University of South Florida - Office of the Provost and ...files.acad.usf.edu/camprel/28335.pdf · PERSISTENCE AND SUCCESS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA ... Early planning and

University of South Florida Enrollment Management Action Team

Student Academic Progress and Achievement Group

A PROPOSED ACTION PLAN TO ENHANCE STUDENT ACADEMIC PERSISTENCE AND SUCCESS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH

FLORIDA

May 10, 2004

Group Members: Glen Besterfield, Associate Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering and Chair, USF Undergraduate Council, Co-Chair Bruce Cochrane, Professor and Associate Dean, College of Arts and Sciences Doug Hartnagel, Associate Vice President for Student Affairs, Enrollment Planning and Management, Chair Enrollment Management Advisory Group Frank Hohengarten, Dean, Enrollment Management and Services, USF St. Petersburg Jackie Nelson, Director, Office of Undergraduate Advising, College of Business Dwayne Smith, Professor and Chair, Department of Criminology, and Chair, Provosts’ Faculty Task Force on Student Retention, 2002. Student, To be named Robert Sullins, Associate Professor and Dean, Undergraduate Studies Stephen Turner, Graduate Research Professor, and Chair, Department of Philosophy Ralph Wilcox, Professor and Vice Provost, Co-Chair Support Staff: Amy McFerrin, Assistant, Office of the Provost Debbie Hayward, DART Charlene Herreid, Institutional Research and Effectiveness Dan Gardner, Director, Institutional Effectiveness

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Secure a USF-wide commitment to improving Year 1 to Year 2 retention rates, as well as 4-year and 6-year graduation rates which are among the performance and accountability measures approved by the Florida Board of Governors. Accordingly, the most important question appears to be one of “when” rather than “if” such initiatives be implemented at USF. Moreover, this will demand leadership commitment as well as immediate and meaningful engagement by faculty (i.e. the Undergraduate Council and others) and students,

A PLAN TO ENHANCE STUDENT ACADEMIC PERSISTENCE AND SUCCESS AT USF May, 2004

2. The TAPS and 4-USF proposals must be viewed as central and integral parts of broader undergraduate reform at USF, that will include introduction of the new QEP program (General Education and Undergraduate Research, guided by SACS requirements and expected, in large part, to be funded by the projected increased tuition and FTE growth revenues from TAPS and 4-USF); the design and implementation of the Academic Learning Compacts (required by the Florida Board of Governors); as well as an expanded USF course schedule (facilitated, perhaps, through asynchronous learning, improved space utilization, increased instructional and advising resources, extended class days and times, and registration/tuition incentives such as block tuition and discounting at high capacity/low demand times and locations),

3. The TAPS and 4-USF proposals must be viewed as inextricably entwined elements of the

USF-wide enrollment management strategy, that includes (a) enhanced student selectivity; (b) the maintenance of student headcount while growing FTE; and (c) the provision of increased support for doctoral level teaching assistants and, possibly, student advisors (thereby promising growth of GR II FTE generation and the number of doctoral degrees awarded),

4. Continue the design of semester-by-semester curricula (i.e. 4-year degree plans or 8+1

semester plans recognizing the state requirement for completion of one Summer of study) for each of the 84 undergraduate degrees awarded at USF. These should be completed and made available to students beginning Fall 2004,

5. Immediately establish a TAPS Office (during Summer 2004 in preparation for

implementation during the 2005-06 academic year) and charge it with “steering” the final design, refinement, approval, implementation and evaluation of the proposed TAPS and 4-USF programs. We have one opportunity to do it right!,

6. Plan to debut both programs during recruitment of FT FTIC students (for AY 2005-06)

during Fall 2004 and at Orientation 2005,

7. Allocate resources to facilitate technology enhancements and the audit interface necessary to implementing the TAPS and 4-USF programs in AY 2005-06,

8. Allocate instructional resources to colleges to support additional sections beginning AY

2005-06. Early planning and allocation will be essential for successful faculty and TA recruitment,

9. Allocate advising resources to phase-in significantly enhanced academic advising support

beginning AY 2005-06. Early planning and allocation will be essential for advisor recruitment and training/professional development in the colleges as well as the Re-Advising Center,

10. Establish an Enrollment Performance and Forecasting Team for the purpose of

projecting academic need capacity, and

11. Design and implement the “supplementary support” program for students finding themselves “off track” due to “critical tracking criteria” and/or “choke points”.

2


A. THE CHARGE:

• To develop recommendations for designing and implementing initiatives to improve student academic progress at the University of South Florida.

Improve Yr 1>Yr 2 retention (ACADEMIC PERSISTENCE) Improve 4 yr and 6 yr graduation rates (ACADEMIC SUCCESS)

and

• To build a student body by design rather than by chance. A. INTRODUCTION: The Student Academic Progress and Achievement Group (SAPAG) proposes implementing a Tracking the Academic Progress of Students (TAPS) universal tracking system at USF beginning AY 2005-06. Upon admission to the University, this system will ensure that all students are presented with a complete degree plan along with guaranteed availability of course selections when they declare their major. The TAPS system encourages FT FTIC students (in the first instance) to make a choice of major at the onset of their academic career. Several benefits will accrue from implementation of the TAPS system. FT FTIC students will be presented with a complete academic plan when they arrive at USF, enrollment management and course scheduling will be significantly improved, and students’ registration will be automatically placed on “hold” if they do not meet the “critical tracking criteria” of their chosen degree. Once on “hold”, students will be required to meet with an academic advisor to assess their academic progress toward degree completion and to discuss appropriate options. This system is exceptionally proactive and academic advising will play a pivotal role in assisting USF to dramatically increase student graduation and retention rates. Furthermore, 4-USF, a four-year degree guarantee is proposed for implementation. This will provide FT FTIC students, admitted to selected majors, with the contractual assurance that they will have the opportunity to graduate from USF in four years providing they fulfill specified responsibilities. The proposed TAPS system and 4-USF program are consonant with USF’s broader enrollment management goals to:

