Retention Plan
2014-2016
May 2014
Endorsed by AALT August 2014
Table of Contents
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………3
Planning Retreat Participant List………………………………………………………………….4
Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………………………5
Setting the Stage...……………………………………………………………………………………6
Radford University Vision and Mission……………………………………………………………6
Recent History of Retention Efforts………………………………………………………………..7
Consultant Observations…………………………………………………………………………..9
Situation Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………10
Retention Benchmarks…………………………………………………………………...10
RU Persistence and Retention Rates……………………………………………………..11
RU Graduation Rates by Cohort…………………………………………………………12
Retention and Graduation Rates at Virginia Public Universities……………………….12
Goal Quantification Table……………………………………………………………….13
Constructing the Plan……………………………………………………………………………..14
Force Field Analysis……………………………………………………………………………...14
SWOT Analysis……………………………………………………………………………………14
Student Satisfaction Data…………………………………………………………………………15
The Student Satisfaction Inventory………………………………………………………15
Student Focus Group Verbatim Suggestions for Improvement………………………….18
Retention Goals…………………………………………………………………………………..19
Retention Strategy Action Plans………………………………………………………………….24
Enhance Academic Support Services…………………………………………………….25
Improve the Quality of Academic Advising……………………………………………...29
Increase the Potential of UNIV 100……………………………………………………..31
Develop Additional Learning Communities……………………………………………..35
Facilitating Student Access to Campus Employment……………………………………38
Manage Enrollment Strategically………………………………………………………..40
Integrate Career Awareness into Students’ First-Year Curricula……………………….43
2
A Final Word………………………………………………………………………………………...44
Appendix………………………………………………………………………………………………45
Radford University Retention Plan
2014-2016
Introduction
This retention plan specifies goals, strategies, and responsibilities for improving the quality of student life
and learning at Radford University (RU). The planning process can be conceptualized by the following
evidence-driven improvement model that emphasizes the critical importance of fact-based improvement
planning, focuses on only the vital few improvements during each cycle in order to increase the
probability of full deployment, recognizes the continuous nature of effective improvement approaches,
and emphasizes consensus-building through cross-functional participation during the plan development.
ACT (Institutionalize)
We integrate the lessons
learned from our study.
We adjust our methods.
We identify what more we
need to learn.
PLAN (Decide)
We identify our purpose and
goals. We formulate our
theory. We define how we
will measure success. We
plan our activities.
ASSESS (Evaluate)
We monitor the outcomes,
testing the theory of our plan.
We study the results for signs
of progress and success or
unexpected outcomes. We
look for lessons learned or
problems solved.
DO (Execute)
We execute our plan,
undertaking the activities,
introducing the
interventions, and
applying our best
knowledge to the pursuit
of our desired purpose.
and goals.
Problems solved.
3
This plan was developed with the direct involvement of the personnel listed below, who participated in a
one-and-one-half-day planning retreat on October 31-November 1, 2013 that was facilitated by Dr. Dave
Trites, Noel-Levitz Senior Associate Consultant. (Dozens of other members of the RU community had
previously been part of focus groups or other activities with Dr. Trites; their names will be forwarded
upon request.) Those who subsequently contributed to the development of strategy action plans are listed
on the respective action plans below or are serving on the retention plan implementation task force, which
includes the Retention Team and Faculty Retention Task Force. Their names are listed in the appendix at
the end of this document.
Planning Retreat Participant List
Name
Position
Ament, Suzanne
Associate Professor of History
Bell, Courtney
Coordinator, Disability Resource Office
Brunner, Matthew
University Registrar
Burke, Tod
Associate Dean, College of Humanities and Behavioral Sciences
Carter, Art
Assistant Dean, College of Science and Technology; Chair, Information Technology
Christensen, Neils
Professor of Psychology
Coulter, Megan
Associate Registrar
Devore-Greene, Angela
Director, Disability Resource Office
Dunn, Mike
Director, New Student Programs
Estes, Loretta
Assistant to the Dean and Advising Coordinator, Waldron College of Health and
Human Services
Ferrari, Mary
Professor of History
Hanlon, Joel
Senior Assistant Director, New Student Programs
Hatfield, Lauren
Assistant Director for Retention and Programming, Residential Life
Hudson, Susan
Part-time Retention Specialist, Office of New Student Programs
Jenkins, Michele
Associate Director, New Student Programs
Jennelle, Stephanie
University Controller
Kennan, Bill
Vice Provost
Koussis, Katrina
Student
Lerch, Steve
Interim Coordinator of Student Retention
Mattson, Tracey
Director, Learning Assistance and Resource Center
Mekolichick, Jeanne
Chair, Department of Sociology
Millar, Diane
Chair, Communication Sciences and Disorders
Newcomer, April
Assistant Advising Coordinator, Premajor Advising Center
Oliver, Donna
Advising Coordinator, College of Visual and Performing Arts
Schwab, Nasim
Advising Coordinator, College of Business and Economics
Shoemaker, Pat
Dean, College of Education and Human Development
4
Skeens, Lindsay
Assistant Director, Office of New Student Programs
Taylor, Ellen
Director, Career Services and Community Engagement
Templeton, Debra
Assistant Vice President and Director, Institutional Research, Reporting, and
Assessment
Udd, Ed
Chair, Recreation, Parks and Tourism
Underwood, Susan
Advising Coordinator, College of Science and Technology
Webster-Garrett, Erin
Professor of English; Director of Quality Enhancement Plan
Williamson, Patti
Advising Coordinator, Premajor Advising Center
Executive Summary
RU planning participants reached consensus on both an overall goal and goals for several subpopulations
they believed represented the best retention improvement opportunities:
The overall goal for Radford University is to achieve a retention rate of 76 percent for new fulltime degree-seeking freshmen who entered the university fall 2013; 79 percent for the same
population who will enter the University fall 2014; and 82 percent for the fall 2015 cohort.
