Santa Fe College
1
SANTA FE COLLEGE MISSION STATEMENT
In keeping with our values and goals, Santa Fe College, a comprehensive public institution
of higher education serving north central Florida and beyond, adds value to the lives of our
students and enriches our community through excellence in teaching and learning,
innovative educational programs and student services, and community leadership and
service.
ABOUT SANTA FE COLLEGE
Located in north central Florida, Santa Fe College (SF) is a public four-year college offering
educational opportunities to more than 18,000 students taking credit classes and 12,000
more taking non-credit classes. An open-door institution with seven campus sites in
Alachua and Bradford counties, SF is committed to providing educational opportunity,
community enrichment, economic development and innovation in the public interest. Under
the leadership of President Jackson N. Sasser since January 2002, SF offers the Associate
of Arts (AA), Associate of Science (AS), Associate of Applied Science (AAS), Bachelor of
Applied Science (BAS), Bachelor of Science (BS), and Bachelor of Science degree in
Nursing (BSN), as well as certificate and community education programs.
SF values academic excellence, academic freedom, and intellectual pursuit; individual,
social, and global responsibility; honesty, integrity, and civility; cultural diversity and equity;
collaboration with our community; open access; lifelong learning; assessment,
accountability, and improvement; and sustainable use of environmental, social, and
economic resources.
Enrollment statistics are relatively stable. In fall 2011, 54.2% of SF students were female
and 45.8% male, and students’ average age was 25. SF benefits from an ethnically diverse
student body; in fall 2011, 63.6% of the student population was white, 18.1% African
American, 10.7% Hispanic, and 7.6% other minorities, including Asian/Pacific Islander and
American Indian. Students from 57 foreign countries attended SF in fall 2011. Though a
majority of students (52%) were from the Alachua/Bradford district in the fall 2011, a
significant number of out-of-district Florida resident students (44.1%) attended SF, which
enjoys a close affiliation with and proximity to the University of Florida. In fact, SF sends
more students to the University of Florida than does any other institution, averaging nearly
1,000 transfers each year.
There are 734 full-time employees, of whom 255 are members of the faculty. Part-time
employees total more than 900, of whom nearly 300 are students. The annual budget
exceeds $77 million.
Dr. Lisa Armour, Vice President of Assessment, Research, and Institutional Effectiveness,
is the Accreditation Liaison for Santa Fe College.
Santa Fe College
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……………………………………………………………………... 3 II. BROAD-BASED INSTITUTIONAL PROCESS IDENTIFYING KEY ISSUES………………..…. 4 Process Used to Develop the QEP…………………………………………..…..…….. 4 Identification of the QEP Topic…………………………………………..……………… 5 Narrowing the Focus of the QEP Topic………………………………..………………. 10 III. FOCUS AND DESIRED OUTCOMES............................................................................... 18 A Plan Vital to Long-Term Improvement of the Student Learning Environment....... 18 Goal and Associated Outcomes of Navigating the College Experience……………. 20 IV. LITERATURE REVIEW AND BEST PRACTICES……………….……………………………. 24 Early Academic Warning (Early Alert)………………………………………………….. 27 Progressive Advisement…………………………………………………………………. 32 V. ACTIONS TO BE IMPLEMENTED AND TIMELINE………………….………………………... 37 Actions Associated with the Early Alert Initiative……………………………………… 37 Actions Associated with the Progressive Advisement Initiative……………………… 38 Implementation Timeline…………………………………………………………………. 40 VI. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE………………….………………………………………... 46 VII. RESOURCES……………………………………….……………………………………….. 48 VIII. ASSESSMENT………………………………………………………………………………. 55 IX. REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………………. 62 X. APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………………….. 65 APPENDIX A: Project Personnel (Work Groups)………………………………………. 66 APPENDIX B: Concept Systems Data: Topic Suggestion Cluster Maps…………….. 69 APPENDIX C: Topic Suggestion Statements (ordered by cluster)…………………… 70 APPENDIX D: Concept Systems Data: Go Zone Plot Graphs……………………...… 75 APPENDIX E: Institutional Research Data for Selected Gateway Courses……...….. 76 APPENDIX F: Academic Advising Syllabus (proposed)……………………………….. 84 APPENDIX G: Progressive Advisement Process (working document)………………. 85 APPENDIX H: Progressive Advisement Checklists (proposed)………………………. 88 APPENDIX I: Standards for Planning and Performance for QEP Director....……….. 90 APPENDIX J: Total Budget………………..……………………………………………… 92
Santa Fe College
3
I . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Navigating the College Experience (NCE) is Santa Fe College’s five-year plan designed to
enhance SF’s learning environment to cultivate students’ educational persistence
and academic perseverance. Aiding students to stay on track toward educational goals
and providing timely assistance if they get off track, this project advances the College’s
mission to add value to the lives of students and enrich the community by offering
innovative student services in support of excellence in teaching and learning.
Through implementation of two initiatives, SF will offer an enhanced learning environment
to better support students as they navigate the college experience. A new early warning
system will enable students to better chart their progress and connect to resources that can
help them achieve academic goals. This system will also augment the College’s ability to
alert and intervene with students who show signs of being academically at risk. The early
warning system will be coupled with a new process for academic advising to offer ongoing,
personalized developmental advisement that can advance learning associated with
academic perseverance and enable students to take ownership of their educational goals.
During the five-year period from fall 2013 through spring 2018, the NCE initiatives will be
introduced and gradually expanded to target groups. The success of the project will be
measured by increased persistence and retention rates in designated gateway courses and
enhanced engagement and academic perseverance among participating students.
This plan emerged through a broad-based institutional process involving students, faculty,
staff, and the community. After identifying key issues to be addressed by the plan, a
steering committee led multiple design teams through a development process, considering
current research-based best practices as well as the College’s institutional culture and
context to craft a feasible plan that identifies actions likely to enhance SF’s learning
environment in support of student learning. Measurable outcomes and a comprehensive
assessment plan have been identified to allow the institution to assess the efficacy of the
project initiatives. Committed to sustaining the project long term, SF has planned an
appropriate allocation of resources and designated organizational support for the
continuation, ongoing assessment, and improvement of the plan’s actions. An
implementation team and an assessment team, composed of key personnel and led by a
QEP Director, will execute and oversee the plan’s actions and effects.
SF expects that this quality enhancement plan will strengthen the College by
Encouraging student responsibility and action in the learning process;
Ensuring personalized support for students working towards goals;
Making student learning central to advising support services;
Improving communication and building accountability;
Fostering collaboration in support of student academic achievement;
Increasing efficiency; and
Providing for ongoing professional development for advisors, counselors, and faculty to
support student learning.
Santa Fe College
4
I I . BROAD-BASED INSTITUTIONAL PROCESS IDENTIFYING KEY ISSUES
Process Used to Develop the QEP
Inherent in Santa Fe College’s mission is a commitment to excellence in teaching as well as
to innovation in educational programs and student services. In its 2010-2015 Strategic
Plan, SF states goals for institutional improvement, including to “strive to enhance our
educational excellence by encouraging, engaging in, and developing best and promising
practices in support of intellectual, social and personal development” (Strategic Initiative:
Excellence in Teaching and Learning) and to “nurture and retain those [students] the
College already has” by deploying a “strategy for managing and nurturing Santa Fe’s
interactions with its constituents” (Strategic Initiative: Constituent Relationship
Management). This quality enhancement plan (QEP) dovetails with institutional efforts to
improve student learning and retention to advance the College mission, and it reflects SF’s
dedication to assessment, accountability, and improvement. By offering innovative student
services in support of excellence in teaching and learning, Navigating the College
Experience (NCE) will add value to the lives of students and enrich the community.
This QEP was developed strategically in two phases, using a leadership team to guide the
College through the topic selection process and a second team to steer design and
planning for implementation once the topic had been selected. Leadership changed during
this process to allow for greater involvement of key constituents in the design and planning
of the QEP, and continued participation of selected members of the initial leadership team
provided for continuity, despite some personnel changes.
As evidenced in the following sections, both teams encouraged ongoing broad-based
participation from the campus community, allowing for topic selection and design
development to be accomplished through a collaborative process with participation of and
input from faculty, staff, students, and community members. In all, 20 individuals served on
two leadership teams that included students, faculty, and career service and administrative
staff to shepherd the College through the QEP development process. Forty-two (42)
student, faculty, staff, and community volunteers evaluated topics; nine working teams
composed of 78 student, faculty, and staff volunteers contributed to design and planning.
(See Appendix A for project personnel.) Leadership teams solicited and received 370
written topic suggestions and 255 written responses to surveys soliciting design or
implementation feedback. Feedback about the topic or design was also encouraged
through 25 sessions targeted to faculty, staff, students, or community members as well as
in two town halls and through the QEP web site. Presentations to groups including the
Board of Trustees, the Coordinating Council, the Advising Council, the Research and
Planning Council, the Career Service Council, the College Senate, and the Student Senate
kept major constituencies informed about and involved in the development process.
The efforts of many have shaped a QEP designed to enhance SF’s learning environment to
cultivate students’ academic perseverance and educational persistence. The dedication of
the campus community to its development enables this QEP to reflect our values, fit our
culture, and support our mission.
Santa Fe College
5
Identification of the QEP Topic
The identification of the QEP topic arose through an iterative process that began formally in
the fall of 2010, when a leadership team tasked with gathering appropriate topics from a
variety of constituents began its work. The QEP Topic Selection Team (Phase One
Leadership Team) consisted of representatives from students, career service, faculty, and
administrative and professional staff.
QEP Topic Selection Team
Member Name Title
Eugene Jones* Department Chair, Information Technology Education; QEP Phase
1 Leadership Team Chair (August 2010 – May 2011)
Dave Yonutas Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs; QEP Phase 1
Leadership Chair (June 2011 – October 2011)
Lisa Armour Associate Provost/Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs
(beginning June 2011)
Lola Christian Chair, Career Service Council; Human Resource Support
Specialist
Vilma Fuentes Associate Professor of Political Science (beginning June 2011)
Kim Kendall* Assistant Vice President for Academic Technologies/Open
Campus Director
David Price College Senate President; Associate Professor of History
Dan Rodkin Director of Student Life
Carlos Sosa* Student Government Representative
Clay Smith Associate Professor of English
Marilyn Tubb* Associate Vice President for College Relations
* has retired or left the institution
To capture perceptions of the College’s most pressing concerns, this group organized a
website to collect topic suggestions from interested parties associated with the school and
community in response to the prompt “What one recommendation would you make to
improve learning or the learning environment at Santa Fe?” By February 2011 when the
survey closed, 370 responses had been submitted through the website. The responses
were culled to eliminate off-topic suggestions and duplicate statements, resulting in 104
statements for further assessment.
Three criteria were established for evaluating topic suggestions: importance, relationship to
student learning, and number of students impacted. Using these criteria to evaluate the
104 statements guaranteed the top-ranked ones would result in projects likely to
accomplish the College mission by addressing an issue of substantial importance to the
quality of the institution, improving student learning, and having a meaningful impact on a
significant number of students.
Statements were rated for each criterion by a work team of faculty, administrative and
professional staff, career service employees, students, and community members using a
Santa Fe College
6
five-point Likert scale with 1 signifying little to no correlation to the criterion being rated and
5 signifying high correlation to the criterion being rated.
In addition to being rated, statements were independently sorted into categories.
Individuals were encouraged to create as many groupings as seemed appropriate to
capture related suggestions in defined topic classifications, with no “miscellaneous”
categories permitted. Sorters created, on average, 11 categories. Once the statements
were rated and categorized, the data was checked for validity (no one rater giving all 5’s or
1’s). This rating and sorting process was completed by May 2011.
Data analysis ensued using the Concept Map and Go-Zone approach from Concept
Systems, Incorporated, in Ithaca, New York, to indicate trending topics. The Concept Map
software placed statements into clusters, creating maps for each assessment category
(importance, relationship to student learning, and number of students impacted) to provide
for relative ranking of clusters of topics. The software allowed users to determine how
many clusters they would like to have created.
Regardless whether it was asked to create three to eight clusters, the Concept Systems
software consistently indicated “advisement” as a top-rated topic category across the three
Composition of Topic Sorting and Rating Work Team
Category Participants Initial Volunteer Pool
Administrative/ Professional 15 15
Career Service 8 8
Community 3 5
Faculty 10 10
Students 6 10
Totals 42 48
Santa Fe College
7
specified criteria. The “advisement” cluster created by the software included suggested
topics categorized by sorters/raters with the following designations: advisement, student
advisement/guidance/retention, student advisement/mentoring, student assessment,
faculty/student interactions/mentoring, student support, and student success. In the
preceding sample cluster map, statements ranked for “importance” are sorted into five
clusters. As the map indicates, the top statements ranked for “importance” (those ranking
from 3.39 to 3.50) are encompassed only within the advisement cluster. Maps created for
the other criteria resulted in similar findings. (See Appendix B for additional cluster maps
and Appendix C for topic suggestion statements ordered by cluster.)
To create an overall ranking of suggested topics within the advisement cluster, Go-Zone
analysis allowed for systematic comparisons between the three criteria (importance,
relationship to student learning, and number of students impacted) for each of the
statements. (See Appendix D for Go-Zone plot graphs.) Seven statements appeared in all
three of the importance/relationship to student learning, importance/number of students
impacted, and number of students impacted/relationship to student learning parameters:
1. Increase participation in the use of Academic Progress Reports
2. Increase program advisement throughout all campuses
3. Improve early alert systems that identify and provide timely support for students
demonstrating poor academic performance
4. Develop an innovative student retention program
5. Improve study and test-taking skills and support for study
6. Strengthen the safety net for students (planning, mentoring, assisting)
7. Prepare students for their in-class responsibilities before the first day of their first
term
Collectively, these top-ranked suggestions reveal pressing concerns to be anemic support
for academically at-risk students, insufficient personalized advisement and assistance for all
students, poor student preparation for college classes, and retention. Thus, the category
termed “advisement” should be understood to encompass student support more broadly.
Many of the top-ranked suggestions also point to an underlying deficit of meaningful
communication among faculty, advisors, and students. A need for better mentoring and
support for students had been suggested by the results of the most recently administered
Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE), which captures students’
perceptions of their college experience. The 2010 Key Findings report indicates that the
College in fact fell short of cohort institutions on several items associated with support for
learners, including the frequency of academic advising/planning and helping students cope
with non-academic responsibilities, and on a specific student-faculty interaction, working
with instructors on activities other than coursework.
With this information as a backdrop, the topic selection team embarked on a series of
meetings in August and September to gain insight into lapses or gaps in student support
systems and to identify opportunities the institution might have to strengthen student
Santa Fe College
8
support and advisement. The team visited the Executive Council of the College Senate, the
Career Service council, the Student Government, and fourteen other departments/units
including Building Construction, Business Programs, Clinical Laboratory Science, English,
High School Dual Enrollment, Humanities and Foreign Languages, Information Technology
Education, Institute of Public Safety, Math, Natural Sciences, Nursing, Sciences for Health
Programs, Social and Behavioral Sciences, and Student Development Instruction. At these
meetings, the presenters gave a quick overview of the process and findings to date and
elicited suggestions for advising- and support-related initiatives that would promote student
learning and academic achievement.
The formal meetings stimulated sustained discussion across campus over the two-month
period, and this conversation began to clarify the central issues participants hoped a quality
enhancement plan would address. Consensus developed that many incoming students
have poor preparation for the responsibilities and skills associated with being a college
student and that the College needs to address such deficits more intentionally, early in
students’ academic journeys. But there was also consensus that better processes need to
be in place to ensure students are appropriately assisted in negotiating college. For
instance, SF’s system for academic progress reporting is widely viewed as flawed by both
support staff and faculty, and there is a perceived “advisement gap” in which a majority of
students are not getting the kind of specialized feedback, attention, and support afforded to
special cohorts. Students and staff also noted that institutional practices too often leave
students with the sense that they are getting “the run-around” as they interact with various
offices and personnel; thus, improved communications between various units/personnel as
well as with students was identified as a priority to improve efficiency and to better direct
students to available support resources without overwhelming them with too much
information.
The team agreed that the focus of the QEP would be to improve the learning environment
through an innovative program of student support designed to help students navigate the
college experience. A September 2011 campus-wide town hall meeting marked the
completion of the topic identification process. The departmental/group meetings had
culminated in a series of proposed initiatives to address the aforementioned problems:
1. Create a new academic advisement model
2. Establish a broader mentoring program
3. Widen opportunities for counseling
4. Develop academic support labs
5. Improve internal communications and systems
6. Improve efficiency of information delivery to and from students
7. Improve community outreach efforts
Approximately 90 faculty, staff, and students participated in the town hall to record feedback
about the seven proposed initiatives. This collection of data was given to the QEP Steering
Committee, which was convened in November 2011. In consultation with the Phase One
Leadership Team, the Provost identified personnel whose leadership in design
Santa Fe College
9
development would be desirable, given the selected topic. The steering committee
consisted of representatives from academic affairs, student affairs, the student body, and
administration:
QEP Steering Committee
Member Name Title
Jodi Long Department Chair, Sciences for Health Programs; QEP Phase 2
Leadership Team Co-Chair
Rhonda Morris Associate Professor of English; QEP Phase 2 Leadership Team
Co-Chair
Lisa Armour Vice President of Assessment, Research, and Institutional
Effectiveness
Kathleen Arnold Department Chair, Mathematics
David Durkee Student
Sharon Loschiavo Interim Director of Advisement and Counseling
Takela Perry Advising Specialist, Academic Foundations
David Price Associate Professor of History; College Senate President
Dan Rodkin Director of Student Life
Laurel Severino Associate Professor of Reading, Academic Foundations
Jen Thomas College Prep Advisement Coordinator
Bob Wolfson Director, Watson Center
Dave Yonutas Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs
The steering committee sharpened the project’s focus by collecting and reviewing
institutional data alongside the qualitative feedback received during the topic selection
process, comparing practices of other institutions with those of Santa Fe College, and
researching advisement processes and interventions that promote learning and educational
achievement. During this second phase, effort was made to communicate the design
taking shape to the campus community and to elicit feedback to inform the design through
e-mail <[email protected]>, website updates, and forums.
Headed by steering committee members and composed of volunteers representing all
campus constituencies, work teams focused on research and data collection, advising
resources and implementation, an electronic portal and information hub, advising and
retention software/programming needs, an early warning system for intervention with at-risk
students, peer coaches, and marketing. In all, 78 individuals (including staff, faculty, and
students) served on nine independent work teams, with many individuals working on more
than one team, service that facilitated exchange of information. In this way, the Phase Two
Leadership Team ensured broad participation in the development and design phase, so
that the plan benefited from a wealth of perspectives and in-house area expertise.
Santa Fe College
10
Narrowing the Focus of the QEP Topic
A review of institutional data substantiated the topic selection, leading the steering
committee to identify three key issues that ultimately shaped the project’s focus on
enhancing the learning environment to cultivate students’ educational persistence and
academic perseverance. Quantitative and qualitative assessments of the institution reveal
problems with persistence in designated gateway courses, achievement challenges
unrelated to academic competency, and student support challenges.
Key Issue 1: Problems with Persistence in Gateway Courses
As indicated by the College’s strategic initiatives, student learning, success and retention
are ongoing concerns. An August 2010 executive summary from a presidentially convened
Enrollment Management Strike Force notes that in fall 2009, Santa Fe College “lost”
students in numbers equivalent to the entire high school graduating classes from all in-
district schools. The steering committee recognized that while some students may leave
college for reasons beyond institutional control, many may not persist because they
encounter challenges that overwhelm them.