1. Develop and manage an institutional enrollment profile (i.e. UG:GR - FT:PT – Headcount:FTE etc) consistent with that of a premier, national research university,

2. Enhance UG and GR student selectivity, 3. Improve year-to-year retention and time-to-graduation – through increasing

ACADEMNIC PERSISTENCE and ACADEMIC ACCELERATION while reducing ATTRITION through “dropout” and “stopout”,

4. Increase the number of doctoral degrees granted, 5. Build a diverse student body, 6. Maintain student headcount while increasing student FTE, and 7. Set measurable goals and annually report performance.

3


The main challenges appear to be:

i. Addressing the needs of both FTIC and transfer students as well as Full-time and Part-time students,

ii. Implementing the necessary technology upgrades, iii. Academically ill-prepared students, iv. Students’ financial means, v. Inadequate and inaccurate advising, mentoring, guidance and limited academic support, vi. Course availability and increased instructional costs (faculty workloads etc) – scheduling

and space utilization, vii. Curriculum changes – revised General Education core (the revised Quality Enhancement

Plan is expected to be implemented in AY 2005-06), viii. Students pursuing double majors, ix. Overcoming the myths associated with retention, x. Understanding what retention and time-to-graduation performance data will be used for?

With what will it be compared? xi. The belief that increased “structure” limits academic freedom and scholarly exploration,

and, xii. The need for systemic and behavioral change.

The key principles adopted throughout development of this proposal were to:

a. Focus on UG enrollment initially (and particularly FT FTIC in the first instance), b. Ensure faculty engagement and “buy-in” from the outset (mentoring, determining course

sequencing, accepting the principle of “critical course” delivery etc), c. Guarantee USF-wide commitment – shared responsibility among all stakeholders, d. Recognize that improved student progress demands a multi-dimensional solution. This

means that the TAPS and 4-USF initiatives must not be considered a panacea for retention and time-to-graduation challenges, and

e. Provide broad, continuous and clear communication. B. RATIONALE: What is prompting this “call to action”? – Academic, Economic and Political drivers.

1. 2.

To ensure that faculty will have appropriately prepared students in their courses, To reduce the number of students that departments/colleges serve for routine advising and for “drop/add”. This will better position departments/colleges to address students’ mentoring needs,

3.

4.

5.

6.

To increase cost savings to the student (and parents) – including the reduction/elimination of “excess” hours, To respond to student/parental demand. The expectation of a GUARANTEE that a student can indeed graduate in four years is growing (see, College Parents of America report), To meet competition with other universities that have or plan to implement similar programs, To create a more fully engaged student body,

4


7.

8.

9. 10.11.

12.

13.

To improve career placement and a graduate’s earlier realization of economic gains from entering the full-time workforce, To respond to public accountability – from Federal “Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act”, to State “BOG Accountability measures”, and Local “USF Strategic Plan and UBOT” – (Performance funding – where enhanced performance in retention and time-to-graduation is expected → 10% of base = $20-30 M for USF), To reduce higher education costs to the State of Florida, To increase access to public higher education, To lower loan default rates (although it should be pointed out that, presently, the performance of USF students is generally quite remarkable), To increase student satisfaction with their educational experience so promising higher alumni giving, and To reduce public investment in higher education leading to the need for more careful (with continuation in subsequent years) budget planning in academic affairs.

C. ASSUMPTIONS & DELIMITATIONS: Proposed focus:

Year 1 Incoming FT FTIC cohort (with continuation in subsequent years) Year 2 Incoming CC transfer students with AA degrees, and part-time students

(with continuation in subsequent years) Year 3 Incoming Other transfer students & graduate students (with continuation

in subsequent years) Above all, achieving improved institutional performance goals in the areas of student retention and time-to-graduation must be viewed as a shared and sustained responsibility for which there is no short term “fix”. It assumes a complex, yet directed interdependency of factors and/or initiatives, including:

• Continuing improvement in student recruitment, admissions selectivity, early acceptance and major declaration, and enhanced orientation,

• Increasing student FTE without increasing student headcount, • USF student culture and academic behavioral expectations will shift toward improved on-

time progress toward graduation, • Considering the development and implementation of incentives associated with full-time

block tuition, • Improving class scheduling and class/seat availability, • Summer school will become an essential and integral component (though not required

beyond the present one Summer requirement) of improved student achievement and progress,

• Enhancing student advising, • Implementing institutional enrollment/graduation “guarantees”, • Designing and implementing a technology-based, Tracking Academic Progress of

Students (TAPS) system (including enhanced class sequencing, program audits, reducing

5


the number of “undecided” students, reducing “excess” hours, improving advising, and strengthening faculty mentoring),

• Identifying high risk “killer” courses and providing supplemental instruction to enhance student academic success,

• Enhancing student service quality, • Increasing the strategic targeting of student financial aid (including need-based support,

merit-based scholarships and GR stipends/waivers), and • Further expanding student housing (4,400 beds in Fall 2004 rising to 5,000 by Fall 2006)

and improving campus life.

