FIRST-YEAR SUCCESS THROUGH EXPERIENCE AND STRENGTH · increase by 20% NSSE Senior Year student engagement scores above the Fall 2012 scores of 23 on “Enriching Educational Experiences”

FIRST-YEAR SUCCESS THROUGH

EXPERIENCE AND STRENGTH

University of Southern Maine Strengthening Institutions Program

Grant Proposal

First STEPs

INTRODUCTION

The University of Southern Maine’s (USM) Strengthening Institutions Program (SIP)

proposal, First-Year Success Through Experience and Strength or First STEPs, proposes four

interconnected Activities that are intentionally designed to increase the retention rate of first year

students by 8% and the 4-year graduation rate by 5% over five years.

Goal #1: Transform USM into a Strengths-Based Culture Activity One: Develop and institutionalize a University-wide Strengths-Based Education Program that helps students, faculty, and staff discover, develop, and apply their talents and strengths in academics, career, leadership, relationships, and engagement.

Performance Indicator: By September 30, 2018, increase by 8% the Fall-to-Fall persistence rates of first year students engaged in strengths-based activities from a baseline of 66.5% to 74.5%.

Goal #2: Strengthen and increase High-Impact Educational Practices offering to students. Activity Two: Institutionalize coordinated, robust, and engaging High-Impact Educational Practices for all students, with emphasis on developing new Immersive Experience courses for first-year, sophomore and junior students.

Performance Indicator: By September 30, 2018, increase by 20% NSSE Senior Year student engagement scores above the Fall 2012 scores of 23 on “Enriching Educational Experiences” and 47 on “Level of Academic Challenge”.

Goal #3: Develop the infrastructure and support for faculty development and learning support services. Activity Three: Seed the Faculty Development Program to train faculty on new and relevant technological resources and pedagogical methods that support student learning and increase student achievement.

Performance Indicator: By September 30, 2018, decrease course failure rates in gateway courses from an average 3-year baseline of 27% in 2010-12 to 21%.

Goal #4: Strengthen Student Services by integrating electronic tools that link scheduling, academic advising, diagnostic assessment, early alert and intervention, study skills and tutoring, curriculum planning and scheduling. Activity Four: Install MyPassPort and InfoSilem to enhance productivity in advising, and train faculty and staff on those applications.

Performance Indicator: By September 30, 2018, increase from 0% to 90% the number of first-year students who have two-year course schedules to meet their major course credit requirements before starting their first term.

Institutional Characteristics. The University of Southern Maine (USM), a member of the

University of Maine System’s (UMS) seven higher education institutions, is Maine’s only

public, regional, comprehensive university. USM offers Baccalaureate, Master's and Doctoral

programs in the Arts, Humanities, Social Sciences, and Science, Technology, Engineering and

Mathematics (STEM) and Business, Public Policy and Management, Education and Social Work.

1

INTRODUCTION

Fall 2012 Student and Faculty Characteristics

Degree-Seeking Undergraduate Students Enrollment (Headcount) Number

6,361 1,388

Percent 82% 18%

Age Number 1,248 3,310 2,479 615 322

882 811

4,874 994

Percent 16% 41% 31% 8% 4%

12% 11% 64% 13%

Undergraduate Students Graduate Students

19 or younger 20-24 25-39 40-49 50 or older

Full-Time (UG) Part-time (UG)

4,429 1,932

2,773 3,588

58

129 189 132

4 117

5,103 65

564

70% 30%

44% 56%

1% 2% 3% 2% 0% 2%

81% 1% 9%

Gender (UG) Male Female

Enrollment Status First-time in College First time transfer Continuing Non-degree seeking

Race/Ethnicity (UG) American Indian/Alaska Native Asian Black/African American Hispanic/Latino Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 2 or more Races White Nonresident Alien Unknown

SAT Averages USM U.S. Math Reading Written

503 505 492

514 496 488

Financial Aid Awarded need-based aid Pell Eligible

4,527 2,717

71% 42%

Faculty Family Income Levels Percent 13% 8%

16% 13% 9% 8% 7% 6%

20% 100%

Faculty Profile Number 357 323 680

Percent 53% 47% 100%

Less than $5,000 $5,000 - $9,999 $10,000 - $19,999 $20,000 - $29,999 $30,000 - $39,999 $40,000 - $49,999 $50,000 - $59,999 $60,000 - $69,999 Over $70,000

Full-time (Tenure-Track/Lecturer) Adjunct/Part-time Total Faculty Student-to-Faculty Ratio 15:1 ---- Gender

198 159 133 190

55% 45% 41% 59%

Full-Time: Male Female

Part-time: Male Female

Source: USM Office of Institutional Research and Assessment (USM OIRA) Common Data Set, Fall 2012.

Institutional Context for First STEPs. The most significant challenge USM faces is its low

retention and graduation rates. The average annual retention and six-year graduation rates for the

Fall 2003 to Fall 2011 First-Time-In-College (FTIC) student cohorts are only 66.5% and 35%,

respectively. Even more dismal is the four-year graduation rate of a mere 11%. The FTIC

student data are mirrored with data for transfer students who account for 50% of any given

entering class. USM loses a significant percentage of transfer students after their first year at

USM, approximately 30%.

USM retention and graduation rates are shaped by a number of factors, including the

demographic diversity of our student body. USM’s large proportion (70%) of first generation

2

INTRODUCTION

students often have little understanding of what is expected by a university and little knowledge

of the processes and nuances of what it takes to be successful. Many are unaware of what support

services are available or how to access them. Too many students are torn between conflicting

home situations and USM expectations. All too often, family members are actually

counterproductive to the students attending classes, completing homework assignments, or

managing their time. Few have role models to provide the support and encouragement necessary

to succeed in college; and, they often arrive with academic deficiencies that further compromise

their self-efficacy and academic success. Seventy (70) percent of USM students are commuters.

They work, have families, face financial challenges, and a significant number of non-traditional

age students are experiencing higher education for the first time, or are returning after a

significant absence to attempt degree completion.

These factors, in addition to the difficulty scheduling the courses they need, influence a

student’s ability to complete credit requirements. Approximately 23% of USM students enrolled

in the freshmen year are on “continuing” status because they were unable to complete their credit

requirements during the first term. The percentage dramatically increases reaching 90% by the

senior year (USM Office of Institutional Research and Assessment, 2013). Only 10% of seniors

have enough credits to graduate after four years, hence, the 11% graduation rate.

USM, drawing over 90% of its undergraduate students from within Maine, is generally

not the institution of first-choice. Many who begin at USM indicate an intention to transfer to

schools further away to complete their educations; this is especially true for recent high school

graduates. From 2007-10, the average transfer out rate was an alarming 37.2% per entering

cohort.

3

COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

1. The strengths, weaknesses, & significant problems of the institution’s academic

programs, institutional management, & fiscal stability are clearly described & comprehensively analyzed resulting from a process that involved major constituencies of the institution.

Description of Analysis Process - The First STEPs Planning Team identified USM’s major

assets and challenges through a multi-phase process that triangulated both qualitative and

quantitative information shaping the context of USM’s strengths and weaknesses. Methods of

inquiry included discussions with executive leadership and faculty; interviews with key campus

representatives; campus-based focus groups and feedback sessions; outreach to external

stakeholders, including advisory boards, regional higher education institutions, feeder high

schools, and workforce development partners, as shown in the following two-part table. The

second part of the table lists the documents the team reviewed to reliably characterize University

conditions and shed light on issues to explore comprehensively.