In an effort to identify who might be having the most trouble navigating the college
experience, the steering committee focused initially on persistence of students taking
perceived “gateway courses.” Department chairs identified fifteen core courses that could
impede students’ matriculation to an educational goal if not passed. The Department of
Institutional Research measured retention in these courses by determining the percentage
of students taking at least one of the fifteen gateway courses in the fall 2010 who re-
enrolled at Santa Fe in spring 2011 and again in fall 2011.
2010/11 Fall-to-Spring and Fall-to-Fall Retention for Designated Gateway Courses
Gateway Courses
Enrollment
Fall 2010
Percent Retained
Spring 2011
Percent Retained
Fall 2011
BSC2010 374 84 70
BSC2085 536 85 63
CHM1025 360 85 73
CHM1030 275 85 67
CHM2045 305 87 48
ENC0015 (Prep) 235 73 40
ENC0025 (Prep) 664 74 44
ENC1101 2181 84 61
MAC1105 1400 85 69
MAT0018 (Prep) 1028 75 45
MAT0028 (Prep) 605 72 46
MAT1033 2014 83 61
REA0007 (Prep) 287 74 41
REA0017 (Prep) 650 75 43
REA2205* 568 72 52
*elective required for College Prep sequence
Santa Fe College
11
The data reveal that from fall 2010 to fall 2011 term, Santa Fe College failed to retain an
average of 57% of students enrolled in college preparatory gateway courses, 39% of
students enrolled in the high-enrollment college credit gateway courses (ENC 1101 and
MAT 1033), and 37% of students enrolled in all college credit gateway courses in the fall
2010 term.1 (It should be noted that some students may have been enrolled in more than
one of these gateway courses, so statistics may be influenced by duplicated head counts.)
Considering an additional year’s worth of retention data for the English and math courses
students would likely encounter early in college reveals a downward trend in first- to
second-year retention:
Gateway
Courses
Enrollment
Fall 2009
Percent
Retained
Fall 2010
Enrollment
Fall 2010
Percent
Retained
Fall 2011
Difference in
Percent
Fall-to-Fall
Retention
ENC0015 200 41 235 40 -1
ENC0025 641 47 664 44 -3
ENC1101 2259 64 2181 61 -3
MAT0018 971 47 1028 45 -2
MAT0028 531 51 605 46 -5
MAT1033 1968 64 2014 61 -3
Filtering retention data by course grade, the steering committee was able to conclude that
from fall to spring as well as from fall to fall, predictably, students who did not perform well
in gateway courses were less likely to enroll in the subsequent term than those who
performed better academically. The loss of large numbers of the least successful students
informs the quantitative retention data for high enrollment gateway courses and their
“feeder” prep classes, indicating that a significant number of students who were not
retained likely stopped attending college altogether, rather than transferred elsewhere.
Fall 2010-Fall 2011 Retention% by Course Grade for Six Gateway Courses
A_B+_B C+_C D+_D F_W
ENC0015 67 50 22 8
ENC0025 66 57 30 14
ENC1101 76 67 45 30
MAT0018 69 48 34 12
MAT0028 66 55 43 20
MAT10332 78 72 63 42
1 The Department of Institutional Research noted that the low fall-to-fall retention rate for CHM 2045
(48%) likely resulted from students transferring out of the institution; eliminating this course raises the average fall-to-fall retention rate in college credit gateway courses to 65% overall. 2 MAT1033 was selected over MAC1105 for further consideration due to its high enrollment and
significantly lower retention rates, particularly among students earning a C+ or lower. Rates were an average of 10 percentage points lower per grade grouping in MAT1033 than in MAC1105 for fall-to-fall retention in 2010-2011.
Santa Fe College
12
Clearly, first- to second-year retention correlates positively to course grade, reflecting that
students with stronger academic achievement re-enrolled in greater numbers than students
with lesser academic success, as indicated by course grades.
Further, re-enrollment in subsequent terms was unpredictable among students earning the
same course grade in gateway courses. This variable result provides insight into
persistence. Predictably, variability in student retention increased as the grade decreased in
both the spring and fall 2011 terms, indicating that students earning higher grades in the
designated gateway courses persisted more consistently than did their peers earning lower
grades in these courses.
2010-2011 Retention% Statistics by Course Grade for Fifteen Gateway Courses (Spring and Fall)
Course Grade Variance Mean Standard
Deviation
Median Range
Spring 2011
A_B+_B 6 91 3 90 8
C+_C 21 90 5 91 17
D+_D 104 81 10 79 40
F_W 501 50 22 57 67
Fall 2011
A_B+_B 73 69 9 69 33
C+_C 277 61 17 60 58
D+_D 347 48 19 45 54
F_W 420 31 20 30 57
Graphically, the data clearly indicate a surprisingly wide variability in first- to second-year
retention associated with the grades earned in gateway courses. In the following box plot,
the boxes represent the middle 50% of the data, and the horizontal line in each box shows
the median value (with the “whiskers” or lines below and above each box representing the
lower and upper 25% of the data, respectively):
Santa Fe College
13
The box plot for the students who earn a B or better in the gateway courses is quite
compact, meaning that the retention rates are similar for all these students, and the median
retention value is relatively high. However, for other groups of students, those earning C+
or lower, there is a wide variability in retention rates for the gateway courses, and the
median retention rate steadily drops.
The large variability in re-enrollment among the sets of students earning lower than a “B” in
gateway courses suggests that the College is missing an opportunity to intervene with
these students to help them persevere towards educational goals. A desirable outcome
would be to raise the median retention rates for “C+/C,” “D+/D,” and “F/W” grade earners
and to compress the spread, particularly for the middle 50% of the data, so that there is less
variability concerning retention across the gateway courses and more students persevere.
These findings suggest that although students who earn higher grades in gateway courses
are more likely to persist, even those students who pass do not always persevere to
navigate the college experience successfully. Students earning grades lower than a “B” for
gateway courses are at increased risk of leaving college altogether, so the institution has
just one semester after students receive first-semester grades to intervene to improve
students’ educational persistence.
Key Issue 2: Achievement Challenges
Given the campus-wide conversations during the topic development phase, the steering
committee was mindful that a poor course grade does not always indicate that a student
had problems with content mastery. Many faculty members noted that unsuccessful
students often do not attend class regularly, do not complete homework regularly, and fail
to submit required assignments. The 2010 CCSSE results confirm that Santa Fe students
may engage in some poor academic habits at higher rates than their counterparts at cohort
institutions. The percentage of Santa Fe students who report they skipped class “very
often” is nearly double that of students at cohort institutions (3% compared to 1.6%), and
whereas nearly 52% of students at cohort institutions report “never” skipping class, only
38% of Santa Fe students say they “never” skip (item 4u). And in an item identified as an
area of lowest student engagement for part-time students, less than half of all respondents
(48%) indicated that they “often” or “very often” worked harder than they thought they could
to meet an instructor’s standards or expectations (item 4p), an indication that Santa Fe
students may not feel especially engaged or motivated to achieve.
One suggestive finding about the relationship between grades and student behavior
described learning outcome achievement in ENC 1101, one of the designated gateway
courses. The English Department reported in 2012 that for two consecutive years, more
students achieved the General Education Learning Outcome (GELO) of communication
than passed the course in which they were enrolled. For instance, 76.7% of ENC 1101
students in fall 2011 met the GELO requirement, but only 68.7% earn a ‘C’ or higher grade
for the course. This eight percentage point gap indicates that 186 students with sufficient
communication skills to demonstrate learning outcome achievement in the fall 2011 term
failed to meet minimum requirements to pass the course. The gap between ability and
Santa Fe College
14
success in ENC 1101 is twice that found in the next course in the English sequence, ENC
1102. The discrepancy between outcome achievement and success in this entry-level
college course suggests that the College has an opportunity to better “teach students how
to be students.”
A need to better assist students meet non-academic challenges is reinforced by 2010
CCSSE results. A lower percentage of SF full-time students (-5.3%) than at cohort
institutions responded “quite a bit” and “very much” to item 9d, “How much does this college
emphasize helping you cope with your non-academic responsibilities (work, family, etc.).”
In fact, nearly 40% of students (39.6% of non-developmental and 38.4% of developmental
students) reported that the College helps them cope with non-academic responsibilities
“very little.” Students can learn strategies for balancing school with the other demands of
life, but occasions for these lessons seem to be limited at the College.
Understanding that poor grades correspond to poor persistence rates but that poor grades
can result from an absence of studious behaviors, lack of engagement, or life stresses
rather than from weak academic ability, the steering committee concluded that the College
needs to develop strategies for improving student learning in support of academic
perseverance. Strategic, timely intervention targeting particularly those students newly
embarking on college careers should focus on helping these students acquire skills and
behaviors that support academic achievement and sustain progress towards educational
goals. Intervening more intentionally as early as possible to help students acquire behaviors
and skills to effectively navigate the demands of college life could improve academic
success and persistence.
Key Issue 3: Student Support Challenges
Instructors indicate that within the first few weeks of a class, they can often predict which
students will succeed and which will fail, but it is not clear that at-risk students, particularly
those just transitioning from high school, understand early enough in a term to seek
assistance that they are academically at risk. Although the College has developed some
specialized programs to support academic success, it lacks a formalized early warning
system that offers progress alerts and that directs any academically at-risk student to
appropriate support. Currently the institution supports formal progress reporting that
includes current grade average and performance indicators of attendance, assignment
submission, and class preparation only for cohorts of students (those tracked by Academic
Counseling, High School Dual Enrollment, International Student Services, My Brother’s
Keeper, Student Athletics, and Student Support Services, for instance), but students who
do not belong to a cohort are not provided the same level of institutional assistance as
students who do.
Furthermore, academic progress reports are sent from faculty to advisors associated with
cohorts, not to students themselves. In fact, the institution does not require that students
themselves receive formal reports of academic standing prior to course grade assignment.
Instead, faculty are expected to provide timely assessments of students’ work, and students
are expected to seek out the resources that the College makes available to assist them
Santa Fe College
15
when they experience challenges. But anecdotal evidence raises questions about whether
incoming college students know how to make effective use of academic performance
feedback provided by individual instructors to be proactive in seeking assistance and
whether feedback comes promptly enough to engage students in timely action. The 2010
Community College Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (CCFSSE) results revealed an
interesting discrepancy between faculty and student perception. Whereas 92% of faculty
indicated that their students “often” or “very often” received prompt feedback (written or
oral) from instructors on their performance (Item 4o), only 56% of students agreed. The
steering committee concluded that despite faculty efforts, performance feedback may not
be communicated to students in a way that students perceive as helpful. Students may
even have a misimpression about their academic standing in any given class because of a
lack of uniformity in providing progress information to students.
Institutional data suggest that the support Santa Fe College offers to cohorts of students
associated with participating areas has positive results, despite shortcomings of the system
for academic progress reporting. Students belonging to a tracked cohort benefit from
intrusive advisement and ongoing attention of an assigned advisor. In the fall 2010, 5,397
students were identified as belonging to a tracked cohort. Of the 40% of tracked cohort
students who were not passing at the point an academic progress report (APR) was
completed, 77% went on to receive a passing grade for the course. This result suggests
that the kind of intervention done with selected cohorts of students could be applied to a
broader population with similar positive results, but there is no formal procedure for a
particular student who is not already part of a cohort to be identified as “at risk” by a faculty
member and to receive intrusive advisement that can direct the student to appropriate
support. Additionally, some faculty do not complete APR’s even for those students who are
part of established cohorts because there is often a lack of feedback from the advisor to the
faculty following up after academic progress reporting; therefore, faculty do not appreciate
the value of reporting as it is not evident to them that anything is done with the provided
information. Twenty-four percent (24%) of fall 2010 students who were part of established
cohorts and did not receive an APR failed, which suggests that students who might have
benefited from intervention did not receive it.
The CCSSE report also identifies advisement as an under-utilized service at Santa Fe
College. SF students attest to using academic advising and planning services less
frequently than their counterparts at similar institutions, with 3.4% fewer students
responding “sometimes” and “often” to item 13a1, “Indicate how often you use academic
advising/planning services,” than at cohort institutions. In fact, almost 45% of non-
developmental students reported using academic advising/planning services “rarely” or
“never,” a rate five percentage points higher than at cohort institutions. Developmental
students reported “rarely” or “never” using these services at a rate 5.4% higher (about 34%)
than at cohort institutions. Given that surveyed SF students rate academic advising and
planning services as “somewhat” or “very” important in higher percentages (4.4%) than at
cohort institutions (item 13a3), the lack of use of those services is particularly jarring.
Santa Fe College
16
So although 65.1% of all surveyed SF students rated academic advising and planning as
“very” important and 29.5% as “somewhat” important to them, nearly 40% of students report
“rarely/never” using academic advising and planning services. Only 11.2% of surveyed
students indicated that a non-faculty academic advisor had been their “best source of
academic advising” (custom survey item 8). Instead, larger percentages of students
reported using faculty (33.1%) or “friends, family, or other students” (28.2%) as their best
sources for academic advising, despite SF’s not having any formalized training of faculty or
peer advisors. Yet the 2010 CCSSE report indicates that nearly 72% of all students
responding said they “never” worked with instructors on activities other than coursework
(item 4q). The August 2010 Enrollment Management Strike Force reported that 42% of
part-time faculty spend zero hours advising students, and a significant percentage (76%) of
all faculty report “sometimes / never” using services associated with academic advisement
offices, with new faculty being especially unaware of advisement services (38% never use).
The Strike Force concluded that “students with whom we get involved, succeed” but pointed
to “systemic” weaknesses associated with advisement at the College.
The steering committee found that advisement practices actually vary greatly across the
institution, perhaps contributing to confusion or frustration that may lead to disuse of
advising services. A review of the standards of performance for all the advising specialists
(seventeen) and counseling specialists (nine) on campus revealed “pockets” of advisement
in which the position scope and accountabilities of the advisor varied across campus and
even within units. And while there was general consensus among advisors and counselors
that “advisement is teaching,” there was no formal statement of the learning outcomes that
students could expect to achieve by engaging in advising services at SF and no
comprehensive program of on-going professional development offered to unify advisors, to
foster opportunities for sustained collaboration between advising groups, and to share best
practices.
Operationally, some departmental policies and practices likely contribute to problems noted
above. For instance, because some offices such as A.A. Academic Advisement are areas
devoted to the service of students on a walk-in basis, they have a policy of never closing
the office; however, this policy does not allow for all-staff training and development.
Additionally, because advisement offices typically do not make appointments, students
cannot benefit from fully customized service and an ongoing relationship with a particular
advisor. And unless participating as one of a tracked cohort of students, a student does not
even have an assigned advisor, instead seeing the first available staff, a situation which
also contributes to a lack of consistency in and personalization of advisement. The steering
committee felt that these policies frame advisement as a single, service-oriented encounter,
undermining the potential of advisement as a meaningful, sustained process of teaching
and learning.
An effective learning environment results from an institution’s active cultivation of student
engagement by creating conditions that allow learning to flourish and encourage students
as learners. Communicating effectively and intentionally arranging personalized
interactions to both challenge and support students, an institution can promote academic
Santa Fe College
17
achievement and learning, offer improved support, and increase students’ abilities to act as
learners.
Ultimately, an institutional process for identifying key issues and consideration of
appropriate actions led the steering committee to conclude that the College needed to focus
its quality enhancement plan on strengthening student support systems to intentionally
foster students' abilities to navigate the college experience and persist to reach academic
goals. The focus of Navigating the College Experience is to enhance SF’s student
learning environment to cultivate students’ educational persistence and academic
perseverance by implementing an integrated system of intentional intervention and
progressive advisement.
QEP Focus: to enhance the learning environment
to cultivate educational persistence and academic perseverance
Problems with
Persistence in Gateway
Classes
Achievement Challenges
Student Support
Challenges
Santa Fe College
18
I I I . FOCUS AND DESIRED OUTCOMES
Navigating the College Experience is a project designed to significantly improve the
environment supporting student learning at SF. Improvements in student learning related to
perseverance and increases in educational persistence will result from strategically altering
the conditions and features of the educational setting by implementing an integrated system
of intentional intervention and progressive advisement.
A Plan Vital to Long-Term Improvement of the Student Learning Environment
After review of promising practices, the committee developed a two-pronged strategy to
enhance the learning environment: early, intrusive intervention coupled with developmental
advisement delivered progressively. The first initiative calls for the creation of an early
academic warning system to provide progress feedback for students in an easy-to-
understand format and to employ early alerts to prompt students experiencing difficulty to
act to resolve challenges by using helpful college resources. The second initiative calls for
the implementation of a new academic advisement system strategically designed to elicit
skills and behaviors that can assist students experiencing challenges in navigating the
college experience.
Discussion of literature about student development allowed the committee to focus on the
trait of academic perseverance, being able to persist in the of face challenges, as crucial to
students' persistence toward educational goals. The literature identified advising as an
intervention that could assist with the development of key traits that seem to support
persistence and perseverance but that may be lacking among incoming students: realistic
self-assessment, informed decision-making, and proactive behavior. The committee
agreed that the QEP’s efforts to enhance the student learning environment should focus on
developing systems to support students’ acquisition of these skills and behaviors as well as
students’ educational persistence.
So that the initiatives could be adequately managed and supported, the committee focused
implementation on targeted gateway courses, selecting the two entry-level college credit
courses with highest enrollment, ENC 1101 and MAT 1033, and the two preparatory
courses that precede them sequentially, ENC 0025 and MAT 0028. All of these courses
have suffered from decreasing year-to-year retention rates from 2010 to 2011 (down 3% in
ENC 1101, MAT 1033, and ENC 0025; down 5% in MAT 0028). (See Appendix E for
additional data for the selected gateway courses.)
To encourage the seeding of environmental change more broadly, the committee took care
to select gateway courses associated with two central advising groups, Academic Advising
(for AA-seeking students testing into no or only one college preparatory course) and
College Prep Advising (for students testing into two or more college preparatory courses),
as well as with faculty teaching within some of the largest programs on campus: English,
Math, and Academic Foundations. Advisors and faculty from these areas will implement
intentional intervention efforts through early alert and progressive advisement, initiatives
Santa Fe College
19
with the potential to improve the learning environment campus-wide. Within five years,
nearly 20,000 students annually will be part of Navigating the College Experience, and
more than 60,000 will have been involved in the project. Even if the initiatives are ultimately
deployed only in these areas, because attitudes and behaviors are often set by students’
experiences in these foundational areas, enhanced student engagement will likely be felt
across the college. And certainly the college as a whole will benefit from improved
communications systems put into place to support NCE initiatives.
Successful implementation of these initiatives will enable the College to communicate more
efficiently and effectively to promote academic achievement; offer more personalized
feedback and support to students; offer advisement and intervention interactions with
students to elicit learning related to perseverance; and increase student engagement
(demonstrated by such activities as students’ attending class, submitting assignments,
participating in academic planning, and seeking assistance to overcome challenges).
These specific environmental changes will be experienced most directly by students
enrolling into designated classes, though the steering committee anticipates that
environmental changes will likely be felt much more broadly, particularly over time.