D. WHAT WE KNOW:

• Freshman year is the most crucial period for student retention, therefore we need to FRONTLOAD, INTRUSIVE ADVISING (to get students “on track” early) with a shift to PROGRESSIVE RESPONSIBILITY as a student advances (to keep students “on track”),

• Degree completion requires more than four years for most FTIC students, • Retention and graduation rates are consistently lower for underrepresented minorities, • Retention and graduation rates are consistently higher for women, • The more selective institutions generally have higher retention and graduation rates, and • Institutions with a higher percentage of part-time undergraduate enrollment (FAU, FIU,

UCF & USF = 41% compared to UF & FSU = 16%) generally have lower retention and graduation rates,

THE COMPARATIVE USF PROFILE: Institution Yr 1 > Yr 2 Retention 4 Yr Grad rate 6 Yr Grad rate (IPEDS) (2002) (1996) (1997) (1996) (1997) USF 81% 20% 24% 46% 49% UF 93% 50% 77% FSU N/A 40% 63% UCF 83% 26% 50% FAU 66% 15% 38% FIU N/A 17% 44% U Cincinnati 76% 14% 49% U Louisville 74% 11% 33% U Pittsburgh 88% 40% 63% UAB 75% 13% 38% ASU 77% 29% 55% Nationally 29% 55% (Public, 4-yr universities) SUS Reports: 1998 cohort = 17.3% graduation rate in 4 years

1999 cohort = 17.2% graduation rate in 4 years

6


• While the FTIC Yr 1 to Yr 2 retention rate at USF averaged 80% from Fall 2000 to Fall

2003, less than 50% of students had completed 30 SCH or more and 28% of students had completed less than 25 SCH. This suggests a disconnect between student retention and student academic progress at USF,

• From Fall 2000 to Fall 2003, only 32% of previous Fall FTICs enrolled in Summer School. This will need to change if the first Summer is used to get students “on track”,

• From Fall 2000 to Fall 2003, 87% of FTICs were enrolled full-time. While considered quite remarkable given USF’s overall UG student profile, there remains considerable room for improvement.

Average Excess Hours and Number of Major Changes for 2002-03 Graduates (Native Students): Institution Av Hrs for Degree Av Catalog Hrs Av # of Major Changes USF 123.5 121.0 1.4 UF 122.9 121.5 1.1 FSU 121.4 120.6 1.2 UCF 123.0 120.7 1.4 FAU 121.9 121.0 0.8 FIU 122.4 120.9 2.2 Percentage of Students Enrolled by Credit Hours at USF (Fall 2003): UG GR 0-3 SCH 5% 24% 4-6 SCH 9% 27% 7-9 SCH 11% 32% 10-12 SCH 31% 12% ------------------------------------------ 13-15 SCH 34% 4% 16-19 SCH 9% 1% 20+ SCH 0% 0% Mean Time (in Yrs) to Degree at USF (Spring, 2003 graduates): College FTIC FL CC Transfers Other Transfers All Colleges 4.05 2.41 2.51 CAS 3.97 2.41 2.42 COBA 4.09 2.57 2.59 Double Major 5.70 2.42 3.55

7


COE 3.91 2.02 2.33 COEng 4.49 2.94 2.59 VPA 4.23 3.14 3.45 Nursing 3.96 2.16 2.33 USF Freshman Summer Institute: A Critical Component of the Proposed TAPS system:

82% Yr 1 > Yr 2 retention rate 1:80-90 Professional advisor ratio 1:40 Graduate student adviser ratio

AY 2003-04 Profile AY 2004-05 Profile (Projected)

Female 72% 72% Male 28% 28% African American 38% 34% Latino 13% 17% White 35% 40% Admit GPA 4.0+ 0% 10% 3.5>4.0 19% 35% 3.0>3.49 69% 49% 2.5>2.99 12% 6% 2.0>2.49 0% 0% Below 2.0 0% 0% Admit Scores SAT 850 892 ACT 16 18 GPA 3.26 3.48 It is recommended that FT FTIC students admitted to USF, yet falling short of carefully determined admission benchmarks (including SAT/ACT, GPA, High School rank etc.), be required to successfully complete the USF Freshman Institute prior to acceptance to the TAPS system. E. WHAT WE DID: The SAPAG conducted extensive analysis of data furnished by Institutional Research and Effectiveness staff and comprehensive reviews of successful initiatives at peer and SUS institutions. F. FEASIBILITY & PROJECTED OUTCOMES: While acknowledged to be rather aggressive, the following outcomes for FT FTIC entering cohorts are considered achievable:

8


FT FTIC Cohort Retention 4 Yr Grad rate 6 Yr Grad rate (IPEDS) Currently 81% 21% 42% (2002) (1996) (1996) Year 1 cohort performance 82% 30% 60% Year 2 cohort performance 84% 35% 65% Year 3 cohort performance 87% 40% 70% Year 4 cohort performance 90% 45% 75% G. RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Design and implementation of a Tracking the Academic Progress of Students (TAPS) system for FT FTIC students at USF, beginning AY 2005-06 (a)

(b)

Brief description

The fundamental premise with regard to increasing Year 1 to Year 2 retention rates, and the 4-year/6-year graduation rates is to develop a tracking system that monitors and guides a student’s academic progress toward their degree. Accordingly, the Student Academic Progress and Achievement Group (SAPAG) recommends active consultation with faculty toward further refinement and implementation of the Tracking the Academic Progress of Students (TAPS) system beginning with the FT FTIC cohort enrolling in Fall 2005 (with consideration of including those enrolling in Summer 2005 and Spring 2006). Key components of the TAPS system include, but are not limited to, early declaration of a major, 4-year semester-by-semester degree plans, identifying “critical tracking criteria”, guaranteeing seat availability, and enhanced advising. Fundamental principles

