18 th National Conference on Students in Transition October 8-10, - - PDF document

1

18th National Conference on Students in Transition October 8-10, 2011

• St. Louis, Missouri

A "Happy Mess" Revisited: Extending what we know about the senior year transition for first generation students Julia Overton-Healy Director, Leadership Programs and the Women's Leadership Center Alfred University 607-871-2971

• verton@alfred.ed

Heather Maietta Director of Career Services and Cooperative Education Merrimack College 978-837-5038 maiettah@merrimack.edu The original study (Overton-Healy, 2010) identified several key and shared experiences as reported by first-generation college seniors. The findings indicated that this particular student population undergo important transitional challenges, including a re-identification of self, responding to the conflicted role of family, and engaging in self-efficacy strategies. Additionally, the original research outlined institutional responses which the data indicated would be useful interventions to assist this population. The current study uncovered similar results, but with some crucial differences which the presenters suggest are indicative of how institutional context impacts transition. Results are presented using the 4-S System design from Schlossberg's Adult Transition Theory (1984). Understanding and Engaging Under-Resourced College Students Bethanie Tucker Professor of Education Averett University 843-907-6617 bhtucker@earthlink.net Economic forces are bringing an increasingly diverse student population to the door steps of institutions of higher education. Two-thirds of the students who enter higher education do not complete a degree within six years, and among low- and moderate income students, the statistics are even grimmer. Under-resourced students often have limited access to resources, such as support systems, mentors, and money. Without the advantage of the inter-generational transfer of knowledge many students feel both disconnected and doomed to failure. Participants will develop enhanced understanding of how to: • Use teaching strategies to build cognitive ability • Implement developmental models in their disciplines to move students from concrete learning to the abstract thinking and planning required in college • Improve retention by building relationships of mutual trust and respect AVID Postsecondary: Support, Retention and Success

2

Betty Krohn Program Manager-AVID Postsecondary AVID Center 972-591-2520 bkrohn@avidcenter.org Our session will address AVID Postsecondary as a systemic initiative to support students who are under-prepared for college. We will examine how the postsecondary initiative: • Provides a academic training program to develop college success skills needed for academic success, persistence and graduation • Reduces barriers that traditionally limit levels of academic achievement • Facilitates professional development using student success pedagogies applicable across academic disciplines and student services • is planned and implemented around five AVID Postsecondary Essentials: 1. Administrative Leadership and Support 2. AVID College Planning Team 3. Professional Development 4. Freshman Experience and Beyond 5. Data Collection and Research Our session will also engage participants by examining the following three areas of distinctive impact AVID makes to increase student persistence and completion: Campus Culture:

• Culture changes when belief systems change • The power of high expectations and high

support • Focus on critical thinking through inquiry-based pedagogies • Change from teaching environments to learning environments • Instructional strategies and student engagement Students: • Student accountability – taking responsibility for their own learning; Advancement via Individual Determination • Academic behaviors, competencies, efficacy, peer support, mentoring • Rigor with support – tackling acceleration successfully, changing belief systems; holding them to high expectations • Learning strategies applied to coursework versus isolated study skills Faculty: • Engage faculty in  Planning for student academic success  Reducing institutional barriers to student persistence, acceleration and completion  Advocacy for and monitoring of AVID students • AVID students will come to class prepared to learn • Professional development in teaching and engagement strategies • Research- based instructional methodologies We will address how AVID is relevant and replicable in diverse environments using examples of implementations from current institutions: Augsburg College, Minnesota; Central Texas College; Huston-Tillotson University, Texas; Los Medanos Community College, California; Skagit Valley College, Washington; Southwest Texas Junior College; Texas A&M Commerce; Texas A&M Kingsville; Texas College; Texas State Technical College, Harlingen; University of Houston Downtown; University of Texas Pan American, University of Texas of the Permian Basin, Wiley College, Texas. Targeted Audience: This session would be best attended by postsecondary (two-year or four-year institutions) administrators, teachers, and counselors. Involvement of Participants: Presenters will utilize group readings and dialogue to involve and stimulate the audience. Short videos, readings, and PowerPoint presentations may be used to illustrate key points and to provide a visual framework. Faculty Mentorship Program for Freshman Students with Disabilities Taiping Ho Professor Ball State University 765-285-5983 taipingho@bsu.edu During this poster presentation we will provide information on the implementation of the FMP and learning opportunities that have been offered to faculty as a result. The presentation will focus on the reasons for the FMP, the process for beginning the FMP, and the benefits of the FMP for students with disabilities. By the end of this

3

presentation, attendees will understand the need for such a program and know the personnel and resources involved in implementation. Additionally, the results of qualitative and quantitative research regarding the effectiveness of the program will be shared. Information will also be provided on learning opportunities that have been

• ffered to faculty and staff as a result of this grant including: • Best practices for

accommodating students with different disability types (visually impaired, deaf/hard

• f hearing, autism, learning disabilities, acquired brain injuries). • The transition to

college for students with disabilities. • Adaptive technology for SWDs. • Academic support for SWDs. • Emotional difficulties in the classroom. • Communicating with students with disabilities. • Incorporating universal design of instruction into the

• classroom. • A historical overview of access to postsecondary education for SWDs.

Larry Markle Director of Office of Disabled Student Development Ball State University 765-285-5293 lmarkle@bsu.edu Jacqueline Harris Coordinator of Study Strategies and Writing Ball State University 765-285-8107 jroberts@bsu.edu Roger Wessel Associate Professor of Higher Education Ball State University 765-285-5486 rwessel@bsu.edu Assessing and Supporting Students Entering a Nursing Program Sandra Nadelson Director Student Services and Advising College of Health Sciences Boise State University 208-426-4679 sandranadelson@boisestate.edu After the tool development and administration, the results were tallied by factor. Environment had the highest number of low scores with 17. This was followed by academics (14), then affective (12) and finally professional integration (6). Areas that

• ften had lower marks included comfort with writing and test anxiety. Students with

three or more low scores were contacted by the director of student services and additional resources provided if students felt they were needed. Throughout the semester, students were made aware of student services available to help them. A Facebook advising group was also developed to help students quickly get information they needed. Our plan is to readminister the tool to the next group that begins in one

• month. We are also monitoring attrition and GPA of these students. Our hope that both

will be improved as a result of this work. Louis Nadelson Assistant Professor

4

Boise State University 208-426-2856 louisnadelson@boisestate.edu Promoting Transfer Student Success through a Foundations Course Sandra Nadelson Director Student Services and Advising College of Health Sciences Boise State University 208-426-4679 sandranadelson@boisestate.edu Transferring from one institution to another can provide students with greater

• pportunities in terms of learning. However, transferring has shown to lead to drops in

GPA and emotional stress (Lanaan, 2001; Thurmond, 2007). Providing support for students transferring can help improve their adjustment to the new location (Townsend, & Wilson, 2008-2009). At our university, first and second students will be taking two courses that will help them develop their critical thinking skills, ability to work through ethical problems, see the world more globally, and participate in service

• learning. A question came up about whether the transfer students needed to take both
• courses. We did not want the transfer students to take courses that were filled with

beginning students due to differing needs. However, we also didn’t want to have them miss out on this knowledge and these important skills. With this in mind, we began developing a required course for transfer students. The overall goal is to help this group of students be more successful in our university in a supportive and interactive

• course. This roundtable discussion will focus on the needs of transfer students, our

course development process, and how we will monitor student outcomes. We invite people who have considered developing or have developed similar courses to attend and discuss the process with us. References Laanan, F (2001). Transfer student

• adjustment. New Directions in Community Colleges, pg. 5-13. Thurmond, K.C. (2007).

Transfer Shock: Why is a Term Forty Years Old Still Relevant? Retrieved from NACADA Clearinghouse of Academic Advising Resources Web site: http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Clearinghouse/AdvisingIssues/Transfer-Shock.htm Townsend, B. & Wilson, K. (2008-2009). The academic and social integration of persisting community college transfer students. J. College Student Retention, 10(4) 405-423 Louis Nadelson Assistant Professor Boise State University 208-426-2856 louisnadelson@boisestate.edu From the Inside Out: Inspiring Pedagogical Change Lisa Nardi Writing Specialist & Co-leader of Faculty Think Tank/Scholars' Studio program Bowie State University 301-860-3297 lnardi@bowiestate.edu

5

Providing meaningful opportunity for first-year students at access institutions requires that faculty move beyond traditional pedagogies. For many instructors, this change marks a complete paradigm shift. As Freire and others noted, when confronted with challenges, educators who attempt this shift often revert to the habits through which they were socialized. Lasting change is unlikely until faculty members have experienced these new paradigms phenomenologically and established their own visions for providing opportunity. This session explores the dynamics of pedagogical change and provides a glimpse into the Faculty Think Tank, a model that offers faculty a structured process for exploring and transforming their pedagogical challenges. This session provides a brief experience of the Faculty Think Tank environment by engaging participants in a simulated Faculty Think Tank session. The practice experience will include an exploration of a specific pedagogical challenge (e.g. creating safety in the learning environment), a phenomenological discussion of the challenge and implications for pedagogy, and identification of cross-disciplinary, transformative

• practices. Particularly relevant for first year and general education faculty and support

staff, this session values the power a student’s introductory experience can have in shaping their understanding of their role and agency in the learning process. Additional Presenter: Monica Turner, Director of TRiO/SSS & Co-leader of Faculty Think Tank/Scholars' Studio program, Bowie State University, 14000 Jericho Park Rd., Bowie, MD 20715, 301-860-3296, mturner@bowiestate.edu Monica Turner Director of TRiO/SSS & Co-Leader Faculty Think Tank/Scholars' Studio program Bowie State University 301-860-3296 mturner@bowiestate.edu Transfer Transitions: Improving Outcomes for Transfer Students at Brooklyn College Patrick Kavanagh Executive Assistant the Dean Brooklyn College -- CUNY 718.951.5771 kavanagh@brooklyn.cuny.edu The presentation will cover the planning, implementation, and assessment of the College's first attempt to provide dedicated sections of core courses for entering transfer students. Niesha Ziehmke Associate Director of Undergraduate Studies Brooklyn College 718.951.5771 nziehmke@brooklyn.cuny.edu Teaching Large Lecture Classes using Student Self-Designed Summary City University of Hong Kong Oi Sze Sally Tsang Instructor I, Department of Management Sciences City University of Hong Kong 852 34428583

6

mssallyt@cityu.edu.hk CHINA How do we keep students engaged and motivated inside a 200-size lecture theatre, especially when the topics are not easy to grasp from the students' perspective? 4 steps can be employed: 1. Introduce topics covered using terminologies; 2. Describe the solving procedures and areas in which the theory applies; 3. Illustrate the applications; 4. Organize the materials at Student Self-Designed Summary and explore beyond the theory. For each step, hand-drawn pictures are used to facilitate learning and to arouse students’ interest and imagination. Students can feel free to draw a similar pictures and key points at their Student Self-Designed Summary. There is statistically significant evidence that using Student Self-Designed Summary results in higher attendance rate, better assessment result, satisfactory teaching evaluation and fruitful feedback from students. Quit Smoking and Go to School: Behavior Change Research from Health Care and Its Implications for Student Success. Mark Bocija Associate Professor Columbus State Community College 614-287-5049 mbocija@cscc.edu Students who engage in pro-academic behaviors appropriate to their academic goals tend to achieve them and, naturally, the converse is equally predictable. A truism to be sure, yet surprisingly little attention has been directed specifically toward promoting pro-academic behaviors in at-risk students. Simple, practical, and effective strategies are needed to guide both students who are ready to make positive behavioral changes and higher education professionals who teach and advise them. Over the past twenty years health care researchers and practitioners have produced a vast body of empirical literature identifying key principals and effective strategies for facilitating positive change around health-related behaviors. Abundant evidence attests to the efficacy of these models. The purpose of this session is to draw attention to the central importance of the behavioral dimension of student success, to introduce the scientific research related to positive behavior modification that has been shown to be effective in impacting health-related behaviors, and to suggest some avenues for applying key evidence-based principals to First Year Experience strategies. This session will begin by exploring various theoretical models of behavior change. In particular the presentation will highlight the Theory of Reasoned Action, the Theory of Planned Behavior, the Transtheoretical Model of Change, and Social Cognitive Theory. This part

• f the presentation will draw heavily upon the recently published work of Leslie R.