Constituencies Involved in the Planning, and the Processes for Analysis of Problems • Strategic Planning Steering Committee • Strategic Plan Goal Committees • Enrollment Council • Enrollment Plan Goal Workgroups • NEASC Accreditation Steering Committee • NEASC Accreditation Standards Committee • Enrollment Task Force • Provost’s Staff and Academic Council • Faculty Senate

• Division of Student Success (includes Admission, Registrar, Student Success Centers, Learning Commons/Academic Support)

• Division of Student and University Life • Institutional Research and Assessment • Board of Visitors • Foundation for Excellence Steering Committee • Marketing and Brand Management • USM students and families

Selected Documents Used for Analysis of Problems • Creating Maine’s Future: Strategic Plan 2010-2015 • USM Enrollment Plan: 2010-2015 • NEASC Accreditation Self-Study Report, 2011 • Scheduled Development and Curriculum Management

Committee Report, 2008 • USM Retention Study: A Multivariate Logistic

Regression Approach, 2008 • National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)

Reports, 2000-2012 • Essential Programs and Services Reports, 2011-2012 • Enrollment Management Assessment, 2010

• Graduating Senior Surveys, 2009-2011 • Undergraduate Retention Issues at USM: Results of a

Survey of Current and Former USM Students, 2009 • 2009 Draft Supporting Student Success • Placement, Career Advising, and Internships: A Pilot

Project, UMS Grant Proposal, 2012 • Recruiting and Retaining Transfer Students, 2012 • Admission Summary Reports • Gorham Task Force Report 2012 • Foundations of Excellence in the First Year of College

Dimensions Report, 2013

Four related planning efforts provided analysis and direction for First STEPs: 1) The

4


2008-09 strategic planning process, which culminated in “Creating Maine’s Future:” Strategic

Plan 2010-2015 identifying eight broad-based goals. 2) USM’s first Enrollment Plan developed

in 2010 and included a demographic analysis of the increasingly competitive higher education

environment for USM’s service region. 3) The 2011 self-study report prepared for accreditation

review by the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC). 4) The work of the

2010-11 Strategic Planning Committee formulated action recommendations to increase

enrollment and retention; this effort involved over 150 people representing a cross-section of

students, faculty, staff, administrators, and friends of the University.

These four planning efforts resulted in the following key recommendations: (a) develop

and articulate a coherent and goal-focused student experience that integrates support services and

uses innovative technologies to enhance both; (b) develop and implement a robust recruitment

effort that demonstrates USM’s relevance to Maine; (c) acquire and implement tools to monitor

student degree progress and impact curricular planning; (d) establish support systems to train,

develop, and prepare faculty to implement new and relevant technological resources and

pedagogical methods that support student learning; and (e) keep pace with programmatic

changes demanded by changing student demographics and increasing competition from private

and for-profit educational institutions.

Analysis of Academic Strengths

Strengths of Academic Programs • USM has a committed and engaged faculty willing to support and mentor students. • USM’s academic programs are strong and its faculty members are active scholars. • USM has many nationally recognized and externally accredited programs. • USM is committed to hiring faculty and staff reflective of the diversity of the community and student body. • USM class sizes are small and the student/faculty ratio is 15:1. • USM created the Center for Technology Enhanced Learning as a resource for its distance learning initiative. • USM Libraries have created and delivered an Information Literacy Program that fosters the development of

literacy skills by integrating technology into the curriculum. • The University offers a revitalized and nationally recognized General Education Curriculum that uses student-

learning outcomes as the basis for course development and assessment. • There are coordinated student academic services on all campuses through the Student Success Centers.

5


Residential and non-residential learning communities, an academic strength of USM, are

high-impact educational practices that have been shown to increase higher levels of academic

achievement and persistence (Kuh, 2008). For example, USM’s Russell Scholars Program

(2011) is a nationally recognized residential learning community which has achieved an average

85% retention rate for FTIC students, and an average 56% graduation rate within 4 years. For

the past 10 years, incoming Environmental Science majors have been required to take the 3-

credit ESP 150: Field Immersion Session; a four-day off-campus learning experience filled with

basic natural science field skills while building community. These sessions provide students

with the chance to learn a skill and then apply it in the real world. Being immersed in the ‘field’

helps students put themselves in the right mindset to learn. The Immersion Session also provides

the students with the opportunity to establish good relationships with their teachers. These

sessions and the passion of the faculty for STEM education, service learning, and integrating

research into the curriculum, are key contributors to the Environmental Science Department’s

high retention rate of 75% (USM Institutional Research and Assessment, 2013).

Another example of a successful learning community is the National Science Foundation-

supported Eastern Alliance for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (EAST) is

example of a successful learning community for Students with Disabilities (SWDs). USM’s

EAST is part of a national network of similar programs designed to increase the number and

quality of SWDs receiving undergraduate degrees in STEM and ultimately entering STEM

disciplines by involving students, transforming the academic and professional environments in

which they function, and catalyzing STEM activities in Maine. External evaluations of USM’s

EAST have shown the following: (a) the number of SWDs enrolled in STEM programs has

increased 31% over the past nine years; (b) SWDs who participate in EAST activities are less

6


likely to transfer out or drop out their college program than the national SWD population; (c)

SWDs who participate in the EAST STEM Learning Community Seminar have a 91% retention

rate (USM’s retention rate is 66.5%); and (d) compared to local and national comparison groups,

postsecondary EAST pipeline students are pursuing STEM majors at a higher rate; they are

doing well academically, and they are on track to graduate (Moeller & Tierny-Fife, 2012). Key

EAST activities that help SWDs to achieve the desired learning outcomes include undergraduate

research fellowships, internships, learning community seminars, and college transition sessions.

Another USM strength is community-based learning internships particularly in the

sciences. USM has a strong network of over 185 local and national industry leaders who provide

financial support for summer internships for junior and senior STEM majors. USM has averaged

87 internships per year over the past five years and 80% of the interns have received offers for

full employment upon graduation (USM Office of External Programs, 2013).

Analysis of Academic Weaknesses

Weaknesses of Academic Programs • The identification of student learning outcomes to guide the development of all learning communities is not

complete; the result is an array of opportunities that anchor in individual academic units, rather than as part of an institutional strategy to support student success.

• There is no clear articulation of a USM undergraduate student experience. • Course scheduling is not responsive to student needs, particularly those residential students who must travel back

and forth between campuses. • The majority of instruction is traditional in nature, using lecture formats and absent in technology. • The institution does not offer faculty development in any systematic or comprehensive way. • Despite their impressive utilization rate and high quality of the services, the Libraries need to reach out to more

faculty members; only about 1/3 of full-time faculty uses the information literacy services. • USM needs to develop a more coherent and comprehensive plan for online and distance education. • USM has not kept pace with technology advancements for instruction or curriculum mgmt. • Space for academic programs and student support service is limited and embedded in aging facilities. • First year attrition rates for FTIC and Transfer students are too high 33.5% and 30%, respectively. • The failure rates in 100-level introductory gateway courses are too high.

Significant Weakness #1: The student experience in high-impact educational activities at

USM is fragmented, uncoordinated, and absent intentionality. While high-impact

educational activities are strengths at USM, they are also a significant weakness. These activities

7


operate in silos, and engage a limited number of USM students. These inadequate opportunities

are supported by the results of NSSE responses from USM freshmen and seniors in which only

9% of freshmen and 19% of seniors reported that they participated in a community-based or

service-learning project (NSSE, 2012), and only 36% of freshmen and 34% of seniors reported

that they participated in a learning community. These low rates confirm that USM is not

effective in engaging students in high-impact educational practices.

Academic Year 2011-12 NSSE Benchmark Scores*

Benchmark Freshmen (N=153) Seniors (N=538)

USM Peers Top 50%

Top 10% USM Peers Top

50% Top 10%

Level of Academic Challenge 51 53 57 60 57 59 62 64 Active & Collaborative Learning 38 43 49 52 49 49 56 61 Student-Faculty Interaction 34 35 40 44 38 43 50 56 Enriching Educational Experiences 23 25 31 35 34 37 48 56 Support Campus Environment 55 62 68 71 54 61 65 69 Source: Comparison Report of 2012 NSSE and FSSE Responses. *The higher the score, the more engaged and positive the students are on the campus (i.e. 0-100 scale).

Clearly, the fragmented, uncoordinated nature of student experiences does not provide a

clear pathway forward so that all USM students can take advantage of at least one high-impact

educational activity during their academic experience. These disconnected engagement strategies

are failing to meet the needs of students. Going forward, we must create a distinct, cohesive

experience that is played out through the University’s academic, residential, co-curricular,

service, career, and community experiences. This must be the first step to ensuring alignment of

USM’s institutional resources to support student retention and persistence to degree. In support

of this goal, USM has prepared a plan to coordinate all community-based learning such as

internships, practica, student teaching, service learning, and field work under one office. SIP

funds will seed the staffing of this new coordinated venture to enhance student experience in

community-based learning for all its undergraduate students.