The fundamental principles that must guide an increase in Year 1 to Year 2 retention rates, and the 4-year/6-year graduation rates are numerous and interdependent, and no one single action (or “quick-fix”) can work without all of the pieces in place. In fact, without a significant infusion of new resources and a carefully coordinated effort on behalf of many stakeholders, the implementation of a system to effectively increase the Year 1 to Year 2 retention rates, and the 4-year/6-year graduation rates would be futile. Based upon the experience of other universities, the recommended strategies are to:

• Gain the fullest support from all stakeholders,

• Immediately establish (in Summer 2004) a TAPS Office to manage the SASS-based tracking system for implementation in the 2005-06 academic year,

• Tighten the requirements of the timeframe in which a student must declare a major, and be supportive of students changing their major if necessary. In other

9


words, get them into the “correct” major early in their academic career. Furthermore, design “Exploratory (undeclared) Programs” to guide those students for one year who cannot decide,

• Ensure that each college/department develops semester-by-semester curricula (i.e. 4-year degree plans or 8+1 semester plans recognizing the state requirement for completion of one Summer of study) from freshman through senior years for the 84 undergraduate degrees offered at USF. This is a vital component of being able to track students, and has not been done formally on campus except for about 10-15 degrees. Note that the college/department/program faculty will identify the “critical tracking criteria” within their curricula,

• Identify courses that might impede a student’s academic progress (i.e. “choke points”). Adequate capacity and academic support must be provided for these classes if students are to graduate in 4 years, and

• Significantly expand academic advising across the campus, from the freshman level to the colleges and the Re-Advising Center. This investment emphasis must include academic, professional, and career advisors with appropriate levels of training and professional development.

Successful implementation of these fundamental components, applied in combination, promise significant gains in the Year 1 to Year 2 retention rates, and the 4-year/6-year graduation rates at USF.

(c) The key elements:

i. Establishing a TAPS Office

A tracking office must be established immediately (Summer 2004 for Fall 2005 program implementation) with a minimum of two dedicated SASS/Banner experts and one information technology specialist. Also note that the transition of SASS to the Northwest Regional Data Center will be a crucial component in the transition to a tracking office.

ii. Declaring a major

Currently, USF requires FTIC students to declare a major before completing 45 credit hours. It is recommended that all students be highly encouraged to identify their intended major at the time of applying to USF, and to make a firm declaration upon acceptance and prior to Orientation. For those students who are still somewhat undecided, 3-4 freshman “Exploratory Programs” (i.e., undeclared curricula) will be established. These “Exploratory Programs” will be designed to reflect attributes of the college freshman-level curricula. The design of these curricula is currently underway, and should be completed after all of the major curricula plans are completed. Students will not be encouraged to enroll in the “Exploratory Programs” because they could easily be “off-track” once they declare a formal major (thus requiring immediate enrollment in Summer School to get them back “on track”). The “Exploratory Programs”

10


currently under design, are formulated as freshman level-only (semester 1 and 2) curricula with students required to declare a formal major prior to registering for the Summer semester between their freshman and sophomore years. One common element of the “Exploratory Programs” will be an enhanced University Experience course. The TAPS system will be used to identify a student’s progress toward degree early (thus allowing for intervention) in a student’s academic career. Furthermore, if a student is found to be “off-track” toward completion of their degree, the University will actively support their change of major.

iii. Establishing sequential 4-year degree plans

In order to implement the TAPS system, each college/department must develop semester-by-semester curricula (i.e. 4-year degree plans or 8+1 semester plans recognizing the state requirement for completion of one Summer of study) from freshman through senior years for the 84 undergraduate degrees offered at USF. These 4-year degree plans are currently being developed by each college using an Excel spreadsheet with pull-down menus that include over 2,400 courses approved for USF through the SUS system. This initiative is being coordinated through the academic advisors and academic deans in each college, and should be completed by early Summer 2004.

In developing the 4-year degree plans, each college was instructed not to identify any course requirements during the Summer between the freshman and sophomore years. The reason for not using the Summer after the freshman year is that students might utilize Summer to get back “on track” or get “ahead of track”, if they choose. Also, while developing their 4-year degree plans, colleges were instructed to identify the “critical tracking criteria” for each program. “Critical tracking criteria” can take many forms yet generally fall into one of four categories:

• Minimum GPA (overall, USF, college, departmental, etc), • Grade earned in a specific course, • Course pre-requisites to college, department or program admission,

and • Priority (high or low) that the course should be completed in a

designated semester.

iv. Identifying & resolving “choke points”

It is recommended that USF immediately establish an Enrollment Performance and Forecasting Team to address, among other matters, the resolution of “choke points” and project capacity needs by course and semester. The enrollment management “choke points” are identified as courses within the university that do not deliver sufficient seats to meet student demand (i.e. to meet the number of students expected to enroll in the course, or to handle the students who need the course to graduate in a timely manner within the 4-year timeframe).

