2015 March Meeting
(2015-03-04: TLPDC 153)  Provost’s Task Force on Student Success & Retention
Agenda/Minutes
Time
1:30p
m
#
1.0
Item
Call to Order
2.0
Working Group
Reports
Academic
Advising
Working Group
Who
Notes
Review of March/May Questions
Catherine
Nutter
Mitzi
Lauderdal
e
Patrick
Hughes
Michael
Serra
March Report
Progress Toward May Report
April Meeting Plans
Member Assignments
15m
2.1
15m
2.2
Academic
Enhancement &
Interventions
Working Group
15m
2.3
Assessment &
Accountability
Working Group
15m
2.4
5m
3.0
Analysis &
Technology
Ecosystem
Working Group
Member
Insights
10m
4.0
Announcements
all
15m
5.0
Joshua
Barron
2:30p
m
6.0
Communication
s Update &
Group Photo
Adjourn
Cathy
Duran
Katherine
AustinBeltz
Adrienne
Carnes
Michael
Farmer
March Report
https://ttupsych.az1.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_5tEVJ6gFXrcS
Xid
Progress Toward May Report
April Meeting Plans
Member Assignments
March Report
Progress Toward May Report
April Meeting Plans
Member Assignments
March Report
Progress Toward May Report
April Meeting Plans
Member Assignments
Arts & Sciences Creating Upstream Communication Flows
Next Month:
CASNR Attendance Tracking Pilot
Honors College First Year Experience Courses
Update: Workshops, Conferences, Seminars, and Travel
Opportunities
AAC&U High Impact Practices Conference
June 9, 2015 to June 13, 2015
2015 AAC&U HIPS Proposal
Innovations in Retention College Challenge Grants
Regional Retention Symposium - Spring 2016
Cancelled due to weather
Juan
Munoz
Attendance - Invited
Representing
Appointed
Area
Undergraduate Admissions
International Affairs
Worldwide eLearning
Student Business Services
Financial Aid
Academic Associate Dean
Ethan Logan
Sukant Misra
Justin Louder
Christine Blakney
Becky Wilson
Cindy Akers
Academic Associate Dean
Academic Associate Dean
Academic Associate Dean
Academic Associate Dean
University Advising
College Advising Supervisor
College Advising Supervisor
Mitzi Lauderdale
Keith Dye
Stefanie Borst
Kevin Stoker
Catherine Nutter
Adrienne Carnes
Marijane
Wernsman
Susan Tomlinson
Jeremy T Mason
Lori Rodriguez
Jamie L Perez
Michael Farmer
Fanni Coward
Jennifer Snead
Sam Jackson
College Advising Supervisor
Department/Program Advisor
Department/Program Advisor
Department/Program Advisor
Faculty Senate Representative
Full-time Faculty
Full-time Faculty
Full-time Faculty
Full-time Faculty
Full-time Faculty
Full-time Faculty
Full-time Faculty
Full-time Faculty
Institutional Research
Associate Vice Provost for
Undergraduate Education
Associate Vice Provost for Student
Affairs
Office of Retention Analytics
Vice Provost (convener)
Michael Serra
Kelli Cargile Cook
Karen Alexander
@Dimitri Pappas
Laura Heinz
Katherine AustinBeltz
Patrick Hughes
Administration
Administration
Administration
Administration
Administration
College of Agricultural Sciences &
Natural Resources
College of Human Sciences
College of Visual & Performing Arts
College of Arts & Sciences
College of Media & Communication
University Programs
Rawls College of Business
College of Media & Communication
Honors College
College of Arts & Sciences
College of Architecture
Whitacre College of Engineering
All Faculty
College of Education
College of Arts & Sciences
College of Agricultural Sciences &
Natural Resources
College of Arts & Sciences
College of Arts & Sciences
College of Human Sciences
College of Arts & Sciences
University Libraries
Administration
Administration
Cathy Duran
Administration
Joshua Barron
Juan Muñoz
Administration
Administration
2015 March Report
Academic Advising Working Group  Provost’s Task Force on Student Success & Retention
The Academic Advising subcommittee has identified two major working areas and smaller targets within
these areas as places for focus, attention, and action.