8


Significant Weakness #2: The failure rates in gateway courses are too high. Successful

completion of gateway courses (e.g. English, mathematics, psychology, sociology, economics,

accounting, biology, and chemistry) is critical for first-year students; but, typical failure rates in

these courses contribute heavily to overall institutional dropout rates between the first and

second year (Freeman, et al, 2011). Although failure rates vary by institutional type and by

subject matter, comprehensive universities like USM have D-F-Withdraw (DFW) rates ranging

from 22% to 45% in gateway courses (Twigg, 2005). It is therefore alarming that the failure

rates in key high-enrollment gateway courses at USM are approaching high levels. This is a

serious problem at USM especially since low levels of success in gateway courses result in

significant attrition of talented students (Freeman et al, 2011). For example, the four-year

average Fall-to-Fall retention rate of USM first-year student cohorts who took ENG 104 (four-

credit College Writing) in the first semester was 63%, compared with 66.5% overall for USM.

Failure Rates in Selected Level 100 Gateway Courses* Gateway Courses 2010 2011 2012 Avg. 2010-12

Entry Year Experience (EYE) – All first year students with < 24 credits (N students=2,217) 24% 20% 21% 22%

Ethical Inquiry, Social Responsibility, and Citizenship (EISRC) – All transfer students with ! 24 credits (N=408) - 16% 23% 20%

Biology (BIO) (N=337) 28% 45% 33% 35% English (ENG) (N=1,987) 26% 25% 29% 27% Mathematics (MAT) (N=1,825) 23% 29% 26% 26% Psychology (PSY) (N=643) 36% 30% 28% 31%

27% 28% 27% 27% Source: USM Office of Academic Assessment, 2013. * Course failure rate = Total number of grades of D, F, W- Withdrawn, I-Incomplete, and L-Stopped Attending, as a percent of total course enrollment on census date.

Significant Weakness #3: The professional development infrastructure is inadequate to

support the design and expansion of successful and innovative instructional strategies to

improve student learning. Research has shown that students do not learn effectively from

lectures (Freeman et al. 2011; Twigg, 2005). Most lecture courses are notoriously ineffective in

engaging students. The lecture format does not encourage active participation or offer students

9


an opportunity to learn collaboratively from one another. It does not provide adequate tutoring

assistance, and consequently, students receive little individual attention. Even though individual

help may be available during office hours, only a small fraction of students take advantage of it.

Most students simply study the text, turn in their assignments, and take tests and exams.

The USM faculty profile is that of a highly tenured and senior faculty. As such, most

faculty members are ill-prepared and inadequately trained to implement many of the new and

relevant technological resources and pedagogical methods that enhance student learning. As

shown in the table below, there is heavy reliance among many faculty on lecture-based formats,

with less time spent using other instructional methods or working one-on-one with students.

This evidence also reveals that faculty are unfamiliar with and/or underutilize a variety of

pedagogical methods that are successful with first year students and other student populations

(e.g. students with learning disabilities, low-income, and minorities) (Twigg, 2005).

Percent of Faculty that spends 30% or less time on the listed type of teaching approach Teach Freshmen Teach Seniors

Lecture 48% 65% Teacher-Student (shared responsibility) discussions 72% 70% Use of computers in class 93% 81% Small Group Discussions 71% 78% Student Presentations 90% 94% Experiential (labs, field work, exhibits, etc.) 81% 76% Source: USM Comparison Report of Fall 2012 NSSE and FSSE Responses. Based on responses from 101 faculty.

USM has insufficient institutional capacity to support innovative instructional design,

especially in the development of competency-based flexible programs for all students and, in

particular, adult learners who, in a declining traditional-aged demographic are increasingly

important to USM’s enrollment sustainability. Heavy reliance on lecture-based formats reduces

the ability to deliver instruction efficiently and effectively, and puts the institution at a

disadvantage when competing against the growing number of universities offering alternative

pedagogies and delivery methods, including active learning strategies and online courses, to

10


support degree completion. USM must transform its educational delivery system to more

effectively utilize technology in both instruction and course/program design or risk becoming

unresponsive to and irrelevant in a 21st century higher education environment. The 2009

Accreditation Team’s recommendations affirmed this weakness.

The USM Provost has put into place a committee to plan the development and

implementation of the Faculty Commons as a teaching and learning center that represents a

comprehensive initiative to move USM from an instructional to a learning paradigm. A primary

focus for the Faculty Commons is to develop more appropriate teaching and assessment

strategies tailored to the diverse learning needs of students as well as to integrate support

services into instruction. Through workshops and activities, faculty members will develop

important skills to better support the success of all USM students and, in particular, low-income,

first generation and high-risk students, and to improve the quality of their educational

experiences. SIP funds will seed the faculty development program of the Faculty Commons.

Analysis of Institutional Management Strengths

Strengths of Institutional Management • Academic initiatives and assessments are conducted through faculty committees. This process ensures that faculty

are responsible for academic programs, course development, and integration of academic skills into content. • USM recognizes that it is must continually recruit well-prepared students, retain current students, and provide new

academic opportunities that will attract new students. • Sound management and campus planning have created an attractive campus with opportunities for diverse

learning and recreational activities, despite aging facilities. • The integration of Advising Services, Career Services and Professional Life Development, and Early Student

Success into three complementary Student Success Centers, the revitalization of an enrollment management function, and the development of an Office of Institutional Research and Assessment will ensure USM’s ability to positively influence persistence and graduation rates at both the undergraduate and graduate levels.

• USM enjoys workforce development collaboration with local employers, city officials, state legislators and K-12 educators; it also provides the wider community with cultural programming, social services, health provision, economic development, business training, and extended learning opportunities.

In July 2012, the UMS Board of Trustees appointed a new President and Provost, and

both have already focused USM’s attention toward improving student success, community

engagement, as well as financial sustainability and, in turn, improving retention and graduation

11


rates. Increasingly, USM recognizes that the character of the student experience, and the value

placed on that experience by students, ultimately influences their decision to persist at USM.

Analysis of Institutional Management Weaknesses

Weaknesses of Institutional Management • Faculty and staff are not fully engaged in the design and implementation of a systematic approach to program

review and assessment of student learning across all academic programs and using the results for improvement. • USM needs to refine the data it uses for decision-making by improving the consistency of this data and analyzing

the data for evidence of changes, trends, and improvements. The need for quality data affects all functions of the University including student success, finances, academic programming, student programming, and fund raising.

• Communication continues to be a challenge. USM needs to share information more widely and focus its efforts on ensuring transparency and consistency of decision-making.

• Data collection and reporting is uneven, in many cases, the institution is data-rich, but analysis-poor. This results in a lack of complete analysis of internal and external constraints to inform planning and program development.

• USM has multiple groups tasked with similar charges and integration among planning groups is absent. • USM is slow to respond to student demands due to decentralized decision-making and responsibility. • The organizational structure does not support and promote innovation. • USM does not foster collaboration among academic disciplines. • There are few formal opportunities to exchange information about departments and programs and to develop

uniform goals for community-building activities. • Professional development is insufficient for defining and assessing student learning outcomes.

Significant Weakness #4: The academic advising program is inefficient and hampered by

inadequate tools to monitor student degree progress and inform curriculum planning.

USM does not have an academic advising program that is guided by best practices and national

standards. As a highly decentralized institution, USM’s previous leadership was reluctant to

support the development of a centrally coordinated delivery system for academics. The result

has been that there is not a shared understanding of what academic advising is, what the intended

learning outcomes are, nor what the potential that academic advising holds for student success.

This decentralized advising system is creating a negative impression with our students as

evidenced by a score of 55 and 54 (out of 100) from freshmen and seniors responses,

respectively, to the NSSE “Supportive Campus Environment” Benchmark (NSSE, 2012).

With the new administration, efforts are underway to centralize advising. However, all

the support services USM can provide will not facilitate graduation if students cannot get their

courses in an expeditious way. Course scheduling at USM is a manual process. On the average,

12


it takes approximately four months of effort between the Registrar staff, faculty, department

chairs and college deans to finalize a master schedule before the start of each semester (USM

Registrar, 2013). This inefficient manner of course scheduling is a likely major contributor to

student attrition because class schedules, the availability of courses to complete degrees, and

“connectedness” are cited as important concerns by both non-returning and “at risk” students

(USM Muskie School Survey Research Center, 2009). The importance of a strategically planned

schedule was confirmed by Noel Levitz’s 2007 National Student Satisfaction and Priorities

Report in which students from four-year public institutions identified “the ability to get the

courses I need with few conflicts” as their top challenge.