11


Currently, without tracking, numerous “choke points” exist within the university course offerings. These include Composition 1 and 2, Literature and Writing exit courses, Gordon Rule courses, Science courses and Labs, Mathematics courses, Foreign Language courses, and University Experience, etc. Examples from Fall 2003 include closure of all 108 25-seat sections of Composition 1, all 20-seat sections of General Chemistry 1 Lab, and all sections of College Algebra. Once 4-year degree plans are established and tracking is in place, the “choke points” will still exist; however, they will be able to be projected and “managed” based on the 4-year plans, anticipated movement between majors, and college/department enrollment. Because of TAPS, “off-track” students will change majors earlier thereby alleviating some of the “choke points”, especially in the degree specific courses, such as the Science labs and exit courses.

v. Identifying & resolving “critical tracking data”

If a student is determined to be “off-track” toward their intended major, they must see an academic advisor (i.e. professional advisor) prior to registering for courses in the following semester. If they are “off-track” towards that same major a second time, they will be directed to a “Re-advising Center” where they must see a career (professional) counselor/advisor. At the “Re-advising Center”, students will be required to change their major and will be given a plan to get back “on track” toward their new major. Note that significantly enhanced career counseling and intervention to help a student choose a major that matches their academic abilities and talents, and to achieve their goals, is essential to improving Year 1 to Year 2 retention rates, and the 4-year/6-year graduation rates at USF.

vi. Guaranteeing seat availability

Guaranteeing seat availability is dependent on two primary factors, that is, an infusion of new funds needed to deliver sufficient sections (or increase section sizes), and the importance of a course in the overall university curricula as it applies to student academic progress (i.e. Is it part of the “critical tracking criteria”?). With regard to providing additional seats, significant investment will be essential if 4-year graduation rates, in particular, are to be improved. To address the second issue, several elements need to be addressed concurrently including, whether students are participating in the 4-USF program, whether they are FT FTIC students, and whether courses are “critical tracking criteria”? For students participating in 4-USF, the best solution might be to allow them to register in advance of all other students. Full-time FTIC students should also be given registration priority, possibly over part-time students, but not outside of the senior to freshman descending order. Courses that are pre-requisites in a sequence (e.g., Composition 1 to Composition 2, and 1st Foreign Language to 2nd Foreign Language) are essential to progression through a curriculum and must guarantee seat availability. On the other hand, courses that are not pre-requisites to other courses (and are not included as “critical tracking criteria”), do not have as high a priority for guaranteeing seat availability. In other words, students do not have to enroll in a course in a specific semester. The final category is courses that could impede graduation, such as exit MWMI and L&W courses. Typically, MWMI

12


are inter-departmental and should not be problematic. However, L&W seat availability must be addressed with additional funding allocations.

vii. Enhanced advising

According to several sources, the most desirable advisor/student ratio for professional advisors is approximately 400:1 or 300:1 depending on whether or not the students have declared a major. After reviewing the current advising structure and student/advisor ratios per unit/college at USF, it is apparent that the University is not presently staffed to adequately meet the academic advising needs of its students. It is anticipated that the proposed TAPS system will resolve many issues for students and decrease the need for advisor contact, as much information will be made available electronically. However, the University of Florida reports that approximately 18% of all freshmen and sophomore students are placed on “hold” each semester for failure to meet critical tracking criteria. If we extrapolate from those data and assume 5,000 FTIC are admitted to USF for AY 2005-06, then we can expect at least 1,800 students to be placed on “hold” each term beginning in the Fall 2006. It is recommended that all students be highly encouraged to identify their intended major at the time of applying to USF, and that they make a firm declaration upon acceptance and prior to Orientation. According to Infomart, during Fall 2003, there were 6,952 undecided/undeclared students at USF. Approximately 35-40% of this population has earned 75 or more hours. Below is a description of the current advising structure, costs and advisor/student ratios for each college and the Center for Academic Advising. All data refer only to the Tampa campus:

College of Arts and Sciences

CAS is the largest college with the greatest number of majors, advising and certifying for 62 degrees. Advising is decentralized and accomplished at the department level. According to the College, for the Academic Year 2002-2003, there were 13,772 undergraduate students on the Tampa campus. The CAS employs seven professional advisors, seven peer/GA advisors and 29 faculty advisors. FTE advisors: 15.3 Advisor/Student ratio: 900:1 Total salary/benefits: $613,836 Average cost per FTE advisor: $40,120 The College of Business Administration

The College is the second largest at USF and houses eight majors. Advising is centralized and staffed by five professional advisors. In addition, the Director of the Advising Office has a 10% assignment to work with problematic students. The five professional advisors serve a population of 3,694 students, those fully

13


declared and those who have earned at least 30 hours, but are not yet fully admitted to the college (10PBA). COBA does not employ peer or GA advisors. Currently, the college directly admits about 130 FTIC students each fall. FTE: 4.0 Advisor/student ratio: 924:1 Total salary/benefits: $182,210 Average cost per FTE Advisor: $45,552 College of Engineering

Academic advising is accomplished through a mix of professional advisors and faculty advisors. As of Fall 2003, COE employs four professional advisors. Data from Infomart, Fall 2003, shows 1,639 Pre-Engineering and General Engineering students. The college advises FTIC Pre-Engineering students. The data below refers to professional advisors only.

