Coordinator and Assistant to the Dean, Waldron College of Health and Human Services Lauren Hatfield, Assistant Director for Retention, Office of Housing and Residential Life Retention Committee Liaison Steve Lerch, Interim Coordinator of Student Retention Other Committee Members Mike Dunn, Director of New Student Programs Bri Ruggles, Assistant Director of New Student Programs

25

APPENDIX A: Radford University Retention Committee

Niels 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) Brianna Ruggles, Assistant Director, New Student Programs Steve Lerch, Interim Coordinator of Student Retention (part-time)

26

APPENDIX B: PARTICIPANTS IN DECEMBER 8, 2014 “ADVISING CONVERSATION” RETREAT

Last First Title Bosworth Court Associate Professor and Media Studies Coordinator, School of

Communication Bradbury Carlee Associate Professor, Department of Art Burke Tod Professor of Criminal Justice and Associate Dean, College of Humanities

and Behavioral Sciences Childers Steve Associate Professor of Management Clark Irvin Associate Vice President for Student Affairs and Dean of Students Cooper Sharla Associate Professor, School of Nursing Cox Ken Dean, Waldron College of Health and Human Services Cubbison Laurie Professor, Department of English and Core Curriculum Director Davidson Dan Professor and Chair, Department of Accounting and Business Law DeHaven Donna Assistant Advising Coordinator, College of Education and Human

Development Devaney Margaret Professor of Dance and Dean of the College of Visual and Performing

Arts Dunn Donna Advising Coordinator, College of Education and Human Development Dunn Mike Director, Office of New Student Programs Estes Loretta Advising Coordinator and Assistant to the Dean, Waldron College of

Health and Human Services Fizzano Amber Assistant Advising Coordinator, College of Education and Human

Development Flora Lauren Associate Professor, Department of Communication Sciences and

Disorders Gilbert Sharon Associate Professor, School of Teacher Education and Leadership Grady Dennis Dean, College of Graduate and Professional Studies Greear Tabitha Assistant Advising Coordinator, Waldron College of Health and Human

Services Hall Rachel Assistant Advising Coordinator, Premajor Advising Center Hanlon Joel Senior Assistant Director, Office of New Student Programs Harrington Vernard Associate Professor, Department of Management Hudson Susan Interim Retention Programs Manager, Office of New Student Programs Janney Sarah Student Services Coordinator, School of Nursing Jenkins Michele Associate Director, Office of New Student Programs Kitts Deborah Advising Coordinator, Collage of Humanities and Behavior Sciences Kuhn Brianna Assistant Director, Office of New Student Programs Lerch Steve Interim Coordinator of Student Retention Lide Tiffany Assistant Advising Coordinator, College of Science and Technology LoPresto Kevin Associate Professor, School of Teacher Education and Leadership Millar Diane Professor and Chair, Department of Communication Sciences and

Disorders Miller Suellen Instructor, School of Nursing Newcomer April Assistant Advising Coordinator, Premajor Advising Center Oliver Donna Advising Coordinator, College of Visual and Performing Arts

27

APPENDIX B: PARTICIPANTS IN DECEMBER 8, 2014 “ADVISING CONVERSATION” RETREAT (cont’d)

Last First Title Porter Shannon Assistant Advising Coordinator, College of Business and Economics Robinson Tammy Associate Professor, Department of Interior Design and Fashion Rogers Orion Professor of Biology and Dean of the College of Science and Technology Ruggles Brianna Assistant Director, Office of New Student Programs Santopietro George Associate Dean, College of Business and Economics Schwab Nasim Advising Coordinator, College of Business and Economics Small Christine Professor and Chair, Department of Biology Trask Dana Assistant Advising Coordinator, College of Visual and Performing Arts Trites Dave Senior Consultant, Noel-Levitz Underwood Susan Advising Coordinator, College of Science and Technology VanKirk Amy Assistant Professor, Department of Dance Weinzapfel Monica Professor, Department of Theatre Williamson Patti Advising Coordinator, Premajor Advising Willner Jeff Professor of Psychology

28

REFERENCES

ACT. (2010). What Works in Student Retention: Fourth National Survey (Public Four-Year Colleges and Universities Report). Iowa City, Iowa.

Center for Public Education. (2012). High School Rigor and Good Advice: Setting Up Students to Succeed. Posted at http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Staffingstudents/High-school-rigor-and-good-advice-Setting-up-students-to-succeed, October 11.

Light, Richard. (2004). Making the Most of College: Students Speak Their Minds. Harvard University Press.

Radford University Internal Governance Document

Radford University Teaching and Research Faculty Handbook

Tinto, Vincent. (2009). Taking Student Retention Seriously. Speech delivered at the FYE Curriculum Design Symposium, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia, February 5. Trites, David. Follow-up Reports from Visits to Radford University: October 13, 2014; November 20, 2014; December 18, 2014; January 22, 2015; March 11, 2015; April 13, 2015.



strategic plan for academic advising - radford … to address common advising issues, discuss...

Documents