USM does not have appropriate tools to monitor student degree progress or inform

curriculum planning. The current homegrown early alert system is cumbersome to use and

human resource-reliant; consequently, few academic advisors utilize the system and students

who need help are not being connected with University resources. This system does not take

advantage of recent advances in learning analytics, nor does it connect to our student information

system (PeopleSoft), or to our learning management system (Blackboard).

As USM coordinates its academic advising program, it must also implement a retention

management system that draws from other sources of information to identify students at risk, to

support appropriate referral to learning and social support, to guide curricular offerings, and,

most importantly, to support timely degree completion.

Analysis of Fiscal Stability Strengths

Strengths of Fiscal Stability • USM has implemented enhanced financial controls and procedures to improve budgeting, including annual and

mid-year financial reporting. • USM requires full funding of capital projects with appropriate contingencies. • USM initiated full implementation of Position Management to ensure appropriate funding of positions. • USM’s current tuition levels are below those charged by any of the other institutions in the University of Maine

System and some of its peers.

13


In 2012, the UMS Board of Trustees approved a plan to better attract, retain, and graduate

students. Elements of this plan include: (a) streamlining credit transfers among Maine

universities and community colleges; (b) targeting non-traditional adult learners drawing them

back to school; (c) allocating more money towards financial aid; (d) freezing in-state tuition; (e)

lowering room and board rates; (f) transitioning most academic degree programs to a limit of 120

credit hours for graduation; and (g) reducing time to graduation. USM is participating in the

Foundation of Excellence self-study process to develop and implement an action plan to increase

first-year retention rates over time through changes in courses, activities, and policies.

Analysis of Fiscal Stability Weaknesses

Weaknesses of Fiscal Stability • USM has experienced an 11% decline in overall headcount since 2000, primarily in non-degree seeking students,

and in traditional-aged, in-state students; and a 4% decline in credit hours from the peak in Fall 2005, predominantly from non-degree seeking students.

• Traditional student population in Maine will continue to decline through 2019 after which it will increase incrementally due, in large part, to an aging State demographic profile.

• Maine’s public high school demographic is expected to decline by 9.4% between 2011 and 2019 whereas projections for the nation show an increase of 4% during the same time.

• USM continues to face increasing competition from private and for-profit educational institutions, the majority of which have focused on the adult student market.

• Economic struggles within the state have resulted in reduced annual state appropriations to USM. As a result, USM has experienced an increased reliance on tuition and fees to support its educational programs, and these increases are having a negative impact on overall student indebtedness at the time of graduation.

• The lack of affordability and availability of financial aid has also had an impact on residence hall occupancy. In 2008, USM’s residence halls were over-capacity: yet, by the fall of 2012, occupancy declined by 39%.

• Campus life for those students who do live on campus is negatively affected by reduced occupancy Significant Weakness #5: The low persistence rates represent a loss in revenues that are

seriously curtailing the institution’s growth and self-sufficiency. USM’s fiscal stability

continues to be threatened by low retention. The loss in potential annual revenue from

undergraduate students who do not persist from one year to the next represents about $3.7

million. Resources allocated to recruit, admit, and instruct these students are a lost investment.

Recent, significant investment in scholarships has enabled USM to become more

competitive within its service region—the Northeast—a region that is experiencing demographic

14


decline in the traditional-aged student population. However, even with increased recruiting and

numbers of incoming students, the bottom line will not be affected if improvements are not made

in retention. Unless we retain the students we recruit, our scholarship investments will be lost,

and our overall budget will be reduced to account for the outlay of lost scholarship funds. This

became a reality for FY14. By addressing our students’ financial needs through scholarships, the

overall budget was reduced by $5 million. Without significant change in student retention, this

pattern will repeat itself and USM will continue to “churn” on the front end while, on the back

end, our programs and services will become increasingly anorexic due to reduced resources.

2. The goals for the institution’s academic programs, institutional management, and fiscal stability are realistic and based on comprehensive analysis.

USM is currently focused on improving the overall student academic experience to attain a

74% retention rate and a 55% six-year graduation rate by 2020. First STEPs will contribute to

these goals by implementing interconnected Activities that are intentionally designed to increase

the retention rate by 8% to 74.5% and the four-year graduation rate by 5% to 16% over five

years.

Goal #1: Transform USM into a Strengths-Based Culture. Activity One Weaknesses Addressed

Develop and institutionalize a University-wide Strengths-Based Education Program that helps students, faculty, and staff discover, develop, and apply their talents and strengths in academics, career, leadership, relationships, and engagement.

Significant Weakness #2: The failure rates in gateway courses are too high. Significant Weakness #4: The academic advising program is inefficient and hampered by inadequate tools to monitor student degree progress and inform curriculum planning. Significant Weakness #5: The low persistence rates represent a loss in revenue that are seriously curtailing the institution’s growth and self- sufficiency.

Goal #2: Strengthen and increase High-Impact Educational Practices offering to students. Activity Two Weaknesses Addressed

Institutionalize a coordinated, robust, and engaging High-Impact Educational Practices for all students, with emphasis on developing new Immersive Experience courses for first-year, sophomore and junior students.

Significant Weakness #1: The student experience in high-impact educational activities at USM is fragmented, uncoordinated, and absent intentionality. Significant Weakness #5: The low persistence rates represent a loss in revenues that are seriously curtailing the institution’s growth and self- sufficiency.

15


Goal #3: Develop the infrastructure and support for faculty development and learning support services. Activity Three Weaknesses Addressed

Develop and institutionalize a Faculty Development Program to train faculty on new and relevant technological resources and pedagogical methods that support student learning and increase student achievement.

Significant Weakness #2: The failure rates in gateway courses are too high. Significant Weakness #3: The professional development infrastructure is inadequate to support the design and expansion of successful and innovative instructional strategies to improve student learning. Significant Weakness #5: The low persistence rates represent a loss in revenues that are seriously curtailing the institution’s growth and self- sufficiency.

Goal #4: Strengthen Student Services by integrating electronic tools that link scheduling, academic advising, diagnostic assessment, early alert and intervention, study skills and tutoring, and curriculum planning.

Activity Four Weaknesses Addressed Install MyPassPort and InfoSilem to enhance productivity in advising and train faculty and staff on their applications.

Significant Weakness #4: The academic advising program is inefficient and hampered by inadequate tools to monitor student degree progress and inform curriculum planning. Significant Weakness #5: The low persistence rates represent a loss in revenues that are seriously curtailing the institution’s growth and self- sufficiency.

First STEPs will enable USM to adopt and sustain a coordinated campus-wide

experience for all undergraduate students through a cohesive and integrated approach to retention

and degree persistence by bridging the gaps of engagement and communication between students

and University resources, linking academic courses, and by providing faculty professional

development workshops on new teaching techniques. Furthermore, the improvements we make

in teaching and advising will help mitigate the “sophomore slump” as we continue to work with

these cohorts toward degree completion (Noel-Levitz, 2013).

3. The objectives are measurable and will contribute to the growth and self-sufficiency of the institution.

Comprehensive Development Plan Measurable Objectives

Activity One: University-Wide Strengths-Based Education Program.

Objective 1: By September 30, 2018, increase by 8% the fall-to-fall persistence rates of first year students engaged in strengths-based activities from a baseline of 66.5% to 74.5%.

Tasks/Methods Tangible Results • Reassign existing staff to assume the role of SIP

Activity One Coordinator. • Certify Strengths-based Educators. • Implement Gallup’s Strengths-Based Program, train

faculty and staff, deploy program to assist students discover, develop, and apply their talents.

• Students have a better appreciation of their talents and strengths and how to apply them to improve their academic, social, and life experiences.

• Faculty is applying strength-based approaches to improve student engagement and learning.

• Students demonstrate increased engagement in learning.

16


Activity Two: Coordinated and Engaging High-Impact Educational Practices.