Students will be entered into the program (designated as “NCE students”) by enrolling into
an NCE section (taught by designated “NCE faculty”) of a targeted gateway course (ENC
0025, ENC 1101, MAT 0028, or MAT 1033). The number of NCE sections will expand over
the five-year period until all sections of the targeted gateway courses are participating in
2018. NCE students who receive an early alert for or earn course grades lower than a B in
one of the NCE-associated courses and students testing into a single college preparatory
class are eligible to participate in progressive advisement. (Students who test into two or
more college preparatory classes will be part of another institutional cohort.) Counseling
specialists and advising specialists for the A.A. and College Prep programs will be
designated “NCE staff” and be trained to assist NCE students by providing intrusive and
developmental advisement.
Santa Fe College
20
Goal and Associated Outcomes of Navigating the College Experience
The College aims to achieve four specific, measurable outcomes associated with its goal to
enhance the learning environment. These outcomes and associated targets are outlined in
the following chart:
Goal: Improve the learning environment to cultivate educational persistence and
academic perseverance for students enrolled in targeted gateway courses and/or
participating in progressive advisement
Administrative
Outcomes Assessment Measures Targets
Increase efficiency and
efficacy of
communications
supporting academic
achievement
Student Progress Reports filed
Student notifications delivered
90% of students enrolled in NCE
sections will receive regular
feedback about progress towards
academic goals
Student notifications
assessment
Academic records audit
80% of NCE faculty and staff will
provide clear and timely prompts for
student action related to completion
of assignments, classes, and
academic programs
Student notifications delivered
70% of NCE faculty and staff will use
institutionally approved stock
messages
Provide personalized
support for students
working toward
academic goals
Student Information System
Student notifications delivered
100% of NCE AA-seeking students
will be assigned an advisor
Access and return visits to an
assigned advisor/counselor
85% of NCE students will see their
assigned or requested
advisor/counselor upon return visits
Documented professional
development/training for faculty
and staff
85% of NCE faculty and staff will be
trained in current effective
interventions and support strategies
Make student learning
central to advisement
processes
Documented professional
development/training for staff
85% of NCE staff will be trained in
current effective developmental
advisement methods
Advisement/Counseling
session exit surveys,
assessments, and associated
documents (action plans, etc.)
75% of NCE students participating in
an advisement session will
demonstrate a documented change
in knowledge, attitude, or behavior
Improve student
engagement
CCSSE
SENSE
Custom Surveys
Discrete items on CCSSE/ SENSE
show closing gap campus-wide and
with cohort institutions over 5 years
CCSSE
SENSE
Custom Surveys
Participating NCE students will have
higher levels of engagement than
non-participants
Santa Fe College
21
The efficacy of environmental change resulting from the implementation of NCE initiatives
will be indicated in part by participating students’ increased educational persistence. Key
institutional measures of educational persistence include retention rates (percentage of
students re-enrolling in subsequent terms), comparative persistence rates (percentages of
students earning the same course grade who re-enroll in subsequent terms), and program
completion rates (the percentage of participants completing a planned course of study in
three years). Course success rates (percentages of students completing a course with a
grade that allows progression to a higher-level course) correlate with increased persistence.
The four outcomes associated with educational persistence that we expect to result from
the improvements to the environment for student learning are outlined in the following chart:
Performance Indicator 1:
Increased educational persistence in targeted gateway courses
Administrative
Outcomes Assessment Measures Targets
Improved retention in
targeted gateway
courses
Fall to fall retention rates for
targeted gateway courses
1% increase in fall to fall retention in
each year of implementation for
NCE courses
Comparative retention rates for
preparatory and college credit
targeted gateway courses
Decrease gap between retention
rates of NCE preparatory and
college credit courses by 1% fall to
spring and by 1% fall to fall for each
year of implementation
Greater consistency in
persistence among
students earning C+ or
lower in targeted
gateway courses
The interquartile range (IQR),
the difference between the
third and first quartiles, in fall to
fall retention rates for targeted
gateway courses
Reduction of the IQR in targeted
gateway courses by 2018
by 10% for F_W grades
by 8% for D+_D grades
by 6% for C+_C grades
Improved student
success in targeted
gateway courses
Number of students
successfully completing the
course with a grade of C or
better
3% increase in successful
completions in NCE courses by
2018
Improved program
completion rates for
students participating
in progressive
advisement
Comparative program
completion rates for
participating and
nonparticipating students
1% increase in program completion
rates for NCE students participating
in progressive advisement
compared to students who do not
participate by 2018
Another indicator of the efficacy of environmental change associated with the successful
implementation of NCE initiatives will be improved student learning. Specific student
learning outcomes have been associated with the various interactions that would occur
between an advisor and a student participating in the progressive advisement process.
(See Appendices G and H for documents outlining advisement interactions.) Student
learning will be demonstrated as a measurable improvement in skills and behaviors likely
Santa Fe College
22
associated with academic perseverance, including informed decision-making, realistic self-
appraisal, and proactive behavior.
Performance Indicator 2:
Student learning for students participating in progressive advisement
Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Measures Targets
Participating students will
make information-based
academic decisions
1.1 identify an academic goal
1.2 select a program of study
aligned with their academic
goal
1.3 develop a semester-by-
semester academic plan
appropriate to life situation
and academic goal
Advisement/Counseling
session exit surveys
65% of participating NCE
students will apply institutional
and self- knowledge to make
informed decisions regarding
academic goals and course
selection
Indicators of academic
planning activities for
participating students
Annual surveys of students
Filed My Academic Plans
(MAPs)
85% of participating NCE
students will have a MAP on
file by the time they have
accumulated 15 credit hours
Participating students will
appraise their academic
performance realistically
2.1 monitor academic
performance during and at
the close of a semester
2.2 identify academic strengths
and weaknesses
2.3 revise their academic goal
and/or plan when necessary
Random sample student and
staff assessments
65% of participating NCE
students will realistically self-
assess their academic
progress, areas of challenge,
and areas of strength
Filed Action Plans
Annual surveys of students
Use of advisement services
for participating students
85% of students selected for
progressive advisement will
meet with advisor in first
semester of enrollment and
thereafter consult with advisor
as needed
Participating students will
identify and engage in
activities that support
learning and academic
achievement
3.1 complete assigned class
work and fulfill course
requirements
3.2 complete academic support
activities identified in an
early alert
3.3 develop an action plan to
address identified academic
weaknesses or challenges
3.4 complete action plan
activities and re-assess
Comparative indicators:
GPA, course grades, filed
early alerts, program
completion rates
65% of participating NCE
students will successfully
complete assignments,
classes, and academic
programs
Filed Action Plans resulting
from Early Alert and
Closed/completed Action
Plans
65% of participating NCE
students who receive an early
alert will develop and execute
an action plan
Rates of use of institutionally
provided support services
Increased use of institutionally
provided support services by
NCE students
Santa Fe College
23
The College has identified specific, measurable outcomes for Navigating the College
Experience, a plan vital to the long-term improvement of SF’s student learning environment:
increased efficiency and efficacy of internal and external communications supporting
students’ academic achievement, the provision of personalized support for students
working toward academic goals, refined advisement processes that intentionally foster
student learning, and increased student engagement. The outcomes reflect how SF’s
learning environment will be improved to cultivate students’ educational persistence and
academic perseverance. The College has also identified measurable administrative and
student learning outcomes to ensure that environmental changes have the intended
effective of increasing educational persistence and advancing student learning associated
with academic perseverance. Section VIII of this document details an assessment plan to
measure outcome achievement.
These identified outcomes are in line with College goals to provide learning opportunities
and academic support to ensure the highest levels of academic performance (Goal:
Educational Programs) and to provide a research-based, learner-centered program of
services that supports access and student engagement from matriculation to goal
attainment (Goal: Student Affairs).
Santa Fe College
24
IV. LITERATURE REVIEW AND BEST PRACTICES
A learning environment, the conditions and features of an educational setting that influence
student learning and development, is created through the wide range of actions and efforts
of all institutional constituents, including the college leadership, faculty, staff, and students
themselves. When efforts are “interrelated and integrated” in accord with the institutional
mission and values, an effective learning environment can emerge (Upcraft, Gardener, &
Barefoot, 2005, p. 121). Effective learning environments are both challenging to and
supportive of learners, meeting five conditions identified by noted educator Ernest L. Boyer:
They are purposeful communities. Educational pursuits are central, and faculty and
students collaborate to strengthen teaching and learning. Divisions within
institutions (business, academic, student affairs) are highly integrated and cohesive
in their efforts to support students and learning.
They are just communities. All individuals are treated fairly and valued, and all have
equal opportunity to succeed.
They are open communities. Civility and freedom of expression are embraced by
all, promoting an atmosphere of tolerance and affirmation of all students, regardless
of backgrounds and characteristics.
They are disciplined communities. Individuals are responsible and accountable to
the group and committed to the common good.
They are caring communities. Personalized support and service to others guide
actions. (Upcraft et al., 2005, p. 121-122)
According to Vincent Tinto (2012), institutional environments shape student performance
and behaviors by determining, in part, student expectations related to students’ roles as
learners:
As a reflection of institutional action, student expectations are directly and indirectly
shaped by a variety of factors, not the least of which are the expectations an
institution establishes for its students, as represented, for instance, by the
statements and actions of its administrations, faculty, and staff. Those statements
and actions that most directly influence student retention have to do with the clarity
of expectations and whether they are high or low. (p. 10)
Citing Kuh (2007), Tinto (2012) reported, “Student perceptions of the level of effort
expected of them by the institution are directly correlated with their level of effort and, in
turn, with their success in college” (p. 13), adding the point that “[s]tating expectations, of
course, is not the same as making them real through institutional behaviors” (p. 15). An
environment that results from intentional collaborative action on the part of institutional
constituents to “provid[e] students with a clear road-map and high expectations for their
success . . . . not only will help its existing students to succeed but will attract many others
who seek such environments” (Tinto, 2012, p. 23).
Santa Fe College
25
A student’s development as a learner is predicated upon the institution’s “facilitation of the
student’s mastery of the role of student,” and every interaction on campus can contribute to
(or detract from) that fundamental learning outcome (Moxley, Najor-Durack, & Dumbrigue,
2001, p. 95). The learning environment must provide an appropriate balance between
challenge—being “provided with educational experiences that foster learning and personal
development”—and support—being “provided with a campus climate that helps students
learn and develop” (Upcraft et al., 2005, p. 11). Too little challenge and too much support
can create students who are “bored, unmotivated, and disinterested in learning” as well as
“apathetic and less focused on their learning and development” (Upcraft et al., 2005, p. 11).
Tinto (2012) noted, “Too much challenge and/or too little concurrent support could prompt
maladaptive coping strategies [from students] such as ignoring the challenge or escaping it
by leaving college” (p. 24). An effective learning environment will thus engage students,
fostering students’ high expectations of themselves, and will provide students with just the
right level of concurrent support to ensure continued growth and learning.
To enhance SF’s environment for learning, the steering committee worked to identify
initiatives that would
promote learning—particularly learning associated with affective behaviors and
noncognitive attributes that correlate to student engagement, success and
achievement—as central;
engage students by deliberately fostering an atmosphere of challenge (high
expectations) and support;
allow for thoughtful, collaborative, cohesive action bridging organizational
boundaries;
offer opportunities for all learners while also meeting individuals’ unique needs and
requirements;
foster responsibility and accountability among all constituents; and
affirm individuals’ current abilities and experience while encouraging growth and
ongoing achievement.
In A Matter of Degrees: Promising Practices for Community College Student Success
(2012), the Center for Community College Student Engagement (CCSSE) pointed to
several initiatives that promise to strengthen the community college’s environment for
learning, including mandatory orientation, academic goal setting and planning
accomplished through regular advising sessions, and formalized early academic warning
processes that alert struggling students to their academic difficulties and intervene to help
students access support services. CCSSE cited research that links these practices to
improved retention of at-risk students, student engagement, focus on goal-attainment, and
long-term persistence, all concerns voiced during our institutional review.
However, before deciding that an early academic warning system coupled with a formal
program of ongoing proactive developmental advisement would best resolve key issues
that had emerged in the institutional review, suit the institutional culture, and meet QEP
Santa Fe College
26
requirements, the committee explored a variety of promising initiatives that could assist
students in navigating the college experience, including a first-year experience program,
career-focused academic programs, faculty mentors, peer coaches, supplemental
instruction, a virtual academic success center, and a “one-stop” electronic portal. The
committee’s literature review suggested that many of the considered initiatives support
student success and persistence, but the committee felt that developing a strategic plan for
advising and intervening with students early in their college experience and providing
ongoing support as these students continued to navigate college would have the greatest
impact on the campus environment, prompting both operational improvement and beneficial
attitudinal changes among students, staff, and faculty. The committee also felt that the
selected initiatives would provide much increased opportunity for the institution to enhance
student acquisition of interpersonal, intrapersonal, and practical competencies that support
educational achievement, and thus persistence (Kuh, 2006, p. 78).
Definitions for the Early Alert Initiative
Academic Progress Report
(APR)
An advisor-requested report of the academic standing of
a student belonging to a cohort. Faculty report to
support staff associated with cohorts. (Current practice.)
Action Plan A student-authored strategy to overcome identified
challenges, typically developed in consultation with an
advisor, counselor, or faculty member.
Early Alert (EA) A report filed by a faculty member as soon as a student
shows signs of becoming at-risk academically. The
report identifies resources and/or a course of action to
resolve the challenge. Students and/or support staff
receive the alert.
Early Warning System The institutional processes of connecting students,
faculty, and support staff to quickly and efficiently alert
academically at-risk students to appropriate resources to
resolve challenges.
Student Progress Report
(SPR)
An institutionally prompted report of students’ academic
progress in a class, provided by faculty to students prior
to the midpoint of the course.
Santa Fe College
27
Early Academic Warning (Early Alert)
Researchers note the value of early intervention and “sustained attention at key transition
points” for students, pointing particularly to practices such as “intrusive advising, early
warning systems, [and] redundant safety nets” as leading to increased persistence as long
as the programs are “customized to meet the needs of students” and “interconnected” to
work as intended (Kuh, Cruce, Shoup, & Kinzie, 2008, p.555, 556). A group of researchers
focusing on community colleges observed,
[T]he best programs make monitoring [of student performance] a shared
responsibility for faculty and advising staff. . . . Current theories maintain that
affective factors such as attitude, motivation, and self-efficacy contribute toward
academic achievement as much as a student’s cognitive ability. Though faculty are
in the best position to monitor cognitive progress, advisers may have additional
insight regarding affective factors. This collaborative monitoring model provides for
the development of comprehensive interventions.
Commonly, such monitoring is manifested as an “early warning system” . . . .
(Boroch, Hope, Smith, Gabriner, Mery, Johnstone, & Asera, 2010, p. 90)
An effective alert system would thus support a “strong, integrated connection between
classroom instruction and support service providers,” allowing for feedback between
interested parties, and would prompt positive student action through referral to support
services and then monitor whether students use those services (Boroch et al, 2010, p. 43).
Such a “case management” approach is employed successfully at the Community College
of Denver, where participating students meet with an assigned advisor regularly for
academic planning and to “designate appropriate services as they progress” (Boroch et al,
2010, p. 90.) Participating students withdraw from classes at significantly lower rates than
the student population as a whole (7.8% vs. 12.4%, as reported in Boroch et al, 2010, p.
44).
Tinto (2012) observed that learning environments that are rich in assessment of and
feedback about student performance prompt increased student involvement in educational
activities and more effective student self-assessment, leading to improved strategies for
learning. In fact, Tinto (2012) reported that the cognitive dissonance that occurs when
feedback from the institution differs from a student’s perception of his or her performance
can prompt “profound changes in behavior,” especially during the first year of college (p.
54). A study of college students who received an academic early alert indicates that
freshmen particularly view an early alert notification as a “’wake-up’ call for me to do
something” (Eimers, 2000). More than a fifth of students responding to a survey indicated
that they had thought they were doing fine in the course prior to receiving notification that
their grade was a ‘C-‘ or below. Analysis suggests, however, that a single alert coming
after the fifth week of the term is likely not as effective as “multiple progress reports
throughout the semester” to prompt the kind of positive student action that results in
improved academic performance (Eimers, 2000, p.12).
Santa Fe College
28
Tinto (2012) argued, “Early warning is especially important in courses considered
foundational to student academic skills because failure in those courses tends to undermine
success in the courses that follow” (p. 59). Keller (2011) similarly noted the value of early
alert for new community college students, particularly:
Predicting student success early in the semester, particularly for new students, is
perhaps even more important for community colleges than other types of higher
education institutions because of the diverse student body. Community colleges are
more likely to enroll academically at-risk students yet rarely have data to identify
these students. Without effective methods to identify concerns and intervene within
the first few weeks of a student’s first semester, the chances of a student
successfully completing the semester are greatly diminished. (p. 24)
A report published by the Pell Institute in 2004 identified such intentional, intrusive
advisement practices as common to institutions with high rates of student retention and
graduation, noting that such practices contribute to “a personalized educational experience”
(Muraskin & Lee, 2004, p. 35). But it should be noted that while “the advising systems [at
these schools] become particularly active” when students have academic difficulties, these
institutions also require that students become active, asking them to develop and follow
through on “action plans” to address challenges, to reflect on their performance and explain
how they will improve before they register for a new term, and/or to meet regularly with
advisors and faculty for directive assistance (Muraskin & Lee, 2004, p. 36). In prompting
students to be accountable for their actions and to be proactive in resolving issues that
impede academic success, these institutions empower students to be responsible and
engaged. The Center for Community College Student Engagement stated that “in design
and implementation of the collegiate experience, colleges must make engagement
inescapable for their students” (2012, p. 5).
Judith Scott-Clayton (2011), an assistant professor of economics and education at
Teachers College, Columbia University, indicated that evidence suggests student advising
“improves student outcomes” (p. 16) but pointed out at community colleges, “the level of
assistance that can be provided by advisors and counselors is limited by extraordinarily
high caseloads, which average one advisor/counselor for every 800 to 1200 students” (p.7).
She continued that “traditional methods of student advisement could be fruitfully augmented
(potentially at relatively low per-student cost) with improved technology in at least five
areas: career/educational exploration, establishing and tracking student goals, course
planning and recommendations, tracking progress toward meeting requirements, and
providing early warnings when students fall off track” (pg. 17).
Sinclair Community College in Ohio has developed a notably effective early warning system
aided by award-winning technology. Its “Early Alert classroom assistance program” teams
faculty, counselors, and advisors to identify and track at-risk students, intervening to prompt
positive student action. The case-management Student Success Plan (SSP) software
allows Sinclair to improve communications between faculty, staff, and students to help
students complete their college careers with success. Using this technology-supported
Santa Fe College
29
intervention system for at-risk students, Sinclair identifies, supports, and monitors students
who are at the greatest risk of failing, offering them holistic coaching, student services,
academic alerts, and interventions. The system formalizes a “student action plan” as part
of a desirable student response to an identified challenge while it makes identifying various
helpful resources easy and accessible to all through an online tool (see
https://resources.sinclair.edu/MyGPS/search.html). Sinclair has reported dramatic results
for participating students:
higher first term success rates (97% compared to 59% for students invited to
participate but who did not, and compared to 79% for students not designated at
risk);
more likely to return the subsequent term (a 37% higher rate of retention than that of
students invited to participate but who did not, and a 26% higher rate of retention
than that of students not designated at risk);
more likely to return the following year (a 27% higher rate of retention than that of
students invited to participate but who did not, and a 12% higher rate of retention
than that of students not designated at risk);
more likely to graduate (five times more likely to graduate within 6 years, 2005-
2011, than peers). (Little, 2011, 2012)
Retention software such as SSP is also available commercially through companies like
Starfish and GradesFirst, both of which were invited to demonstrate their products on the
Santa Fe College campus after a QEP work team’s evaluation of current retention software.