The target subpopulations (detailed and quantified in the goal section of this plan) were identified as
being at-risk following a Noel-Levitz analysis of data provided by the RU Office of Institutional
Research. They include freshmen who commit to attending RU late in the admissions cycle; those
majoring in departments in the College of Business and Economics and the College of Science and
Technology; those with low high school grade point averages; those coming to RU from significant
distances; those living in particular residence halls; those with large gaps between financial need and the
financial aid they receive; and members of minority ethnic groups.
The planning participants identified seven “vital few” strategies that should be implemented to attain the
retention goals. Planning participants completed an exercise using three weighted criteria (likely impact
upon retention; likely cost effectiveness; and feasibility; i.e., within institutional control and timely) to
prioritize the seven strategies. In priority order, the strategies the participants identified are:
1. Ensure the optimum availability of academic support services in support of student learning.
2. Develop more systematic, intentional, and seamless advising interactions for students, especially for
new freshmen, that emphasize relationship building and high expectations.
3. Develop alternative approaches to increase the potential of UNIV 100 in order to reach more new
students with “college knowledge” information critical to their success.
4. (tie) Identify and develop additional learning community approaches that will expand access to the
“power of the cohort” for new students including, where feasible, themed residential life experiences.
4. (tie) Develop a uniform, user-friendly, complete, single point of access for students who desire to
work on-campus.
5
6. Manage enrollment strategically by using data to align outreach approaches with desired retention
outcomes; i.e., capacity of targeted majors, learning readiness of applicants, desired profile of
entering class, and consideration of alternate entrance criteria for late applicants.
7. Integrate career awareness into all new students’ first-year curricula to ensure a more complete
understanding of the chosen majors for decided students and of the available alternatives for deciding
students.
Setting the Stage
I.
Radford University Vision and Mission
Radford University is a comprehensive, midsize public university that is student-focused, providing its
more than 9,900 students a diversity of outstanding academic programs. Well known for its strong
faculty/student bonds, innovative use of technology in the learning environment and vibrant student life
on a beautiful campus, Radford University offers many opportunities to get involved and succeed in and
out of the classroom.
Radford University welcomes students from the Commonwealth of Virginia, across the country and
around the world. Students find inspiration in the surroundings – the manicured green lawns on campus,
the steady roll of the New River, the wonders along the Blue Ridge Parkway, the stately university
buildings, and a quaint downtown. Radford’s more than 150 undergraduate and graduate programs offer
every student the opportunity to discover new talents, develop leadership skills, and experience personal
growth.
Radford University serves the Commonwealth of Virginia and the nation through a wide range of
academic, cultural, human service, and research programs. First and foremost, the university emphasizes
teaching and learning and the process of learning in its commitment to the development of mature,
responsible, well-educated citizens. Radford University develops students’ creative and critical thinking
skills, teaches students to analyze problems and implement solutions, helps students discover their
leadership styles, and fosters their growth as leaders. Toward these ends, the university is student-focused
and promotes a sense of caring and of meaningful interaction among all members of the University
community. Research is viewed as a vital corollary to the teaching and learning transaction as it sustains
and enhances the ability to teach effectively. Radford University believes in the dynamics of change and
has a strong commitment to continuous review, evaluation, and improvement in the curriculum and all
aspects of the university, so as to meet the changing needs of society.
II.