Objective 2: By September 30, 2018, increase by 20% NSSE Senior Year student engagement scores above the Fall 2012 scores of 23 on “Enriching Educational Experiences” and 47 on “Level of Academic Challenge”.

Tasks/Methods Tangible Results • Establish the High-Impact Educational Practices

Coordinating Committee to coordinate activities, align activities with learning outcomes, and develop new activities to meet student needs.

• Train faculty in the development of High-Impact Educational Practices.

• All high-impact activities are coordinated and adhere to common outcome principles.

• More departments list High-Impact Educational Practices in their course offering,

• More students are engaged in learning. • More students persist from Fall to Fall.

Activity Three: Faculty Development Program

Objective 3: Decrease course failure rates in gateway courses from an average 3-year baseline of 27% in 2010-12 to 21% by September 30, 2018.

Tasks/Methods Tangible Results • Provide faculty workshops and continuously

support Faculty Interest Groups (FIGs) in the development and enhancement of curriculum and assessment.

• Support faculty with mentoring programs designed to enhance student learning and student outcomes.

• Implement faculty development plans for rewarding teaching and curricular innovation.

• Faculty is using new approaches for teaching. • Redesigned gateway courses reflect the new teaching

and learning paradigm. • Gateway courses have instructional course packets using

open-source materials that reduce costs to students. • Gateway course failure rates are lower. • Students are more engaged in learning. • More students persist from Fall to Fall.

Activity Four: MyPassPort and InfoSilem

Objective 4: By September 2018, increase from 0% to 90% the number of first-year students who have two- year course schedules to meet their major course credit requirements before starting their first term.

Tasks/Methods Tangible Results • Implement MyPASSPort and InfoSilem, the course

scheduling software, in USM’s advising system. • Train faculty and staff on the use of these resources,

and continuously monitor, improve, and train. • Develop 4 & 5 year, 8 & 10-semester Major Maps.

• Faculty spend less time tracking student degree progress. • Students are satisfied with their degree progress. • More students persist from Fall to Fall. • More students are completing their degree requirements

on time.

17

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

RATIONALE SUPPORTED BY STUDIES OR PROJECTS: Activity One

The StrengthsQuest (SQ) Program, developed by the Gallup Organization in 2002, based

on decades of research with theoretical foundations in positive psychology, and used by over

600 colleges across the U.S., offers students the opportunity to discover, develop and apply

their strengths in all facets of their lives—academic, career and personal, and life success,

ultimately contributing to improved retention, graduation. Another way of looking at Activity

One is that it will: a) Increase students’ self-awareness and their understanding and

appreciation of others; b) Allow students to develop to their full potential in academics, career,

leadership, relationships, and engagement; c) Create a common language across campus that

contributes to a sense of community; d) Increase students’ confidence, engagement and sense

of responsibility in pursuing their undergraduate goals; e) Advance student achievement of the

Student Learning and Development Outcomes; and f) Positively impact retention, graduation,

and satisfaction. In essence, Strengths-based education involves a process of assessing,

teaching, and designing experiential learning activities to help students identify their greatest

talents, and to then develop and apply strengths based on those talents in the process of

learning, intellectual development, and academic achievement to levels of personal excellence.

(Clifton et al, 2006; Kouzes & Posner, 2002; Hodges and Harter, 2005; Avolio & Luthans,

2005; Seligman et al, 2005; Anderson, 2004; Schreiner & Anderson, 2005; Lopez, 2004;

Clifton and Anderson, 2002; Braskamp et al 2006). Students at the University of Kansas who participated

in SQ graduated at rates 16% higher than students who did not participate in SQ activities (Snyder

et al, 2002). At Azusa Pacific University, application of SQ led to significant increases in

student satisfaction with the total advising experience, perceived helpfulness of personal

success plan, course evaluations, perception of instructors, cumulative GPA after one semester

18


and after one year, and retention after one year (Schreiner & Anderson, 2005; Schreiner, 2007).

The University of Minnesota is in its second year of piloting its Strengths-based education

program. In its 2011-2012 Strengths Interaction Report (University of Minnesota, 2012) data

drawn from first-year student surveys and focus groups suggest that students are benefitting

from their Strengths-related interactions with others. The data consistently indicate that the

more discussions students have with others regarding their Strengths, the more positive they

perceive the impact of Strengths on their engagement, success, retention, and sense of belonging

at the University. In qualitative responses, students consistently reported that Strengths

positively benefitted their academic achievement, confidence, relationships, and career

decision-making.

RATIONALE SUPPORTED BY STUDIES OR PROJECTS: Activity Two

Kuh (2008) provided an evidence-based summary of high-impact educational practices that

have shown to improve student engagement and achievement. Practices include learning

communities, community-based learning, first-year seminars and experiences, undergraduate

research, and capstones. His analysis indicates that engaging in educationally activities helps level

the playing field for students from low-income family backgrounds and others who have been

historically underserved. Kuh strongly recommends that participation in these practices should

be a priority for every student.

USM’s High-Impact Educational Practices including learning communities, EAST, the

Russell Scholars Program, and CBL activities incorporate many of the interventions that have

proven successful in supporting undergraduate students, including women, underrepresented

minorities, disadvantaged economic groups, and students with disabilities (Slovacek, 2008;

Taningco et al, 2008; Adelman, 1999, 2006; Hill et al, 2010; Whitney et al., 2012; Blimling, 1993;

19


Pascarella, et al., 1994; Tinto & Goodall, 1993). Learning communities help students form social

groups outside of class, ease the transition to college, and foster a sense of community (Shapiro &

Levine, 1999; Blackhurst et al., 2003; Donahue, 2004; Johnson & Romanoff, 1999; Soldner et al.,

1999; Tinto, 1996). Students who participate in learning communities are more likely to perform

at higher levels academically (Lichtenstein, 2005; Baker & Pomerantz, 2000-2001; Shapiro &

Levine, 1999) and more likely to persist in their academic years when compared to students who

did not participate (Kuh, 2008; Lardner & Malnarich, 2008; Barrows & Goodfellow, 2005;

Johnson, 2001; Shapiro & Levine, 1999; Soldner et al, 1999; Tinto, 1997). Pre- and post-NSSE

surveys of first year and senior students will allow us to measure the impact of High-Impact

Educational Practices on students’ critical thinking, deep learning, and positive attitude toward

literacy. NSSE questions on “Level of Academic Challenge” and “Enriching Educational

Experiences” are reasonable proxy measures of student achievements specific to High-Impact

Educational Practices (Laird et al, 2008).

RATIONALE SUPPORTED BY STUDIES OR PROJECTS: Activity Three

Improvements in student learning and success rarely succeed without active involvement

of faculty in and out of the classroom. Engaging faculty in new scholarship and pedagogy

changes more than a single course; it potentially alters all the courses a faculty member

teaches. Faculty development is the only way to make curricular changes (Flynn, 2002).

Research has shown that the use of diverse instructional techniques is particularly important to

students needing academic assistance (Cross, 1976; McCabe, 2000; Boylan, 2002). USM will

use the University of Hartford’s successful Faculty Development Program (Duran et al, 2005;

Stevenson et al, 2005) developed for its First-Year Interest Groups (FIGS) to achieve the

following goals: a) give faculty the tools to collaborate successfully in the creation of shared

20


integrative learning experiences for students; b) encourage them to think beyond the narrow

borders of their particular course and discipline, to understand the material that students

encounter in other courses, and to design learning experiences that cross these borders; and c)

encourage them to collaboratively develop an Outcomes, Activities, Technology, Assessment

(OATA) plan that defines learning outcomes and the learning experiences that cross the

borders of individual classes.

Comparative research studies have shown that colleges and universities that redesigned

their introductory courses using technology achieved quality enhancements as well as cost

savings (Twigg, 2005). In a 1999-2003 the National Center for Academic Transformation

(NCAT) Course Redesign Program demonstrated how technology could be used to address the

significant academic problems experienced by first-year adult students, students of color and

low-income students at most institutions. 25 of 30 projects involved in the program have shown

statistically significant increases in student learning; the other five have shown equivalent

learning to traditional formats. Of the 24 projects that measured retention, 18 reported a

noticeable decrease in the rates of failing grades (D-F-W), ranging from 10 to 20 %, as well as

higher course completion rates. Other positive outcomes associated with redesigned courses

included better student attitudes toward the subject matter and increased student satisfaction

with the new mode of instruction. Finally, all 30 projects reduced their instructional costs, on

average about 37%. The program has produced a significant number of best practices that have

been shared with the higher education community. In all cases, active student engagement with

the course material, with one another and with faculty members was key. These results were

replicated in follow- up projects, the Roadmap to Redesign and Colleagues Committed to

Redesign between 2003 and 2009 (NCAT, 2013).