Positive impacts in student success, persistence, and learning claimed to be afforded by
such products must be understood as stemming not just from the application of
technology—which, as Scott-Clayton (2011) pointed out, is a necessary tool to help
manage advising workloads—but perhaps even more from the institutional systems,
policies, and personnel in place to support quality advisement and support. A retention
system founded on early identification of students in need of assistance coupled with early,
intensive, and continuous intervention to improve students’ learning and progress depends
upon people, not just technology. One researcher claimed that “early identification, proper
diagnosis of the problems (both academic and social), and prescription of an
intervention(s), over a period of time, with periodic check-ups, is the key to the successful
student/college retention program” (Seidman, 2012, p. 277), not the software itself.
Boroch et al. (2010) pointed to studies showing links between the kind of intrusive advising
offered by colleges like Sinclair Community College and improvements in retention and
credit hour completion rates, grade point averages, time to graduation rates, regularity of
class attendance, and study skills (p. 42). Researchers Bourdon and Carducci (2002)
similarly concluded that community college early alert programs “have a positive effect on
students’ course completion and re-enrollment rates” (p. 19), noting
Compared to students who were not involved in such a program, students involved
in an early alert program:
Santa Fe College
30
Are more likely to successfully complete the course in which they were having
academic difficulty
Maintain higher rates of continuous enrollment by the end of the academic year
Have higher persistence rates for two or more consecutive semesters
Exhibit higher persistence rates four years later (including transfer students). (p.
18)
Research suggests the efficacy of a technology-assisted early academic warning system to
provide students with early feedback about academic progress and identify potential deficits
or problem behaviors to assist students in their academic efforts. Faculty communication
coupled with proactive intervention from advising and/or counseling staff can prompt
students to reflect on their academic goals and challenges and encourage students to use
appropriate support systems to resolve difficulties and overcome obstacles. As the
institution monitors and advises students identified as at risk academically and as these
students adopt action plans to resolve challenges that may interfere with academic
achievement, students will likely improve their ability to practice effective strategies for
perseverance and their chances to persist in college.
As one of its two strategies to significantly enhance the environment supporting student
learning, SF will implement a well-designed early academic warning system providing for
timely academic performance feedback for students, early alerts that point students
experiencing challenges to appropriate college resources, and prompts for student action to
resolve challenges. Research into best practices suggests that this initiative will assist the
College in accomplishing its mission to add value to the lives of students and enrich the
community by offering innovative student services in support of excellence in teaching and
learning.
Santa Fe College
31
Definitions for the Progressive Advisement Initiative
Developmental Advisement Advisement method in which a student and advisor/
counselor share responsibility for the student’s academic
planning. The advisor functions as a coach who
supports the student in making informed decisions and
in considering changing needs to plan learning
opportunities and chart progress.
Intrusive Advisement Advisement and/or counseling that is initiated by the
institution without a student having to seek it, typically
when an institution determines that a student is at risk
academically.
My Academic Plan (MAP) A product of intentional academic planning, a plan for
achieving a designated academic goal, typically
developed by a student in consultation with an advisor.
The MAP outlines courses to be taken over a set period
of time, customized to reflect the student’s personal
situation and responsibilities outside of college as well
as to meet the requirements associated with an
academic goal.
Personal Inventory Survey of the student’s personal situation (hours worked,
method of transportation, financial constraints, childcare
arrangements, etc.) collected upon enrollment and
considered by a student and advisor in the creation of
the customized academic plan (MAP).
Prescriptive Advisement Advisement method in which an authoritative advisor/
counselor directs a student’s academic plan. The
student does not engage in making decisions and
passively receives information and advice from the
advisor/counselor.
Progressive Advisement Advisement tailored for students at designated key
points in their academic career: pre-
enrollment/orientation, enrollment, initial registration,
initial semester, after initial report of course grades
(second semester), and after the first year.
Santa Fe College
32
Progressive Advisement
The “most important function” of the advisor is “helping students to get an understanding of
how to navigate the institution, take advantage of opportunities, sustain themselves during
periods of stress, cope with being students and perform successfully as students” (Moxley
et al., 2001, p. 101). In other words, academic advisement’s crucial role is educational,
particularly teaching students how to be students, an idea buttressed in a 1972 seminal
work by Burns B. Crookston. In “A Developmental View of Academic Advising as
Teaching,” Crookston argued that rather than being “peripheral to teaching” (p. 9), quality
advising is signified by its “teaching functions” of “facilitating the student’s rational
processes, environmental and interpersonal interactions, behavioral awareness, and
problem-solving, decision-making, and evaluation skills” (p. 5).
Researchers have reported both “statistically significant direct effect” and “a series of
indirect effects on persistence through advising’s positive influences on student grades,
satisfaction, and intent to persist” (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005, p. 405). Pascarella and
Terenzini (2005) noted that evidence suggests the benefits of advising are best realized
when it is experienced “sooner” rather than later in a student’s academic career (p. 405).
This time constraint makes sense: Tinto (2012) observed that the failure to receive good
academic planning advice within the first year of college when many students are
undecided about their major can “undermine motivation, increase the likelihood of
departure, and, for those who continue, lengthen the time to degree completion” (p. 11).
Keller (2011) found that institutional persistence was significantly and positively correlated
to students’ identification of long-term goals (p. 208), an activity an academic advisor
typically prompts and guides.
But the literature on student development suggests that a variety of noncognitive skills and
traits besides goal orientation correlate in greater or lesser degrees to student engagement,
success, and retention. Researchers Bean and Eaton (2000) argued, for instance, that
“leaving college is a behavior and that behavior is psychologically motivated,” noting that
psychological variables including past behavior, personality, self-efficacy, coping strategies,
and motivation to attend figure into departure decisions (p. 49). Keller (2011) reported that
psycho-social variables such as task life predominance, motivational orientation, and self-
efficacy have been shown to improve the predictability of student persistence, but the
author noted the need for additional research in identifying student attributes that prove key
in persistence outcomes (p. 15).
Extending Tinto’s retention model, Bean and Eaton (2000) pointed out that the reciprocal
interplay between students’ entry attributes (personal characteristics, traits, and
experiences) and the institutional environment shape student perceptions and behaviors,
ultimately including whether they persist (p. 56). “Positive experiences and interventions
will reinforce persistence by heightening individual intentions [desire for an educational
goal] and commitments [desire for an educational goal coupled with the willingness to work
to achieve it], whereas negative experiences will weaken intentions and commitments”
(Seidman, 2012, p. 269). Intent to persist is heightened, according to Bean and Eaton,
Santa Fe College
33
when the interplay between student psychological traits and the environment leads to
positive perceptions of self-efficacy, coping strategies resulting in a reduction of stress and
increased confidence, and the development of an internal locus of control contributing to
increased motivation (p. 57). The institutional environment can be strategically designed to
facilitate college students’ personal engagement and coping.
No matter the constellation of psychological and social variables that contribute to student
persistence, a student’s ability and motivation to continue a course of action despite
challenges or obstacle seems key to academic persistence. This attribute is identified,
variously, as “perseverance,” “coping,” and “resiliency.” Although these are related
concepts, coping “refers to a wide set of skills and purposeful responses to stress, whereas
resilience refers to positive adaptation in response to serious adversity” (Glennie, 2010, p.
169). Research finds that they are “not fixed attributes; people can learn to improve their
strategies for responding to stress” and “school environments can help foster these skills”
(Glennie, 2010, p. 190). But such traits can be hard to measure. Keller (2011) observed
that “Perseverance itself is a complex quality which includes self-confidence, a positive
outlook on one’s ability to perform tasks, positive feelings of self-worth, awareness of
individual strengths and weaknesses and a willingness to strive for improvement, the ability
to accept criticism and use it for improvement, and the desire to overcome obstacles,” and
he argued that measuring these discrete traits can indicate the more complex one (p. 19).
Research suggests that as institutions collect more data about discrete traits, advising
interventions may be refined to focus on traits/skills that contribute most to perseverance.
For now, working with students to engage in realistic self-appraisal (“awareness of
individual strengths and weaknesses”), informed decision-making (contributing to “one’s
ability to perform tasks”), and proactive behavior (stemming from “a willingness to strive for
improvement” and “the desire to overcome obstacles”) seem most in line with the tasks
associated with an advisor’s essential function as defined in 1972 by Crookston: to
“facilitat[e] the student’s rational processes, environmental and interpersonal interactions,
behavioral awareness, and problem-solving, decision-making, and evaluation skills.” Self-
appraisal, decision-making, and proactive behavior are readily “teachable,” able to be
modeled and encouraged through the learning-centered interactions that constitute
developmental advisement.
Developmental advisement can elicit a wide range of learning. The need to provide
advisement of this sort early in students’ careers is clear: Several sources noted a common
environmental “mismatch” between students who “[i]ncreasingly . . . com[e] to college with
‘uninformed expectations’ that are not initially aligned with those of the faculty and the
institutions,” resulting in students who are ill-prepared to act appropriately to meet rigors
associated with college (Boroch et al., 2010, p. 30; Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, & Hayek,
2006, p. 32; Tinto, 2012, p. 13). Students sometimes also receive “confusing mixed
messages” about college life from a campus environment itself, which can contradict rather
than reinforce the messages of the faculty and staff about expectations (Schilling &
Schilling, 2005, p. 117). “Early attention to correcting misinformation about what students
can expect in college and what mechanisms exist to support them in the college
Santa Fe College
34
environment should be formalized to ensure that students are able to set manageable,
realistic goals” (Boroch et al, 2010, p. 30). Habley and Bloom (2007) pointed out that an
advisor can take on this formal role of “dissonance mediator” as the discrepancy between a
student’s expectations and the reality of college becomes manifest, often for the first time,
in the advisor’s office (p. 175). Advisors are in a unique position to offer students “a
multifaceted, structured, and ongoing relationship” with someone who will connect to,
advocate for, intervene with, and coach them (Habley & Bloom, 2007, p. 174).
Citing Seidman (1991), Tinto (2012) indicated that “community college students who
received post-admission advising three times during their first semester to discuss issues
such as course schedules and academic and social involvement persisted [from first- to
second-year] at a rate 20% higher than those who only participated in the college
orientation program (p. 11; also discussed in Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005, p. 404). Kuh
(2008) reported that meeting twice with an advisor during an academic year results in
students’ engaging more frequently in “educationally purposeful activities” and is correlated
to “greater self-reported gains in personal and social development, practical competence,
and general education, and more frequent use of deep approaches to learning” (p. 71).
Further, advising benefits students entering college with academic deficiencies even more
than it does the general student population (Tinto, 2012, p. 11).
Enrollment in developmental coursework has been reported to correlate more frequently to
decisions of community college students to withdraw than other factors, though student
service programs such as advising have been shown to positively affect retention of
developmental and non-developmental students alike (Crisp & Mina, 2012, p. 158-159).
Keller (2011) found that the use of advisement offered through the college (whether through
meeting with an advisor or using advising services offered on the college website) more
than doubled the odds of success and persistence rates of participating developmental
math students compared to those who did not receive advising from a college source (p.
200). Keller suggested that “active advising strategies” deployed by a trained advisor
(assisting students with creating a realistic course schedule that balances students’
academic responsibilities with personal obligations, informing students about available
support services, developing “multiple-semester course plan[s],” and intervening when
students get off track) are of significant benefit (p. 200, 204).
Such active strategies are also endorsed by the Center for Community College Student
Engagement (2012), which pointed to the need for colleges to “help students plan their
coursework around their other commitments and help students develop skills to manage the
demands on their time” (p. 6). But educational psychology researcher Jane Elizabeth
Pizzolato (2008) noted,
When advising interactions are rooted in students’ own experiences rather than in
generic skill development exercises, students are more apt to use the resulting
personally constructed strategies in new academic situations. Many advising
programs for students in academic difficulty have focused on teaching study skills,
time management, and test-taking strategies through activities, exercises, and
Santa Fe College
35
lectures to students. Despite the proliferation of such programs, participating
students have struggled to transfer the learned skills to their specific academic
situation. Advising is more effective if skills are taught by having students examine
their own situation, identify strategies to overcome difficulties, and learn to apply
them in new situations. (pg. 23)
Personalized attention that elicits self-reflection, self-appraisal, and proactive behavior may
thus be more beneficial to students’ long-term academic success than skills-building
exercises. There are different approaches to developmental advisement that may be
employed to provide such personalized, learning-focused advisement. Habley and Bloom
(2007) focused on appreciative advisement, a strategy employing inquiry, exploration, and
self-reflection to build on students’ strengths and previous successes to generate strategies
to approach challenges that arise. Baxter-Magolda’s Learning Partnership Model (LPM) of
advising builds self-authorship skills by assisting students to develop plans of action based
on past successes, allowing their sense of self-efficacy and problem-solving behaviors to
be expanded as they work toward academic goals. Pizzolato (2008) reported the success
of the approach:
Students participating in the LPM advising programs [at Michigan State University]
improved their semester GPA by an average of 53 percent, while similar students
who did not participate in the programs averaged 28 percent improvement.
Cumulative GPAs of the participating students also improved more than those of
similar students not participating in the LPM programs (3 percent versus 2 percent,
on average). In terms of attrition, only 16 percent of the students in the LPM
programs left the institution, compared with 34 percent of the students who did not
participate in the LPM programs. (p. 23)
The steering committee was particularly impressed by Tallahassee Community College’s
“progressive advisement model” that identifies developmentally appropriate student
learning outcomes associated with distinct phases of student progress toward an academic
goal. Tallahassee Community College (TCC) suggests that advising fosters a relationship
of “shared responsibility between students and the College” in which entering students’
immediate concerns of course selection give way to interactions designed to help student
refine academic and life skills and to engage in life and career planning. TCC’s Progressive
Advising System is an online system that supplements the work of advisors, allowing for
student tracking, communication, and academic planning appropriate to each phase of
students’ academic progress. Program success is being measured through “an increase in
student use of academic and support services, development and maintenance of an
academic plan for every student, timely and accurate registration, and student graduation
as planned and with appropriate courses for degree and transfer” (Sloan, Jefferson,
Search, & Cox, 2005, p. 660).
A large body of research suggests developmental advisement delivered proactively and
progressively can be employed to teach students how to navigate the college experience
successfully. Likely because teaching is integral to it, quality advising correlates to
Santa Fe College
36
increased student engagement, student satisfaction, student success and persistence. By
developing a personalized relationship with their advisees, advisors can provide crucial
continuity in students’ academic journeys, offering a more comprehensive view of students’
progress than afforded to most others at the institution and an opportunity to teach students
information, strategies, behaviors, and skills necessary to succeed academically.
As the second of its two strategies to significantly enhance the environment supporting
student learning, SF will implement a new process for academic advising that will offer
students ongoing, personalized developmental advisement, enabling students to take
ownership of their educational goals. Advisement activities will be structured to help
students achieve identified learning outcomes related to academic perseverance in support
of educational achievement and persistence. Participating advisors and counselors will be
trained in current, effective advisement practices and theory as well as equipped with
appropriate tools to manage and maintain meaningful relationships with their students.
Research into best practices suggests that like the early alert initiative, the progressive
advisement initiative will assist the College in accomplishing its mission to add value to the
lives of students and enrich the community by offering innovative student services in
support of excellence in teaching and learning.
Key features of Navigating the College Experience have been modeled on existing projects
researched during the steering committee’s literature review and are in line with current
practices and theories associated with student development, advisement, retention,
persistence, success, and learning. Based on its examination of current literature and
research-based best practices, the steering committee believes that implementing the QEP
initiatives will result in a significantly enhanced learning environment to cultivate educational
persistence and academic perseverance, aiding students to stay on track toward
educational goals and providing timely assistance if they get off track.
Santa Fe College
37
V. ACTIONS TO BE IMPLEMENTED AND T IMELINE
Navigating the College Experience (NCE) consists of two initiatives that will accomplish the
College mission to add value to the lives of students and enrich the community by
increasing the quality of SF’s student learning environment.
Actions Associated with the Early Alert Initiative
The early alert initiative involves implementing an academic early warning system for
students enrolling into targeted gateway courses (ENC 0025, ENC 1101, MAT 0028, and
MAT 1033). Students will be entered into the program (designated as “NCE students”) by
enrolling in an NCE section of a targeted gateway course. Upon enrollment, A.A.-seeking
students will be assigned an academic advisor if they do not already have one.
In the initial year, 20% of all offered sections of targeted gateway courses will be
designated as NCE sections. The number of offered NCE sections will expand over the
five-year period (40% of all offered sections in year 2, 60% in year 3, 80% in year 4) until all
sections of the targeted gateway courses are participating in 2018, year 5 of the project.
The first cohort of faculty teaching NCE-designated sections will be volunteers
compensated for their work in refining the early warning system. These faculty will undergo
training and development in Spring 2013 and begin teaching NCE-designated sections in
Fall 2013. They will teach at least two NCE sections per term for the 2013-14 academic
year. Beginning in year 2, faculty will be assigned by their chairs to teach NCE sections;
chairs will coordinate faculty training in conjunction with the QEP Director.
The early alert initiative requires supporting technology to prompt student progress reports
from faculty and communicate results to students; to manage early alerts, allowing faculty,
staff, and students to collaborate to address challenges that may be identified for a student;
to link students, faculty, and staff to college resources; and to file and track student action
plans. Commercial software (either Starfish or GradesFirst) and/or in-house programming
(likely implementing features of the open-source SSP developed by Sinclair Community
College) will be integrated with College systems during the 2012-13 academic year to
support the initiative’s requirements.
Early Warning software will prompt NCE faculty in weeks 3 and 7 to complete a student
progress report indicating whether a student is on track academically, at risk academically,
or off track. The progress report will also ask faculty to identify problematic behaviors:
failure to attend regularly, failure to complete or submit assignments, failure to have
required materials, etc. Students will receive progress reports about their standing in an
NCE section no later than weeks 4 and 8. Students who are at risk or off track will be
directed to meet with the instructor.
Additionally, NCE faculty will be able to complete an early alert for any student showing
signs of being academically at risk as soon as indicated. Depending upon the support
software, faculty will have the ability to communicate the early alert directly to a student or
Santa Fe College
38
to a support staff member (student’s assigned advisor) or both. The early alert will prompt
student action: meeting with the professor, meeting with the advisor, using an identified
resource, etc.
Advising and counseling staff supporting NCE initiatives will undergo training and
development in Spring 2013 and begin working with NCE students in Fall 2013. (Note:
professional development will be offered to staff on an ongoing basis each semester to
support project initiatives.) When an advisor receives an early alert, the advisor will contact
the student for whom the alert was filed to establish a course of action, typically a meeting
to assist the student in determining the best course of action to resolve challenges. The
advisor will also follow up with students who file action plans to review progress toward
resolving identified challenges.
Beginning in spring 2014, students who earn grades lower than a B or who withdraw from
an NCE section in the previous term will become a tracked cohort, considered to be at
elevated academic risk. Assigned advisors will follow these students through the
completion of their academic programs, and their performance will be tracked in all their
courses. (Institutionally, they will become “yellow highlighted students,” part of a cohort of
tracked students benefitting from intensified attention from an assigned advisor.) It is
anticipated that each semester as the project progresses, the tracked student cohort for
NCE classes will grow as course grades are submitted. The institution has built in annual
evaluation of personnel needs to accommodate the expansion of the cohort.