1. Academic advising expectations and resources
1. Tools
2. Funding
3. Communication practices
4. Essential functions/responsibilities
2. Professionalization
1. Training
2. Professional development
What does the literature say about each of our principal areas and their respective research
questions? We have reviewed much of the literature concerning academic advising core values,
essential skills, and professional development. In addition, we reviewed the Undergraduate Retention
Initiatives white paper and the Noel Levitz report from 2010. Our findings and research questions are
consistent with issues raised previously yet left unaddressed.
What is the desired state or what should be our measures of success? The Academic Advising
Subcommittee will be partnering with the other groups to create realistic and measurable
assessments. Our end result is increased retention – of students and professional advisors.
Using existing institutional data, what is our current state for each of these measures? We are creating
surveys (in conjunction with the other groups) to determine the state of advising at Tech. We know that
what exists in professional development and training is uncoordinated, uncommunicated, and often
unsupported financially. We also know that the tools, funding, and communication practices are
divergent and autonomous in many advising locations on campus. Essential functions have been
normalized to a degree with the new levels in HR, but not everyone who advises fits into those
categories, and not everyone who is called an academic advisor fulfills those listed functions.
For May, we are planning an analysis of survey results to create recommendations for Fall
implementation as suggested by impact, desired outcomes, and available resources.
2015 March Report
Academic Enhancement & Interventions  Provost’s Task Force on Student Success & Retention
What does the (research, best practices, and thought leadership)
literature say about each of our group’s principal areas and their
respective research questions?
What is the desired state OR what should be our group’s measures
of success?
Using existing institutional data, what is our current state for each
of these measures?
To answer this question, the working group has been preparing an inventory survey for identifying and gathering a more
detailed understanding of the various retention initiatives across campus, particularly those that enhance the curricular
experience in and beyond the classroom, along with those interventions that proactively intervene as initiated by
various campus units (academic and support).
The proposed survey/inventory is being considered in light of updates to the 2014 Undergraduate Retention Initiatives
white paper and other information gathered in standard reporting, as well as measures collected for the recent SACSCOC reaccreditation process.
A quick preview of the (work-in-process) inventory survey is available online at:
https://ttupsych.az1.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_bmxddhaaliX1VYN
Please include any comments/questions/suggestions below if you have them, or email them to
michael.serra@ttu.edu directly, or come to the survey meeting when it's scheduled.
1
Accountability and Assessment Report
Task Force for Retention and Student Success
March 2015
Goals
The subgroup developed the following goals for phase one:
1. Gather existing institutional metrics related to retention and student
success
a. Institutional Research
b. Office of Planning and Assessment
c. Enrollment Management
d. Student Services
e. Student Financial Aid
2. Survey colleges and units for existing retention and student success
assessments
a. All colleges, including Undergraduate Education
b. Honors College
c. Graduate School
d. International Affairs
3. Identify assessment and accountability gaps in current assessment
and accountability efforts
a. Interview key campus support groups for input:
i. Academic Advisor Group
ii. eLearning Council
iii. Academic Council
iv. Associate Dean Council
v. Faculty Senate
b. Review existing literature and scholarly research to identify
success predictors not currently implemented at Texas Tech
University
4. Obtain direct student feedback to further identify predictors for
success
a. Meet with Student Government Association to solicit feedback
2
b. Identify key elements of the first year experience
5. Examine results of the EAB Student Collaborative Initiative
a. Clearly identify the “mirky middle” for TTU
b. Review list of gaps in accountability and assessment that are
relevant to the “mirky middle”
6. Partner with other Task Force subgroups to develop assessment
measures and identify accountability processes and procedures
a. Review all proposed interventions and programming
modifications
b. Assist with the development of defensible assessment plans
c. Establish accountability measures tied to strategic retention
efforts
d. Identify opportunities to leverage existing assessment tools and
methodologies to incorporate new activities, interventions, and
programs.