21


RATIONALE SUPPORTED BY STUDIES OR PROJECTS: Activity Four

One of the major challenges to improving retention at USM is identifying students who

are at risk of leaving the University and connecting them to services that can help. USM's

focus on individual student success involves improving the connection of a wide variety of

services to the students who need them. USM’s MyPASSPort, modeled after the electronic

resource eAdvisor at the Arizona State University (ASU), is an integrated online resource to

link academic advising, diagnostic assessment, early alert and intervention, study skills and

tutoring, curriculum planning, student academic success and timely degree completion.

The three primary elements of MyPASSPort are: 1) expanding USM’s Advising Network;

2) implementing the Critical Course Tracking System; and 3) Career Development - the use of

electronic portfolios (e-Portfolios) to document learning and support the development of

effective career skills. MyPASSPort is based on the premise that retention and continuation

toward graduation are positively influenced by the extent to which students are familiar with

graduation expectations, requirements, and support resources (Boylan, 2002; Leinbach and

Jenkins, 2008). Universities that have implemented integrated online resources have witnessed

increases in student retention and improvement in timely degree progress. For example, ASU

began implementing eAdvisor in Fall 2006, and experienced an 8.6% increase in 1st to 2nd year

retention of the Fall 2009 FTIC student cohort (ASU, 2013). Also, 80% of the Fall 2009

entering FTIC student class were “on-track” and registered for the correct courses.

InfoSilem is a course scheduling software that allows users to solve space issues, ensure

students have access to all the courses they need to graduate on time, manage change

interactively, analyze “What-If” scenarios, streamline data collection processes, and report on

key performance indicators. Success examples from institutions that have used InfoSilem

22


include: reduced course schedule turnaround from 3 to 5 days to 24 hours (Carleton

University), consolidated 4,500 combinations of academic blocks to 1,800 to minimize conflicts

with students’ schedules (New Jersey Institute of Technology, 2013), streamlined scheduling

operation and concentrated 13 part-time roles into 1 full- time positions to managing

scheduling operations (Chippewa Technical College, 2013). Deployment of this tool will

significantly improve our ability to schedule courses, and, as the result, support our efforts in

improving student degree completion. The University of Maine (UMaine), a UMS institution,

is piloting the deployment of InfoSilem. USM will work with UMaine to learn from their

deployment experience in order to streamline deployment in our institution.

23


3. The timetable for each activity is realistic and likely to be attained

Implementation Strategy Timetable

Task to be Completed Primary Participants Methods Involved Tangible Results Timetable

From-to YEAR ONE

Appoint SIP Project Director, SIP Activity Coordinators, SIP Steering Committee.

President Confirm participation of key personnel, and adjust responsibilities accordingly

Appointments finalized Oct 2013

Oct 2013

Hire Instructional Designer, External Evaluator, CBL Project Manager, FIG consultant, and Administrative Assistant II

SIP Management Team (defined in Management Plan)

Conduct search and interviews Personnel, contractors & consultant hired

Oct

2013

Dec 2013

Develop and implement university- wide communication plan to inform faculty and staff about the grant, requirements and benefits to them, the students and the community.

President, Steering Committee SIP Management Team, USM Office of Public Affairs

Workshops on each campus throughout the first year, Newsletters, SIP website, and Departmental meetings.

• Faculty and staff are aware of the opportunities, requirements and benefits

• Faculty and staff buy-in

Oct 2013

Sept 2018

Develop project evaluation systems SIP Management Team Set up database and data collection systems.

Data systems created with baseline student data

Nov 2013

Mar 2014

Design and implement SIP program website

SIP Management Team, USM Webmaster.

Websites created and newsletters designed for campus communications

Website updated, monthly newsletters produced and distributed

Oct 2013

Dec 2013

Activity One: University-wide Strengths-Based Education Program. Certify staff as Strengths-based educators

SIP Activity One Coordinator, and four Student Success Center staff

Clifton Strengths School’s on-line courses

Five certified as Strengths-based Educators

Oct 2013

Aug 2014

Develop Strengths Impact Model and Strengths Assessment Tool

SIP Management Team, USM Academic Assessment Director, and faculty.

Work with the USM Director of Academic Assessment to develop model

Strengths Impact Model completed Nov

2013 Apr 2014

Design deployment of StrengthsFinderTM and Strengths Quest in preparation for 2014 Summer Orientation

SIP Activity One Coordinator, Strengths-based Educators, and Student Success Center

Purchase StrengthsFinderTM

codes, and develop training materials and format

Materials and logistics prepared for orientation

Oct

2013

Apr 2014

Design and deliver training program for faculty and staff


Training materials and format for delivering training

Training program materials, 15 faculty and 30 staff are trained

Mar 2014

Aug 2014




From-to Pilot deploy StrengthsFinder assessment program and Strengths Assessment Tool with a small cohort of first year students


StrengthsFinderTM assessments conducted during 2014 summer orientation.

400 first year students take assessment.

May 2014

Aug 2014

Provide 1st first year student cohort access to reading materials and interactive website.


Workshops during the orientation will show the students how to access the information.

400 students have access to the reading materials and website.

May 2014

Aug 2014

Design and develop Introduction to Strengths Workshops


Assessments are analyzed to provide groupings of workshops based on themes and talents.

Materials for workshops are developed, and workshop schedules are finalized for fall and spring semesters

May 2014

Aug 2014

Provide trained faculty and staff access to assessment results.


Trained faculty and staff will download aggregate student information from the website.

Faculty and staff will use the data to engage students on campus, and to place students in existing campus programs or develop new activities.

May 2014

Aug 2014

Conduct pre-NSSE and Strengths surveys with 1st first year student cohort during 2014 summer orientation.


Survey provided during the orientation workshops

Baseline data is collected to assess the impact of strengths on their first- year experience.

May 2013

Aug 2014

Activity Two: Coordinated and Engaging High-Impact Educational Practices. Convene High-Impact Educational Practices Coordinating (HIEP) Committee.

President, Provost, and SIP Management Team

Convene committee with faculty representatives to discuss their programs and begin the process of aligning activities to learning outcomes.

Convene weekly in Year 1 to develop guidelines, and monthly thereafter

Oct 2013

On- going

Inventory High-Impact Educational Practices at USM and assess alignment with learning outcomes

HIEP Committee, and SIP Activity Two Coordinator

Each department provides a summary of practices and alignment with learning outcomes.

Inventory of High-Impact Educational Practices and assessment of alignment with learning outcomes.

Oct

2013

May 2014

Develop criteria for developing new High-Impact Educational Practices at USM.


Work with USM Core Curriculum Committee and Academic Assessment Director to develop criteria.

Criteria completed and disseminated

Jan

2014

May 2014




From-to Activity Three: Faculty Development Program.

Recruit 1st Faculty Interest Group (FIG) cohorts for spring 2014 FIG workshop.

SIP Project Director, Activity Three Coordinator, SIP Steering Committee.

Departments and faculty submit proposals to the SIP Management Team for review.

Six cohorts of 24 faculty selected Oct

2013 Dec 2013

Design FIG training program. SIP Activity Three Coordinator, SIP Activity Two Coordinator, FIG consultant, USM Dir. of Academic Assessment, SIP Instructional Designer, SIP CBL Faculty Fellow, and SIP CBL Program Manager

Determine program elements to be included, develop training materials, training format, schedule, outcomes and assessment measures

FIGS workshop program content, materials and schedule.

Nov 2013

Feb 2014

Pilot and assess first FIG workshop for 1st FIG cohorts

SIP Activity Three Coordinator, SIP Activity Two Coordinator, FIG consultant, USM Dir. of Academic Assessment, SIP Instructional Designer, SIP CBL Faculty Fellow, and SIP CBL Program Manager

Conduct new FIG workshop and complete assessment

24 faculty participate in the pilot, program assessed

Mar 2014

May 2014

Conduct pre-Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE) survey of 1st FIG cohorts.