Martin, Kelly B. Haskard-Zolnierek, and M. Robin Dematteo, Health Behavior Change and Treatment Adherence, (Oxford University Press: 2010). This book provides a thoughtful synthesis of empirical knowledge related to behavior and behavior change and offers recommendations derived from evidence-based practices. The work of James Prochaska and Carlo DiClemente will also figure prominently in the discussion. While this research was aimed at understanding health-related behaviors, the principles that have emerged from the scholarship are relevant to higher education professionals, particularly those of us who have taken on the task of retaining at-risk

• student. The second part of the presentation will focus on the relationship between

positive behavioral change and other motivational factors that enhance and are

7

enhanced by behavior such as goal setting, self-efficacy, optimism, beliefs about

• utcomes, perceptions of benefits and costs, and social support. These factors are

highly correlated with both student success and positive behavioral change. This part

• f the presentation will draw on the scholarship of Albert Bandura, Bruce Tuckman,

Frank Pajares, and Dale Shunk. The presentation will conclude with concrete suggestions for utilizing the abundance of empirical evidence related to behavior change along with goal setting and goal attainment strategies to motivate and sustain behavior change in at-risk students. EBI and MAP-Works: A Focus on Assessment and Student Retention Darlena Jones Director of Education and Program Development Educational Benchmarking Inc. 417-492-0081 Darlena@webebi.com For many first-year/freshman students, the first college year is the first time they’re away from home and independent. Life choices like time management, self- management, and healthy behaviors are in their control. Some students make the transition easily while other students struggle. This period can set the tone for what students expect, how much they get involved, and what they experience. Sophomore students, having successfully transitioned to college life, find that a new set of transition experiences face them. Sophomores can struggle with choosing a major or career path, family expectations, or increased academic expectations and challenges. EBI, in collaboration with Ball State University, developed a survey project to provide quality information and to share the responsibility for student success. The project is titled Making Achievement Possible Works (MAP-Works) because it is structured, literally, to help make student achievement possible and to focus on early

• interventions. These surveys are designed to reveal the strengths and talents of

students and potential transition issues like homesickness and time management. Each student receives an individualized report that helps them identify areas for further growth and connects them to campuses resources. In addition, individual student information and feedback are provided to faculty/staff that are directly connected to them (e.g. residence hall staff, academic advisors, first-year seminar instructors, or retention committee members) to facilitate one-on-one interventions with students struggling in their transition. Smaller check-up surveys are administered throughout the academic year to measure the key transition areas. Faculty/staff use the information from these assessments to identify and support individual students and to create group programming and monitor group progress. Personal Financial Literacy Instruction in Higher Education: Critical Concepts for the "New Economy" Jason Springer Director of Elon 101 & Asst. Director of Academic Advising Elon University 336.264.9140 jspringer2@elon.edu Currently Elon offers approximately 20 sections of COE 310/375: Transitions

8

Strategies annually. These themed courses focus on post-Elon planning pertaining to job search, graduate school, working/living abroad, and financial literacy. Among the most popular, the financial literacy sections of this course explore personal finance from both the micro (how to make a budget and your pay bills) to the macro (how does public policy impact my finances). Students often come to terms with the decisions made before and during their first few years of college. In my experience teaching these courses I have found that students often have very little understanding

• f the decisions they've made and how they will impact their future. While there is

minimal research on the long term impact of large student loan debt for undergraduate degrees, there is a great deal of media and political attention being paid to these

• issues. The shifting political and financial landscape at both the state and federal level

suggest that this issue will be something that universities and their students will be forced to deal with in the not-to-distant future. More broadly we know that student loans have overtaken credit cards as the largest form of consumer debt in the US. More and more of our students are graduating with tens of thousands of dollars in debt. This coupled with high student credit card debt and a weak job market make for a toxic combination for our graduates. In this session I will explore the moral, ethical, and practical arguments for and against teaching the "skill" of personal finance. SYE programs and academic development: Developing an assessment for program evaluation Benjamin Perlman Area Director Emory University 404-727-5870 ben.perlman@emory.edu The study being presented focused on the educational involvement and academic autonomy subtasks of the SDTLA and how the scores correlated with the various behaviors and characteristics measured in the instrument. Analysis of the data identified several relevant findings. Participants who had completed a resume by the end of their second year of college were more likely to have high educational involvement scores. Also, the frequency of meetings with academic advisers was found to be positively correlated with educational involvement and academic autonomy. How

• ften participants discussed academics with faculty was also found to have a

significant relationship with both measures of academic development. Several other factors had small but significant relationships with academic development, including discussing academics with family and friends. Another important finding was that

• verall frequency of participation in SYE programs was not found to have any

relationship with academic development scores. An examination of demographic data found that students who were the first in their family to attend college were less likely to have completed a resume, and where second-year students lived had an effect on their overall participation in the SYE program. Promoting Access to HOPE and Graduation Nia Haydel Academic Professional for Student Retention Georgia State University 404-413-2057

9

nhaydel@gsu.edu In Georgia, the HOPE scholarship is a mechanism for many students to pursue higher education by covering 90% of tuition for students graduating with a 3.0 high school

• GPA. Students are allowed one opportunity to gain HOPE during college at designated

check points. PATH (Promoting Access to HOPE) is a targeted initiative within the Freshmen Learning Community program focused on assisting first time first-year students develop superior academic skills and become fully integrated into the campus community with the goal of PATH students earning HOPE by sophomore year. Research demonstrates students who have a higher level of integration into the campus community, understand how to successfully navigate through the higher education system and have developed strong competencies in academic support areas are most likely to be retained and to graduate. The strategies implemented at Georgia State to strengthen the academic outcomes of the least prepared students can be easily replicated to other universities regardless of the financial incentives. This session will begin with a brief overview of the HOPE scholarship and its impact on higher education in Georgia. All components of the developmental process will be shared including the potential obstacles that may exist and strategies for managing the logistical and political components of development and implementation. Materials outlining the program development, curriculum and outcomes will be discussed and shared with

• participants. The participants will have an opportunity to ask questions related to the

goals, outcomes and intent of the program as well as specifics related to the evolution

• f PATH as we enter the 2nd year of the program. Participants will leave with a

strategic plan to explore similar initiatives for their campuses. Nikolas Huot Administrative Specialist Freshmen Learning Communities Georgia State University 404-413-2085 nhuot1@gsu.edu Exploring the postsecondary experiences of students who completed dual enrollment courses in high school: A case study James Uhlenkamp Writing center director and first year experience coordinator Graceland University 641-344-8416 juhlenkamp42@gmail.com A preliminary investigation of the applicability of three theories to the transitions to college as perceived by first year students, this presentation will begin with a brief primer or review of the study’s theoretical framework: William Perry’s intellectual development, Nancy Schlossberg’s transition, and John Sweller’s cognitive overload

• theories. These theories may help to account for the attrition rate or maladaptation

leading to failures in the transition from high school to college, although this study does not address these issues. The presentation will next describe the current state of joint enrollment in the United States, focusing on Iowa, where rate of joint enrollment has increased dramatically, going from around 187,000 credit hours in 2002 to over 306,000 in 2010. Following this description, the presentation will detail the lack of and need for research on this phenomenon. Finally, the presentation will describe the current study, which found that the four participants believed that joint enrollment did

10

help them prepare to move into the role of first year college students. The study identified three themes : academic adjustment, personal and social adjustment and institutional attributes. The four students stated that some of the academic adaptations required by the joint enrollment class included how to apply the information from a class more effectively, changes in study patterns and practices, and a better feel for the academic demands of the college environment. The personal and social adjustments included better time management, an increased sense of responsibility and increased motivation. The students also identified some challenges in adjustments: dealing with stress, changing personal and health habits, changing living arrangements and competing or conflicting social expectations. The institutional attributes found in the study originated in the students’ high school and in their current institutions. The students discussed their joint enrollment instructors’ preparation and practices, the support they found at their current institutions, and the advising they received. All indicated that the higher rigor of the joint enrollment classroom left them better prepared than their non-joint enrollment high school

• classmates. However, the need for additional academic and social adaptations

surprised some of the students. This study did not compare non-joint enrollment perceptions to joint enrollment students, and the differing policies in different states may have an effect on the findings of future studies. Give the dearth of empirical studies in joint enrollment , this study provides a direction for fruitful investigation and policy development. Michele Dickey Kotz Associate professor of education Graceland University 641-784-5202 dickey@graceland.edu Brooke Glenn Program Coordinator, Assessment & General Education University of Nebraska-Lincoln 402-472-6023 bglenn2@unl.edu Full Financial Aid in the Ivy League: How High-Achieving, Low-Income Undergraduates Negotiate the Elite College Environment Paul J. McLoughlin II 2010-2011 Paul F. Fidler Grant Recipient Harvard University 781-209-0077 paul_mcloughlin@post.harvard.edu Three main conclusions derive from the findings of this research: Low-income students’ tendency to make a distinction between socioeconomic and financial aid status; the notion of a new cultural capital hierarchy for high-achieving, low-income students within an elite college setting; and, a specific application of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological developmental model for this niche population. Examining Transitions in the Sophomore and Junior Years: Findings from the Diverse Learning Environments Survey

11

John Pryor Director, Cooperative Institutional Research Program Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA 310.825.1925 john.pryor@ucla.edu This presentation will focus on the "transitions" aspects examined in the DLE survey. In particular, the DLE focusses on extending research related to retention and degree attainment with particular emphasis on theories that take into account diverse

• populations. Using an expansion of Tinto’s model of student attrition (1975) in their

framework, Nora and Rendon (1990) created a new causal model to predict community college students’ predisposition to transfer by examining the relationships among student background characteristics, initial commitments, social integration, academic integration, and the dependent variable, predisposition to transfer. The student background characteristics that were utilized were parents’ educational attainment, high school grades, encouragement by others, and ethnic origin. Initial commitments were measured by the levels of educational goals and the institutional commitment indicated by the students. Social integration was a single item measure, but Tinto’s more controversial concept, academic integration, was measured using academic perceptions, transfer perceptions, behavior counseling and academic

• counseling. The DLE extends this work by examining academic integration in the

context of general and classroom validation. We also look at another theoretical concept from this work, navigational capital and navigational action, which examine the pathway that connects utilization and knowledge of support services (academic advising, financial aid advising, etc.) to campus climate and eventual outcomes such as retention and gains in cognitive and affective skills. Although the data are still being processed as this proposal is written, and no analysis has been initiated, work with the pilot data suggests that reliable and stable factors can be created from the individual items and have predictive value in regression when used to predict various outcomes measured on the DLE. Although the above theories will be the primary focus of the presentation, two other sections of the DLE also serve to illuminate aspects of

• transition. In one module we examine the transfer student experience and how they

navigate their new institution with an emphasis on the climate for transfer students. In another module we examine the transition to the major for sophomores and for juniors, especially looking at academic validation in the classroom and academic engagement and student-faculty interaction. Help students define and achieve success with the CollegeScope Student Success Program Darryl Johnston Regional Account Manager Human eSources 1-888-295-1520 ext.108 darrylj@humanesources.com The issues of student retention and success cannot be solved simply by improving grades and raising test scores. The solution begins with motivating students to fulfill their individual potential by leading proactive and fulfilling lives. By helping students develop a solid sense of self, encouraging the exploration of opportunities, and instructing how to set attainable goals, students are able to maximize their education.

12

The CollegeScopeTM Student Success Program is a dynamic and innovative resource that has decreased attrition in schools by as much as 26%. This session covers the underlying theory of CollegeScope as well as the unique features of the program. Attendees will hear success stories from other schools using CollegeScope and a detailed explanation of how this curriculum positively impacts students. Different delivery methods and teaching options for the program will also be highlighted. The CollegeScope program includes: • Personal assessments that allow students to learn more about their individual strengths and personalities, thereby becoming more self- aware and confident about their natural traits. • An interactive curriculum that focuses

• n college, career and lifelong success. The material provides direction while the

interactive elements engage and involve student in learning. As students move through the electronic text, they are met with a wealth of quizzes, journals and activities, ensuring retention of the material covered. • A focus on career development, which is the backbone for educational planning, goal setting and instilling motivation in students. CollegeScope demystifies career exploration, expectations and planning by identifying best-fit career options as well as offering different career possibilities. • Student management tools that increase accountability and help faculty members monitor student progress. Staff can check student work, read journal entries, review quiz scores, message their students and more. The program was developed by Dr. Marsha Fralick while she was teaching college and career success courses at Cuyamaca Community College. For her efforts, Dr. Fralick recently received the 2011 Outstanding First-Year Student Advocate Award from The National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience. The CollegeScope Student Success Program is used at higher education institutions throughout North America. Summer Success Academy: The Transition from High School to College Sarah Baker Associate Dean and Academic Director of the Summer Success Academy Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) 317-274-8923 ssbaker2@iupui.edu The presentation will primarily focus on 2010 assessment findings and the resulting improvements that are to be incorporated into the 2011 program. The number of students required to attend the program for 2010 was 734. If we include those students for whom participation in the SPP was optional, 2,087 students could have participated in the program. In 2009 only 690 students were required to attend and 1,456 students could have attended including the optional students. Though fewer required students returned their contracts stating that they wanted to attend, we had a higher number of students attend and complete the SSA than in 2009. In 2009 we had a total of 186 students complete the program and in 2010 we had a total of 211 with 207 passing the program. The increase of students was largely due to the amount of students who attended the SSA as an optional student, we saw a 100% increase in

• ptional students due to sending out contracts earlier in the year. This was the first year that

students did not pass the SSA. Four students did not pass the SSA; however, only two were dismissed from IUPUI since two of the students were attending the SSA as an option. More specifically, a total of 179 first-time, full-time conditionally admitted students completed the 2010 Summer Success Academy. There were 11 conditionally admitted students in 2010 who did not participate in the SSA. The 11 students had an average SAT score of 1073 (range 980- 1170), notably higher than the SSA participants. Their fall-to-spring retention rate was 91%, their average Fall GPA was 2.20, and 36% earned GPAs below a 2.00 during the fall semester.