Ongoing assessments of the early alert initiative to evaluate the efficacy of activities,
processes, and instruments/documents as well as to determine the initiative’s impact have
been planned. Additionally, a process has been established for using data generated by
assessments to modify planned activities, established processes, and/or
instruments/documents associated with early alert if warranted.
Actions Associated with the Progressive Advisement Initiative
The progressive advisement initiative involves implementing a new process for academic
advising to offer ongoing, personalized advisement to selected students. A student
participating in this program will benefit from the relationship established through having an
assigned advisor trained in developmental advisement strategies and knowledgeable in the
assigned student’s individual goals and needs. Further, the student will create a
customized academic plan under the guidance of his or her advisor. Other advisement
activities will be structured to help students achieve identified learning outcomes related to
academic perseverance. When the student experiences challenges, the advisor will
intervene to connect the student to helpful resources to support academic success.
At first, students will be eligible for this program upon receiving an early alert or earning a
course grade lower than a B in one of the NCE courses. Beginning in 2015 this program
will expand to include students testing into a single college preparatory course.
Santa Fe College
39
The students entering the program from NCE course outcomes will experience early
intervention with an advisor, a process designed to result in student learning. As a result of
the advisement interaction, students should be able to demonstrate knowledge about
college resources, to realistically assess their performance and/or behavior, and to develop
and follow an action plan to resolve challenges. In addition to experiencing these program
benefits, students participating in progressive advisement will have the opportunity to
engage in academic planning provided through a series of structured encounters designed
to assist students in identifying personal and academic concerns, in improving their ability
to make informed decisions regarding their academic and career goals, and in developing
and adhering to a personalized academic plan. (See Appendices F and G for the
advisement syllabus and process for progressive advising.)
An advisor will actively track and communicate with assigned NCE students eligible for
progressive advisement. At the end of an initial advising session (whether for initial course
selection or in response to an NCE course outcome), the advisor will set up a subsequent
appointment with the student to follow up on action plans or to continue with further
academic planning. The advisor will also coordinate notifications/reminders to an assigned
student and regularly monitor student progress (degree audit, enrollment status, early
alerts, SPR’s, APR’s) and intervene when necessary.
The progressive advising initiative requires supporting technology to help advisors and
counselors manage caseloads and track students; to assist with providing personalized
academic planning and support; to facilitate communication with students, faculty, and staff;
and to collect student feedback and assessments of learning. Commercial software (either
Starfish or GradesFirst) and/or a combination of in-house programming and additional
software will be integrated with College systems during the 2012-13 academic year to
support the initiative’s requirements.
In conjunction with the QEP Director, the College Prep Advisement Coordinator and the
Director of the Advising, Counseling, and Career Center will coordinate ongoing
professional development for staff engaged in developmental and intrusive advisement.
Ongoing assessments of the progressive advisement initiative to evaluate the efficacy of
activities, processes, and instruments/documents as well as to determine the initiative’s
impact have been planned. Additionally, a process has been established for using data
generated by assessments to modify planned activities, established processes, and/or
instruments/documents associated with progressive advisement if warranted.
The two initiatives of Navigating the College Experience, early alert and progressive
advisement, have an array of associated detailed actions that must be implemented to
ensure the project’s success. Santa Fe College recognizes that the project requires broad-
based involvement in implementation and for each action has designated responsible
personnel or units, as identified in the following timeline.
Santa Fe College
40
Implementation Timeline
Year 0 (2012-13)
Key: Staffing & Support Training Early Alert/ Progressive Advisement Assessment
Action Detailed Actions Responsible Unit/Person Term recurring
Hire IT specialist Post position, 8/12 IT/HR Fall
10/1
Interview/Hire, 9/12 IT/ Screening Committee/HR
Identify QEP
Director
Appoint position VP of Assessment, Research,
Institutional Effectiveness /HR
Fall
Core
Implementation
Team meeting
QEP Director Fall
9/28
monthly
Identify
participating faculty
for pilot sections
ENC 1101 English Chair Fall
10/5
Annually,
spring term,
2014-2018
MAT 1033 Math Chair
ENC 0025 Academic Foundations Chair
MAT 0028 Academic Foundations Chair
Hire academic
advisor
Post position VP for Student Affairs/HR Spring
Interview/Hire Advising, Counseling, Career
Center Director/HR
Assessment Team
meeting
QEP Director Fall Ongoing each
term
Assess support
service utilization
Learning Labs IR designee/Academic
Foundations, English & Math
Chairs
Spring Benchmarks
spring 2013
thereafter
annually,
spring term,
through 2018
Career Counseling IR designee/Advising,
Counseling, Career Center
Director
Disabilities
Resource Center
IR designee/Disabilities
Resource Center Director
Counseling
workshops
IR designee/Advising,
Counseling, Career Center
Director
Establish course
benchmarks
Administer surveys Academic Foundations,
English & Math Chairs
Spring
Identify benchmarks IR designee/QEP Director
Hire counselor Budget for new
counselor, FY 13/14
VP for Student Affairs Summer
Post position VP for Student Affairs /HR
Interview/Hire
Advising, Counseling, Career
Center Director/HR
Resource List
Training
Train all faculty and
staff on use of
Resource List
Advising, Counseling, Career
Center Director/IT designee
Fall Ongoing for
new faculty
orientation
Software training Train pilot faculty
and staff on Early
Alert software
IT designee Spring
Santa Fe College
41
Year 0 (2012-13), continued
Key: Staffing & Support Training Early Alert/ Progressive Advisement Assessment
Action Detailed Actions Responsible Unit/Person Term recurring
Professional
development
Train Staff on
intrusive advising
Advising, Counseling, Career
Center Director/IT designee/
Academic Foundations, Math
and English Chairs
Spring
Train pilot faculty on
early intervention
QEP Director/Academic
Foundations, Math and
English Chairs
Spring
APR revisions Programming IT designee Fall Ongoing until
APRs function
as intended
Faculty training IT designee/ Department
Chairs/Advising, Counseling,
Career Center Director
Resource list
development (SSP)
Compile resource
list
AVP of Student Affairs Fall
Develop web
interface
IT designee
Develop or
purchase software
for EA
Select and plan
integration of
software
QEP Director/IT designee Fall
9/30
Assess for and
provide necessary
equipment updates
IT designee Fall
11/30
Establish priority
and protocols for
advisement
intervention
Advising, Counseling, Career
Center Director
Spring Ongoing
assessment of
protocols
annually
Implement/integrate
software for EA
IT designee Spring
2/15
Message
assessment for EA
Phrasing of
messages
Advising, Counseling, Career
Center Director and Staff
Spring
Ongoing each
term
Programming
adjustments
Advising, Counseling, Career
Center Director/IT designee
Resource List
maintenance
Disabilities
Resource Center
IR designee/Disabilities
Resource Center Director
Summer Ongoing each
term
Counseling
workshops
IR designee/Advising,
Counseling, Career Center
Director
Develop or
purchase client
management
software
Evaluate efficacy of
current system
Advising, Counseling, Career
Center Director and Staff
Fall
9/30
Decide on action Advising, Counseling, Career
Center Director and Staff
Fall
11/15
Implement Software IT designee Summer
5/31
Santa Fe College
42
Year 0 (2012-13), continued
Key: Staffing & Support Training Early Alert/ Progressive Advisement Assessment
Action Detailed Actions Responsible Unit/Person Term recurring
Develop
Assessment
Instruments
MSLQ adaptation IR Director Fall
Efficacy/usefulness
of in-house
programming
IR Director/IT designee Fall
Advisement/
counseling exit
survey and
assessment
Advising, Counseling, Career
Center Director and Staff
Fall
Project assessment
surveys for students,
faculty, staff
IR designee/QEP Director Spring
2/15
Administer project
assessment survey
Environmental
benchmarks
QEP Director Spring Ongoing,
annually
Administer SENSE IR Director Fall Every 3yr
Administer CCSSE IR Director Spring Every 3yr
Year 1 (2013-14) – New or Additional Actions
Key: Staffing & Support Training Early Alert/ Progressive Advisement Assessment
Action Detailed Actions Responsible Unit/Person Term recurring
Assess support
service utilization
Learning Labs IR designee/Academic
Foundations, English & Math
Chairs
Spring Annually,
spring term
through 2018
Career Counseling IR designee/Advising,
Counseling, Career Center
Director
Disabilities Resource
Center
IR designee/Disabilities
Resource Center Director
Counseling
workshops
IR designee/Advising,
Counseling, Career Center
Director
Assess need for
additional advising/
counseling staff
Flag when YHS
cohort exceeds
threshold or
counseling services
strained
IR Designee/Advising,
Counseling, Career Center
Director
Spring Annually,
spring term,
through 2018
Professional
development
Train staff on early
intervention (new
YHS cohort)
Advising, Counseling, Career
Center Director/ QEP Director
Fall
Professional
development
Train expanding
faculty group on early
intervention
QEP Director/Academic
Foundations, Math and
English Chairs
Spring Annually,
spring term,
through 2018
Santa Fe College
43
Year 1 (2013-14) – New or Additional Actions, continued
Key: Staffing & Support Training Early Alert/ Progressive Advisement Assessment
Action Detailed Actions Responsible Unit/Person Term recurring
Pilot Early Alert in
selected sections ENC 1101 Expanded Implementation
Team (QEP Director/
Academic Foundations,
English, and Math Chairs/
QEP Sections Faculty)
Fall/
Spring
Ongoing,
each term
Year 1 = 20%
Year 2 = 40%
Year 3 = 60%
Year 4 = 80%
Year 5 = 100%
MAT 1033
ENC 0025
MAT 0028
Student progress
reports in pilot
sections
ENC 1101 Expanded Implementation
Team (QEP Sections Faculty)
Fall /
Spring
(wks
3&7)
Ongoing,
each term MAT 1033
ENC 0025
MAT 0028
Message
assessment for EA
Advising, Counseling, Career
Center Director and Staff
Fall/
Spring
Ongoing
each term
Administer student
surveys in pilot
sections
Academic Foundations, Math
and English Chairs
Fall/
Spring/
Summer
Ongoing
each term
Resource List
maintenance
Advising, Counseling, Career
Center Director/IT designee
Fall/
Spring
Ongoing
each term
YHS cohort created
based on course
grade ≤C+ in 1101,
1033, 0025, 0028
Identify cohort IT/IR designee Spring
5/15
Each term,
through 2018
Assign advisor to
each student in
cohort
Advising, Counseling, Career
Center Director
Summer
Message
assessment for
progressive
advisement
Advising, Counseling, Career
Center Director and Staff
Summer annually
Establish priority
and protocols for
advisement
intervention
Advising, Counseling, Career
Center Director
Summer Ongoing,
annually
Administer project
assessment
surveys
QEP Director/Core
Implementation Team/IT
designee
Fall Ongoing,
each term
Project
Assessment
Data acquisition IR Director/QEP Director Spring Ongoing,
annually
Implementation of
any needed
modifications
QEP Director Fall/
Spring
Ongoing,
each term
Report Results
SENSE
IR Director Spring Every 3yr
Report Results
CCSSE
IR Director Summer Every 3yr
Santa Fe College
44
Year 2 (2014-15) – New or Additional Actions
Key: Staffing & Support Training Early Alert/ Progressive Advisement Assessment
Action Detailed Actions Responsible Unit/Person Term recurring
Hire
advisor/counselor
Budget for new
advisor/counselor
VP for Student Affairs Fall As needed
and as
resources are
available Post position
VP for Student Affairs /HR
Interview/Hire
Advising, Counseling, Career
Center Director/HR
Professional
development
Train advisors on
Developmental
Advisement
Advising, Counseling, Career
Center Director/QEP Director
Spring
Orientation used to
select pilot cohort
for progressive
advising program
expansion
Assign advisor to
each student testing
into only 1 prep
mandate
Advising, Counseling, Career
Center Director/Assessment
Center Director
Summer Ongoing, each
orientation
cycle
Year 3 (2015-16) – New or Additional Actions
Key: Staffing & Support Training Early Alert/ Progressive Advisement Assessment
Action Detailed Actions Responsible Unit/Person Term recurring
Assess options for
advisor demand
Consider effective
automated system
versus more
personnel
VP for Student Affairs/
Advising, Counseling, Career
Center Director/HR
Fall As needed
and as
resources are
available/
Annually
Professional
development
Advanced training for
advisors on
Developmental
Advisement
Advising, Counseling, Career
Center Director/QEP Director
Spring Annually
Assess priority &
protocols for
advisement
intervention
Advising, Counseling, Career
Center Director
Summer Ongoing,
annually
Santa Fe College
45
Year 4 (2016-17) – New or Additional Actions
Action Detailed Actions Responsible Unit/Person Term recurring
All Actions
ongoing with
continuous
expanding roll-out
Year 5 (2017-18) – New or Additional Actions
Action Detailed Actions Responsible Unit/Person Term recurring
All Actions
ongoing with
continuous
expanding roll-out
Santa Fe College
46
VI. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
Committed to the success and long-term continuance of Navigating the College
Experience, Santa Fe College has identified the necessary organizational support to
sustain the project. The project itself bridges organizational boundaries, so effort was made
to allow for an organizational structure that would reflect the collaborative nature of the
project. The Vice President of Assessment, Research, and Institutional Effectiveness, the
interim Vice President of Student Affairs, and the Provost are determined to sustain the
collaborative relationships necessary for the success of the QEP.
Reflecting its underpinning in institutional improvement, Navigating the College Experience
will be “housed” in the Division of Assessment, Research, and Institutional Effectiveness,
with a QEP Director reporting to the Vice President of that area. The QEP Director will be
responsible for the management of the project, coordination of the actions to be
implemented, and reporting. (See Appendix I for the position description for QEP Director.)
Reflecting the project’s focus on teaching, learning, and advising, the QEP Director will lead
a core implementation team comprised of key members from Student Affairs and Academic
Affairs, including the Director of the Advisement, Counseling, and Career Center; the
College Prep Advisement Coordinator; the Chair of Academic Foundations; the Chair of the
English department; and the Chair of the Math department. An expanded implementation
team will include all the members of the core implementation team and, on an as-needed
basis, participating faculty and staff, and key personnel (or their designees) from the
Registrar’s office, the Office of Admissions, Financial Aid, Information Technology Services,
Department of Institutional Research, and the office of the Assistant Vice President for
Student Affairs. A separate QEP assessment team, tasked with reviewing project results
and, if needed, designating alternative approaches to accomplish goals, outcomes and
targets will be composed of Assessment, Research, and Institutional Effectiveness
personnel; Student Affairs and Academic Affairs representatives will consult. Personnel
may be added to any team on an as-needed basis.
The College has already undertaken a re-organization designed, in part, to support the
implementation and continuation of the QEP initiatives. In an attempt to strengthen
resources and services, the separate units of A.A. Academic Advisement, the Counseling
Center, and the Career Resource Center have been merged into one department overseen
by a single director. The separate offices will be moved to a shared space in R building to
become the Advisement, Counseling, and Career Center. The merger allows for greater
communication, collaboration, and professional development among advising and
counseling staff.
The QEP requires that some personnel be hired in support of the project. An IT Specialist
will report to the Associate Vice President of Information Technology Services but be
tasked with QEP-related programming and systems integration. Advising and Counseling
Specialists will report to the Director of the Advising, Counseling, and Career Center. Part-
time administrative staff will report to the QEP Director.
Santa Fe College
47
The following organizational chart indicates the relationships between and reporting lines
for project personnel. The relationship between the Vice President for Student Affairs, the
Provost, and the Vice President for Assessment, Research, and Technology is
collaborative. Other relationships are supervisory.
VP for Assessment, Research, & Technology Provost VP for Student Affairs
QEP Director
Expanded Implementation Team
Core Implementation Team Assessment Team
Santa Fe College
48
VII. RESOURCES
To ensure successful implementation of Navigating the College Experience, project
initiatives will be phased in over a five-year period. Headcounts for participating students—
those enrolled in NCE sections of the selected gateway courses, selected for ongoing
tracking as part of an academically at-risk cohort, and/or eligible for progressive advisement
by testing into one College Prep course—will grow incrementally over the implementation
period, allowing for appropriate planning for the allocation of resources including personnel.
Projected Headcounts of Students in Navigating the College Experience*
Fall Spring Summer Total
Year 1 1,185 1,592 910 3,687
Year 2 3,202 3,183 1,821 8,206
Year 3 4,619 4,774 2,732 12,125
Year 4 6,036 6,365 3,643 16,044
Year 5 7,453 7,957 4,553 19,963
Total 22,495 23,871 13,659 60,025
* Stable enrollment and consistent retention assumed.
In the first year of implementation, 20% of selected gateway course offerings will be
designated as pilot sections, staffed by faculty volunteers who will devote additional hours
refining the academic early warning system. For this work, participating faculty will earn a
stipend of 1 non-instructional unit (NIU) in each term of the first year of implementation.
Note that participating faculty must teach at least two NCE sections per term in the initial
year of implementation. In subsequent years, sections designated as NCE sections will
increase (constituting 40% of sections offered in year 2, 60% of sections offered in year 3,
80% of sections offered in year 4, and 100% of sections in year 5), and faculty will be
assigned by Chairs to teach NCE sections.
Faculty Participants in Year 1
Gateway courses Estimated Number
All Sections Offered
Estimated Number
NCE Sections
Faculty Participating
in Pilot
ENC 0025 25 5 3
ENC 1101 100 20 10
MAT 0028 42 8 4
MAT 1033 67 14 7
Totals 234 47 24
The initial planning phase for the QEP project implementation is scheduled for the 2012-
2013 academic year and the planned Navigating the College Experience project is
incorporated into the College’s current strategic initiatives. The integration of this project
into the college’s overall budget and planning process will ensure that the funding
commitments and project initiatives are not only funded but evaluated. This 2012-2013
planning year is included in the budget as Year “0”. Funding for additional staffing and
professional development/training as well as monies for software tools and programming in
Santa Fe College
49
support of the early warning system and progressive advisement, assessments,
administrative costs and marketing have been planned.
The budget represents a combination of reallocated existing resources and newly dedicated
allocations for various aspects of the expenditures that make up the overall project budget
plan. All funds specified will be allocated from the normal operating budget of the College.
The project does not rely on any anticipated grants or similar external resources. Salary
figures used for personnel include salaries and benefits and reflect projected annually
salary increases of 2%. Funds designated as new recurring funds are assumed to be
included in the base budget for all subsequent fiscal years. New non-recurring funds will be
requested and appropriated annually.
The following budget summarizes the financial allocations that Santa Fe College anticipates
will be necessary to provide proper support for project initiatives. The College has budgeted
sufficient funds to meet anticipated expenditures associated with the project’s planning year
(Year “0”), and the College’s financial stability and history demonstrate the ability to fund
this project as recommended. The College is committed to providing the resources as
necessary for the successful implementation and continuation of the project’s initiatives, as
outlined below:
Navigating the College Experience QEP Budget Summarized
Year 0
FY2013
Year 1
FY2014
Year 2
FY2015
Year 3
FY2016
Year 4
FY2017
Year 5
FY2018
Total
Personnel
$148,108 $217,248 $186,711 $236,445 $290,204 $295,720 $1,374,436
QEP
Development $13,000 $13,000
Professional
Development $36,200 $36,200 $18,200 $36,200 $18,200 $36,200 $181,200
Software
$80,000 $66,000 $66,000 $66,000 $66,000 $66,000 $410,000
Training
$10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $60,000
Assessment
Costs $21,900 $21,900 $10,500 $54,300
Administrative
Costs $5,000 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $17,500
Total
$314,208 $331,948 $283,411 $323,721 $386,904 $420,920 $2,110,436
Year-by-year budgets offering more detail about disbursements in each category follow.