SIP Activity Three Coordinator, USM Director of Academic Assessment

Survey taken prior to the workshops

Baseline data collected to assess the impact of training.

Mar 2014

May 2014

Develop new High-Impact Educational courses and redesign gateway courses.

SIP Activity Three Coordinator, SIP Activity Two Coordinator, FIG cohorts, USM Dir. of Academic Assessment, and SIP Instructional Designer

FIG faculty use the FIG workshop and summer months to develop their courses.

3 High-Impact Educational Courses, 6 redesigned gateway courses, 5 FIG Leaders trained.

May 2014

Aug 2014

Develop and issue first round of mini-grant competition

SIP Project Director, SIP Steering Committee

Competitive process 5 mini-grants awarded Mar 2014

Sept 2014

Activity Four: Deploying MyPASSPort and INFOSILEM Develop conceptual framework for MyPASSPort and INFOSILEM.

SIP Activity Four Coordinator, Student Success Center, Registrar, College Deans

Establish planning group, explore best practices options compatible with PeopleSoft

Development and operational framework Nov

2013 Mar 2014

Design and develop 4-yr & 5-yr, 8- semester and 10-semester Major Maps and an Early Alert System.


Establish working group with faculty representatives

Major Maps for all students

Jan

2014

Aug 2014




From-to Establish Scheduling Timetable Committee to develop the principles and goals of timetabling for the university, define the rules of timetabling, clarify the responsibility of the timetable production team, and review each policy annually.


Review current policies, procedures, and roles in course scheduling, include classroom scheduling

A policy document outlining principles, goals, rules, roles and responsibilities for course scheduling.

Nov 2013

Aug 2014

Install and implement InfoSilem SIP Activity Four Coordinator, IT Department, Student Success Center, Registrar, College Deans

IT Department, Registrar, and Student work together to install, test and validate programming.

InfoSilem is ready for deployment May

2014 Jul

2014

Develop and deliver training for faculty and staff.

SIP Activity Four Coordinator, IT Department, Student Success Center, Registrar

Weekly workshops will be conducted to train personnel.

Training materials, 15 faculty/30 staff trained Jul

2014 On-

going

YEAR TWO Activity One: University-wide Strengths-Based Education Program.

Deliver Introductory to Strengths workshops


16, one-half day workshops in the Fall and Spring semesters; workshops will include StrengthsQuest activities.

Approximately 400 students will have a better appreciation of their strengths and applications of their talents

Oct 2014

Apr 2015

Conduct post-NSSE survey on 1st

cohort of first year students at the end of the first academic year.


Survey provided at the conclusion of the academic year

Data compared to pre- survey to assess the impact of strengths on their first-year experience.

Mar 2015

Apr 2015

Conduct post-Strengths Assessment survey on 1st cohort of first year students at the end of Term 1 and Term 2 of the first academic year.


Survey provided at the conclusion of the academic year

Data compared to pre- survey to assess the impact of strengths on their first-year experience.

Dec 2014

Apr 2015

Continue delivering training program for faculty and staff


Training materials and format for delivering training

Training program materials, 45 faculty and 30 staff are trained

Oct 2015

Aug 2016

Deploy StrengthsFinder assessment and Strengths Assessment Tool to the 2nd cohort of first year students in 2015 summer orientation.


StrengthsFinderTM assessments conducted during 2015 summer orientation.

2nd cohort of 800 first year students takes assessment.

May 2015

Aug 2015




From-to Provide 2nd cohort of first year students access to reading materials and interactive website.


Workshops during the orientation will show the students how to access the information.

800 students have access to the reading materials and website.

May 2015

Aug 2015

Continue providing trained faculty and staff access to assessment results.


Trained faculty and staff will download aggregate student information from the website.

Faculty and staff will use the data to engage students on campus, and to place students in existing campus programs or develop new activities.

May 2015

Aug 2015

Activity Two: Coordinated and Engaging High-Impact Educational Practices. Align existing High-Impact Educational Practices at USM with learning outcomes.

HIEP Committee, and SIP Activity Two Coordinator, faculty

Each faculty responsible for teaching an activity will work with USM Core Curriculum Committee and Academic Assessment Director to ensure alignment.

High-Impact Educational Practices are aligned.

Oct 2014

May 2015

Continue coordination and alignment of High-Impact Educational Practices.


Convene committee with faculty representatives to discuss their programs and aligning activities to learning outcomes.

High-impact activities aligned with learning outcomes.

Oct

2014

On-

going

Conduct pre-NSSE survey of students who will take High-Impact Educational Courses developed by 1st FIG cohort

SIP Activity Two Coordinator, Student Success Center

Survey provided at the beginning of the semester

Baseline data collected to assess the impact of the courses on student engagement.

Sept 2014

Oct

2014

Deliver High-Impact Educational courses

SIP Activity Two Coordinator, Immersive FIG faculty, USM Dir. of Academic Assessment

Courses are delivered in the Fall 2014.

3 High-Impact Educational Courses delivered, 150 students

Sept 2014

Apr 2015

Conduct post NSSE survey of students who took High-Impact Educational Practices courses by 1st

FIG cohort.

SIP Activity Two Coordinator, Student Success Center

Survey provided at the conclusion of the fall semester

Data compared to baseline to assess change in student engagement.

Apr 2015

Apr 2015

Activity Three: Seeding the Faculty Development Program Recruit faculty for 2nd FIG cohorts for spring 2015 FIG workshop.

SIP Activity Three Coordinator, CBL Faculty Fellow

Interested departments & faculty submit proposals to the Management Team for review.

2nd cohort of 40 faculty selected

Sept 2014

Dec 2014




From-to Conduct pre-NSSE survey of 1st

student cohort who will take redesigned gateway courses in fall 2014.

SIP Activity Three Coordinator, Student Success Center

Survey provided at the beginning of the semester

Baseline data collected to assess the impact of the courses on engagement.

Sept 2014

Oct

2014

Deliver redesigned gateway courses by 1st FIG cohorts.

SIP Activity Three Coordinator, FIG cohorts, Instructional Designer, and USM Dir. of Academic Assessment

Courses are delivery in the fall 2014 and/or spring 2015.

Six new courses delivered Sept 2014

Apr 2015

Conduct post NSSE survey of students who took redesigned gateway courses from the 1st FIG cohort.

SIP Activity Three Coordinator, Student Success Center

Survey provided at the conclusion of the fall or spring semester

Data compared to baseline to assess change in student engagement.

Apr 2015

Apr 2015

Deliver 2nd FIG workshop for 2nd

FIG cohorts. SIP Activity Three Coordinator, Faculty FIG trainers, Instructional Designer, and USM Dir. of Academic Assessment

Conduct 2nd FIG workshop with FIG leaders, and complete assessment.

40 faculty participate, program assessed

Mar 2015

May 2015

Conduct pre-FSSE survey of 2nd

FIG cohorts. SIP Activity Three Coordinator, USM Director of Academic Assessment

Survey taken prior to the workshops

Baseline data collected to assess the impact of training.

Mar 2015

May 2015

Develop 2nd set of new High Impact Educational Practices and redesign gateway courses.

SIP Activity Three Coordinator, SIP Activity Two Coordinator, FIG cohorts, USM Dir. of Academic Assessment, and SIP Instructional Designer

2nd FIG faculty use the FIG workshop and summer months to develop their courses.

10 High-Impact Educational Courses, 10 redesigned transitional and introductory courses

May 2015

Aug 2015

Conduct post FSSE survey of 1st

FIG cohorts. SIP Activity Three Coordinator and USM Director of Academic Assessment.

Survey taken at end of academic year after delivering courses.

Data compared to baseline data. Mar

2015 May 2015

Issue 2nd round of mini-grant competition

SIP Project Director, SIP Steering Committee

Competitive process 10 mini-grants awarded Jan 2015

Apr 2015

Hold USM-wide Symposium where faculty/staff share the progress and results of their projects.

SIP Management Team USM Director of Academic Assessment

Work with program participants to develop Symposium.