13

There were 22 first-time, full-time students who attended the program in 2010 on an optional basis and these students were not conditionally admitted. Their average fall GPA was 2.64 and 82% earned Fall GPAs above a 2.00. The average fall Math course grade was 2.70 and average fall English course grade was 2.53 for the 22 optional participants. Michele Hansen Director of Assessment, University College Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI 317-278-2618 mjhansen@iupui.edu David Sabol Co-coordinator Summer Success Academy Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI 317-274-2508 dsabol@iupui.edu Students From Foster Care: Strategies for Improving Retention and Degree Completion Julie Hamel Advisor PILOTS program Kansas State University 785-532-6927 jah3838@k-state.edu Statistics about foster care students in post-secondary education are bleak. According to the Casey Family Programs publication Supporting Success: Improving Higher Education Outcomes for Students from Foster Care, approximately 20,000 young people transition out of foster care annually, but they are noticeably underrepresented in higher education. It is estimated that only 7-13% enroll in post-secondary institutions, and that only 2% complete a bachelor’s degree, compared to 24% of the general population. There is no typical demographic profile for the foster care student. Individual circumstances vary widely, which in turn impacts the degree of support the student may receive. Once the student has turned 18, eligibility for government programs will vary from state to state, and the choice to participate in any program belongs to the student alone. States such as Kansas offer a tuition waiver to students in care, which allows them to attend a public post-secondary institution for free. In addition to federal education aid, students may qualify for additional support until the age of 21, if they choose to continue their education. Despite the efforts to provide tangible support for students aging out of foster care, few attain degree completion. Along with other students in transition, foster care youth arrive on campus with a broad range of academic abilities and skill sets. However, unlike most other students, they also bring with them the experience of significant personal trauma. It is common for these students to have moved between homes and schools frequently, which often contributes to poor academic preparation. Additional factors that may impact retention are: little or no support from biological or foster families; inadequate independent living experience; lack of coping skills to help with adjustment to campus life; financial needs; lack of a home to return to on weekends, holidays, or breaks; and a reluctance to seek help from college professionals. Some states and post-secondary institutions have begun to look at what can be done to support and encourage students from foster care in their efforts to transition into higher education and to complete degree

• programs. In Kansas, concerned parties from Social Rehabilitative Services and major

14

universities have begun meeting to discuss strategies for assisting these students in meeting their educational and personal goals. This roundtable discussion will facilitate a dialogue about the unique needs of this underrepresented population, and bring together those interested in learning what may be most effective in meeting those needs. Sharing Senior-Year Strategies for Successful Student Transition to Graduation and Beyond Joan Leichter Dominick Associate Professor of Communication, Senior-Year Seminar Course Coordinator Kennesaw State University 770) 423-6356 jdominic@kennesaw.edu Come join the conversation on sharing ―Senior-Year Strategies for Successful Student Transition to Graduation and Beyond‖. Whether you are in the considering phase, planning phases, or a have a seasoned program, course, or events for college seniors, come join the conversation of how you are strategizing your Senior-Year Experience Transition at your institution. Do you have an institutional class, an institutional program, deliver your program in a college or departmental capstone, deliver your program in a career center, have a service-learning program, or are you in the process

• f developing a new view of the Senior-Year Experience Transition? Come share your

strategies to get our seniors one day closer to a successful graduation and prepared for life after college. Julie Ambrose Director, The Senior Year Experience Muhlenberg College (484) 664-3924 ambrose@muhlenberg.edu Betty Siegel President Emeritus Kennesaw State University (678) 797-2222 bsiegel@kennesaw.edu Heather Maietta Director of Career Services and Cooperative Education Merrimack College (978) 837-5038 maiettah@merrimack.edu Online Orientations for Nontraditional and Special Populations Students Kristine Adzovic Coordinator, Adult Student Connections Kishwaukee College 815-825-2086 ext.3430 kadzovic@kishwaukeecollege.edu

15

There are four main steps to creating an online orientation. Step 1: Define your audience and their needs. Knowing the specific needs and barriers of your audience will help you develop a more meaningful orientation. If you are unsure of your audience's needs and barriers, ask them. Host student focus groups, interviews, and surveys to gather qualitative information on what students want to see in the

• rientation. Incorporate their suggestions into the planning stages. Consider what

kinds of supports are available on campus and in your community and how you can relay that information in an online format. Step 2: Identify your capabilities and

• resources. Whether you are applying for grant money or using all in-house funds and

services, it is essential to know your budget. Kishwaukee College developed online

• rientations on a budget of $2,100. We received full funding from the New Look Grant.

However, some institutions have developed their online orientations for $0 due to the software already installed on their computers. I would recommend developing an

• nline orientation with the software Articulate which can be purchased for $699. Ask

different departments on campus what they are able to contribute to the development

• f your orientation: video, media, marketing, disability services, counseling,
• admissions. This project requires collaboration with key players in your institution.

Step 3: Evaluate and organize your content. It is important to keep research and information organized when developing the online orientations. Use outlines, flowcharts, tables, and diagrams to decide how to map the flow of information. Remember to be clear and concise as too much information may overwhelm new

• students. Step 5: Put your data into action. Determine a vendor or the software you

wish to use for your online orientations. If using Articulate, simply enter information into PowerPoint slides and add quizzes, video, audio narration, diagrams, and much

• more. Before making final edits to your orientations, select some students to preview
• them. Use their helpful critiques to make changes before going live on your college
• website. The rest of the presentation will include taking an in-depth look at the four
• nline orientations developed by Kishwaukee College. Their titles are: Nontraditional

Student Orientation; Special Information for Single Parents; Special Information for Students in Nontraditional Occupations; and Special Information for Students with

• Disabilities. The audience will see how their students can interact with Articulate

software through the orientations and learn in a vibrant and new way. The Visible Classroom: Using Action Research to Assess the First Year Seminar Program Jesse Kavadlo Associate Prof., English, and Coordinator, University Seminar Program Maryville University 314 529 9502 jkavadlo@maryville.edu How can instructors—and program coordinators—know whether the goals of their first year seminars are working? To being to find out, the presenters—all instructors, but three of whom are also administrators (University Seminar coordinator, Director of the Center for Academic Success and the First Year Experience, and the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs—turned to action research. While much of our goal is, of course, to improve individual classroom instruction, importantly we also collaborated in order to anticipate institutional concerns regarding assessment of the program: how can collective, programmatic (rather than just individual) action research begin to demonstrate student learning? How can it demonstrate learning in ways that are

16

classroom- and student centered, as opposed to top-down models of assessment? And how can instructors use different research questions (regarding student writing, in- class discussions, emerging attitudes, and changing senses of self) relevant to their differently themed classes (fictional ―secret worlds,‖ spirituality, self-authorship, and leadership) while still maintaining a sense of coherence and unity? The discussion draws primarily from the experiences the instructors have had in asking and answering their research questions through assessing their own teaching, but also the ;larger implications of working together to assess and improve a first year seminar program. Jen McCluskey Associate Vice President Maryville University 314.529.9561 jmccluskey@maryville.edu Tammy Gocial Associate Vice President Maryville University 314.529.6893 tgocial@maryville.edu Johannes Wich-Schwarz Assistant Professor, English Maryville University 314.529.9321 jwichschwarz@maryville.edu The *New* TLC for Transfer Students Jennifer McCluskey Associate VP Academic Affairs. Director, Center for Academic Success & FYE Maryville University of Saint Louis 314-529-9561 jmccluskey@maryville.edu This session will provide attendees with the background for Maryville University’s recent intensive focus on transfer student success and satisfaction. While we have had much success with first- to second-year student retention, our efforts until recently have ignored the transfer student. With TLC as a road map - Thinking About, Listening To, and Connecting With – I will share the development of initiatives focused on our transfer students. I will explain how we ―think about‖ transfer students – by age, by previous institution, by needs/interest. Next I will share our efforts of reaching out to ―listen to‖ transfer students – what can we learn from their previous institutions? How are we meeting (or not) their expectations? Finally, explain the importance of and ideas about ―connecting with‖ transfer students by sharing information about resources, student leadership opportunities, and benefits of involvement. I will illustrate the retention numbers associated with first- to second-year students as well as transfer students (although retention is not the critical reason we are focusing on transfer students). I will provide an explanation of our old and newly designed

• rientation program options for transfer students. These changes were developed and

implemented by transfer students themselves. Following this, I will share our detailed

17

communication plan developed for transfer students from their admission through their first year. We have developed a student employee position in our department called Transfer Coordinator. Throughout the presentation and especially following the formal presentation, I will ask attendees to share their strategies for working with the transfer student population. Heather Sadi Graduate Student Maryville University 314.529.6799 hsadi1@maryville.edu A New Retention Model: The Mercy College PACT Andy Person Executive Director, Center for Student Success and Engagement Mercy College 914-330-1450 aperson@mercy.edu In this session, the panel will discuss the Mercy College PACT Program (Personalized Achievement Contract). As a Federally Designated Hispanic‑Serving College, we are especially concerned about the changing demographics in our country. As an aging and well‑educated white population approach retirement, we have a growing number of younger minority and first-generation students who will be a major source of new workers. Mercy College has created an innovative and scalable program to address the critical challenge of low retention and college completion rates, especially among low income, minority and first‑generation college students. PACT is an innovator in student success by changing how a college prepares its students for their careers. Through a ―single point of contact‖ approach, Mercy College uses professional mentoring to help students achieve their goals. Mentors are assigned to students at the start of college and work with them through graduation. Mercy College employs 22 full-time, cross-trained, professional mentors who engage with students daily –in person, by phone, and online. Mentors know their students and work with them to customize their path from college through career or graduate school. PACT complements the traditional college curriculum with mentoring modules in personal, interpersonal, organizational and career development. The program includes internships and workshops on topics ranging from public speaking to interviewing to resume development, as well as an online portfolio component. PACT also cultivates employer partnerships, internships and mentoring opportunities to give students even greater access to new opportunities. Over 1500 students are currently enrolled in PACT, the cornerstone of the personalized learning experience. Through positive results, Mercy College is building a proven national model for student success. PACT students at Mercy College persist at over 20% higher retention rate than non-PACT

• students. In 2011, Association of American Colleges and Universities recognize Mercy

College’s PACT as their feature program for May, 2011 newsletter. PACT is also featured as a ―Best Practice‖ for retention and career services by the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE). In our panel discussion, the Executive Director of the Center for Student Success and Engagement and the Director of PACT will address the need for measurable goals for increased college completion and a plan that is succeeding in achieving those goals. The discussion may involve two of our PACT students based on academic availability.

18

Bogdana Vladescu Director, PACT Mercy College 914-674-7697 bvladescu@mercy.edu Our Second Year of the Sophomore Experience Mike O'Neal Director, Second Year Programs Miami University 513-529-4038

• neallm2@muohio.edu

Significant results from our assessments include: Second year students made progress in choosing a major during their second year. Results were statistically significant, p <

• 05. (.25 difference in pre and post mean) Second year students reported an increase in

their overall sense of satisfaction with their Miami experience. (.04 difference in pre and post mean) At the end of sophomore year, only Five percent of respondents report that they are still trying to find campus involvement that matches their interests. At the start of the year, respondents felt better prepared for the academic and social transitions than they did at the end of their second year. Academic rigor and balancing academic and social needs were identified in the pre-test to be the greatest expected challenges for the year. The post test revealed this to be true, but time management rose to the top of the list on the post test. ―Your academic advisor‖ was listed as the resource most used on the post test. This response was rarely listed on the pre-test, but had the second lowest satisfaction score on the post test. (Satisfaction mean of 3.88) Student’s sense of connection to the faculty in their major increased during their second year. Results were statistically significant p. < .05. (.36 increase from pre to post-test) Students’ sense that they play an integral part in the Miami community increased during the year. Results were statistically significant p. < .05. (.20 change from pre to post-test) From Dual-Enrollment to the First-Year: Exploring Your Role in College Readiness Ryan Goodwin Research Assistant Michigan State University 219-617-6821 rngoodwi@gmail.com The Researcher will begin by identifying the topic and purpose of the study, explaining the research questions. Then, a brief summary of the research on college readiness, focusing on explaining the framework (Conley, 2007) used throughout the study, will be provided. Additionally, the researcher will briefly describe the components of an Early College High School to give context to the school site. The researcher will then describe the research methods, including study design, data collection, contextualizing the school site with background information, and describing the participant profile. Further, the researcher will describe the data analysis process. The presentation will

19

also include a healthy description of the findings, covering all four college readiness component areas. Select findings include, (1) Generally positive student experiences in the ECHS program and strong self-identified levels of college readiness in English and science preparation; (2) Mixed levels of preparedness in mathematics and social sciences; (3) Students felt cognitive skills were developed most heavily through English coursework and project-based learning; (4) Students identified a mix of academic behaviors and acknowledged a needed change in those behaviors to successfully transition to being a full-time college student; (5) Students self-reported high-levels of college knowledge except in the area of financial aid. Ready or Not, Here We come: Exploring the College Readiness of American Indians Ryan Goodwin Research Assistant Michigan State University 219-617-6821 rngoodwi@gmail.com The researchers will begin by identifying the topic and purpose of the study, explaining the research questions. Research questions blend the study of college readiness and the achievement gap, focusing on the educational experiences and achievement of American Indian/Alaska Native students. They are: 1) What does the current research say about scholastic achievement of American Indian/Alaskan Native students in reference to the issues surrounding college readiness?; 2) How does the achievement, as measured by average GPA, of American Indian/Alaskan Native students, compare to other racial/ethnic groups?; 3) How has the comparative standing and achievement, as measured by average GPA, of American Indian/Alaskan Native students, changed from 1990-2009? The presenters will offer a brief summary of the research on college readiness, focusing on explaining the framework (Conley, 2007) used throughout the