(Appendix J is a total project budget compiling the following year-by-year budgets.)
Santa Fe College
50
Navigating the College Experience QEP Budget : Planning Year / FY2013
Personnel $148,108
Salary and Benefits for IT Specialist $51,700
Salary and Benefits for Advising Specialist $44,018
Salary for Part Time Office Assistant II $25,000
Salary for adjunct faculty for full course release for QEP Director $20,010
Non-instructional units for administrative personnel addt’l duties (6
NIUs) $7,380
Professional Development $36,200
QEP Administrative Personnel attend SACS Annual Meeting $7,000
Six advising specialists attend professional conferences or
workshops annually ($3000/ advising specialist) $18,000
Webinars & face-to-face professional development on campus
with outside experts $11,200
QEP Development $13,000
Software $80,000
Training $10,000
Assessment Costs $21,900
Administrative Costs $5,000
Total $314,208
Navigating the College Experience QEP Budget : Year 1 / FY2014
Personnel $217,248
Salary and Benefits for IT Specialist $52,620
Salary and Benefits for Advising Specialist $44,697
Salary and Benefits for Counseling Specialist $47,633
Salary for Part Time Office Assistant II $11,000
Salary for adjunct faculty for full course release for QEP Director $20,410
Faculty Stipend for piloting project (24 faculty per term @ 1 NIU
per term @ $615 per NIU) $33,360
Non-instructional units for administrative personnel addt’l duties (6
NIUs) $7,528
Professional Development $36,200
QEP Administrative Personnel attend SACS Annual Meeting $7,000
Six advising specialists attend professional conferences or
workshops annually ($3000/ advising specialist) $18,000
Webinars & face-to-face professional development on campus
with outside experts $11,200
Software $66,000
Training $10,000
Administrative Costs $2,500
Total $331,948
Santa Fe College
51
Navigating the College Experience QEP Budget : Year 2 / FY2015
Personnel $186,711
Salary and Benefits for IT Specialist $53,452
Salary and Benefits for Advising Specialist $45,389
Salary and Benefits for Counseling Specialist $48,374
Salary for Part Time Office Assistant II $11,000
Salary for adjunct faculty for full course release for QEP Director $20,818
Non-instructional units for administrative personnel addt’l duties (6
NIUs) $7,678
Professional Development $18,200
QEP Administrative Personnel attend SACS Annual Meeting $7,000
Webinars & face-to-face professional development on campus
with outside experts $11,200
Software $66,000
Training $10,000
Administrative Costs $2,500
Total $283,411
Navigating the College Experience QEP Budget : Year 3 / FY2016
Personnel $236,445
Salary and Benefits for IT Specialist $54,515
Salary and Benefits for Advising Specialist x 2 positions @$46,270 $92,540
Salary and Benefits for Counseling Specialist $49,324
Salary for Part Time Office Assistant II $11,000
Salary for adjunct faculty for full course release for QEP Director $21,234
Non-instructional units for administrative personnel addt’l duties (6
NIUs) $7,832
Professional Development $36,200
QEP Administrative Personnel attend SACS Annual Meeting $7,000
Six advising specialists attend professional conferences or
workshops annually ($3000/ advising specialist) $18,000
Webinars & face-to-face professional development on campus
with outside experts $11,200
Software $66,000
Training $10,000
Assessment Costs $21,900
Administrative Costs $2,500
Total $373,045
Santa Fe College
52
Navigating the College Experience QEP Budget : Year 4 / FY2017
Personnel $290,204
Salary and Benefits for IT Specialist $55,381
Salary and Benefits for Advising Specialist x 2 positions @$46,989 $93,979
Salary and Benefits for Counseling Specialist x 2 positions
@$50,099 $100,197
Salary for Part Time Office Assistant II $11,000
Salary for adjunct faculty for full course release for QEP Director $21,659
Non-instructional units for administrative personnel addt’l duties (6
NIUs) $7,988
Professional Development $18,200
QEP Administrative Personnel attend SACS Annual Meeting $7,000
Webinars & face-to-face professional development on campus
with outside experts $11,200
Software $66,000
Training $10,000
Administrative Costs $2,500
Total $386,904
Navigating the College Experience QEP Budget : Year 5 / FY2018
Personnel $295,720
Salary and Benefits for IT Specialist $56,484
Salary and Benefits for Advising Specialist x 2 positions @$47,911 $95,821
Salary and Benefits for Counseling Specialist x 2 positions
@$51,087 $102,174
Salary for Part Time Office Assistant II $11,000
Salary for adjunct faculty for full course release for QEP Director $22,093
Non-instructional units for administrative personnel addt’l duties (6
NIUs) $8,148
Professional Development $36,200
QEP Administrative Personnel attend SACS Annual Meeting $7,000
Six advising specialists attend professional conferences or
workshops annually ($3000/ advising specialist) $18,000
Webinars & face-to-face professional development on campus
with outside experts $11,200
Software $66,000
Training $10,000
Assessment Costs $10,500
Administrative Costs $2,500
Total $420,920
Santa Fe College
53
Total Budget APPENDIX J
Planning Year Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 Project Totals
Personnel
Salary and Benefits for IT
Specialist
$51,700 $52,620 $53,452 $54,515 $55,381 $56,484 $324,152
Salary and Benefits for
Advising Specialist
$44,018 $44,697 $45,389 $92,540 $93,979 $95,821 $416,444
Salary and Benefits for
Counseling Specialist
$47,633 $48,374 $49,324 $100,197 $102,174 $347,702
Salary for Part Time Office
Assistant II
$25,000 $11,000 $11,000 $11,000 $11,000 $11,000 $80,000
Salary for adjunct faculty for
full course release for QEP
Director
$20,010 $20,410 $20,818 $21,234 $21,659 $22,093 $126,224
Non-instructional units for
administrative personnel
addt’l duties (6 NIUs)
$7,380 $7,528 $7,678 $7,832 $7,988 $8,148 $46,554
Faculty Stipend for piloting
project (24 faculty per term @
1 NIU per term @ $615 per NIU)
$33,360 $33,360
Personnel Total $148,108 $217,248 $186,711 $236,445 $290,204 $295,720 $1,374,436
QEP Development
QEP Promotions and Marketing $13,000 $13,000
QEP Development Total $13,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,000
Professional Development
QEP Administrative Personnel
attend SACS Annual Meeting
$7,000 $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 $42,000
Six advising specialists attend
professional conferences or
workshops annually ($3000/
advising specialist)
$18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $72,000
Webinars & face-to-face
professional development on
campus with outside experts
$11,200 $11,200 $11,200 $11,200 $11,200 $11,200 $67,200
Professional Development
Total
$36,200 $36,200 $18,200 $36,200 $18,200 $36,200 $181,200
Santa Fe College
54
Planning Year Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 Project Totals
Software
SSP – open source;
implementation cost
$14,000 $14,000
Starfish – Part 1 $33,000 $33,000 $33,000 $33,000 $33,000 $33,000 $198,000
Starfish – Part 2 $33,000 $33,000 $33,000 $33,000 $33,000 $33,000 $198,000
Software Total $80,000 $66,000 $66,000 $66,000 $66,000 $66,000 $410,000
Faculty and Advisor Training $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $60,000
Assessment Costs
SENSE $11,400 $11,400 $22,800
CCSSE $10,500 $10,500 $10,500 $31,500
Assessment Costs Total $21,900 $0 $0 $21,900 $0 $10,500 $54,300
Administrative Supplies
Office Supplies $4,000 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $16,500
Computers/ IT/ Card Swipe
Systems
$1,000 $1,000
Administrative Supplies Total $5,000 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $17,500
Yearly Totals $314,208 $331,948 $283,411 $373,045 $386,904 $420,920 $2,110,436
Yearly Totals Include:
New Recurring Funds*: $130,000 $133,060 $2,673 $49,580 $53,603 $5,356 $374,272
New Non-Recurring Funds: $150,000 $61,360 $10,000 $28,000 $10,000 $28,000 $287,360
Total, New Funds by Year: $280,000 $194,420 $12,673 $77,580 $63,603 $33,356 $661,632
*Once appropriated, new recurring funds are assumed to be included in the base budget for all subsequent fiscal years
Santa Fe College
55
VIII . ASSESSMENT
To measure the success of Navigating the College Experience, Santa Fe College has
developed a plan to assess administrative and student learning outcomes associated with
project initiatives as well as to assess the efficacy of the project itself.
Assessment will be conducted cyclically, with data informing project design and
implementation over the five-year period. Parties responsible for administering planned
assessments will report findings to the QEP Director, who will convene the Assessment
Team to review data, identify areas that fall short of targets and/or expected progress, and
determine adjustments necessary for the project to succeed as planned. The following
figure suggests the cyclic quality of SF’s planned project assessment, a process ensuring
continuous improvement efforts:
As reflected in the following assessment plan, various assessments are included to yield
qualitative and quantitative feedback about the project as a whole as well as discrete
elements associated with specific actions of implementation. The data will be used for both
summative and formative evaluations, measuring results and efficacy and ensuring that
adjustments can be made if the project fails to meet targets. If data show that the plan is
falling short of its goal, project modifications such as the use of peer coaches and/or faculty
interventions to improve students’ metacognition may be deployed.
Identify Goals and Objectives of the
activity or process to be improved with
input from all stakeholders
Design materials needed to implement
the activity and develop the tools to
measure their effectiveness
Implement the activity or process
and use assessment tools to collect data
Analyze and evaluate the data to identify
gaps between desired and actual
results
Document results, outline any needed
changes, and inform
stakeholders of modifications
Santa Fe College
56
Assessment Plan
Goal: Improve the learning environment to cultivate educational persistence and academic perseverance for
students enrolled in targeted gateway courses and/or participating in progressive advisement
Administrative Outcome 1:
Increase efficiency and efficacy of communications supporting academic achievement
Targets Detailed Assessment Measures
Responsible
Unit/Person
Administer,
recurring
90% of students
enrolled in NCE
sections will receive
regular feedback about
progress towards
academic goals
Student Progress Reports
completed for participating
NCE sections
Institutional Research
(IR) designee
Fall 2013, each
term
Student notifications through
QEP-related software or
Student Information System
Advising, Counseling,
Career (ACC) Center
Director/College Prep
(CP) Advisement
Coordinator/IR
designee
Fall 2013, each
term
80% of NCE faculty and
staff will provide clear
and timely prompts for
student action related
to completion of
assignments, classes,
and academic
programs
Notifications/messages
assessment for quality (panel
review)
ACC Center Director/
CP Advisement
Coordinator/
QEP Director
Fall 2013, each
term
Audit timeliness of messages
through random sampling of
gradebook and attendance
records compared to Early
Alert file dates
IR designee Spring 2014,
each term
70% of NCE faculty and
staff will use
institutionally approved
stock messages
Student notifications through
QEP-related software or
Student Information System
IR designee Fall 2013, each
term
Administrative Outcome 2:
Provide personalized support for students working toward academic goals
Targets Detailed Assessment Measures
Responsible
Unit/Person
Administer,
recurring
100% of NCE AA-
seeking students will be
assigned an advisor
Student notifications through
QEP-related software or Student
Information System
IR designee Fall 2013, each
term
85% of NCE students
will see their assigned
or requested advisor/
counselor upon return
visits
Access and return visits to an
assigned advisor/counselor
ACC Center
Director/ CP
Advisement
Coordinator
Fall 2013, each
term
85% of NCE faculty and
staff will be trained in
current effective
interventions and
support strategies
Documented professional
development/training for faculty
and staff
ACC Center
Director/ CP
Advisement
Coordinator/ QEP
Director
Spring 2013,
annually
Key to responsible parties: Institutional Research (IR); Advising, Counseling, Career (ACC) Center; College
Prep (CP) Advisement
Santa Fe College
57
Assessment Plan
Goal: Improve the learning environment to cultivate educational persistence and academic perseverance for
students enrolled in targeted gateway courses and/or participating in progressive advisement
Administrative Outcome 3:
Make student learning central to advisement processes
Targets Detailed Assessment Measures
Responsible
Unit/Person
Administer,
recurring
85% of NCE staff will
be trained in current
effective developmental
advisement methods
Documented professional
development/training for staff
ACC Center
Director/ CP
Advisement
Coordinator
Spring 2015,
annually
75% of NCE students
participating in an
advisement session will
demonstrate a
documented change in
knowledge, attitude, or
behavior
Advisement/Counseling session
exit surveys, assessments, or
associated documents (action
plans, etc.)
ACC Center
Director/ CP
Advisement
Coordinator
Fall 2013,
each term
Administrative Outcome 4:
Improve student engagement
Targets Detailed Assessment Measures
Responsible
Unit/Person
Administer,
recurring
Discrete items on
CCSSE/ SENSE show
closing gap campus-
wide and with cohort
institutions over 5
years
CCSSE IR designee Spring 2013,
every 3 years
SENSE IR designee Fall 2012,
every 3 years
Custom Surveys IR designee Spring 2013,
annually
Participating NCE
students will report
higher levels of
engagement than
non-participants
CCSSE IR designee Spring 2013,
every 3 years
SENSE IR designee Fall 2012,
every 3 years
Custom Surveys IR designee Spring 2013,
annually
Key to responsible parties: Institutional Research (IR); Advising, Counseling, Career (ACC) Center; College
Prep (CP) Advisement
Santa Fe College
58
Assessment Plan
Performance Indicator 1:
Increased students’ educational persistence in targeted gateway courses
Outcome Targets
Detailed Assessment
Measures
Responsible
Unit/Person
Administer,
recurring
Improved
retention in
targeted gateway
courses
1% increase in fall to
fall retention in each
year of
implementation for
targeted gateway
courses
Fall to fall retention rates
for targeted gateway
courses: All sections by
course; QEP sections by
course and aggregate;
non-QEP sections by
course and aggregate
IR designee Fall 2012,
annually
Decrease gap
between retention
rates of participating
preparatory and of
participating college
credit targeted
gateway courses by
1% fall to spring and
by 1% fall to fall for
each year of
implementation
Comparative retention
rates for preparatory and
college credit targeted
gateway courses: fall to
spring all prep & all non-
prep; fall to fall all prep &
all non-prep; fall to spring
participating prep & non-
prep; fall to fall
participating prep & non-
prep
IR designee Fall 2012,
each term
Greater
consistency in
persistence
among students
earning C+ or
lower in targeted
gateway courses
Reduction of the IQR
in targeted gateway
courses by 2018
by 10% for F_W grades
by 8% for D+_D grades
by 6% for C+_C grades
The interquartile range
(IQR) in fall to fall retention
rates for targeted gateway
courses, by course grade:
IQR fall-to-fall for all
sections; QEP sections;
non-QEP sections
IR designee Fall 2012,
annually
Improved student
success in
targeted gateway
courses
3% increase in
successful
completions in
participating targeted
gateway courses by
2018
Number of students
successfully completing
the course with a grade of
C or better: all sections by
course; QEP sections by
course; non-QEP sections
by course; aggregate
IR designee Fall 2012,
recurring
each term
Improved
program
completion rates
for students
participating in
progressive
advisement
Better program
completion rates for
students who
participate in
progressive
advisement than for
overall college
population by 2018
Comparative program
completion rates for
participating NCE, non-
participating NCE, and
nonparticipating students
(overall college)
IR designee Fall 2015,
recurring
annually
Santa Fe College
59
Performance Indicator 2:
Student learning related to academic perseverance for students participating in
progressive advisement
Student Learning
Outcomes Targets
Detailed Assessment
Measures
Responsible
Unit/Person
Administer,
recurring
Participating
students will make
information-based
academic decisions
1.1 identify an
academic goal
1.2 select a
program of
study aligned
with their
academic goal
1.3 develop a
semester-by-
semester
academic plan
(MAP)
appropriate to
life situation
and academic
goal
65% of participating
students will apply
institutional and self-
knowledge to make
informed decisions
regarding academic
goals and course
selection
Advisement/
Counseling session exit
surveys
ACC Center
Director/CP
Advisement
Coordinator
Fall 2013,
each term
Indicators of academic
planning activities for
participating students:
use of advisement
services, use of career
counseling services, My
Academic Plan (MAP)
on file, MAP linked to
personal inventory
ACC Center
Director/CP
Advisement
Coordinator
Fall 2013,
each term
Annual surveys of
students
IR designee Spring
2013,
annually
85% of participating
A.A. students will
have an Academic
Plan on file by the
time they have
accumulated 15
credit hours
My Academic Plan
(MAP) on file by 15
credit hours for
participating NCE, non-
participating NCE, and
nonparticipating
students
IR designee/
ACC Center
Director
Spring
2013,
annually
Santa Fe College
60
Student Learning
Outcomes Targets
Detailed Assessment
Measures
Responsible
Unit/Person
Administer,
recurring
Participating
students will
appraise their
academic
performance
realistically
2.1 monitor
academic
performance
during and at
the close of a
semester
2.2 identify
academic
strengths and
weaknesses
2.3 revise their
academic goal
and/or plan
when
necessary
65% of participating
students will
realistically self-
assess their
academic progress,
areas of challenge,
and areas of
strength
Comparison of student
and staff assessments
(random sample)
ACC Center
Director/CP
Advisement
Coordinator
Spring
2014,
each term
Action Plans filed by
participating NCE, non-
participating NCE, and
nonparticipating
students
ACC Center
Director/CP
Advisement
Coordinator
Fall 2013,
each term
Annual surveys of
students
IR designee Spring
2013,
annually
90% of students
selected for
progressive
advisement will
meet with advisor in
first semester of
enrollment and
thereafter consult
with advisor as
needed
Use of advisement
services for students
testing into 1 prep
(selected for
progressive
advisement)
ACC Center
Director
Spring
2016,
each term
Santa Fe College
61
Student Learning
Outcomes Targets
Detailed Assessment
Measures
Responsible
Unit/Person Administer
Participating
students will
identify and engage
in activities that
support learning
and academic
achievement
3.1 complete
assigned class
work and fulfill
course
requirements
3.2 complete
academic
support
activities
identified in an
early alert
3.3 develop an
action plan to
address
identified
academic
weaknesses or
challenges
3.4 complete action
plan activities
and re-assess
65% of participating
students will
successfully
complete
assignments,
classes, and
academic programs
Comparative indicators
among participating
NCE, non-participating
NCE, and
nonparticipating
students: GPA, course
grades, filed early alerts
indicating missing
assignments, program
completion rates
ACC Center
Director/CP
Advisement
Coordinator/
IR designee
Fall 2013,
each term
65% of participating
students receiving
an early alert will
develop and
execute an action
plan
Action plans generated
through early alert
and
closed/completed action
plans
ACC Center
Director/CP
Advisement
Coordinator
Fall 2013,
each term
Increased use of
institutionally
provided support
services
Rates of use of services
(advising, counseling,
career counseling,
tutoring, academic
support labs)
IR designee Fall 2013,
annually
Key to responsible parties: Institutional Research (IR); Advising, Counseling, Career (ACC) Center; College
Prep (CP) Advisement
Santa Fe College
62
IX. REFERENCES
Bean, J. P., & Eaton, S. B. (2000). A psychological model of college student retention. In
J. M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 48-61). Nashville,
TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Boroch, D., Hope, L., Smith, B., Gabriner, R., Mery, P., Johnstone, R., & Asera, R. (2010).
Student success in community colleges: A practical guide to developmental
education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bourdon, C. M., & Carducci, R. (2002). What works in the community colleges: A synthesis
of the literature on best practices. Los Angeles: UCLA Graduate School of
Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED471397).