FTE advisors: 2.5 Advisor/student ratio: 770:1 Advising salary/benefits: $120,611 Average cost per FTE advisor: $48,240

College of Education

The College employs a professional advising model. Currently, COED advises declared majors only. The following data is from Infomart, unduplicated headcount: FTE Advisors: 3.0 Peer or paraprofessional advisors: 0 Number of students: 1894 Advisor/Student ratio: 630:1 Salary/benefits for advising: $117,028 Average cost per FTE advisor: $39,009 College of Visual and Performing Arts

The College follows a faculty-advising model. Three faculty members advise approximately 1,200 undergraduate students. They do not employ peer or paraprofessional advisors. FTE Advisors: 1.75 Number of students: 1200 Advisor/student ratio: 686:1 Salary/benefit costs for advising: $93,582 Average cost per advisor: $53,475

14


College of Nursing

The College does not admit FTIC students at this time. As a limited access program, it admits students at the beginning of their junior year. Currently two faculty members and one A&P employee advise 540 undergraduate nursing students as part of their full-time assignments. They do not employ peer or paraprofessional advisors. FTE Advisors: 0.5 Advisor/student ratio: 1100:1 Salary/benefit costs for advising: $30,539 Average cost per advisor: $61,078 Center for Academic Advising

The Center advises all undecided/undeclared students. A professional advising model is employed. The Center employs seven academic advisors and two part-time graduate students. Currently, students at USF are not forced to choose a major. As such, almost 40% of the students advised by the Center have earned more than 60 credits. Total professional advisors: 7.0 Total peer/paraprofessional advisors: 2 part-time graduate students FTE Advisors: 8 Total students advised: Per Infomart Fall 2003, 8,748-(COBA

10PBA of 1,272) and – (COE 1PGU of 524) = 6,952

Advisor/student ratio: 869:1 Cost of salary/benefits for advising: $310,888 Average cost per advisor: $38,861

An Overview of Advising Models and Resources at USF (Spring 2004): College Advising Model # of

advisors FTE Advisors

Advisor/student ratio

Total salary/benefit

Cost per advisor

CAS Faculty/ Professional/Paraprofessional

43 15.3 900:1 $613,816 $40,120

COBA Professional 5 4 924:1 $182,210 $45,552 COE Professional /Faculty 4 2.5 770:1 $120,661 $48,264 COED Professional 3 3 630:1 $117,028 $39,009 CVPA Faculty 3 1.75 686:1 $93,582 $53,475 CON Faculty 3 .5 1100:1 $30,539 $61,078 Center For Advising

Professional 8 7 869:1 $310,888 $38,861

15


Auxiliary Advising Services Offered at USF Freshmen Summer Institute FSI is a six-week residential program that provides alternative admission for students who do not meet Fall admission requirements but are thought to have the potential to succeed. During the Summer semester, students live on campus and earn nine hours in a six week period. For all students who successfully complete this Summer program, the FSI continues its support for the Fall and Spring semesters. Accordingly, advising is mandatory and students must meet with an advisor at least three times per term. The advisor/student ratio is 80:1. This is a high-risk group. The one-year retention rate between at the end of the first semester of the students’ sophomore year is 82%. Project Thrust This is a university-wide retention program designed to assist minority and at-risk students in the completion of their undergraduate education. Affiliated with four of the undergraduate colleges, the major role of the Project Thrust program is to provide students with the immediate and long-term assistance necessary to ensure the successful completion of their degree. Throughout the year, Project Thrust provides academic advising, counseling, tutoring and job placement assistance. The colleges served by Project Thrust include COBA, COED, CAS and CVPA. Honors College The Honors College employs four FTE advisors. Currently, they advise 2,100 Honors College students. The advisor student ratio is 525:1. Honors College students receive advising from both the Honors College and the College of their major. President’s Academy of Advisors This is a new program implemented in the Fall of 2003. Presently, about 39 university (current or retired) employees advise FTIC students through their freshman year. These advisors may be professional advisors, and USF faculty or staff who are active or retired. They participate in a 40-hour training program prior to their assignment of advisees. Each advisor works with 20 randomly assigned students. Athletics Student Support USF has 450 student athletes. All student-athletes meet with an athletic advisor prior to registration to ensure proper registration and compliance with NCAA academic progress requirements. Many student athletes are admitted by exception. 50% of the football team FTIC were admitted by exception for Fall 1999, Fall 2000 and Fall 2001. Currently, 84.21% of the Fall 1999 cohort has been retained. The advisor/student ratio is 150:1. When the University of Florida implemented its tracking system, students were strongly urged to declare a major. The truly undecided population remains in the Center for Advising and has approximately three semesters to declare a major. The Student Academic Progress and Achievement Group (SAPAG) recommends that, for TAPS to be successful, students need to be

16


advised in the college of their intended major as FTIC, particularly if the major is limited access. To see the projected impact on the advising units for the Fall 2004, please refer to the following table. FTIC 2003 FTIC 2003 FTIC 2004 FTIC 2004 FTIC 2004

Fall 2003 College Advised Center Advised Fall 2004 College Advises Center Advises

FTIC Total (Declared) (Intended) Projected (Declared/ Intended) (Undeclared)

Architecture 0 0 86 0 95 0

Arts and Sciences 2203 1631 572 2423 2423 0

Business Administration 523 120 403 575 575 0

Education 218 0 218 240 240 0

Engineering 464 347 117 510 510 0

Graduate Studies 0 0 0 0 0 0

Marine Science 0 0 0 0 0 0

Medicine 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nursing 0 0 164 0 180 0