• study. Following, researchers will provide a summary of the high school achievement
• f American Indian/Alaska Native students over the past twenty years. Next,

researchers will provide an overview of literature on American Indian education, focusing specifically on cultural differences and challenges unique to the population. The researchers will discuss the intersection of both issues, including a healthy description of the findings. Select findings to be covered include: (1) While the raw score GPA for American Indian/Alaska Native has risen since 1990, (2) the comparative standing of American Indian/Alaska Native students in relation to their peers of different races/ethnicities has changed. (3) By that measure, American Indian/Alaska Natives are less college ready today than they were in comparison to their peers 1990. Findings will also include a description of the GPA trend for other racial/ethnic groups over the same time span. Further, the discussion will compare the rigor of college coursework among distinct groups. Finally, data will be juxtaposed to the sociocultural ideas and challenges explicated in the literature on American Indian education. Christie Poitra Doctoral Student Michigan State University 530-410-4867 cpoitra@gmail.com

20

Cultural and Academic Enrichment Strategies for Community College Transfers Amy Pardo Associate Professor of English Mississippi University for Women 205-758-6835 apardo@as.muw.edu Because of current trends in unemployment in rural states, an emerging movement for a four year university is the adult learner who has finished his or her general education classes at a convenient, and in Mississippi, free community college, and now transfers to a four year university without benefit of understanding the culture of higher academia. This student has not had the advantages of an enrichment that takes place in the freshmen and sophomore years or during an introduction to college life

• class. Criteria for choosing is usually based on geographic convenience and financial

aid and not the values of the institution which can create a great deal of dissonance within the student who can only draw upon his or her own past experiences that will likely give little help. Likewise, university faculty are now finding transitional students in their upper-level courses who are eager to successfully learn but have no context for doing so. Thus, bridging the gap between student need and expectation from faculty must be a priority for a public university to meet its responsibilities. This session will explore three ways to create a positive transitional learning environment that serves both the community college transfer student and the faculty within an informal surrounding rather than a classroom setting. Using casual teaching/learning sessions, faculty interactions and student mentors in a three prong approach aids these transitional students who often do not realize they are in need until a negative

• utcome has taken place. Mandatory transition classes have failed to produce results

simply because of the resentment from the junior-level student who does not yet comprehend how steep the learning curve will be and the resentment of faculty required to teach transition classes in the place of their specialty area. Few tenured faculty attended community colleges and are often not aware of or sympathetic towards these learners in a way that they can empathize with freshmen. Thus, this discussion has been designed with the focus of creating a bond amongst major faculty, traditional students and transfer students outside the traditional classroom. JumpSTART to Success: Summer Bridge Program for Conditionally-Admitted Students Tracey Glaessgen Academic Advisor Missouri State University 417-836-5258 TraceyGlaessgen@missouristate.edu At Missouri State University, we are currently implementing a new summer bridge program (JumpSTART—Summer Transition and Academic Readiness Training) for our conditionally-admitted, at risk, first-semester students. Though we have previously allowed conditionally-admitted students the opportunity to attend classes during the summer, and then, with good academic standing, allowed them to continue for fall,

21

there was no university-wide initiative until this summer. The purpose of JumpSTART is to challenge these students with a rigorous course load in a supportive environment that brings together academic resources, co-curricular activities, and, overall, student

• involvement. With planning meetings and emails, faculty have communicated

important deadlines in their classes (such as essays and tests) to residence hall directors and student engagement staff to ensure compatibility with co-curricular and student engagement activities. Further academic resources have also been included in the planning meetings and communication to coordinate services. The session will focus on an overall description of the program through planning stages to implementation followed by initial assessment results. Presenters will share suggestions for implementing a summer bridge program along with a handout listing the required activities. Participants will have the opportunity to interact with the presenters. Susan Martindale Academic Advisor Missouri State University 417-836-5258 SusanMartindale@missouristate.edu Mike Wood Director, First-Year Programs Missouri State University 417-836-8343 MikeWood@missouristate.edu Vision 2020, Student Success Program: AP/IB Alternative and CTE Dual Enrollment Tom Spillman Dean of Counseling and Student Support Services

• Mt. San Jacinto College

951-639-5250 tspillma@msjc.edu The Dual Enrollment Program is a critical strategy for increasing college-going rates among local high school students through highly coordinated partnerships between local high school districts and Mt. San Jacinto College. This program provides students with an opportunity to complete CSU and UC transferable units and career/technical coursework prior to transitioning from high school to a post-secondary institution. Students entering college following participation in the Dual Enrollment Program are better prepared for the rigors of college coursework, and have an opportunity to complete the majority of their freshman level credit towards a college degree. Dual Enrollment eases the transition from high school to college which promotes student retention and achievement. Rigorous data collection and assessment ensure the program is running at maximum effectiveness. The California educational system spends millions of dollars re-educating students unnecessarily. MSJC’s innovative Dual Enrollment Program provides a cost-neutral solution to post-secondary impaction and maintains college level standards by requiring that high school DE instructors meet California Community College Faculty Minimum Qualifications. High School DE faculty work within their regular high school district contract, while teaching community college curriculum. Enrollment in DE courses is open to both high school and

22

community college students, which allows for the college and high school districts to claim student apportionment. This Dual Enrollment concept is unique because high school faculty teach college level coursework to qualified high school students. The Dual Enrollment program is meeting the 2020 Vision for the nation and for California, making our students globally competitive. Shartelle Fears Counselor Coordinator

• Mt. San Jacinto College

951-672-6752 sfears@msjc.edu Susie Ho Title V Student Success Coordinator

• Mt. San Jacinto College

951-672-6752 shochstrat@msjc.edu Advances in Research and Practice: The Career Development of Students in Transition Paul Gore Associate Professor University of Utah, Saint Louis University, North Carolina State University; Grossmont- Cuyamaca Community College 801-581-7233 paul.gore@utah.edu This panel presentation will offer participants a glimpse of the content of a recently published monograph from the National Resource Center - Monograph 55: Students in Transition: Research and Practice in Career Development. This monograph was published to provide readers with evidence supporting the effectiveness of a range of programs and services designed to promote college student career development. Participants will learn about recent advances in career development research – including the identification of 5 critical ingredients in career education. This presentation will be followed by presentations describing (a) a career development program for students during their high school to college transition (Saint Louis University), (b) a program to assist first-year college students adopt a functional career decision-making model (North Carolina State University), and (c) the incorporation of career development content and process in a first-year college success course (Cuyamaca Community College). Leanna Fenneberg Assistant Vice President, Student Development Saint Louis University 314-977-2805 fennebel@slu.edu Marsha Fralick Counselor and Personal Development Instructor Cuyamaca College 619-660-4432

23

marsha.fralick@gcccd.edu Carrie McLean Executive Director, First Year College North Carolina State University 919-515-8497 carrie_mclean@ncsu.edu Donna Burton Assistant Director, First year College North Carolina State University 919-515-6288 donna_burton@ncsu.edu Effective Orientation for Transfer Students: Establishing Pathways for Transfer Student Success Janet Marling Director, Program Development and Strategic Initiatives National Institute for the Study of Transfer Students/University of North Texas 940.300.7553 janet.marling@unt.edu The session will follow chapter content included in ―Effective Orientation for Transfer Students: Establishing Pathways for Transfer Student Success,‖ (Poisel, M. A., & Joseph, S. [Eds]., 2010. Transfer Students in Higher Education: Building a Rationale for Policies, Programs, and Services that Foster Student Success, The National Resource Center for the First Year Experience and Students in Transition, Monograph). Modified for time constraints, the session will be broken into four content areas, including (a) creating a foundation for transfer orientation, (b) program development, (c) communicating with transfer students, and (d) program assessment. Creating a Foundation for Transfer Orientation will include discussions related to program and campus climate self-assessment, partnering with Institutional Research to obtain an accurate transfer population portrait, and engaging campus and external stakeholders in the planning process. Program Development will explore the importance of grounding the orientation program in national standards for orientation programming, mandatory vs. optional programming, determining the most appropriate on-campus and online program formats, and creating program goals and learning outcomes. Communicating with Transfer Students focuses on creating a balance between transfer students’ previous and current collegiate experiences, evaluating printed and virtual materials to ensure desired messages are being communicated and tailored to the population, reviewing the content of orientation presentations, and preparing

• rientation presenters to address transfer students. Program Assessment addresses

the most important, yet often overlooked aspect of orientation planning. Examples of assessment tools and protocol will be examined. All facets of the session will rely upon a dynamic interface between the audience and presenters. While pragmatic suggestions will be offered, participants will be encouraged to offer examples of successful practices to complement the session content. Participants will also be provided with a checklist that mirrors the session content and will be encouraged to record 1-3 ideas for exploration/implementation, as well as the name of at least one contact who can serve as a resource in the change process.

24

Designing Institutional Services for Enhancing Student Veteran Success Mark Allen Poisel Associate Provost for Student Success Pace University 212-346-1208 mpoisel@pace.edu This session is designed for the practitioner who really wants to create or revise the institution’s veterans’ services to enhance the student experience for returning veterans to focus on transitions, student success, retention, and graduation. Participants hear about the trends around the U.S. and examples of what institutions around the country are doing to develop or enhance the services for this special, ever increasing population of students. The main discussion of the presentation will center

• n the components and services that should be included as resources for student
• veterans. Different models will be discussed to include actual veteran centers,

specialized programs, and institutional support services specifically designed around the unique needs of veterans. The session will include a discussion about the importance and building of partnerships on and off campus to develop meaningful networks for professionals and veterans that will provide support for veteran success in and out of the classroom. As many of the returning veterans to college and university campuses are likely to be returning adults and transfers, a discussion will also be included in regarding to collaborative efforts that combine the needs of adult students, transfers, and veterans into programs and services. Participants will be asked to brainstorm the needs on their campuses and share examples of how they might incorporate these services into their existing services for all students. Ideas will be shared and assistance provided to help them work on an action plan for next steps at their institution. Some of the goals for the session include 1) understanding the trends for increased veteran student enrollment in the United States, including first time in college and transfer students; 2) determining and understanding the strategic needs of veteran students on campuses; and 3) developing a resource list of services that could be incorporated on campus without additional financial resources. Doing More with Less: The evolution of a peer mentoring program Jenna Seabold Senior Assistant Director of Student Access, Transition and Success Programs and Coordinator of Purdue Promise Purdue University 765-494-6357 jlaub@purdue.edu The presentation will consist of 4 sections: Background, Program Overview, Assessment, Implications & Replication. In the Background section presenters will discuss national trends related to college access and support initiatives as well as financial barriers currently facing institutions of higher education. In addition research

• n the challenges facing low-income college students will also be presented. Once a

thorough research background has been established the presenters will discuss the history and evolution of the Purdue Promise peer-mentoring program. During this

25

Program Overview section, the presenters will discuss the learning objectives of the mentoring program, how the program is structured, and how that structure has

• evolved. When discussing the structure the program, presenters will elaborate on how

budgetary restrictions shaped the program and the lessons learned from those structural changes. This will include the differences between one-to-one mentoring, group mentoring, and team mentoring. The presenters will discuss how recruitment, training, supervision, and activities are sponsored with a limited budget. Following the

• verview of the Purdue Promise mentoring program presenters will provide data that

indicates that the mentoring program is making a difference in the retention of Purdue’s low-income student population. In this Assessment section, retention data, information from mentor contact reports, and focus group responses will be given. It is from this assessment data that the mentor program has evolved. Presenters will talk about how this data was used to make structural changes. To wrap-up the presentation the last section will focus on Implications & Replication. During this section presenters will give suggestions on how to be creative within the restrictions

• f a limited budget. This will also be a time largely dedicated to questions from the
• audience. Based on those questions the presenters can provide specific advice on how

to build, change, and support an effective peer-mentoring program. Emily Smedick Assistant Director of Student Access, Transition and Success Programs Purdue University 765-494-8552 esmedick@purdue.edu Sophomore Students in Transition: Understanding and Improving the Second-Year Learning Community Linnette Good Assistant Director, Science Diversity Purdue University-West Lafayette 765-496-6095 lcgood@purdue.edu The Women in Science Program at Purdue University has been successful in developing retention strategies that increase the number of women majoring in science and has been able to demonstrate this success. Research also shows that first year students are more likely to be retained when involved in activities that support the first year of

• college. Information obtained from evaluations show comprehensive programs that

integrate multiple strategies that are beneficial as they address women’s needs. Among a few of the topics that were shared include an understanding in the field of science and its practice, providing a sense of identity, increasing self-confidence, and academic and social engagement. The Women in Science Program is just one avenue for young women, specifically in the field of science, to connect and bond with other young women. This session will highlight the Women in Science Programs achievements at Purdue University over a seven year time span within the freshmen learning community. In addition, the session will emphasize strategies implemented within the last two years that have increased the enrollment of participants in the program and the creation of the universities first Sophomore Learning Community. The WISP participants have an advantage that other learning communities on campus are not privy as a part of their experience. The sophomore community adds an element in bridging the gaps between the first and second years of college. In addition, the