Progress Report
Goal 1: Gather existing institutional metrics related to retention and student
success
a. Institutional Research
i. Benchmarking
3
ii. Further External Comparison
iii. Predictive modeling tool for retention and enrollment
planning
4
iv. Fact Book analysis by target group; example:
5
v. Provost College Dashboards
vi. College Metrics Dashboard – Retention Over Time
6
vii. Student-Faculty Ratios
viii. Online Data Trends
http://www.irim.ttu.edu/Trends
7
b. Office of Planning and Assessment
c. Enrollment Management
Weekly Admission Reports, example:
8
d. Student Services
In process
e. Student Financial Aid
Red Raider Guarantee Program
Overview:
The Red Raider Guarantee
RRG Funded by
(RRG) program was initiated
Texas Tech University
to correlate with the State’s
Closing the Gaps initiatives.
The RRG program was
established in the fall of 2007,
by Texas Tech University with
the purpose, to ensure
academically capable but
financially disadvantaged
students would have the
opportunity to attend Texas
Tech University and
successfully complete a
bachelor’s degree in a timely
manner. The target, incoming
freshmen whose household
adjusted gross incomes were
at or below $40,000 per year.
RRG Funded by
Federal & State Funds
Amount
Students
Amount
Students
FY 2008
$
578
$ 186,022
57
4,074,900
FY 2009
$
573
$ 110,993
63
4,039,650
FY 2010
$
1,072
$ 34,590
13
7,168,816
FY 2011
$
964
$ 144,460
47
9,962,046
FY 2012
$
911
$ 7,000
2
7,119,071
FY 2013
$7,346,279 814
$ 24,000
7
FY 2014
Tuition & Fee Revenue
Collected by TTU
Amount
Students
$4
635
,508,500
$
636
4,515,600
$
1,085
8,463,000
$
1,011
8,694,600
$
913
8,308,300
$
821
7,635,300
$
848
7,886,400
$
844
$ 13,150
4
7,876,370
Ethnicity (Percent of Students) and Average GPA and SAT
Black
Hispanic
American
Other
Asian/
White
Average
Indian
Pacific
GPA
Islander
FY 2008 11.3%
28.1%
1.1%
0.2%
4.4%
55.0%
2.97
FY 2009 11.9%
26.7%
0.5%
0.8%
5.0%
55.0%
2.95
FY 2010 11.6%
34.0%
0.9%
2.4%
7.5%
43.6%
2.73
FY 2011 9.0%
14.8%
0.4%
10.1%
3.2%
62.5%
2.72
Average
SAT
1072
1061
1077
1059
9
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
8.2%
10.9%
12.0%
14.9%
18.6%
18.3%
0.6%
0.5%
0.6%
9.0%
9.7%
7.1%
2.5%
5.5%
3.8%
64.8%
54.8%
58.2%
2.74
2.78
2.73
1063
1071
1087
Goal 2: Survey colleges and units for existing retention and student success
assessments
Assign task force members to conduct the following reviews –
Meeting scheduled March 10:
All colleges, including Undergraduate Education
Honors College
Graduate School
International Affairs
Goal 3: Identify assessment and accountability gaps in current assessment
and accountability efforts – Develop an interview and feedback
solicitation plan – Meeting scheduled March 10
Interview key campus support groups for input:
i. Academic Advisor Group
ii. eLearning Council
iii. Academic Council
iv. Associate Dean Council
v. Faculty Senate
Review existing literature and scholarly research to identify
success predictors not currently implemented at Texas Tech
University
Literature review complete – posted on Wiki site for working
group
Goal 4
Obtain direct student feedback to further identify predictors for
success – Develop plan during March 10 meeting
Meet with Student Government Association to solicit feedback
Identify key elements of the first year experience
10
Goal 5
Examine results of the EAB Student Collaborative Initiative
Clearly identify the “mirky middle” for TTU
Review list of gaps in accountability and assessment that are
relevant to the “mirky middle”
In process – working to evaluate historical data and present to
subcommittee
Goal 6
Partner with other Task Force subgroups to develop assessment
measures and identify accountability processes and procedures –
Planned for April work
Review all proposed interventions and programming
modifications
Assist with the development of defensible assessment plans
Establish accountability measures tied to strategic retention
efforts
Identify opportunities to leverage existing assessment tools and
methodologies to incorporate new activities, interventions, and
programs.
2015-02-25 Prep for March 4th
Analysis & Technology Ecosystem Working Group
Goals
1. Analysis - Inventory: To identify existing data analysis projects that may help
better understand student retention patterns.