Center for Community College Student Engagement. (2012). A matter of degrees:
Promising practices for community college student success (a first look). Austin:
University of Texas at Austin, Community College Leadership Program. Retrieved
from http://www.ccsse.org/center/
resources/docs/publications/A_Matter_of_Degrees_02-02-12.pdf.
Crisp, G., & Mina, L. (2012). The community college: Retention trends and issues. In A.
Seidman (Ed.), College student retention: Formula for student success (2nd ed.) (pp.
147-165). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Crookston, B. B. (1972). A developmental view of academic advising as teaching. Journal
of College Student Personnel, 13, 12-17. Reprinted in NACADA Journal, 14(2)
(1994), 5-9.
Eimers, M. T. (2000, May). Assessing the impact of the Early Alert Program. Paper
presented at the Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research,
Cincinnati, OH. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED446511).
Glennie, E. J. (2010). Coping and Resilience. In J. A. Rosen, E. J. Glennie, B. W. Dalton,
J. M. Lennon, and R. N. Bozick (Eds.), Noncognitive skills in the classroom: New
perspectives on educational research (pp. 169-194). RTI Press prublication No.
BK-0004-1009. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International. doi: 10.3768
Habley, W. R. & Bloom, J. L. (2007). Giving advice that makes a difference. In G. L. Kramer
(Ed.), Fostering student success in the campus community (pp. 171-192). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Keller, D. A. (2011). An integrated model of early community college student success:
Understanding success in developmental mathematics (Doctoral dissertation).
Available from Iowa Research Online. Retrieved from http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/996
Santa Fe College
63
Kuh, G. D. (2008). Advising for student success. In V. N. Gordon, W. R. Habley, T. J.
Grites, & associates (Eds.), Academic advising: A comprehensive handbook (2nd
ed.) (pp. 68-84). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T. M., Shoup, R., & Kinzie, J. (2008). Unmasking the effects of student
engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. The Journal of Higher
Education, 79, 540-563. doi:10.1353/jhe.0.0019.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2006). What matters to
student success: A review of the literature. Commissioned Report for the National
Symposium on Postsecondary Student Success. National Postsecondary
Education Cooperative. Retrieved from nces.ed.gov/npec/pdf/kuh_team_report.pdf.
Little, R. (2012). Increase student retention rates with practical action plans and case
management. [Presentation slides].
Little, R. (2011, December 15). The student success plan: Case management and
intervention software. Educause Quarterly. Retrieved from
http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/student-success-plan-case-management-and-
intervention-software
Moxley, D., Najor-Durack, A., & Dumbrigue, C. (2001). Keeping students in higher
education: Successful practices and strategies for retention. London, UK:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Muraskin, L., & Lee, J. (2004). Raising the graduation rates of low-income college
students. Washington, DC: Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher
Education.
Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of
research. (Vol. 2). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Pizzolato, J. E. (2008). Advisor, teacher, partner: Using the Learning Partnerships Model
to reshape academic advising. About Campus, 18-25. Reprint in Wiley
InterScience. doi:10.1002/abc.243.
Schilling, K. M., & Schilling, K. L. (2005). Expectations and performance. In M. L. Upcraft,
J. N. Gardener, & B. O. Barefoot (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the first-year
student: A handbook for improving the first year of college (pp. 108-120). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Scott-Clayton, J. (2011). The shapeless river: Does a lack of structure inhibit students’
progress at community colleges? CCRC Working Paper No. 25. New York, NY:
Community College Research Center, Columbia University.
Santa Fe College
64
Seidman, A. (2012). Taking action: A retention formula and model for student success. In
A. Seidman (Ed.), College student retention: Formula for student success (2nd ed.)
(pp. 267-284). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Sinclair Community College. (2012). Early alert program. Retrieved from
http://www.sinclair.edu/support/success/ea/?searchTerm=Early%20Alert%20classro
om%20assistance%20program
Sinclair Community College. (2012). Resources. Retrieved from
https://resources.sinclair.edu/MyGPS/search.html
Sloan, B., Jefferson, S., Search, S., & Cox, T. (2005). Tallahassee Community College's
progressive advising system: An online academic planning and resource system for
individualized student advising. Community College Journal of Research & Practice,
29(8), 659-660. doi:10.1080/10668920591005675.
Tallahassee Community College. (2012). TCC’s progressive advising model, 2010-2011.
Retrieved from
http://www.tcc.cc.fl.us/media/files/student_affairs_files/counseling/tcc_s_progressive
_advising_model
Tinto, V. (2012). Completing college: Rethinking institutional action. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Upcraft, M. L., Gardener, J. N., & Barefoot, B. O. (2005). Challenging and supporting the
first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Santa Fe College
65
X. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Project Personnel (Work Groups) APPENDIX B: Concept Systems Data: Topic Suggestion Cluster Maps APPENDIX C: Topic Suggestion Statements (ordered by cluster) APPENDIX D: Concept Systems Data: Go Zone Plot Graphs APPENDIX E: Institutional Research Data for Selected Gateway Courses APPENDIX F: Academic Advising Syllabus (proposed) APPENDIX G: Progressive Advisement Process (working document) APPENDIX H: Progressive Advisement Checklists (proposed) APPENDIX I: Standards for Planning and Performance for QEP Director APPENDIX J: Total Budget
Santa Fe College
66
Project Personnel (Work Groups) APPENDIX A
QEP Topic Selection Team (Phase 1 Leadership Team) Director: Dave Yonutas (replaced Eugene Jones in May 2011)
Lisa Armour Lola Christian Vilma Fuentes Eugene Jones Kim Kendall David Price
Dan Rodkin Carlos Sosa (student) Clay Smith Marilyn Tubb David Yonutas Steve Yongue (stepped down)
QEP Topic Sorting and Ranking Group Audrey Holt Cathy Swan Clay Smith David Price Debbie Reid Elizabeth Drake Kevin Kasper Laurel Severino Natasha Hines Peter Concannon Alora Haynes Bob Wolfson Brandon Wilson Barbara Jessie
Claudia Connelly Dan Rodkin Dana Lindsey Dave Yonutas Jodi Long Kathleen Arnold Kim Kendall Marilyn Tubb Scott Jamison Steve Yongue Susan Miller Tim Modisette Angie Siekers Celeste Otero
Debi McElroy Jorge Tormes Josephine Gaskin Karen Lake Lola Christian Brit Sosa (student) Phillip Thomasii (student) Stephanie Williams (student) SG Internal SG Secretary SG Senate Clay Kallman (community member) David Ramsey (community member) Nona Jones (community member)
QEP Steering Committee (Phase 2 Leadership Team) Co-Chairs: Jodi Long and Rhonda Morris Lisa Armour Kathleen (Katey) Arnold David Durkee (student) Sharon Loschiavo Takela Perry David Price
Dan Rodkin Laurel Severino Jennifer Thomas Bob Wolfson Dave Yonutas
Support Work
Sarah Anderson Tabriesha Baker Angie Siekers Betty Thompson Steve Younge
Santa Fe College
67
QEP Work Groups (Phase 2 Research and Design Teams)
Research Work (2 Teams)
Team Leaders: Lisa Armour (Institutional) and Jodi Long (Library) Gary Hartge Poorya Shidfar
Diana Matthews Jenna Miller Rhonda Morris
Progressive Advising Resources and Implementation Work Groups (2 Teams)
Team Leaders: Jennifer Thomas and Sharon Loschiavo
Julie Crosby Darrius Demps Mark Dicks David Houder Gayle Jones Angela Long Jodi Long Sheila Lucas Tom Mason Maureen McFarlane
Rhonda Morris Kerry-Ann Rawls Elizabeth O'Reggio Douglas Robertson Sari Sanborn Kalpana Swamy Brandy Williams Jimmy Yawn Steve Yongue Lara Zwilling
Online Info Hub / eSantaFe Portal Work Group
Team Leader: Dan Rodkin
Lisa Auerbach Kevin Bird Deborah Crumpton David Durkee Gayle Jones David Houder Mike Hutley Steve Jensen Ken Johnson Jenny Lackey
Jodi Long Maureen McFarlane Rhonda Morris Matt Peters Dan Rodkin Sari Sanborn Justin Snell Lynn Sullivan Jennifer Thomas Marilyn Tubb
Advising and Retention Software/Programming Work Group
Team Leader: Rhonda Morris
Katey Arnold Lisa Auerbach Angela Carter John Chapman Claudia Connelly Virginie Crisalle Richard Dickson Anedria Gunn Mike Hutley Jim Keites Larry Kiser
Birgitta Kimura Jodi Long Sharon Loshiavo Philana Marshall Maureen McFarlane Kelly Mongiovi Takela Perry Korona Skipper Jen Thomas Laura Viti Eugenio Zaldivar
Santa Fe College
68
Faculty Work Group for Intervention (Early Alert / APR)
Team Leader: Rhonda Morris
Richard Dickson Saundra Henderson Greg Jones Tari Kendall Brigitta Kimura Melissa Orobitg Jorie Scholnik Nilanjana Sengupta [Caballero] Deborah Simon Elizabeth Strickland Cathy Swan Rita Torto Bob Wolfson Eugenio Zaldivar
Peer Coaches Work Group
Team Leader: Laurel Severino
Brandy Burgess John Chapman Anedria Gunn Michael Hutley Jim Keites Elizabeth O’Reggio Matt Stubbington Kalpana Swamy Brandon Wilson Jimmy Yawn
Marketing Steering Group
Bennye Alligood Lisa Armour Katey Arnold Chuck Clemons Vilma Fuentes David Houder Jodi Long Rhonda Morris Clay Smith Marilynn Tubbs Dave Yonutas
Santa Fe College
69
Concept Systems Data: Topic Suggestion Cluster Maps APPENDIX B
Using the Concept Systems, Inc. software, the 104 topic suggestions were ultimately
classified into five categories: development; parking; quality of programs, classes and
schedules; technology; and advisement. In the following cluster maps, fewer layers
indicate topics being rated lower on the Likert scale of 1 to 5. The fifth layer is
representative of the most highly rated topics; the topics in this layer were rated greater
than 3.37 in all criteria by the raters. Within the criteria of importance and number of
students impacted, the advisement cluster had five layers, indicative of this category having
the most highly-ranked statements. And, within the relationship to student learning cluster
map, the advisement category had four layers. This is still consistent with highly-ranked
topic suggestions. Therefore, the institution decided to explore the proposed topics
contained within the advisement category, as these suggestions would likely yield a QEP
topic that would significantly impact many students, keeping with SF’s mission of adding
value to the lives of our students.
Santa Fe College
70
Topic Suggestion Statements (ordered by cluster) APPENDIX C
1. Development
1. Survey faculty for ideas about professional development that can occur on campus. Implement the
common ideas that come out of the survey. (1)
2. Provide faculty training that will mold current curriculum to a format that the millennial generation
can relate to. Provide more than just technical support, rather information on how to present
material to keep students engaged. (2)
3. Learning Commons that has one-stop access to multi-discipline faculty doing out-of-office office
hours, AA advisors, and a computer lab (5)
4. Customer service education for all employees (12)
5. Provide a checks and balances system through employee cross training and information sharing,
Cross training across and within departments will allow SF to better service students (14)
6. Train Disabilities Resource Center staff so that they can help their students taking online classes. (30)
7. Provide quality continuing education courses/ seminars on pedagogy. Many professors have no
formal training in educational principles and methodology. These are key to effective instruction.
(31)
8. Require training for online teaching before professors can offer classes through Angel (33)
9. Technology literacy program for students and employees (41)
10. Maintain a room that has the necessary equipment to facilitate intercultural experiences - lab with
Elluminate or Skype capabilities on large screen. Software to help students explore other cultures,
etc (44)
11. Adjuncts should have a teaching certificate OR be trained in how to teach by the college. Some are
real professionals, especially the retired teachers, others are just at SF to make a little money while
attending UF. There is a difference in quality. (47)
12. Improve online aspects of instruction by offering serious professional development for faculty. (55)
13. If we want to offer online courses we need to do it right.We need opportunities for Prof.
Develop.(in-house or we could take other institutions' online courses). Many faculty who teach
online have never taken an online course themselves. (56)
14. Professional Development for Faculty - Encourage faculty to develop new ways of teaching,
consistency and get them excited about their subject. (62)
15. Improve customer service through training and infrastructure (67)
16. Increase the number of full-time lines (68)
17. Have a meaningful method of Student Evals that elicits widespread response (96)
18. Set up mini studios for students to work on audio, PowerPoint, video, or other types of multimedia
individual or collaborative projects for classes. These projects could be done as research, tutorials,
or presentations and assessed. (97)
19. Provide a common Student Union' type area for students of all disciplines to gather. Should be
something other than a gaming or recreation room as we have in S Bldg. More of an intersection of
discourse, activity, and social interaction. (98)
20. Monthly campus roundtables involving faculty and staff from all departments across campus in
collaboration with students to discuss the happenings, concerns, and problems about Santa Fe (104)
Santa Fe College
71
2. Parking
1. Cleaner buildings, updated equipment and improved campus safety via more lighting (3)
2. Provide more convenient parking and explore the use of shuttles. (25)
3. Offer more and better food choices. (29)
4. Higher quality and quantity of study rooms, including sound proofing (35)
5. Better equipped biology labs! (36)
6. There should be more informal and convenient places for students to sit and study. (37)
7. What happened with the 2 year schedule for faculty? It should be possible to have a basic schedule
for the most popular times already in place for the next 6 semesters. Those times should be assigned
to full-time or long-term adjuncts. (57)
8. Updated classrooms and labs (equipment) (82)
9. Increase the symmetry, collaboration, and coordination between the Northwest campus and all
satellite campuses (Andrews Center, Downtown, Blount Center, Watson Center, etc.) (95)
3. Programs, Classes and Schedules
1. Provide interdisciplinary courses where faculty work together from related or connected disciplines
to provide a more in depth learning experience, especially for required upper level courses. (6)
2. Add bachelor's degrees in math education and science education. (7)
3. Include environmental awareness in more aspects of student life and education. (8)
4. Provide realistic community outreach and service learning activities, such as a K-12 urban education
program, that reflect the theoretical applications discussed in the classroom (21)
5. Offer alternative class schedules such as multiple start dates (22)
6. Offer more flexible time for classes, including evenings in the 50-75 min. bracket (T&H and M,W&F).
(23)
7. Make the centers work. Push Academic Foundations and the basic gen ed tc classes to make. They
are canceled too early before they even have a chance. At some point we have to keep them open at
any number or we will never gain credibility. (24)
8. Create an applied math curriculum for STEM courses (27)
9. Offer studio math for all math classes. (28)
10. more active learning for students who learn better with doing hands-on exercises (32)
11. Innovative delivery methods like symposiums on Great Books and Ideas (38)
12. Address basic reading, writing, and critical thinking deficits through targeted courses and content in
all courses. (39)
13. A systemic redesign of Academic Foundations, especially reading/writing, with the infrastructure to
support such an endeavor would benefit the whole college since nearly half of our students come
through Prep as well as increase student retention. (40)
14. Include science prep courses in Academic foundations to help address the science gap (42)
15. Using an interdiscipinary group of faculty, plan and implement a 1st semester curriculum that
combines courses for an A.A. degree with curriculum that focuses on the fresmen experience, such
as how to use academic sucess skills in different subjects. (45)
16. Open Educational Resources Initiative on SF's Campus. (50)
17. Start a collaborative project with public schools to make sure graduating high school students have
the skills required to be successful in college. (53)
Santa Fe College
72
18. Work with local businesses/industries to provide students with relevant volunteer/internship
opportunities(based on interests/program of study)-to teach practical working skills needed for the
work force. May help them determine educational path. (58)
19. A Capstone Course in which students create E-PORTFOLIOS, synthesizing course work completed
over two years, to present and reflect on each student's unique educational experience. Portfolios
could demonstrate acquisition of SACS Learning Outcomes. (60)
20. Guaranteed Class Schedules - With a guaranteed class schedule for the year, students would be able
to plan their life schedule around the classes, resulting in better retention and even recruitment.
(63)
21. Develop and Honors Degree program (all honors courses) (69)
22. Require learning communities for FTIC (70)
23. Science to be a recognized need in academic foundations (71)
24. Clarify the knowledge and skill sets associated with each category of general education. (73)
25. Emporium approach to communication instruction, in addition to mathematics. (74)
26. Have institution investigate and implement a learning community. (78)
27. Curriculum moving to more scenarios, role-playing, more involvement to increase engagement. (79)
28. Adopt a coordinated effort to develop open access textbooks in major courses offered at SF. (80)
29. More opportunities for students to put to use what they are learning in the classroom increase
engagement. (81)
30. labs for the students who are taking medical terminology and the body system classes. like the
writing and reading labs (94)
4. Technology
1. More live classroom tech support (4)
2. Upgrade technology infrastructure college wide so that we can be more efficient about using our
resources to develop an intergrated student database, track students progress towards achieving
their goals and identify interventions when needed. (19)
3. Require students to have mobile devices (26)
4. Improve IT infrastructure. eSantaFe/eStaff should not go offline during busy times like registration.
(54)
5. Main website takes soooo long to load the right nav bar and it is inaccessible to screen readers and
certain mobile devices. (59)
6. Enhanced College Telephone Service - The ability to talk with a person when calling. This would
also enhance recruitment and retention. (61)
7. Enhanced Technology - The project might include offering more on-line tutoring services, making
sure that all classrooms are equipped with computers and projectors and I-clickers for interactive
learning, smartboards, wireless access and instructional lab (64)
8. Require all students to have their own laptops. (65)
9. A dashboard on the SF website with information about every programs success rates (66)
10. Overall support for online learning, including more iLink rooms, along with support for personnel
with a help desk (75)
11. The SF website should be more simple for student navigating to the areas and trying to find specifics.
(Too busy). (86)
12. Provide an easier to navigate website that is more informative providing informational items simply
one click away (101)
Santa Fe College
73
13. Provide a more collaborative environment-a digital campus that is integrated with the actual on-site
campus and the faculty, students, and staff (102)
5. Advisement
1. Increased participation in the use of Academic Progress Reports to improve student retention and
graduation. (9)
2. increase program advisement throughout all campuses (10)
3. Increase evening and weekend services to enhance student services including: academic
advisement, financial aid, registration, labs, library, tutoring, counseling, etc. (11)
4. Create an information and referral office for students (13)
5. Improve early alert systems that identify and provide timely support for all students demonstrating
poor academic performance. (15)
6. When students withdraw from a class, they can do so easily on eSantaFe and without having to cite a
reason. Develop a function in eSanta Fe--e.g., a check list, an entry field--that asks students their
reasons so that trends can be identified. (16)
7. Move to a faculty model of advising to accommodate advisor/advisee assignments for students (17)
8. Assign a mentor to every student (18)
9. Develop a true Freshman Year Experience program, integrating the College Success curriculum,
mentoring initiative, common reading experience, and intentional co-curricular activities. (20)
10. invest in learning labs and free tutoring across all disciplines (34)
11. Develop a 1 page multi-index assessment that answers the question, How am I doing as a student?
It could include current GPA, Academic Plan, Attendance %, Funding for College, level of
engagement, Semester Load, Motivation, etc. Benefits students, Par (43)
12. Developing an innovative student retention program. Planning would involve not only
administrators, but staff, faculty, and students who should play a major role in processing and
recommending the components of a succesful retention program. (46)
13. Provide mandatory technology & information literacy training for students as part of a larger
required orientation to college. Should happen in their 1st semester & include hands-on training in
the use of, at least, eSantaFe, ANGEL, & the library. (48)
14. Ask faculty to provide more information to students before registration about their teaching style so
students can better match learning styles with teaching styles (49)
15. How to study skills. Where to study.Study area set up. Note taking styles. Memorizing or recall of
information. How to study for math. How to study for foreign languages. How to take tests.