26

incorporation of research based knowledge and service learning projects. The increased interest in WISP has been a tremendous benefit to engaging women students in the field of science. Thereby, adding to the retention of female students in the sciences. The data obtained through assessments and research of this population

• f students will be shared with participants. In addition, data from the first year

experience of the sophomore community will be shared. A discussion of the program, its components and perspectives that make this program attractive to incoming students will be shared. A correlation of the success and failures among other colleges and universities with programs such as the one at Purdue University in the sciences will be discussed. Also, in this session participants will be able to interact and share their thoughts and strategies regarding programs in which they are apart or aware in the same field. By attending this session, participants will be able to gain knowledge of how to grow an existing program, encourage young women to remain in the field of science or any STEM and to develop a sophomore learning community with their current network of students. The Use of Service Learning to Assist Sophomore Students with Integration of Concepts of Professionalism Ginge Kettenbach Associate Professor Saint Louis University 314-977-8543 or 314-495-8827 (cell) kettenba@slu.edu Information on the sophomore transition is somewhat sparse, with studies implying that sophomore persistence is positively influenced by student engagement in collaborative learning, classroom discussions and teacher contact. Students studying to be health professionals frequently are expected to incorporate the values and behavioral norms of their anticipated profession into their behaviors. These expectations are difficult for sophomore students to fulfill because they are not into the clinical phase of their professional programs. Sophomore students in the health professions can become disengaged with their academic program, choice of profession and academic institution. Saint Louis University has sophomore transition programs such as sophomore housing options, programs offered by Career Services in the residence halls, and student engagement with both a faculty mentor and professional academic advisor. In addition to these programs, the Program in Physical Therapy has attempted to engage sophomore students with each other through collaborative learning in the sophomore Student Development III and IV classes. Students are introduced to professional values and behavior expectations for physical therapy

• students. The Student Development IV course is a service learning course and

students are asked to set goals for professional behavior as part of their service learning contract. Students reflect on their service experiences and their professional values and behavior at the beginning, middle and end of their service learning

• experience. Specific questions for reflection ask students to integrate the information

they have learned with their actual experiences in the community. Students also prepare a group presentation for the class that integrates the concepts learned in class with their service learning experiences. The group presentations are followed with individual final papers addressing how students personally used the concepts of professionalism and professional behavior learned in class during their service learning experiences. Assessment of the use of service learning to integrate concepts

• f professionalism was done by teacher perception of student integration during in-

27

class group presentations, by course evaluation results and by student retention rate. In the course presentations, all students described use of professional values and behaviors during their service learning experiences. . Student course evaluations were

• favorable. Only 1 out of 83 students (1.2%) did not persist in the physical therapy

program from sophomore fall to junior fall. This resulted in a 98.8% retention rate at the sophomore level. The retention rate sophomore fall to junior fall prior to the initiation of service learning was 88.2%. Explore Ways to Build Transition Programs Beyond the First-Year Susan Fanale Director for the Student Involvement Center Saint Louis University 314-977-1587 sfanale@slu.edu The session will begin with a brief introduction of the presenters and share our learning outcomes of the presentation. The learning outcomes are as follows – program participants will: learn about Saint Louis University's comprehensive four year transition plan for students that includes the First-Year Experience, the Sophomore/Junior-Experience, and the Senior-Year Experience; understand lessons learned as SLU developed transition programs; understand the importance of collaboration and partnerships in transition programs; and learn about transition programs at various institutions from other session participants We will then provide an overview of Saint Louis University, including a brief description of the university population and of the organizational structure. We will outline the primary programs

• f the First-Year Experience: SLU 101 Summer Orientation, Welcome Week,

TRANSFERmations Program, Freshman Commuter Programs, University 101 courses, SLU Inquiry courses, Learning Communities and First-Year Interest Groups, academic advising, major & career exploration, involvement & leadership, paraprofessional mentors The presentation will then provide information about SLU’s Sophomore/Junior – Year Experience which includes: Bright Ideas Grants, Live Your Vocation dinner, Last Lecture Program, Beyond the Lecture Series, Job shadowing, internship assistance, career fairs, study abroad reunion, Engaged Service Program. We will review the SLU Senior-Year Experience programs including: Senior Legacy Symposium, Senior Reception with the Jesuits, Senior mailings/communications,

• nline resources, career preparation, class celebration events, Leadership & Service

awards, and Commencement activities After reviewing our programs, we will discuss the steps taken to get where we are, including the development of divisional transition learning outcomes for each year of a student’s undergraduate experience. We will address university partners and committees that were integral to the implementation and success of the programs. We will note the branding and marketing of our programs and address future goals. We will also cover some important lessons learned throughout the process. We will also discuss transition programs for specific student audiences such as freshman commuters, transfer students, international students, first-generation college students, students of color, and family transition programs. We will ask attendees to break up into small groups and discuss the creative transition programs they are doing on their campuses and also discuss what student needs are not currently being met. Groups will be asked to share key discussion point with other

• attendees. We will then close with a question and answer period for the audience to

ask the presenters questions or to ask their questions so the general audience can respond.

28

Susan Krieg Coordinator for the Student Involvement Center Saint Louis University 314-977-1570 skrieg2@slu.edu Student Engagement through Living/Learning Programs Susan Fanale Director for the Student Involvement Center Saint Louis University 314-977-1587 sfanale@slu.edu The roundtable will explore current and future residential academic initiatives. Attendees will be able to share what they offer at their university regarding living/learning programs along with academic connections for these programs. The program will allow for the group to explore how implementing these programs can impact or change existing structures such as housing assignment systems, staff recruitment/selection, staff training and expectations, budget and other resources allocated to the program. The group will discuss the purpose of their programs and what they are trying to achieve and how they overcame obstacles in implementing the

• programs. The roundtable will explore academic connections for these living/learning

programs and how the schools present went about to develop the academic/faculty connections to the programs. Schools can discuss the variety of options available for these academic connections whether they offer courses in common, co-enrollment

• ptions, other course component for the residential learning programs, or faculty in

residence programs. The group will discuss identifying key partners to consider in building the program such as academic advising, academic departments, registrar, admissions and enrollment management, Institutional Research, Provost Office and

• ther key administrators on campus to integrate academic courses into living/learning
• programs. The roundtable will address identified challenges and suggested solutions
• n implementing programs to engage students around academic initiatives. The group

will discuss resources needed to implement and sustain these types of programs as well as discuss best practices for collaborating across the campus. The group will share ideas for marketing and communicating internally and externally to a variety of

• audiences. The roundtable will allow the group to discuss assessment opportunities

and different methods to measure success and learning outcomes. The program will also be flexible and allow the attendees to help set topics that they would like to explore based on their interests and campus needs. Elizabeth Niebruegge Coordinator for the Student Involvement Center Saint Louis University 314-977-1585 eniebrue@slu.edu Introducing the Senior Legacy Symposium to promote reflection and professional preparation for seniors

29

Shelley Sawalich Director, Academic Support Saint Louis University 314-977-2801 ssawalic@slu.edu The Senior Legacy Symposium is an annual celebration of outstanding senior student work at Saint Louis University, which began in 2008. The program promotes experiential learning, scholarly work, and the advancement of knowledge, and the reflection upon and articulation of these experiences. Seniors presenting at the Symposium reflect upon their learning in relation to the Five Dimensions (Scholarship & Knowledge, Intellectual Inquiry & Communication, Community Building, Leadership & Service, and Spirituality and Values ) of the Saint Louis University experience (student learning outcomes-focused areas of growth/development). Presentations are

• ften a culmination of a discipline-based experience such as an internship, research

project or capstone course. Three senior projects from each academic department are selected by their department chair to represent the department at a campus-wide

• event. Students display their presentation in the form of a poster presentation, oral

presentation or creative performance, in a professional conference presentation setting with faculty, staff, administrators and students. Reception to the program at SLU has been outstanding – a true connection and cooperation between Academic Affairs and Student Development. Students have the opportunity to ―connect the dots‖ between their academic work, their passions, and their future all while honing their skills of public presentation. The poster presentation will include I. Purpose and history of SLU’s Senior Legacy Symposium II. Details of program coordination; considerations for other campuses III. Assessment findings for student participants

• IV. Event artifacts including program, advertising, photographs and video

http://www.slu.edu/x19363.xml Leanna Fenneberg Assistant Vice President, Student Development Saint Louis University 314-977-2806 fennebel@slu.edu Diversity and Inclusion through Transition Programs and Initiatives LaTanya Buck Program Director for the Cross Cultural Center Saint Louis University 314-977-2110 lbuck6@slu.edu The roundtable will explore how to build programs that develop students’ multicultural competence through each transition period during college (First-Year Experience, Sophomore/Junior-Year Experience, and Senior-Year Experience) and how to create learning outcomes and objective that includes ―the awareness, knowledge, and skills needed to work with others who are culturally different from self in meaningful, relevant, and productive ways‖ (Pope, Reynolds, & Mueller, 2004, p. 13). Attendees will be able to share what they offer at their university regarding diversity and inclusion initiatives. The group will explore how implementing these programs can impact or change existing initiatives such as traditional transition programs, staff

30

recruitment/selection, staff training and expectations, budget and other resources allocated to the programs. The group will discuss the purpose of their programs, what they are trying to achieve and how they overcame obstacles in implementing their

• initiatives. The roundtable will explore academic connections for diversity and

inclusion programs and how the attendees developed academic/faculty partnerships. Institutions can also discuss how they developed transition programs that aid in the retention of underrepresented groups and assist in contributing to a diverse and inclusive campus environment. The group will discuss identifying key stakeholders to consider in building initiatives that educate and/or retain students. The roundtable will address identified challenges and suggested solutions on implementing programs to engage students around diversity and social justice issues. The group will discuss resources needed to implement and sustain the programs as well as discuss best practices for collaborating across the campus. The roundtable will also discuss assessment opportunities and different methods to measure success and learning

• utcomes. The program will be flexible and allow the attendees to help set topics that

they would like to explore based on their interests and campus needs. Susan Fanale Director for the Student Involvement Center Saint Louis University 314-977-1587 sfanale@slu.edu Addressing professional transitions while working with students in transition Lindsey Taucher Advising Specialist

• St. Edward's University

512.428.1265 LINDSEYT@STEDWARDS.EDU We plan to begin the session with a brief overview of our personal models for advising, teaching and school liaison work at St. Edward’s University and how they have changed as we’ve moved through our own transitions within our institution. Facilitators will also use their own relationship as an example of supporting colleagues through transitions in the workplace. Attendees will then participate in a conversation

• f Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and how it may be applied to higher education. The

bulk of the session will focus on an individual creative project. Here, audience members will participate in an exercise which will assist them in developing a physical reminder of their own professional mission statement or mantra as it can fit in with their campus’s expectations. As time allows, session participants will share methods and interventions that already do or could contribute to their own campus excellence. Participants will be invited to share their work and ideas with the larger group. Upon session completion, participants will leave with a small physical reminder of this transition to excellence for their daily work in the office. Presenters will also bring items to distribute to the participants as tokens of encouragement and to remind educators of the seminar objectives after they return to their offices. Kimberly Livingstone Assistant to the Dean

• St. Edward's University

512-416-5809

31

kiml@stedwards.edu Career Consultation in the Classroom: An Outcome Study on the Effects of Combining a Career Course with Graduate Student-led Career Consultation Rodney Parks Associate Registrar The University of Georgia 706-542-8762 rlparks@uga.edu The qualitative results of this study revealed an overwhelmingly positive experience among students enrolled in the dual intervention course. Both qualitative and quantitative results suggest a need for further research investigating the reasons students elect to register for an academic and career planning course. Yvette Getch Associate Professor University of Georgia 706-542-1685 ygetch@uga.edu Discussing What Works: Challenges and Opportunities in Making Second-Year programs successful Jimmie Gahagan Director, Office of Student Engagement The University of South Carolina 803.777.1445 gahagan@sc.edu The University of South Carolina began their sophomore-year programs in the 2004- 2005 academic year and in the seven years since that starting point we have experienced a number of successes and failures in regards to obtaining student and institutional buy-in, developing resources to support second-year students, and promoting sophomore student success. However, at the same time changes in institutional leadership, changing student demographics, the financial crisis, along with other issues have also impacted the growth of sophomore-year experience at

• USC. Current research and literature continues confirm that second-year students have

unique developmental needs, but the question remains, how can we build a more sustainable sophomore year experience on our campuses? This session will begin with a review of the literature, highlighting works that have been done in recent years examining the issues that sophomore students face. Discussion will then move into the findings that were recently published in fall 2010 from the National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition on the 2008 National Survey

• f Sophomore Year Initiatives. Following the overview of common initiatives, guided

discussion will begin on what participants’ experiences have been at their own

• institutions. Through a series of small group and large group discussions, the following

questions will be examined: - How do you define success for your sophomore-year experience? - What programs have been most successful in reaching second-year students? - What challenges or obstacles have you faced in meeting the needs of

32

sophomores on your campus? - What types of partnerships and institutional support are needed to make these programs successful? How do you gain institutional support for your SYE? - What are the most successful ways to reach sophomore students on your campus through either active or passive events? - How do you assess your sophomore-year experience? Kimberly Dressler Coordinator, Office of Student Engagement The University of South Carolina 803.777.2142 kdressler@sc.edu Forming, Storming, Norming and Performing: Collaboration and First-Year Cornerstone Deirdre Bucher Heistad Liberal Arts Core Director University of Northern Iowa 319-273-2633 d.heistad@uni.edu During the first part of our presentation called ―Forming‖ we will discuss how we moved from our Foundations of Excellence self-study project to actually implementing a 6 credit hour, yearlong course that have been approved by the faculty for inclusion into our general education curriculum. Many questions had to be addressed during this initial phase of course development. Not only did faculty question the academic integrity of the course, but also wondered who could teach a course that included emphases on oral communication, writing, a ―common read‖ and college transition

• issues. After a small group of faculty drafted a course proposal and received approval

from the necessary faculty bodies, a call went out inviting faculty from all colleges on campus to apply to teach the course. While there may have been a bit of ―storming‖ during the first stages of our Cornerstone implementation, the atmosphere became all the more interesting once a diverse group of seasoned faculty members began working

• n the common syllabus for the course. Ten faculty members from a wide variety of

departments worked alongside 10 librarians and 10 representatives from Student

• Affairs. While the goals and outcomes of the course had been developed and approved

by the First-Year Council, virtually all of the course development work took place during a four week summer workshop focusing in general terms on the following: best practices and engaged learning for first year students; the teaching and grading of writing; the benefits of choosing integrated communication; the creation of common rubrics; and assessment. As the faculty selected textbooks and created common assignments, it became clear that this type of collaborative project had to include a lot

• f processing to be sure that the end result remained true to course goals and
• utcomes The assessment data collected during this faculty development workshop

will be shared during this session. This year 250 students will take Cornerstone. We will track these students in order to measure their success as a distinct group as well as in relationship to other student populations. Our assessment plan includes the use

• f an electronic portfolio and will depend heavily on the use of common rubrics, self-

reflection, journaling and blogging, pre/post testing and self-reporting (i.e. MAP- Works). The information gained from closing the loop on our assessment plan will in all likelihood take us through the process of ―forming, storming, norming and performing‖ once again.