Public Health 0 0 0 0 0 0

Undeclared 917 0 667 1009 0 734

Undergrad Studies 0 0 0 0 0 0

Visual & Performing Arts 195 147 48 215 215 0

T otal 4520 2245 2275 4972 4238 734 The data for Column 1 is from Infomart and represents total Declared and Intended FTIC students for each college/unit. The data for Column 2 is the total Declared from Infomart for each college/unit. The data for Column 3 is the difference between column 1 and column 2. The first column defines what college our new FTIC intend to major. The next two columns display where each of the 4520 students received academic advising. Basically, the colleges and the center shared almost equally in advising these students during their first year. FTIC 2004 is a projected number showing approximately a 10% increase in FTIC enrollment from the 2003 data. For simplicity sake, assume the same intended/declared patterns. Thus columns 5 and 6 project the intended/declared headcount for this new class. If the colleges are responsible for all advising, regardless of limited access or not, 85% of this enrollment goes directly to the colleges while only 15% remains in the Center for Academic Advising. Because 50% of all FTIC students tend to change majors (Cuseo, 2003), the advisor/student ratio of 300:1 should provide the most favorable impact if employed. Please refer to the following table to see the impact of this decision. College Increase of FTIC to college (FTIC 2003

intended x .10) Advisor/student ratio

Advisors need

Cost (Avg $45,000)

CAS 629 2.09 4.0 $180,000 COBA 443 1.47 2.0 $90,500 COED 240 .8 2.0 $90,000 COE 128 .4 1.0 $45,000 CON 180 .6 1.0 $45,000 CVPA 53 .2 0.0 Center DECREASE of 1,673 2.76

17


The total number of new FTE advisors that would be needed if TAPS and 4-USF were to be implemented in Fall 2004 is 10.0 with an approximate salary/benefit cost of $450,000 to the colleges. Once the migration of students is completed from the Center to the colleges, a possible redistribution of academic advisors may be appropriate. In addition to the full time advisors listed above, it may be prudent for the President’s Academy of Academic Advisors to assist with the FTIC in the larger colleges. A discussion needs to take place regarding professional versus faculty advising. Reminder: This recommendation does NOT account for the “Undecided/Undeclared” students that will migrate to the various colleges during the Fall 2004 as a result of the new Declaration of Major policy. Additional Comments/Concerns Currently, technical support for SASS is under the supervision of the IT department. As such, SASS competes with all other users of IT resources. UF has a team of SASS technical support personnel housed in the Registrar’s Office ready to respond to the needs of the SASS users and to keep the programs running smoothly. FSU is adding one person to their two person staff to support the tracking system. A tracking program will require a heavy use of and reliance on SASS. The establishment of a TAPS Office, under the supervision of the USF Registrar, must be a complementary addition to the tracking system implementation. Furthermore, USF needs to provide additional support for tutorial services and academic assistance. Should we expect students to carry more academic credits to remain “on track”, the appropriate support services need to be available to the students.

vii. Introducing technology-based audits Following is a tentative plan for implementing necessary technology upgrades and SASS interface in support of the proposed TAPS and 4-USF programs:

1. SASS 4-year curriculum with course requirements identified semester by semester,

Requirements:

• Academic programs redefine their curriculum according to the prescribed format, • SASS staff encode the degree programs and requirements according to the

prescribed format, • SASS staff in conjunction with the academic departments test the new audits, • Information Technology must activate the tracking element of SASS in a

production mode for advisors to access at NWRDC and students to access it via OASIS/FACTS.

This is the major activity in ensuring success of the TAPS and 4-USF initiatives. Who will do the encoding? The preferred strategy would be to hire the proposed new SASS staff for this purpose. The advantage to this approach is that the staff will become familiar with the product and thus it will be easier for them to maintain and enhance the

18


product in the future. The disadvantage is that we will have to conduct a search for these positions and then train them so delaying the start-up time for encoding. Projected costs: USF IT = $4,800.00 USF IT DBA = $2,400.00

2. Ability to pilot tracking with specific student populations,

Requirements:

• Job to select all students or specific populations to monitor via Academic Tracking (e.g. using student status, college, classification, enrolled hours, mid-term/final current term grade option – apply to freshman only, etc., as parameters).

• Copy or load necessary information into tracking. • Add a link to USF tracking system from OASIS.

Projected costs: USF IT = $8,000.00

3. Ability to alert students when they are “off-track”

Requirements:

• Once the criteria are developed to determine if a student is “off-track”, academic departments and the Registrar will review the criteria to determine if they are feasible and can be implemented systematically and utilized in the academic advising process,

• Based on the criteria defined, an advising “hold” will be created and applied to the student record (from SASS to Banner); the “hold” can be set-up to prevent registration. Key benchmarks are (i) after 5th day of classes, (ii) after mid-term grading, (iii) after final grading, and (iv) prior to Spring registration.

Projected costs: Registrar/SASS = $500.00 USF IT = $4,000.00

4. Other Tracking Features (not required for TAPS and 4-USF implementation)

Students: (a) Apply for degree (all levels) – allows students to apply for graduation with interface to SASS for degree checking; use pre-certification capabilities

Projected costs: Registrar/SASS, front-end = $5,000.00

USF IT, stored procedure = $3,000.00 (b) Unmet requirements with Schedule Search capability – allows students to search the Schedule of Classes for sections that would fulfill a student’s unmet requirement(s). Display the information, including meeting and instructor information. Projected costs: Registrar/SASS = $8,000.00

19


(d) Undeclared Majors Apply On-line to a college/major – handle all major including limited access programs. If a student qualifies for admission based on rules, update the record. Projected costs: Optional. Estimate provided upon request. (e) Excess Hours – allows the student to view excess credits (i.e. hours that do not count toward a current major). Projected costs: Optional. Estimate provided upon request. (f) Notify students with failed registration attempts of seat availability in courses based upon a priority system. Projected costs: Optional. Estimate provided upon request.