2. Analysis - Improve: To consider new data for analysis and action.
3. Technology - Inventory: To identify the elements in our technology ecosystem
that support student success and retention, including computer systems in use
by students, faculty, and support staff.
4. Technology - Improve: To consider new technology (and infrastructure) for
integration, enhancement, and/or implementation.
March Report
What does the (research, best practices, and thought leadership) literature
say about each of our principal areas and their respective research
questions?
Analysis
Thought leadership suggests substantial value in a consistent institutional
understanding of existing populations being analyzed by different campus
groups. According to Bernadette Jungblut, Assessment Officer and Executive Director
of Academic Success Initiatives for West Virginia University, and other Academic
Impressions subject matter experts, the following is an example of analyses to be
inventoried. Numerous reports, Noel-Levitz, agree with this approach.
Population *
Description *
Size *
Current 1-Year
Retention Rate
1-Year Goal
Retention Rate
Identify population with low retention rate. Which
population is at great risk of not persisting?
What specific data points qualify a student as a member of this
population?
Quantity, in number of students, of this population. This helps
to determine those populations that pose the most substantial
threats to improving the institutional retention rate.
% Based on the most recent data, what is the current first-tosecond year retention rate for this population?
% What is the (immediate) target first-to-second year retention
rate for this population?
Analysis & Technology Ecosystem – March Report
Current 4-Year
Retention Rate
4-Year Goal
Retention Rate
Current 6-Year
Graduation Rate
6-Year Goal
Graduation Rate
Info Needed
Institutional Goal
% Based on the most recent data, what is the current four-year
retention rate for this population?
% Based on the most recent data, what is the goal (immediate)
four-year retention rate for this population?
% Based on the most recent data, what is the current six-year
graduation rate for this population?
% Based on the most recent data, what is the goal (immediate)
six-year graduation rate for this population?
What more do you need to know about this population?
What related institutional goal(s) will be met by directing
resources toward this population?
Technology
Though there are many philosophies and frameworks available for guiding the process
of improvement in technological tools and systems, the general outcomes of these
approaches is essentially the same: facilitating due diligence, understanding a current
state, and navigating the gap to arrive at some state closer to a stated ideal
outcome. One of these approaches, created by Carnegie Mellon University's Software
Engineering Institute, is equally helpful for examining improvement processes in
software creation, business processes, and human factors. The CMU-SEI approach is
known as the IDEAL model, and is depicted below.
Page 2 of 3
Analysis & Technology Ecosystem – March Report
What is the desired state OR what should be our measures of success?
Analysis
Once we have a consistent understanding of what institutionally is happening we can
leverage technology to streamline, automate and validate formerly disparate
processes. To understand the value of these improvements, we will measure this
success by surveying campus users to complete the inventory and gauge their
satisfaction now, and at various points in the future.
Technology
Once we have a consistent understanding of what is happening across the university
we can select institutional solutions and configure these to meet the needs of each
constituent group and their improved business processes. To understand the value of
these improvements, we will measure this success by surveying campus users to
complete the inventory and gauge their satisfaction now, and at various points in the
future.
Using existing institutional data, what is our current state for each of these
measures?
Analysis
Thanks to the COGNOS review committee the usage of existing reports is known.
Application development can also provide a summary of patterns, trends and themes in
the requests they receive enhancing existing reports and creating new ones. However,
no known survey has been conducted to inform us on the utility and usage of various
reports and analyses for retention focused initiatives.
Technology
Thanks to an inventory provided by Information Technology the existence of current
centralized technological systems is known. However, a wide variety of course-,
program-, department-, and college- specific technologies are also in use ranging from
pencil and paper to smartphone enabled apps and online web based systems.
Page 3 of 3
AAC&U HIPS Proposal
Application to the
2015 AAC&U High Impact Practices Institute – Texas
Tech
Introduction
Texas Tech University is committed to excellence in research and student success. Few measures
currently represent student academic success more clearly than the indices of retention,
persistence, and graduation. The university’s first strategic priority, “Increase Enrollment and
Promote Student Success,” as published in the institution’s 2020 Strategic Plan—Making It
Possible, includes these metrics, placing the highest importance on improved student retention and
graduation rates. We wonder, could there also be metrics that, to all of our students, are more
meaningful, accessible, and actionable?