33

April Chatham-Carpenter Professor and Co-Chair of FoE and 1st Year Council University of Northern Iowa 319-273-5901 April.Chatham-Carpenter@uni.edu Michael Licari Associate Provost of Academic Affairs University of Northern Iowa 319-273-2518 michael.licari@uni.edu Promoting faculty-student co-learning when students take over self-transition unsupported by faculty Suki Ekaratne Senior Academic Staff Developer University of Bath 01225-383236 suki.sdc@gmail.com The session aims to enrich audience experiences by sharing practices in effecting student transition learning-needs changes and in meeting attendant challenges within the university faculty structure, where facilitating faculty buy-in is necessary to bring about improvements. To trigger this experiential sharing, we will begin by showcasing

• ur findings on what transpired when student transition learning needs remained

unmet, arising from incompatibilities across the different transiting learning environments of high school to university; how students initiated pre-exam learning- remediation classes by enlisting peers to conduct them - strategically addressing their immediate need to pass semester-end exams. We will invite the audience to discuss

• ther similar student-identified initiatives and how they were, or can be, improved by

integration within a format involving shared faculty input. We will showcase, and have the audience build on, our survey findings on faculty concerns with regard to the five- year average of a low 2.88 GPA with the student-led learning-remediation classes in place, reflecting that the emerged interventionist student-led training remained sub-

• ptimal when faculty training support was lacking. We will discuss and share how such

data can be utilized to lever faculty to perceive that student-led teaching could remain

• nly a strategic student approach that will not satisfy institution, faculty and student

higher education aspirations, unless faculty undertake inputs, such as facilitating training student-peers on good pedagogic practice. We will facilitate audience members to identify improving teaching culture and practice for student transition within the remit of student-peers, by using deconstructions of video footage of peer- led teaching sessions we analyzed. We will also generate and share discussion on practices easing student transition by profiling the active learning methods and drawbacks that students identified for facilitating their transition. Audience members will be invited to discuss and share how such teaching-learning practices can be embedded in formalized course structures, in the light of how our faculty sample resisted this even on perceiving that the peer-led classes furnished only the immediate ―examination passing‖ student-need, and student-identified drawbacks. We will share ways on how faculty can be motivated by getting them to perceive their opportunities to improve GPAs and subject learning by transforming peer-led teaching, as well as

34

their own teaching, towards a deeper learning approach. We will dip into literature to illustrate the above such as Kuh (2001); Pascarella (2001); Hirschy and Wilson (2002); Gibbs and Coffey (2004); Upcraft, Barefoot and Gardner (2005); Hunter (2006); Tinto (2007); Biggs and Tang (2007). Shrinika Weerakoon Senior Lecturer University of Colombo shrinika@gmail.com Saliya De Silva Senior Lecturer University of Peradeniya saliyades@pdn.ac.lk Now What? Putting Senior Transition Research into Practice April Perry Ph.D. Candidate University of Canterbury 405.225.3911 aprilperry2@gmail.com It is important that we, as practitioners, develop transition preparation and support initiatives for students based on our knowledge and experiences with them. However, it would much better if we implemented transition initiatives based on what they, the students and graduates, are saying they want and need. This has been the focus of my research study – to explore the experiences and perspectives of students in the midst

• f the post-university transition. And from that information, gain insight into what

institutions can do to better support, prepare, and train their students for life after

• college. In the research process, there are three practical questions a researcher must

ask themselves: ―What?‖ (What is the issue under investigation?), ―So What?‖ (So what are you doing to research this issue?), and ―Now What?‖ (Now that you have done the research, what are you going to do with the findings?). This roundtable discussion will primarily focus on the ―Now What‖ of the research implications. The motive is to not only deliver the findings of my research study, but gain insight from the group about practical initiatives to support our students and graduates as they transition from the university into the workforce. This discussion will be divided into three basic parts: First, a brief recap of my study and findings on the post-university

• transition. Second, a group brainstorm of the research findings and practical ways to

implement support initiatives. In this, session attendees will be asked to share what they have implemented at their university, any research they have conducted (formally

• r informally) at their campus, and any implications they may have for practice. Third,

we will discuss the other parties that often contribute to ―how‖ we move forward with

• ur transition support initiatives. In this, we will discuss administration buy-in, faculty

confidence, and funding acquisition. Often times, our ideas do not come to fruition due to the lack of proper knowledge, research, and buy-in from other university

• stakeholders. Framed by my research findings, we will brainstorm on how to achieve

these aspects, and thus take our initiatives beyond conversation and move them into action.

35

Promoting Values Education at a Large Metropolitan University Charlene Stinard Director, Transfer and Transition Services University of Central Florida 407-823-2231 charlene.stinard@ucf.edu The University of Central Florida, second largest university in the US, has made a commitment to inculcate a set of institutional values, the UCF CREED, making them relevant and an important aspect of student life. With a robust commitment to access for transfer students from the Florida community college system, UCF enrolls more than 10,000 new transfers each academic year. The Transfer and Transition Services (TTS) office is responsible for promoting transfers’ academic preparation, successful transition, and progress to graduation. Through a model Peer Mentor Program, TTS also fosters student engagement and promotes inculcation of the five values of the UCF Creed: Integrity, Scholarship, Community, Excellence, and Creativity. Peer Mentors portray for new transfers the relevance of these core values to student

• success. We will discuss the relevance of values education to student engagement, and

show the incorporation of values in programming for transfer students supports undergraduate student success. The UCF CREED video, created by the TTS Peer Mentors reaches out to students on a personal level and enhances their understanding

• f and commitment to the CREED values, as well as showing how a commitment to an

ethical framework enhances their undergraduate experience. The students’ CREED video communicates the need to not only be a better and successful student, but also to be a thoughtfully ethical person. We will show the UCF CREED video created by our Peer Mentors during the presentation, and share data supporting the benefits the CREED has had on the UCF campus community. We will demonstrate the importance of inculcating the CREED values to the new incoming students. At each orientation, the Creed video is shown to all of the incoming students, and each student is encouraged to become involved in civic engagement, uphold a sense of integrity in the academic world in addition to the personal lives, and to be the best possible student. We will share a bibliography of research results connecting student involvement to student success. The Conditional Admission Program: Providing Opportunities For "at Risk" Students To Have Access to Higher Education Jonathan Long Learning Strategies Coordinator University of Central Missouri 660-543-8716 jrlong@ucmo.edu Assessment of Learning Communities such as CAP have shown significant success for "at risk" students who show academic promise but do not meet admissions criteria. First, to provide initial information about the program, presenters will guide participants through a general description of the CAP program, how it is implemented and the level in which the program promotes student success, diversity on-campus and an increase in access to higher education. Second, statistical data will reinforce the growing success of the program, and the variables that can be attributed to that

• success. Third, participants will have an opportunity to ask questions about CAP and

36

share information about similar programs they have at their institutions. A Community of Firsts Tim Foutz Professor of Biological and Agricultural Engineering University of Georgia (706) 583-0567 tfoutz@uga.edu In Fall 2011 the University of Georgia will launch the First- Year Odyssey (FYO) seminar program. All first-year students will be required to take an FYO seminar, all of which will be taught by faculty members and built around the scholarly interests of the given faculty member. A major goal of this program is to expose first-year students to the role of a faculty member in the university community while also encouraging quality the interaction between teacher and student that has been shown to have a positive effect on students’ remaining college years. While some of the faculty participating in the FYO program will have experience teaching first-year students, some faculty will be many years removed from teaching this population. Among other forms of support that UGA is providing for this program, there will be a faculty learning community centered around the first instructors of this program in its inaugural

• semester. One of the major goals for this group will be to review the characteristics of

today’s first-year students and educate ourselves on the pedagogical techniques that are most effective for that population. Research shows that the mindset of today’s first-year learner is quite different from that of the average professor, even a newly- minted professor. Our goal will be to acquaint ourselves with the identity of these young learners and to shape our teaching methods accordingly. Another goal of the program is to teach first-year students the importance of being an active learner. To do so many faculty will need to recall what it means to be an active learner and how to encourage that behavior in our students. This faculty learning community will provide faculty with several opportunities to hear from experts on how to teach active learning

• skills. The participants in this group represent various disciplines and are motivated by

different needs and interests related to teaching their FYO seminar. The interdisciplinary of the group will be its greatest asset. We will see how the same goals for active learning can be accomplished in different ways across disciplines. In this faculty learning community we will assist each other in meeting our individual goals while we strive to meet the goals of the larger institutional initiative. The product we are aiming for is valuable information and informed, successful pedagogical practices that can be shared with future generations of FYO faculty. Leslie Gordon Assistant to the Vice President for Instruction University of Georgia 706-542-0427 gordonls@uga.edu STARS - Addressing the needs of at-risk first-year students through a living-learning community Tarah Sweeting-Trotter

37

Academic Advisor, Instructor, First Year Seminar Coordinator University of Illinois at Springfield 217-206-7471 tswee03s@uis.edu Our presentation will focus on the development and construction of what we now call

• ur STARS (Students Transitioning for Academic Retention and Success) program. In

its second year, STARS is a focused retention initiative developed to help at-risk students achieve academic success and to ensure their continuation at UIS (University

• f Illinois at Springfield). Our STARS students are engaged in a living-learning

community, where they are housed together in our residence hall. This piece allows for specific programming pieces to facilitate their transition to UIS during their first year. These programming pieces are constructed and implemented through the collaboration

• f our Undergraduate Academic Advising office and our Residence Life office.