Staff Reports: (a) Unmet demand – projects course demand for active/enrolled students

by classification. Show by general or specific major requirement. Allows colleges to avoid enrollment shortfalls and excesses. (b) Advising load – identifies the number/type of active students “off-track”. This allows colleges to plan or predict advising needs based upon attrition (or persistence) rates.

(c) Graduation completion Projected costs: Registrar/SASS = $6,000.00 for the three reports

(d) Projected new revenues/expenditures:

The SAPAG developed preliminary financial models based upon 5,000 new FT FTIC students in each of the four years following implementation. Future eligibility of TAPS and 4-USF for transfer, part-time and graduate students will require the development of additional financial pro forma. Revenue variables included Low (+3 SCH per new FT FTIC), Medium (+6 SCH), and High (+9 SCH) growth. Furthermore, the financial models examined the potential revenue for (1) Full Tuition and Enrollment Growth Funding Annually; (2) Full Tuition and Enrollment Growth Funding Bi-Annually; and, (3) Full Tuition and No Enrollment Growth Funding. Expenditure models revealed that fixed costs (for the TAPS/SASS/4-USF Office and the Re-Advising Center) were relatively modest when compared to the variable costs associated with the need for significant investment in enhanced professional advising and increased instructional FTE. While tentative financial analysis suggests that expenditure will exceed revenue in Year 1 of implementation (so demanding investment to realize future return), revenues climb significantly beginning in Year 2 for Models (1) and (2) above, and Year 3 for Model (3). Most importantly, each of the proposed models will eventually generate sufficient new revenue to fund implementation of the proposed USF Quality Enhancement Plan for UG Research and General

20


Education Improvement, as well as other mandated programs such as the Academic Learning Compact recently approved by the Florida Board of Governors.

2.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Design and Implementation of a 4-USF, Four-Year Graduation Guarantee Program for FT FTIC students at USF, beginning AY 2005-06

Brief description:

An agreement that guarantees that a student will graduate in 4 years or USF pays the bill

Fundamental Principles:

To place mutual accountability on the university (to ensure that required coursework and appropriate academic support is provided to students) and the student (with regard to fulfilling responsibilities).

Key elements:

Contractual agreement between the student and USF 8+1 semester degree plan Eligibility and responsibilities Accept any available course section & register on-time Monitor progress using SASS and/or FACTS.org Complete 25% of degree requirements annually Meet all graduation requirements In return, USF agrees to: Allow you to graduate in four years by (a) substituting a different course (or courses) or independent study assignment, as determined by the department and college offering the major, for the unavailable course(s); (b) waiving the requirement to be met by the unavailable course(s), as determined by the department and college offering the major; and/or (c) allowing the unavailability of a course (or courses) to delay graduation in four years, in which case, the University will pay the tuition and fees for the student to take the unavailable course(s) at USF in a later semester.

Projected Costs:

None. To be absorbed by TAPS Office; Re-Admission Center; investment in college-based advising; and, supplemental instructional support.

H. SOME UNANSWERED QUESTIONS: While the Student Academic Progress and Achievement Group (SAPAG) has sought to identify and address all central matters regarding the nature, and feasibility of design and implementation of TAPS and 4-USF programs, there remain many unanswered questions that need the immediate attention of the USF Undergraduate Council and the TAPS Office. These include:

21


22

• To what extent will student-athletes be addressed? • How will students entering with “advanced credit” (e.g. IB and AP) be treated? • What is the impact of this program on students requiring remedial/pre-requisite

coursework? • What about part-time students? Pre-majors? Double majors? • What about study abroad? • Will USF include FT FTIC entering in Summer 2005 and Spring 2006 as part of the AY

2005-06 student cohort? • Should all major programs be required to participate in the TAPS and 4-USF programs, or

can they “opt-out”? • How many “Exploratory Programs” will be developed? By whom? • How will USF address requests for minors, concentrations, and specialties in the context

of TAPS and 4-USF? • How will these initiatives impact a student’s participation in extracurricular activities

such as student government? References:

Arnone, Michael, “Please leave, Already. Lack of space and high costs are forcing states to push students through more quickly”. The Chronicle of Higher Education. February 6, 2004. Astin, Alexander W., and Leticia Oseguera, Degree attainment rates at American colleges and universities. Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA, November 2002. Report of the provosts’ faculty task force on student retention, USF, December, 2002. Enrollment management plan, USF, n.d. Four years and out – finally, UCF release of January 29, 2004. Improving graduation rates: The University of Florida experience, n.d. Four-year graduation plan, and Four-year graduation plan agreement, The University of Iowa, 2004. Severy, Lawrence J., and Peter J. Slinger, “MAP (Monitoring Academic Progress Policy): Providing advising direction through the use of a degree auditing system”. NACADA Journal, 16:2 (Fall 1996), 39-45. Swail, Watson Scott, “Legislation to improve graduation rates could have the opposite effect”. The Chronicle of Higher Education. January 23, 2004. Vinh, Tan, Overcrowded UW to force students to graduate sooner, Seattle Times, September 23, 2003. Various, The Consortium for Student Retention Data Exchange (CSRDE), The University of Oklahoma. Nine retention myths commonly held by some faculty and staff, Noel-Levitz, 2003 National benchmark retention and graduation rates, National dropout rates; National graduation rates by type of institutions; and, National graduation rates by type of institution and level of selectivity, Noel-Levitz, 2003.

Documents

University of South Florida - Office of the Provost and ...files.acad.usf.edu/camprel/28335.pdf · PERSISTENCE AND SUCCESS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA ... Early planning and