Contribution
Texas Tech’s units have already contributed in many ways to raise students’ expectations for
learning. Recent efforts have added new practices, even while enhancing and scaling-up existing
initiatives, e.g., redesigned Freshman Seminar, undecided student designation, risk analysis and
targeted interventions via the Education Advisory Board Student Success Collaborative research
services and technology platform, Red Raider Orientation, college-aligned tutoring, undergraduate
research, and service learning. These all involve the principles, policies, and processes central in
one or more of Kuh’s identified high-impact practices. Yet, at Texas Tech University, these
excellent practices operate without substantial regard for one another.
The ability to coordinate specialized and focused retention programs within distinct colleges is
made difficult, not from a lack of willingness to collaborate, but due to the uniqueness of academic
fields, varying levels of student preparedness, and available resources. To counter this reality, in
fall 2014 the Provost established the Texas Tech Task Force on Student Success & Retention
(TF:SSR). Its membership is comprised of 34 representatives including faculty, staff, and
administrators. Each member is committed to serve in two of four smaller working groups. This
cross-pollinated structure allows the task force to simultaneously engage complex retention issues
that frequently span one or more of the working groups’ areas of focus: Assessment &
Accountability, Analysis & Technology Ecosystem, Academic Advising, and Academic
Enhancement & Intervention. Now a permanent addition to the university’s success and retention
assets, this group is charged to be both guide and driver for the next stage of coordinated
investments in campus-wide student success.
Only a few months into its work, the task force has already begun making significant headway
toward creating a first set of well-vetted recommendations. The model used to arrive at these
recommendations includes surveying the literature on each focus area, developing research
questions and hypotheses, constructing valid and reliable methodologies for gathering quantitative
and qualitative inputs, and discussing limitations, implications for practitioners, and
recommendations for future work.
Need
As commonly happens in the early stages of research, the team found a variety of positions on
supporting success, along with differing scholarly and popular opinions on areas most in need of
retention-related investment. These findings led to a general agreement that our first
recommendations should be broad enough to target institutional frameworks that affect all students
and their respective academic units, while simple enough to gain critical buy-in from a variety of
constituents, including students. Outputs must positively influence pedagogies, enhance the
opportunity for deeper learning experiences in each course, and directly connect with improved
course completion, persistence, and degree attainment.
Goals
As its focus during the intensive cloister of the 2015 AAC&U HIPS Institute, our team has identified
one underappreciated item meeting all criteria listed above: the mid-term grade. We propose to
Decision Timeline
Applicants will be notified of
their status by April 7,
2015.
About the Institute
The Institute on High-Impact
Practices and Student Success is
designed to help campuses and
systems make institution-wide
changes that benefit all students. It is
ideal for institutions at various stages
of work, and it addresses ambitious
goals for improving both completion
rates and the quality of student
learning. Participant teams work on
removing barriers to student success
and devising integrative
learning-centered plans—making
intentional and evidence-based use of
Essential Learning Outcomes and
high-impact practices. Highlighting
the success of students who have
historically been underserved, the
program supports work to make
excellence inclusive and to recognize
and nurture the assets students bring
to college. It provides insight into
building and scaling up student
success initiatives at the institutional
level. The Institute draws on
research documenting how all
students can benefit from high-impact
practices and highlights the value of
such practices for students who have
not been given access to high-impact
learning. The Institute curriculum
aims to help campuses define
approaches that are highly engaging
to students and effective at improving
the equitable achievement of
outcomes.
Who Should
Attend
Teams typically consists of a team
leader and four team members. Team
leaders are most often senior
academic or student affairs officers.
Teams should be diverse and
cross-functional, including faculty
from a variety of disciplines. Teams
should recruit individuals from various
sectors of campus that will be
significantly involved in the projected
campus work, as well as key
individuals who could extend the
reach of action. In the past, teams
have included faculty, provosts,
deans, department chairs, student
affairs educators, registrars,
librarians, and students.
invest time analyzing its current use and impact. Further, we will develop data-driven
recommendations for improving institutional policy, faculty participation, college accountability,
advisor communications, student awareness, and student responsiveness.