Programming is co-developed by these two areas, then implemented by a combination

• f RA’s, Peer Advisors, First Year Seminar student facilitators, and myself, who acts as

the coordinator for this program. Through consistent one-on-one contact, we monitor student needs in order to construct effective programming that supports a smooth academic and social transition to UIS. The living-learning piece of the STARS program is further facilitated by our First Year Seminar, which encompasses all STARS students in one section, taught an academic advisor, and again, individually modified to meet the specific needs of this student population. Students are immediately grounded within a community both in their residence hall and in the course, drawing a strong foundation for continued community engagement and, of course, retention. Also, students in the STARS section of our FYS, are also academically advised by their instructor, which gives them the unique opportunity to be in weekly and regular contact with their academic advisor. As such, the program allows advisors to be aware

• f issues a student may be experiencing more quickly, and allows that advisor to

identify both academic and social ―red flags‖ in a timely manner, allowing for faster, more focused interventions. This ―homegrown‖ program works in conjunction with a number of other campus departments and technological tools to help promote student success and retention. We hope to be able to increase the number of students to which we are able to offer this service in the near future. We feel it is an effective tool for supporting our ever-increasing at-risk student populations, and are eager to share our ideas with other institutions facing the same challenges. Today's Net Generation Students: Why They are Different, and Teaching Strategies that Work for Them Robert Feldman Dean of the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences and Professor of Psychology University of Massachusetts, Amherst 413.577.1203 feldman@sbs.umass.edu Are today’s students different in some fundamental ways from prior generations of students? Do their extensive experiences with technology, texting, Twittering, and multi-tasking make them perceive the world, and even think about it, in ways that are dissimilar from traditional students? In this hands-on presentation, based on a growing body of research, we will address the issue of who Net Generation students are, and how that impacts the nature of First Year Experience courses and student success more generally. We’ll first examine the key characteristics of Net Generation

38

students, considering their independence, emotional and intellectual openness, and their readiness to innovate. We’ll review research showing that they have thinking styles that may differ from students in earlier generations and why multitasking is the

• norm. We also will look at how they use technology and their preference for courses

that include technology. We then will examine general principles for teaching Net Generation students, based on research findings that show the importance of education being learner-centered. We will discuss the drawbacks to traditional lectures in educating Net Generation students and how Net Generation students prefer to discover information on their own rather than passively absorbing teacher- generated content. We also will discuss the importance of student collaboration, and that ultimately the education of Net Generation students revolves around not what students know, but what students can learn. Finally, we will examine how, specifically, to deal with the needs of Net Generation students in First Year Experience courses through the use of technology. We will consider a number of technologies from the perspective of novice instructors, reviewing ―smart‖ presentation media and the use of interactive technologies such as blogs, wikis, and podcasts. We will consider the

• verall benefits and disadvantages of the use of technology, addressing the practical—

and philosophical—issues of how its use is changing the nature of education. We’ll close the session with a discussion of how we encourage success in Net Generation students. Satisfactory Academic Progress: A Collaborative and Innovative Approach to Achieving Students Success and Retention Aimi Moss Director, Academic Advising and Career Center; New Student Programs University of Michigan-Flint (810) 762-3085 aimi@umflint.edu Satisfactory Academic Progress parts 668.16(e), 668.32(f) and 668.34 final rule changes take effect on 7/1/2011 (United States Department of Education). In order to standardize how all institutions are holding students accountable, a few key items are changing: (1) Defines SAP terms of Probation and Warning; (2) Allows for one semester of automatic warning and continued eligibility if the school assesses SAP every payment period; and (3) Qualitative (GPA standard) and Quantitative (federal minimum overall completion rate of 67%) criteria continue to be required. Schools are not required to accept appeals, but if they do, they must specify the appeal requirements and processes. An appeal may be approved only if the school: (1) Has determined that the student will be able to meet SAP standards after the subsequent payment period; or (2) Develops an academic plan with the student that, if followed, will ensure the student is able to meet SAP standards by a specific point in time. This will keep students on track to graduation and hold them accountable for their course schedule each semester until such time they reach the minimum standards required. Seventy percent (70%) of students attending the University of Michigan-Flint receive some form of financial aid. At any given time, approximately 10% of the student population is on academic probation or at risk of being placed on probation. This combination of factors, coupled with changes to SAP prompted Student Affairs to explore how we might proactively support students at risk. At UM-Flint, retention efforts are synthesized along a continuum, with the end goal being systematic student

• utreach and institutional engagement. This outreach, along with early warning

efforts, is achieved via student success/retention programs such as Early Academic

39

Assessment and the Academic Advantage Plan. The SAP initiative, a collaboration between Academic Advising, Financial Aid, and Registration is aimed at keeping students on track academically and in compliance where SAP is concerned. A member

• f our Registration team, chosen because of his knowledge of academic and university

policies and exceptional customer service skills, was transferred to Financial Aid in June 2011. His duties include: (1) developing the process by which the university will proactively work with students in violation of SAP; (2) designing worksheets to achieve standardization of academic plans across units campus-wide; (3) engaging academic advisors in creating academic plans to set students on the path to retaining/regaining aid eligibility; and (4) serving as liaison between Financial Aid and academic advisors to monitor plans as set forth and agreed upon by student, academic advisor, and Financial Aid. The team leading this session will discuss the vision that brought about this initiative, share preliminary results, and review the benefits and pitfalls of a collaboration of this magnitude. Mary Jo Sekelsky Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs University of Michigan-Flint (810) 762-3434 maryjoss@umflint.edu Transition Experiences of Middle Eastern Graduates in U.S. Universities Fulya Marsh Assistant Instructor University of Missouri 573-355-6641 fmarsh@vt.edu This presentation will start out by defining what Transition is by using Schlossberg et al.'s (1995) 4 S Transition Theory. Next I will present two other models: (a) Taylor’s Learning to Become Inter-culturally Competent Model (1994) and Furnham and (b) Bochner’s Social Skills and Culture Learning Model (1986) and discuss elements that were applicable to my study. I sought to provide a portrait of the lived experiences of Middle Eastern graduate students transitioning into a Mid-western town in the U.S. to pursue their graduate studies. I identified themes within the two stages of transition: moving through and moving in (Schlossberg, 1995). During the ―moving through‖ stage, I found that Middle Eastern graduate students were coming from a culture that was very family oriented, where respect, abidance, and honor were key elements. They had to listen to the head of the family i.e. their father and do what he wanted them to do. Although participants came from various Middle Eastern countries, they all discussed one common point: the importance people back home placed on getting a higher education from a foreign country, preferably the U.S. This they saw as the key to getting a good job and having a good future. Generally, their fathers encouraged them to pursue higher education in the U.S. They were determined to meet their father’s expectations and make their family proud. Even though they were older than the typical college aged student, these graduate students had been living with their families all their lives. They had not experienced having to take on a lot of responsibility, individuality, or independence. They came from a very strict, controlled, and formal educational system; their social life was active and revolved around their family and friends from school; they had limited previous job experiences. When Middle Eastern graduate students transitioned from their secure, family dependent,

40

supportive environment and ―moved in‖ to their new environment in the U.S., I found that the academic and social environment they were in, made them feel very welcome and relaxed initially. During their first couple of weeks in their new environment, there were various people who they could turn to for support: cohort members, professors, staff members, extended family who were living in the U.S. and people from their own

• country. However, as they no longer had their family’s support and guidance, I found

that graduate students coped with ambiguity with the support of people from their

• wn county whom they could turn to for advice and guidance when they needed to.

They were able to become more self-reliant and accept responsibilities so that they could adapt to their new environments quicker. Although they experienced various social challenges like getting used to the food, the weather, and issues related to religion, none of the participants reported being discriminated against by anyone in the academic or social environment. Similar to Bachner and Furnham (1986) and Taylor (1994), I found that they initially experienced culture shock mainly stemming from misunderstanding or being unaware of the cultural issues. They overcame such challenges by applying Taylor’s (1994) behavioral learning strategies. When they initially met their professors for the first time they also experienced academic challenges like feeling intimidated and scared as they had such high regards towards all of them. They were very respectful and found it hard not to use titles like Dr. when addressing their professors. As for academic studies, all of the participants found getting used to the university system extremely challenging. They needed guidance and support especially if they were mid-year enrollees who had missed the orientation session. Building a Success Center from the Ground Up Felecia Edwards Director, First-Year Success Center University of New Haven 203-932-7312 fedwards@newhaven.edu This presentation will bring together the strategies implemented by the First-Year Success Center at the University of New Haven that will be helpful in building a similar department at other institutions. We will discuss how we established our funding, staffed our area, and created an annual cycle. Through the use of multiple student retention data systems, such as MapWorks and CSI, we will share what information we used to predict which students would need the most support. We will present how we use student feedback and student-centered customer service to bring students the services that they find valuable. We will focus on the collaborative effort that we have established with other offices in order to gain support, create a brand, and provide students with a network of support in their first year of college. The relationships we have built with other campus offices, faculty, staff members, and students have helped us support first-year students holistically. For example, by teaming up with the advisor for undeclared students, as well as the career development center, we have built a support network for undecided students at the university. By conducting research before we opened the success center, we were able to discover what tools would be most useful in working with incoming students. We will highlight the services we have provided to students, including: success coaching, mentoring, a call center, programming, monitoring, and proactive outreach. There will be a discussion of the use of our website, Facebook, and twitter to reach students. We will also talk about our use of intrusive and appreciative advising in our outreach and one-on-one meetings

41

with students. We will conclude our session by offering advice from what we have learned in our first year at the university. We will share best practices for getting started, and ideas for the best ways to report outcomes and display your accomplishments to both internal and external constituent groups. Aschlee Cole Student Success Coach University of New Haven 203-479-4581 acole@newhaven.edu Tiffany Green Student Success Coach University of New Haven 203-479-4245 tgreen@newhaven.edu Examining the Effects of Academic and Social Intervention Courses on Engagement among Community College Students Micaela Mercado Ph.D. Candidate University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 954-600-6807 mmphd@unc.edu Multivariate analyses using propensity scores weighting was applied to examine the treatment effect of each intervention on student engagement outcomes. Results indicate that learning communities have the highest treatment effect on active- collaborative learning and student-faculty interactions than any other intervention examined in this study. Developmental mathematic courses had the lowest effect on student engagement outcomes. Exploring the Efficacy of Early Intervention Based on Psychosocial Risk Factors Dale Tampke Dean, Undergraduate Studies University of North Texas 940.565.4321 Dale.Tampke@unt.edu Introduction Six-year graduation rates average 57% at four-year institutions (Horn & Nevill, 2006), suggesting many students are ill-prepared to meet challenges they face upon entry into college. Starting in the 1970¡¦s, research has shown that psychosocial factors are useful in predicting postsecondary student outcomes such as academic performance (as measured by GPA) and persistence (as measured by reenrollment/retention). Recently, Robbins et al. (2004) summarized this literature in a meta-analysis containing 109 studies. Results showed that psychosocial factors facilitating performance and persistence can be grouped into three domains: motivation, social engagement, and self-regulation. ENGAGE (formerly the Student Readiness Inventory) was developed based on the aforementioned literature.

42

It is a low-stakes, self-report instrument containing 108 items measuring characteristics amenable to change through intervention. It consists of 10 scales falling into the three domains identified in the Robbins et al. (2004) meta-analysis. ENGAGE has shown excellent reliability. demonstrated incremental validity in predicting GPA and retention over and above other factors, and has been shown to increase educators¡¦ ability to detect risk by as much as 50%. Risk Assessment and Intervention Model The assessment and intervention model used a method of identifying at-risk students and intervening with an ¡§immediate individualized approach¡¨ (Levitz et al., 1999). First, students completed ENGAGE in groups during

• rientation sessions (N = 3,175). Next, at-risk students were selected based on

ENGAGE results and other available data. Students were invited to meet with advisors to discuss results. Of the 422 students identified as at-risk, 160 (38%) attended the meeting and comprised the treatment group; the remainder were considered a comparison group. Advisors met with at-risk students early in the fall semester, discussed ENGAGE results, and asked students to develop one ¡§strength¡¨ and work

• n one ¡§need¡¨. Advisors highlighted campus resources designed to help students

develop skills using a crosswalk that mapped resources to ENGAGE results. Outcomes Three outcomes were used to assess intervention effectiveness and student success: GPA, percentage in good academic standing (i.e., GPA > 2.0), and retention rates. Results for the treatment and comparison groups were: Outcome Treatment Comparison GPA (1st year) 2.24 2.14 Good academic standing 74% 63% Retention (1st to 2nd year) 76% 70% Results show that at-risk students who participated in the intervention experienced higher rates of academic success and were more likely to remain enrolled at the institution. Alex Casillas Senior Research Associate ACT, Inc. 319-337-1211 alex.casillas@act.org College – It’s Not All Fun and Games Kimberly Osada Director - START Office University of North Texas 940-565-4403 kimberly.osada@unt.edu During this session, the presenters will discuss ways of increasing student engagement with the material taught in a First Year Seminar and introduce participants to the game they developed for this purpose – UNT Road to Success (RTS). RTS is used throughout the semester-long course to introduce and reinforce concepts and information taught during the seminar. In the game, each player starts as a new freshman and moves through the trials and tribulations of all four years of college. The winner is the player who successfully navigates the college experiences and ―graduates.‖ There are final exams at the end of each year of college where a trivia question about the university must be answered before the student is able to move on to the next year of college. There are ―Get a Life‖ cards and ―Get an Education‖ cards that are used to represent things that happen while in college and in the ―real world‖ in general. Students are taught progressively more difficult lessons each year. Their freshman year, they are accepted to the university; meet their roommate, buy

43

textbooks, go to Orientation, and gain the ―Freshman 15.‖ By their sophomore year, they rent an apartment, get a dog, and make a car payment. By their junior year, they go to the Career Center, Student Money Management Center, and go on Spring Break. Their senior year, they buy a suit for an interview, get an internship, buy graduation items, and finally graduate. We believe by using team building skills in the classroom and giving the student resources on campus, they will know where to get the help they need to be successful and stay in college. As with the many students that drop-out of college today, in our game, if a player runs out of money, they must sit out five turns while they are ―working a job‖ to pay their college expenses. The player is then allotted $1,000 and can go back to the beginning of the year where they were forced to drop out. At the end of the game, the first to graduate picks a card with a career that requires a bachelor’s degree. The remaining players pick a card with a career that does NOT require a bachelor’s degree. The students must then research their career and bring back to the next class period the salary for their career, job duties, and working conditions and give a 1-2 minute presentation on their research. Discussion will then be held on the pros of getting a college education. The session will be divided into three parts: introduction, game play, and discussion. Participants will become actively engaged by playing and discussing the game and its implications. Tammy Lowrie Assistant Director - START Office University of North Texas 940-565-4403 tammy.lowrie@unt.edu Emerging Evidence from the 2011 National Survey of Senior Capstone Experiences Ryan Padgett Assistant Director of Research, Grants, and Assessment University of South Carolina 803-777-2134 rpadgett@mailbox.sc.edu Senior capstone experiences are identified within the literature as opportunities for the integration, synthesis, and application of learning (see Henscheid, 2000; Leskes & Miller, 2006; Kuh, 2008). Senior capstone experiences empirically have a strong, positive relationship with deep or integrative learning (Kuh, 2008), and are also suggested as having positive relationships with self-reported cognitive outcomes, such as critical thinking, intellectual inquiry, and independence within learning (see Brownwell & Swaner, 2010; NSSE 2009). Guided by this research and the strong connection these culminating experiences have on the connection between learning and real-world application, senior capstone experiences are characterized as a high- impact practice (see Kuh, 2008). The presentation will provide an overview of the survey methodology, including data collection, description of the institutional data sample, measures within the survey, and the analytical method. The survey administration has not concluded, so no preliminary findings are currently available. However, given the duration between the end of the survey administration and the SIT conference, the data will be cleaned and coded in time for presentation. A discussion