Textbook reading, comprehension, outlining and highlighting. (51)
16. Our students need a more uniform and informational 1st year. Incoming students don't know how to
succeed in college, think that it is just like high school. Make orientation mandatory. Get students
with similar schedules interacting. Build SF culture (52)
17. Financial aid counselor assigned to each student. (72)
18. Safety net for students (planning, mentoring, assist) (76)
19. Prepare students for their in-class responsibilities before the first day of their first term. (77)
20. Increased cross training to improve the gap so students can get their information when needed
without having to come back several times for their answer, which leads the student frustrated. (83)
21. A introduction course to all students entering SF be required giving them information about
academic, couseling, things necessary to succeed in their career. (84)
22. Enrollment deadline for each semester. (85)
Santa Fe College
74
23. Helping adult students to be more technology knowledgable. (87)
24. Make the quantitative data gained from student evaluations of professors accessible to students like
UF, USF and the major universities do. Also, allow comments in student evals for more meaningful
feedback. (88)
25. Maintain a database of past and present course syllabi to make it easier for students to see what a
class entails, and make it easier when students transfer and need to see about course equivalencies.
(89)
26. Strengthen the services and support available to evening and weekend students. For example during
the evening hours academic advisors, financial aid counselors, and other support that daytime
students benefit from would be more available (90)
27. More support for My Brother's Keeper Program (91)
28. Have remediation courses/assistance/tutoring easily available for any and all students that need this
support in order to be successful (92)
29. Offer students 1 hour workshops on how to use ANGEL or whatever LMS is used during the first two
weeks of class. (93)
30. Require that students who wish to enroll in online courses meet the established requirements for
online learning. (99)
31. Assess the current retetion rates of all students and develop a plan to increase success rates. Success
rates determined not by graduation but grade in all course offerings. (100)
32. Have faculty and staff volunteer as campus mentors to help guide students through their
educational journey and direct them through concerns they have on campus (103)
Santa Fe College
75
Concept Systems Data: Go Zone Plot Graphs APPENDIX D
Santa Fe College
76
Institutional Research Data for Selected Gateway Courses APPENDIX E
ENC 0025
Spring 2011 Fall
2011
Total of 664, Students Enrolled in ENC 0025 in Fall 2010 or 100%
Retention Rate
Dep. of Institutional Research & QEP Committee
15 9/12/12
Santa Fe College
77
ENC 0025
Dep. of Institutional Research & QEP Committee
16 9/12/12
There are five “I” grades in this group.
0 50 100 150 200 250
A_B+_B
C+_C
D+_D
F_W
243
113
152
151
219
105
109
53
160
64
46
21
A_B+_B C+_C D+_D F_W
Population Fa 11 160 64 46 21
Population Sp 11 219 105 109 53
Population Fa 10 243 113 152 151
ENC
00
25
Population Fa 11
Population Sp 11
Population Fa 10
Santa Fe College
78
ENC 1101
Spring 2011 Fall
2011
Total of 2181, Students Enrolled in ENC 1101 in Fall 2010 or 100%
Retention Rate
Dep. of Institutional Research & QEP Committee
17 9/12/12
Santa Fe College
79
ENC 1101
Dep. of Institutional Research & QEP Committee
18 9/12/12
There are ten “I” grades in this group.
0 500 1000 1500
A_B+_B
C+_C
D+_D
F_W
1091
418
170
492
1015
389
134
280
829
280
77
148
A_B+_B C+_C D+_D F_W
Population Fa 11 829 280 77 148
Population Sp 11 1015 389 134 280
Population Fa 10 1091 418 170 492
ENC
11
01
Population Fa 11
Population Sp 11
Population Fa 10
Santa Fe College
80
Santa Fe College
81
MAT 0028
Dep. of Institutional Research & QEP Committee
22 9/12/12
There are three “I” grades in this group.
0 100 200 300
A_B+_B
C+_C
D+_D
F_W
212
112
98
180
189
93
76
74
140
62
42
36
A_B+_B C+_C D+_D F_W
Population Fa 11 140 62 42 36
Population Sp 11 189 93 76 74
Population Fa 10 212 112 98 180
MA
T00
28
Population Fa 11
Population Sp 11
Population Fa 10
Santa Fe College
82
Spring 2011 Fall
2011
Total of 2014, Students Enrolled in MAT 1033 in Fall 2010 or 100%
Retention Rate
MAT 1033
Dep. of Institutional Research & QEP Committee
23 9/12/12
Santa Fe College
83
MAT 1033
Dep. of Institutional Research & QEP Committee
24 9/12/12
0 200 400 600 800
A_B+_B
C+_C
D+_D
F_W
612
450
247
705
569
419
230
458
477
324
156
296
A_B+_B C+_C D+_D F_W
Population Fa 11 477 324 156 296
Population Sp 11 569 419 230 458
Population Fa 10 612 450 247 705
MA
T10
33
Population Fa 11
Population Sp 11
Population Fa 10
Santa Fe College
84
Academic Advising Syllabus (proposed) APPENDIX F
Academic Advisement Syllabus
PURPOSE
The Academic Advisors at Santa Fe College are here to assist students through the advisement and registration processes by providing accurate and effective support and resources that will enable students to identify their educational goals, establish an academic plan and select appropriate courses, through different methods, in order to help ensure a successful higher education experience.
LEARNING OUTCOMES
Students will know who their Academic Advisor is, meet with their Advisor within their first semester of enrollment, and thereafter consult with their Advisor when needed.
Students will identify personal and academic concerns to make informed decisions regarding their degree and career goal(s).
Students will demonstrate knowledge about college resources.
Students will develop and adhere to a personalized academic plan in order to help them reach their intended academic goal(s).
Students will be able to realistically assess their performance and/or behavior, and develop and follow an action plan to overcome challenges.
EXPECTATIONS
Academic Advisement at Santa Fe College is part of a progressive advisement process designed to help you achieve your academic and career goal(s). Please be sure to consult regularly with your Advisor in order to achieve maximum benefits.
Student Responsibilities:
Arrive prepared to advising sessions, with advising materials and questions for discussion
Be an active participant in the advising process
Develop realistic and attainable educational and career goals
Become familiar with college resources, programs, policies and procedures, and critical dates
Implements action items identified in the advising process
Regularly check notifications, and your degree audit on eSantaFe
Advisor Responsibilities:
Assist students with initial exploration of their educational and career goals and refer as needed
Assist students with selecting courses based on interests, values and skills to fulfill general education and/or program requirements
Maintain confidentiality and fully support policies and procedures of the institution
Provide information about resource and opportunities available
Facilitate student involvement and engagement in educational process
Santa Fe College
85
Progressive Advisement Process (working document) APPENDIX G
PROGRESSIVE ADVISEMENT PROCESS
(drafted by QEP Advisement Work Teams)
Step 1: Pre-Orientation
- Learning Outcomes: o Students will identify personal and academic concerns to make informed
decisions regarding their degree and career goal(s). - Personal inventory as part of application
o In order to electronically gather information from students about their situation, challenges they may have and goals, etc.
- Pre-orientation checklist o That displays immediately after completion of application (see appendix 1)
Will include links to appropriate resources (such as CRC)
Step 2: Orientation & meet and greet
- Learning Outcomes: o Students will know who their Academic Advisor is, meet with their Advisor within
their first semester of enrollment, and thereafter consult with their Advisor when
needed.
o Students will demonstrate knowledge about college resources.
- Still waiting on report as to what it looks like
- (Jen’s thoughts): Students attend on campus or online New Student Orientation then will
be taken/directed to their Advisor for a short advisement session, where student will be
advised on what classes to take for their first semester and an overview and start of the
educational plan is discussed.
- Student will leave session with a follow-up appointment already scheduled
Step 3: Initial Advisement Session
- Learning Outcomes: o Students will know who their Academic Advisor is, meet with their Advisor within
their first semester of enrollment, and thereafter consult with their Advisor when
needed.
o Students will identify personal and academic concerns to make informed decisions
regarding their degree and career goal(s).
o Students will be able to realistically assess their performance and/or behavior, and
develop and follow an action plan to overcome challenges.
- This is the appointment made at the original meet & greet
- Reminder sent to student (hopefully) week before, and day before (using new software)
- Initial Advisement Session checklist items discussed (see appendix 2)
Santa Fe College
86
Step 4: My Academic Plan
- Learning Outcomes: o Students will know who their Academic Advisor is, meet with their Advisor within
their first semester of enrollment, and thereafter consult with their Advisor when
needed.
o Students will identify personal and academic concerns to make informed decisions
regarding their degree and career goal(s).
o Students will develop and adhere to a personalized academic plan in order to help
them reach their intended academic goal(s).
o Students will be able to realistically assess their performance and/or behavior, and
develop and follow an action plan to overcome challenges.
- Discuss students current situation, any struggles and/or successes
- Map out the education plan with student (see appendix 3)
- Education plan worksheet:
http://dept.sfcollege.edu/aar/content/docs/Unofficial_Educational_Plan_May_2012_Versi
on.pdf
Step 5: Early intervention (ongoing)
- Learning Outcomes: o Students will know who their Academic Advisor is, meet with their Advisor within
their first semester of enrollment, and thereafter consult with their Advisor when
needed.
o Students will identify personal and academic concerns to make informed decisions
regarding their degree and career goal(s).
o Students will demonstrate knowledge about college resources.
o Students will be able to realistically assess their performance and/or behavior, and
develop and follow an action plan to overcome challenges.
- When an early alert is initiated, first step should be a request for student to see their
Advisor (automated by new software) (see appendix 4)
- If student is on “Academic Warning” or “Financial Aid Probation” they will have a hard stop
and directed to sign up for a PASS workshop or see a counselor in order to have their stop
removed
- Other Triggers (not hard stops – but should notify student and Advisor)
- Pre orientation – self assessment/ personal inventory - Faculty initiated (poor grades, poor attendance, actions of the student) - Academic Progress Report (or a version of the APR) - Support Services - Others
Santa Fe College
87
Resources Available for Students:
Workshops (ongoing)
See resource list (work in progress)
LO =Learning Outcomes associated with planned advisement sessions (for Progressive
Advisement):
LO1: Students will know who their Academic Advisor is, meet with their Advisor within their first
semester of enrollment, and thereafter consult with their Advisor when needed.
LO2: Students will identify personal and academic concerns to make informed decisions regarding
their degree and career goal(s).
LO3: Students will demonstrate knowledge about college resources.
LO4: Students will develop and adhere to a personalized academic plan in order to help them reach
their intended academic goal(s).
LO5: Students will be able to realistically assess their performance and/or behavior, and develop
and follow an action plan to overcome challenges.
LO1 LO2 LO3 LO4 LO5
Pre-Orientation
X
Orientation &
Meet and Greet
Session
X
X
Initial
Advisement
Session
X
X
X
My Academic
Plan Session
X
X
X
X
Early
Intervention
Session (as
needed)
X
X
X
X
Second
Semester
Follow-up
Session (QEP
Cohort at-risk)
X
X
X
X
X
Santa Fe College
88
Progressive Advisement Session Checklists (proposed) APPENDIX H
Pre-Orientation Checklist
If you don’t have answers to the questions below you should visit our AMAZING Career Resource
Center (hyperlink to make appt.)prior to New Student Orientation:
- Why are you seeking a higher education? - What is your advisement track? (link to career resource center)
a. AA Degree to Transfer to ____________ where I will major in: ________________
b. A.S. or A.A.S degree, to seek employment after two years of training
c. Certificate program, to seek employment after 10 months or less training
d. Other, please explain
_____________________________________________________________________
Want to be better prepared to take the PERT test? Here are some options (link to study guide, ABE
prep, other resources?)
Need Financial Aid? Don’t wait! Fill out the FAFSA today! Need assistance (link to make appt. with
FA rep)
Initial Advisement Session Checklist
Say Hi, welcome student in, ask how the semester is going so far
Discuss Academic Advisement Track, is student on track? What do they need to do to stay on or get
back on track?
If student is still unsure of advisement track, refer to Career Resource Center
Discuss Personal Inventory results (filled out by student at time of application)
Start/continue Educational Plan (My Academic Plan – MAP) with student if able
Conclude session and schedule a follow-up appointment if necessary
Santa Fe College
89
Checklist for My Academic Plan Advisement Session
Refer to Personal Inventory; have discussion based on what student’s goals are and what struggles they may encounter If student is still unsure of advisement track, refer to Career Resource Center
Recommend introductory courses for those students who are interested in specific area (i.e. Health Sciences, Business)
Map out the courses beginning the first term until they are done with all needed to graduate and transfer (according to students goals)
Recommend the student to come back and see you (their Advisor) at least once a term to verify there are no changes and/or to make sure student is on track
Encourage student to see you (their advisor) immediately if they think about changing their academic track to prevent taking courses not needed
Checklist for Early Intervention Advisement Session
Discuss reason student is meeting with you (ex. faculty concerns, financial aid probation, etc.)
Help student understand the reason he/she is in the situation - realistic assessment of the
issues and the causes
Refer to Personal Inventory to address any concerns that may be related to early alert
Use intervention software to check off what the situation is and work with the student to make
an action plan and refer to appropriate college resources
Santa Fe College
90
Standards for Planning and Performance for QEP Director APPENDIX I
Santa Fe College
Standards for Planning and Performance Fiscal Year 2012-2013 QEP Director Position: Quality Enhancement Plan Director (Pay Grade TBA)
Position Supervisor: Vice President, Assessment, Research, and Institutional Effectiveness
Position Scope: Responsibilities entail implementation and administration of the QEP for the Institution
Mission and Goals:
1. Position Mission and Goals
The QEP Director is committed to serving the staff, faculty and students of Santa Fe College by providing
leadership in the implementation and ongoing activities, including assessment and reporting, associated with
the QEP.
2. Relationship of position Mission and Goals to Departmental and Supervisor’s Mission and Goals
The position mission directly supports the mission of the office of the Vice President of Assessment,
Research, and Institutional Effectiveness, in addition to fulfilling SACS requirement CR2.12.
SACS CR 2.12: The institution has developed an acceptable Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) that includes an
institutional process for identifying key issues emerging from institutional assessment and focuses on learning
outcomes and/or the environment supporting student learning and accomplishing the mission of the
institution.
Position’s Accountabilities
1. Current Accountabilities: This position is accountable for
a. Providing leadership to staff and faculty, promoting operational success of the QEP.
b. Collaborating with advisors, faculty, and their supervisors to ensure progressive advisement and
intentional intervention processes are functional.
c. Arranging for training and development associated with QEP activities.
d. Promoting to students the new services provided by the QEP.
e. Reviewing and revising institutional communications generated through intentional interventions
targeting students.
f. Reviewing and recommending institutional practices to improve the effectiveness of the QEP.
g. Daily operations related to the QEP.
h. Coordinating ongoing assessment related to the QEP.
i. Generating reports to meet institutional, state, and SACS requirements.
j. Preparing and overseeing the annual budget for the QEP.
Santa Fe College
91
2. Relationship of Accountabilities to Department’s or Division’s Mission and Goals
The stated accountabilities are in direct alignment with the mission of the Division.
Position’s Decision Authority
This position has decision authority for: a. Allocate and manage resources.
b. Develop, review, and revise policies and procedures to effect QEP goals.
c. Arranging for resources necessary in support of QEP initiatives.
d. Researching the purchase of new tools and resources for the best applications, quality and price.
e. Procuring appropriate resources within the expense and capital budgets.
f. Coordinating training, management, and evaluation of faculty, staff, and administration for QEP-
related activities.
g. Serving as liaison for visiting persons from other educational institutions at times as needed.
Position’s Key Relationships
The QEP director will maintain positive working relationships with:
a. Administration, faculty and support staff within the institution.
Position’s Performance Standards
Responsibility Weight
Accountabilities 50%
Decisions 30%
Relationships 20%
________________________________________________________________________________________ Employee Date Supervisor Date Planned Date of Planning and Performance Appraisal: May 2013
Santa Fe College
92
Total Budget APPENDIX J
Planning Year
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 Project Totals
Personnel
Salary and Benefits for IT Specialist
$51,700 $52,620 $53,452 $54,515 $55,381 $56,484 $324,152
Salary and Benefits for Advising Specialist
$44,018 $44,697 $45,389 $92,540 $93,979 $95,821 $416,444
Salary and Benefits for Counseling Specialist
$47,633 $48,374 $49,324 $100,197 $102,174 $347,702
Salary for Part Time Office Assistant II
$25,000 $11,000 $11,000 $11,000 $11,000 $11,000 $80,000
Salary for adjunct faculty for full course release for QEP Director
$20,010 $20,410 $20,818 $21,234 $21,659 $22,093 $126,224
Non-instructional units for administrative personnel addt’l duties (6 NIUs)
$7,380 $7,528 $7,678 $7,832 $7,988 $8,148 $46,554
Faculty Stipend for piloting project (24 faculty per term @ 1 NIU per term @ $615 per NIU)
$33,360 $33,360
Personnel Total $148,108 $217,248 $186,711 $236,445 $290,204 $295,720 $1,374,436
QEP Development
QEP Promotions and Marketing
$13,000 $13,000
QEP Development Total
$13,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,000
Professional Development
QEP Administrative Personnel attend SACS Annual Meeting
$7,000 $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 $42,000
Santa Fe College
93
Six advising specialists attend professional conferences or workshops annually ($3000/ advising specialist)
$18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $72,000
Webinars & face-to-face professional development on campus with outside experts
$11,200 $11,200 $11,200 $11,200 $11,200 $11,200 $67,200
Professional Development Total
$36,200 $36,200 $18,200 $36,200 $18,200 $36,200 $181,200
Planning Year
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 Project Totals
Software
SSP – open source; implementation cost
$14,000 $14,000
Starfish – Part 1 $33,000 $33,000 $33,000 $33,000 $33,000 $33,000 $198,000
Starfish – Part 2 $33,000 $33,000 $33,000 $33,000 $33,000 $33,000 $198,000
Software Total $80,000 $66,000 $66,000 $66,000 $66,000 $66,000 $410,000
Faculty and Advisor Training
$10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $60,000
Assessment Costs
SENSE $11,400 $11,400 $22,800
CCSSE $10,500 $10,500 $10,500 $31,500
Assessment Costs Total
$21,900 $0 $0 $21,900 $0 $10,500 $54,300
Administrative Supplies
Office Supplies $4,000 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $16,500
Computers/ IT/ Card Swipe Systems
$1,000 $1,000
Administrative Supplies Total
$5,000 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $17,500
Santa Fe College
94
Yearly Totals $314,208 $331,948 $283,411 $373,045 $386,904 $420,920 $2,110,436
Yearly Totals Include:
New Recurring Funds*:
$130,000 $133,060 $2,673 $49,580 $53,603 $5,356 $374,272
New Non-Recurring Funds:
$150,000 $61,360 $10,000 $28,000 $10,000 $28,000 $287,360
Total, New Funds by Year:
$280,000 $194,420 $12,673 $77,580 $63,603 $33,356 $661,632
*Once appropriated, new recurring funds are assumed to be included in the base budget for all subsequent fiscal years
Recommended