Improvements to the use of mid-term grades will require a better understanding of how
representative and meaningful these grades are in helping each student to monitor her/his own
performance. This will be enhanced by a correlative data analysis to determine relationships
between mid-term grades, final grades, credit accumulation, retention, and graduation rates.
Including demographic and participation data in the statistical analysis should also confirm or deny
gaps in the institution’s effectiveness with its diverse students. If found, these gaps would
necessarily prompt further investigation, which might include a study of students’ current
awareness of mid-term grades and what they indicate, and students’ perceived agency to utilize
resources known to improve final course outcomes.
Building on a new awareness of mid-term grades’ statistical realities, the team will spend the
balance of its time constructing a plan of implementation for selected improvements. For example,
the implementation plan may necessitate the creation of robust communication campaigns and the
allocation of additional faculty supports. Initially engaging the executive sponsorship of
administrators, communications and support efforts would, respectively, seek buy-in from the entire
body of instructional faculty, and provide instructors assistance completing any modifications to
their syllabi, course delivery, and assessment plans. If improvements include modifying existing
policy, this would necessarily require a thorough consideration of historical, political, and
organizational culture forces that might undermine the impact of the team’s proposed action plan.
Finally, we anticipate the need for a communication and training plan for support staff, academic
advisors and, most importantly, the creation of well-marketed tools and strategies that will involve,
equip, and empower our students.
Substantial impact will be achieved when students are prepared and motivated to leverage these
newly improved mid-term metrics. Improving student, program, and institutional outcomes is most
likely to occur when students can act in their own best interests during a period of the term when
they still have substantial time to make important positive changes. By making the mid-term grade
more meaningful, accessible, and actionable, we propose that Texas Tech’s institutional goals and
student learning outcomes will be substantially enhanced, and its graduation goals significantly
improved. Unfortunately, at this stage in the process, quantitative long-term outcomes are difficult
to determine. Through the insights acquired from the HIPS institute, we expect to arrive at clear
one- and three-year student success outcomes that demonstrate improvement in the value and use
of mid-term grades as they become more supportive of student persistence. These might take the
form of the following:
Within one year, the team would hope to have a strong campus buy-in through curricular
modifications and participation in units’ related student messaging, including faculty
participation in at least 50% of all core courses, 75% of all service learning courses, and
100% of all courses involved in TTU learning communities.
Within three years, the team hopes to see a number of positive statistical outcomes,
including the following :
an increased correlation between midterm grades and later-term use of support
resources for students receiving low midterm grades
a reduced correlation between midterm grades and final course grades for
students receiving low midterm grades (due to these students' use of support
resources)
an increased correlation between midterm grades and final course grades for
students receiving high midterm grades (due to our enhancement of the overall
predictive accuracy of midterm-grades)
faculty participation in submitting early and meaningful mid-term grades at a level
surpassing 80% of all undergraduate courses at the institution, including 100%
participation in all core, service learning, and capstone courses.
Team
Our proposed HIPS Institute team includes one volunteer member representing each of the four
TF:SSR working groups. The representatives also come from different academic backgrounds,
and their professional work responsibilities collectively cross the divides between faculty members,
support staff, and institutional administrators. These four will be led by Joshua Barron, one of the
campus administrators who serves as project manager for TF:SSR.
Utilizing the existing framework and membership of TF:SSR will establish this project and provide
greater campus visibility. Further, the experience will provide valuable professional development
for TF:SSR members, enhancing other high-impact efforts of the group. This approach increases
Event Logistics
and Proposal
Requirements
http://www.aacu.org/summerinstit
utes/hips/2015
Application
Details
The online application consists of
an information section and a
narrative section due no later than
March 4, 2015. The narrative
should not exceed 1,300 words.
Consult the following prompts to
guide the narrative. Questions are
meant to suggest direction rather than
to be exclusive.
Need: What work has your institution
planned or begun to build capacity for
inclusion, engagement, and success
for all students? How successful have
you been at building interest and
commitment? How successful have
you been in transforming the
curriculum to meet the changing
demands for learning in the
twenty-first century and the evolving
demographics of the student body?
What have you already
accomplished related to learning
outcomes, assessment, and student
success? Who was involved? What
are your next steps?