• f the results will highlight national trends and provide attendees with practical

evidence and recommendations for evaluating, implementing, and/or assessing senior capstone courses or projects on their campuses. The presentation will conclude with a question and answer session with attendees. In addition, attendees will be encouraged

44

to share elements within their senior capstone experience they found to be innovative

• r successful on their campus. Brownell, J. E., & Swaner, L. E. (2010). Five high-impact

practices: Research on learning outcomes, completion, and quality. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Henscheid, J. M. (2000). Professing the disciplines: An analysis of senior seminars and capstone courses (Monograph No. 30). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition. Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Leskes, A., & Miller, R. (2006). Purposeful pathways: Helping students achieve key learning

• utcomes. National Survey of Student Engagement. (2009). Assessment for

improvement: Tracking student engagement over time. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. Cindy Kilgo Graduate Assistant for Research, Grants, and Assessment University of South Carolina 803-777-2247 kilgoc@mailbox.sc.edu Spirituality, Authenticity, Wholeness, and Self-Renewal in the Academy Mary Stuart Hunter Associate Vice President University of South Carolina 803.777.4761 shunter@sc.edu This session is designed to facilitate discussion among attendees. It will open with the presenters providing context and background on important topic described in the title

• f the session. Then in a small group, participants will be invited to discuss the

following questions: 1) In your institutional life and work, can you think of specific times or situations in which you have experienced a clash between your personal values and institutional values and practices? Give specific examples of times or

• ccasions in which you felt compelled to compromise your values and beliefs. 2) What

kind of collegial behavior or administrative policies generate value conflicts for you or create inauthentic behavior? 3) In what ways are the beliefs and values of your department or institution congruent or incongruent with your own? 4) Are there times when your interactions with students have offered opportunities to discuss issues of spirituality, authenticity, and wholeness? How have you reacted to the opportunity? 5) Does your institution provide safe structures or opportunities for the sharing of values? Would the process used for this session facilitate such sharing on your home campus? The session will conclude with the presenters facilitating a processing of the discussion and a sharing of resources on the topic. John Gardner Senior Fellow and Professor Emeritius University of South Carolina 828.449.8044 gardner@jngi.org Betsy Barefoot

45

Fellow University of South Carolina 828.449.8044 barefoot@jngi.org Creating and Developing Learner-Centered CLassrooms Mary Stuart Hunter Associate Vice President University of South Carolina 803.777.4761 shunter@sc.edu This session will begin with an overview of key applicable tenets in the Barr and Tagg article and an overview of the Weimer model for learner-centered classrooms. Additional context will be provided based on David Kolb's experiential learning theory and a model for designing engaging assignments created at the University of South

• Carolina. Attendees will then be challenged to share ideas for making traditional

content in first-year seminars "more learner-centered". As a result of attending this session, participants will: Be able to describe the differences between an instruction- centered and a learning-centered institution. Be able to describe the differences between a teacher-centered classroom and learner-centered classroom. Formulate new learner-centered ideas for classroom strategies. Writing on Campus-Based Initiatives: Strategies for Sharing Your Good Work With Internal and External Audiences Tracy Skipper Assistant Director for Publications University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience & Students in Transition (803) 777-6226 tlskippe@mailbox.sc.edu Increasingly, educators are asked to assess their work with students in transition to demonstrate its efficacy. Yet, assessment data are of little value if they are not shared. Professionals may be reluctant to engage in the act of writing about their work because they believe it is too hard or too time-consuming. This session provides strategies and a framework for developing brief scholarly practice pieces that describe successful college transition initiatives. The development of an article for publication in E-Source for College Transitions will serve as the framework for this session. However, the strategies discussed and the writing practices explored are suitable for a wide range of internal and external publication formats and can also be applied to longer pieces (e.g., journal articles, book chapters). The session will open with a general discussion of the possible range of venues for publishing the outcomes of campus-based initiatives and describe the characteristics of a strong E-Source article. The facilitator will also highlight some general recommendations for writing well, exploring issues related to the message, the audience, the author, and the larger

• context. The bulk of the session will engage participants in writing about a topic of

their choosing, but preferably a description of an effective campus practice, which they would like to share with internal and/or external constituents. Participants will also

46

have an opportunity to receive feedback on their early ideas and drafts. Participants are encouraged to bring a laptop, netbook, or tablet to capture their drafts. NOTE: To facilitate the presentation of information and to allow for adequate time for writing and peer review, we are requesting an extended session of 90 minutes. Because we will be asking participants to write, we would like the room set with round tables and/or classroom style. Do Women Make the Difference? The relationship between high-impact program participation and retention and time-to-graduation Mark St. Andre Assistant Dean of Undergraduate Studies University of Utah 801-585-9876 mark.standre@utah.edu The purpose of the present study is to investigate the hypothesis that University of Utah students from 1999-2009 who participate in ―high impact‖ programs, designed to engage students and help them appreciate all of the choices available to them at the University, would be more likely to return for their second year and to graduate in a shorter amount of time. To test this hypothesis, raw demographic and academic data from the University of Utah’s Office of Budget and Institutional Analysis (OBIA) and enrollment information from the programs under study, were merged into a data set. A previous analysis of Utah’s LEAP (first-year experience) program and its impact on retention and time-to-graduation (presented at the International First-Year Experience Conference in Dublin in 2008) utilized a matching methodology for examining differences between LEAP and non-LEAP students. This approach was interesting because it literally created almost 1500 matched pairs of students who were identical in terms of gender, ethnicity, age, admissions index and high school attended. As such, it allowed the investigators to literally (as opposed to just statistically) control for the impact of these variables on the outcomes. However, it was limited in its representativeness, as most matched pairs came from a handful of large Utah high

• schools. The current study is then, in part, a replication of that previous study of LEAP,

but also expands to examine all of the UGS programs and their impact on retention and time-to-graduation. The previous LEAP matching study found that LEAP students

• utperformed their non-LEAP ―twins‖ on early GPA’s, retention, and four and six-year

graduation rates. Interestingly, the LEAP women were responsible for the overall differences between LEAP and non-LEAP students. The LEAP women were higher than their non-LEAP counterparts in every one of the outcomes mentioned above, while the LEAP men did not outperform the non-LEAP males in any way. The current study proposes to examine similar questions, but will utilize statistical controls via regression for the analyses. In addition to replicating the analysis of the LEAP program, it will also examine similar relationships between other high-impact programs and retention and/or time-to-graduation. In part, there is a desire to see if the ―female effect‖ can be replicated with a more representative sample, and also whether this effect appears in other programs at the University. This analysis has not been conducted yet, as the data pieces are just now finally being assembled. How Explicit Focus on Identity Affects Students’ Transition to College Michelle Bass

47

Graduate Student/Project Assistant University of Wisconsin-Madison 410-294-7825 michelle.b.bass@gmail.com The presentation will begin with a discussion of why it is important to study identity development of late adolescents, with a focus on underrepresented college student populations, and their early transitional college experiences. I will then describe the specific designed learning environment in which I studied the transition to college, a First Year Interest Group (FIG) course Representing Self Through Media, structured to foster identity development through a media based representation of self. I will discuss how FIGs have tried to create more inclusive environments for learning and social growth among transitioning students from underrepresented student

• populations. Using Côté and Levine’s (1988, 2002) framework of a viable social

identity as a model for understanding identity, I will discuss six case study students in the course. A description of the course’s explicit design and curriculum focus on issues

• f identity and representation and why it serves as a valuable research site to study

late adolescent identity development in action will be included. Having a model for understanding identity is only the first piece of trying to untangle the development of adolescent identity. I will explain my reasons for using the stories people tell as the main way of understanding their identity mainly through a discussion of narrative analysis (Dauite & Lightfoot, 2004; Freeman, 1997) and why it serves as the main analytical tool for understanding the identity development of students during their transition to college Through the stories of my case study participants, which include first generation college students and bi-racial youth, we will see the importance of community and friendships created in the FIG course, determining which aspects of individual identity to share in a digital media representation of self, and discussions about identity in the classroom and interactions with the researcher and peers in the transition to college. The practice and creation of a representational identity piece was accomplished through production of a radio show in the style of This American Life. I will also share some of these pieces and include a discussion of my multimodal methodology (Halverson, 2010; Halverson, Bass, & Woods, in process) for analyzing these digital media products. The presentation will conclude with addressing how my relationships with the participants in the study affected the study and the way I talk about it as well as the importance of being viewed as a member of their first year of college community. “You Don’t Have to Go Home, But You Can’t Stay Here”: Career Advising and the Sophomore Year Matthew DeVoll Assistant Dean, College of Arts & Sciences Washington University in St. Louis 314-935-5392 mwdevoll@wustl.edu As universities prepare current students for the transition into the working world, sophomore advising plays a critical role (―Promoting Career Success‖). Students at this stage are making important decisions that can ultimately affect their transition

• ut of the university, such as what major to declare, what general education courses

to select, and what to do with the summer. Career intervention at this point is wise,

48

but with so many other important decisions traditionally related to the sophomore year at hand, it can create considerable stress on the students. This Roundtable Discussion asks, then, what are the best practices for career advising during the sophomore year? More specifically, it asks, how are these practices informed by such things as developmental and career theory as well as other important decisions during the sophomore year related to academic and personal development? Also, since informed advisors increasingly see academic, personal, and career development as a unified experience (Handbook of Career Advising), how might a university best coordinate efforts among staff who traditionally work in separate spheres, such as career advisors, academic advisors, and residential assistants? The leaders of the Roundtable Discussion would open the discussion with a brief overview of the problem, informed by background reading from a variety of sources on career advising and the sophomore year, along with their experiences as Dean for the Arts & Sciences Sophomore Class, Career Center Team Leader and point-person in Career Center for sophomore year, and Associate Director of Residential Life. Currently we are working together to develop new approaches to career advising during the sophomore year, and we would welcome the opportunity to discuss the issues with colleagues from

• ther colleges and universities. Works Cited Gore, Paul A. and Mary Stuart Hunter,

―Promoting Career Success in the Second Year of College‖ in Helping Sophomores

• Succeed. Eds. Mary Stuart Hunter, Barbara F. Tobolowsky, and John N. Gardner. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 2010. 99-113. Hughey, Kenneth F., et al. Handbook of Career

• Advising. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 2009

Carol Moakley Team Leader-Career Development Washington University in St. Louis 314-935-4985 cmoakley@wustl.edu Mary Elliott Associate Director Residential Life Washington University in St. Louis 314-935-8294 melliott@wustl.edu Increased Cost Effectiveness through an Innovative Delivery Model for First-Year Seminars William L. Vanderburgh Executive Director, Office for Faculty Development and Student Success Wichita State University 316-978-3379 william.vanderburgh@wichita.edu Wichita State University is a mid-size, mid-rank, urban-serving state university in the Midwestern U.S. that is essentially an open access, commuter campus. Adopting the traditional first-year seminar in this type of institution presents a challenge, so WSU 101 is using a unique delivery model. WSU 101 is a full semester, graded, three-credit

• course. The course has several mutually-supporting components: Each student spends

an hour per week in a class of 25 students, an hour per week in a ―supersection‖ of about 200 students, and the remaining third of the course is delivered online. Whereas typically students think of the large class as the ―real‖ course while the

49

recitation/tutorial section is a supplement, we use the terms ―section‖ and ―supersection‖ and structure activities to make clear that the small section is the student’s home base. A peer leader co-facilitates the section with an instructor, attends the supersection, and also meets one-on-one with each student every month (or more often as needed/requested). The instructor serves as first contact if an early alert flag is raised on a student in his/her section. This delivery model allows students to experience several key learning environments they will encounter during their college careers: small and large classes, online, small group and individual work, and

• ne-on-one with peers, advisors and instructors. Structuring the delivery of the course

in this way conserves university resources while maintaining conditions that promote the desired student learning outcomes. This innovative delivery model requires only a 3-5-hour per week time commitment on the part of the classroom instructor. A course coordinator supervises the peer leaders, leads the supersection, and maintains the

• nline portion of the course. While some of the efficiency of the model comes from

having a common syllabus, written materials and online component, the model is flexible enough to be adapted to the needs of different constituencies. For example, college-specific versions of WSU 101 were created for the colleges of Engineering, Health Professions, and Education. Up to one-third of the material in the college- specific versions of the course is different from the standard version taught in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. Our conference session will outline the cost savings derived from this unique delivery model, as well as the steps taken to encourage campus-wide involvement. In addition, practical experiences will be shared about how the implementation and assessment of this delivery model are progressing. Susannah Brown Student Success Specialist Wichita State University 316-978-3209 sxkaye@wichita.edu