FIGs share progress and “what worked.” Apr

2015 Apr 2015

Activity Four: Deploying MyPASSPort and INFOSILEM Design and implement searchable database for degrees

SIP Activity Four Coordinator, IT Department, Registrar, Academic departments

Work with faculty, students, and academic departments to develop the configuration of the database.

Searchable data base is full operational Oct

2014 Apr 2015



Task to be Completed Primary Methods Involved Tangible Results Timetable Participants From-to

Test Major Maps SIP Activity Four Coordinator, IT Department, Registrar, Academic departments

Maps tested with faculty and students to verify maps reflect degree requirements and ease of understanding by faculty and students

Major maps complete

Oct 2014

Feb 2015

Track Fall 2014 cohort for credit completion.

SIP Activity Four Coordinator, IT Department, Registrar, Academic departments, Student Success

Registrar will use pre-release version of MyPassPort to register all first year students before they begin their first fall semester

Credit attempted and completion of cohort is available for analysis.

Feb

2015

On-

going

Review Scheduling Timetable Policy Document.


Review current policies, procedures, and roles in course scheduling, include classroom scheduling

Updated policy document Oct

2014

Sept 2015

Continue delivering training for faculty and staff.


Workshops Training materials, 45 faculty/30 staff trained

Ongoing

YEAR THREE Activities One, Two and Three

Repeat tasks in Year 2 Oct 2015 Sept 2016 Activity Four: Deploying MyPASSPort and InfoSilem

Launch Personalized MyPASSPort with e-Portfolio with Fall 2015 first year student cohort


Assign students to MyPASSPort, implement e-Portfolio system, complete assessment

800 students participate, program assessed Jan

2016 On-

going

Track Fall 2015 cohort for credit completion.

SIP Activity Four Coordinator, IT Department, Registrar, Academic departments, Student Success Center

Registrar will use pre-release version of MyPassPort to register all first year students before they begin their first fall semester

Credit attempted and completion of cohort is available for analysis

Fall 2015

On- going

Continue delivering training for faculty and staff.

IT department Workshops Training materials, 45 faculty/30 staff trained On-going

YEARS FOUR AND FIVE Activities One through Five

Repeat tasks conducted during Year 3 Oct 2016 Sept 2018

MANAGEMENT PLAN

1. The procedures for managing the project are likely to ensure efficient and effective project implementation.

2. The project director and activity coordinators have sufficient authority to conduct the project effectively, including access to the president or chief executive officer.

Dr. Theodora Kalikow, USM President, will have ultimate responsibility for the

leadership and supervision of the SIP grant and will monitor project implementation and

institutionalization. The President has delegated official authority for project coordination and

budget management, as well as overall supervision, quality, and impact of the SIP project to the

SIP Project Director. In the first 3 months of the project, the SIP Project Director will meet

biweekly with the President to inform her of the project’s progress. Thereafter and throughout

the duration of the project, the meetings will be scheduled monthly.

University of Southern Maine SIP Organizational Chart

SIP Steering Committee: The Steering Committee will review project progress monthly. The SIP Project Director will chair the Committee. Committee members will include the four

SIP Activity Coordinators; the Director of Academic Assessment; the Director of the Office of

31

MANAGEMENT PLAN

Community-Based Learning; the Director of the Center for Online Technology Enhanced

Learning; faculty leads for Faculty Interest Groups; representatives of the USM Core Curriculum

Committee, the External Evaluator, Faculty Senate President, students, staff, and the Coordinator

of the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment. The committee will meet monthly to

monitor implementation progress and recommend enhancements and corrections as needed to

ensure success. Committee members will serve as liaisons to other collaborative governance

committees, as well as communicate progress and accomplishments across the institution.

SIP Project Management Team: The SIP Management Team will include the SIP

Project Director meeting weekly with the SIP Activity Coordinators during Year 1 to ensure

effective implementation. During years 2-5, these SIP Management Team meetings will occur

monthly.

The SIP Project Director, with assistance from the SIP Activity Coordinators, will

prepare and submit annual performance reports to the U.S. Department of Education. These

reports will document progress toward achievement of objectives.

32

EVALUATION PLAN

1. Data Elements and Data Collection Procedures are Clearly Described and

Appropriate to Measure the Attainment of Activity Objectives and to Measure the Success of Achieving the Goals of the CDP.

2. Data Analysis Procedures are Clearly Described and are Likely to Produce Formative and Summative Results

Evaluation Model Philosophy The evaluation of SIP will be multidimensional,

employing the measurement of a number of indicators relevant to the successful implementation

of each Goal, Activity, Activity Objective, and the project overall. To measure the effectiveness

of the specific elements in each Activity, baseline data will be collected. This baseline data will

provide the initial comparative framework for assessing change across the broad array of

indicators in subsequent formative and summative assessment and evaluation activities. In

addition, the External Evaluator will inform the SIP Steering Committee of additional data

collection needs and procedures inherent in the process.

The 5-year timeframe of the SIP project provides a unique opportunity to engage in

continuous feedback and quality improvement activities and to observe deep systems change.

The comprehensive analysis of institutional strengths and weaknesses has enabled the SIP

Proposal Planning Team to build the logic model that drives the program design and evaluation

approach. By identifying first-year retention as a critical concern, the Proposal Planning Team

was able to examine the theories that inform student retention in the first year, to select

interventions aligned with those theories, and to predict the interim and long-term outcomes

associated with the selected interventions. These interventions and outcomes are outlined in the

detailed evaluation plan.

External Evaluator. An experienced evaluator, who preferably is a member of the

American Educational Research Association and the American Evaluation Association, will be

hired as the SIP External Evaluator. The Evaluator will maintain an ongoing dialogue

with the SIP Management Team and participate in the regular evaluation of the project.

33

EVALUATION PLAN

Operating within an open evaluation model, the SIP Management Team and participants will

have a substantive role in reflecting on project progress, determining whether course corrections

or refinements are necessary to achieve desired long-term goals, and discussing the meaning of

project final results.

Formative Evaluation. We will incorporate high quality and comprehensive data

elements and collection procedures. A performance-based evaluation measure has been written

for each Activity objective, in compliance with the Government Performance and Results Act

(GPRA). Evaluation measures will accurately assess the actual accomplishment of the

objectives and performance indicators against quantitative standards. The SIP database will

produce appropriate, objective, and quantitative data to demonstrate whether the project is

effectively achieving its objectives. The plan provides for evaluation of every goal, Activity, and

objective for the total project. Each task will be placed on a calendar, which includes the

objective, each task, persons responsible, deadlines for completion, type of data collected, and

required documentation, much like the IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY in this proposal.

We will take a comprehensive approach to evaluating each Activity’s services and the

success of the project in making progress toward achieving its objectives. We will determine

effective and ineffective components and procedures as quickly as possible so they can be

modified to enhance the likelihood of achievement of the objectives. The following illustrates

the evaluation model that we will use to provide a logical pattern of action for providing

effective services and evaluating those services.

34

EVALUATION PLAN

Evaluation is a continual process. The objectives relate to the project Activities. The pre-

assessment identifies student and faculty needs, which are documented through the University

assessment process. Procedures are the services that are provided to address the identified needs.

The evaluation is to determine if the procedures have been successful in meeting the needs of the

students and faculty. Formative reports will be generated and discussed during SIP meetings.

Appropriate steps will be taken and staff assignments made to implement the programmatic

changes deemed necessary as a result of these formative reports.

Formative assessments will focus on the interim goals of the project and seek to tap into the

growing base of knowledge and experience of all students in First STEPs. The purpose of

formative evaluation is to examine project activities in the early stages of implementation and to

recommend any modifications to improve the Activities’ opportunities for successful outcomes.

We will use the same model of evaluation for Summative Evaluation. As a result of the

continual evaluation process, the data collected will provide the basis for the summative

evaluation. All evaluation methods will allow us to accurately, and in a timely manner, make

programmatic changes in services and procedures to evaluate the success of First STEPs in

achieving each Activity objectives at the end of each year. The evaluation will use a broad range

of approaches to assure a rich source of information that the team can use to identify key patterns,

effects, and outcomes, and to increase the reliability of project findings. Each method has been

carefully selected to provide a valid and reliable approach to investigation and to align with the

nature of the information that is sought.

35

EVALUATION PLAN

36