Goals: What specific project or
assignment do you expect to advance
at the Institute? How does your
project advance an inclusive
approach to connect individuals from
a range of campus sectors to larger
institutional or systemic efforts for
high-quality learning and student
success? In what ways are your
quality improvement and diversity
efforts linked? What do you hope to
achieve in the next year and in the
next three years?
Contributions: How has your
campus contributed to local, regional,
or national efforts to raise
expectations for learning for all
students?
Team: What is the rationale for your
team’s composition? How do team
members reflect a shared
commitment to inclusion,
engagement, and excellence on your
campus?
the likelihood of successful implementation by making use of TFSSR members’ professional
responsibilities and supervisory structures. Moreover, positive adoption is promoted by leveraging
the TF:SSR members’ interpersonal influence as each engages her/his extensive campus network.
Additional Questions
Additional questions on the application were answered as follows:
To help us better meet your needs, please tell us what specific topics you would like the institute
program to address within each of the four general institute tracks.
Goals Summary
Please summarize your goals for the institute into 150 words or less in the following field:
Demonstrated improvement in the value and use of mid-term grades as they
become more supportive of student persistence, potentially measured as follows:
Within one year, campus buy-in through curricular modifications and
participation in units’ related student messaging, including mid-term
grade submission surpassing 50% for core, 75% for service learning, and
100% for learning community courses.
Within three years:
increased correlation between midterm grades and later-term
resources use for students receiving low mid-term grades
reduced correlation between mid-term and final grades for
students receiving low mid-terms (due to use of resources)
increased correlation between mid-terms and final grades for
students receiving high mid-terms (due to enhancement of
overall predictive accuracy of mid-terms) faculty participation in
submitting early and meaningful mid-term grades at a level
surpassing 80% for all undergraduate courses, including 100%
participation in all core, service learning, and capstone courses.
High-Impact Learning: Pedagogies and Practices *
High-Impact Learning: Pedagogies and Practices helps educators create high-quality learning
experiences for all students. It addresses theories of learning and illustrates how to translate theory
into practice. The track is designed to help participants use effective strategies and pedagogies as
the means to advance equity and make excellence inclusive.
Recognizing that this project will likely require curricular modifications to make mid
-term grades more meaningful, actionable, and timely, the pedagogies and
practices curriculum would be most helpful if it were to address theories of
beneficial assessments, research on the timeliness, timing, and loading of course
curricula, and practices for guiding and directing faculty members to implement th
ese theories practically in their courses.
Useful Evidence *
Useful Evidence focuses on how campuses can utilize both indirect and direct assessments of
high-impact practices to promote equity in student achievement of learning outcomes, and in the
design and implementation of HIPs.
Useful Evidence: Though mid-term grading focuses entirely on the alphabetic
al grade assignment, the useful evidence curriculum would be most helpful if it
were to provide deep insight,including a variety of examples, for constructing
excellent assessable measures of student learning in coursework that is using
high-impact practices to increase engagement and learning.
Further, if the institute track were to examine the pros and cons of using one
or more measures in each of these environments, this would be highly instructive
as our team considers returning to campus and supporting faculty in making the
assessments within their high-impact courses more beneficial for student action.
Scaling High-Impact Practices *
Scaling High-Impact Practices from entry to completion requires an intentional campus-wide,
equity-minded framework. This track explores ways to incorporate AAC&U’s emerging work on
guided learning pathways and problem-based pedagogies. The track focuses on the
interrelationship among courses, programs, and resources needed to insure that each student has
the opportunity to pursue and achieve a high-quality liberal education.
This track is relevant to our team as it will be most useful in assisting to develop a
comprehensive plan that encompasses curricular improvements, along with the cr
eation of integrated support systems, conducive institutional policies, and
engaging student response plans.
Politics of Change *
Politics of Change examines the nature of change at an institutional level and introduces
meaningful change strategies. It explores intentional approaches to leadership development for
senior-level administrators, faculty, and student affairs educators, recognizing political realities that
shape the change process on campuses.
Recognizing that no plan for change can happen in a vacuum, the politics of
change curriculum would be most helpful if it provided communication
recommendations and examples of similar improvement initiatives so the team
might have an opportunity to benefit from the hard lessons learned by other teams
approaching this type of widespread change.