Recent History of Retention Efforts
Radford University has always both challenged its students academically and offered them the support
they need to persist and eventually graduate. Those efforts have paid dividends, especially over the past
20 years or so: data provided by RU’s Office of Institutional Research indicate that the institution’s fouryear graduation rate has increased from 28.2 percent for the fall 1994 cohort to 42.2 percent for the fall
2006 cohort, and the six-year graduation rate has increased from 46 percent for the fall 1994 cohort to 60
percent for the fall 2006 cohort.
6
While the increases are significant and praiseworthy, there has been a general recognition at RU that we
can do even better. Doing so is important for multiple reasons. The Commonwealth of Virginia has
linked institutional funding to student persistence and graduation. Moreover, improving retention and
graduation rates makes economic sense for the University; since students who are retained do not have to
be “recruited twice,” even relatively small increases in retention can pay significant dividends that our
institution can invest in other areas. By far the most important reason, however, is the positive impact that
the facilitation of students’ academic success can have upon their lives and the lives of their families. As
analysts report that the average debt load for college graduates is approaching $30,000, there is an ethical
imperative for institutions to ensure that they are providing students with every opportunity to succeed,
lest those students leave without earning the academic credential that will enable them to repay what they
owe.
Accordingly, the University recently has enhanced its commitment to student retention, especially the
retention of new students. While retention rates and graduation rates do not measure precisely the same
thing, students who are not retained at an institution are unlikely to graduate from that institution.
Moreover, retention rates are universally lowest during students’ first year of enrollment, increasing each
year thereafter. At Radford University, for example, new freshmen retention rates have averaged
approximately 75 percent annually over the past ten years. Given our 60 percent six-year graduation rate,
the implication is that while there is a 25 percent attrition rate during year one of enrollment, only another
15 percent of our students leave over the next five years. Clearly, a focus upon the retention of new
students will almost inevitably eventually yield higher graduation rates.
In August 2012, Provost Sam Minner appointed Dr. Steve Lerch as part-time Interim Coordinator of
Student Retention to provide oversight for the University’s retention efforts until the budget permitted a
full-time coordinator to be hired. Dr. Lerch was initially charged with presenting the provost with a
report on the current state of retention at RU. That report, co-authored by Dr. Lerch, Mike Dunn, the
Director of New Student Programs, and Michele Jenkins, the Associate Director of New Student
Programs with responsibility for the office’s retention initiatives, was presented to the provost and the
Academic Affairs Leadership Team (AALT) in December 2012. While it acknowledged that students do
not persist for many reasons, its focus was upon students who left the University for academic reasons.
The report did more than just describe the “lay of the land.” It also recommended that RU implement
numerous initiatives to improve retention rates. Some of these recommendations were “proactive,”
describing ways the RU culture might be shaped or reshaped through programmatic and other initiatives
designed to minimize students’ risk of non-completion. Others were “reactive,” outlining ways the
University could assist those struggling academically to find success and eventually earn their degrees.
(Fortuitously, many of the recommendations in the internal retention report were consonant with the
retention strategies that emerged a year later through the retention planning sessions facilitated by Dr.
Trites.)
The proactive initiatives, which focused upon establishing an institutional culture fostering student
success, were recommended in consideration of the work of Dr. Vincent Tinto, Distinguished University
Professor of Sociology at Syracuse University, who has done extensive research on campus conditions
that support students. Specifically, the report recommended that Radford University:
7





Establish high expectations for our students. The faculty and administration should
understand our students’ backgrounds and then do our best to help them maximize their
intellectual and personal potential before they complete their studies;
Enhance the quality of academic advising. The University should recognize the critical impact
advising plays in the success of our students, carefully examining its current organization and
delivery, reallocating resources to advising as appropriate, and regularly assessing its quality;
Offer additional academic support. RU has offered a wide array of support programs to
students for many years. However, this support should be expanded and new programs that are
consonant with best practices launched;
Involve students as valued members of the institution. The University should enhance its
orientation and welcome programming and redouble its efforts to get students involved in
activities that link them to the institution, like undergraduate research; and
Give students the opportunity to participate in settings that foster learning. RU should
expand the number of “high impact” offerings like residential and non-residential learning
communities.
The reactive initiatives proposed in the report were suggested in recognition of the fact that, despite the
University’s best efforts, some students will face academic difficulties. The report recommended a
review of current academic probation and suspension policies and a redesign of programming intended to
support students’ efforts to return to good academic standing.
Provost Minner and the AALT accepted the vast majority of the recommendations in the report and
authorized Dr. Lerch to work with campus constituencies to immediately pick off as much “low-hanging
fruit” as possible. While limited resources have affected the institution’s ability to address many of the
recommendations, with the support of Dr. Minner and many others in the campus community, Radford
University implemented several changes in policies and practices during the 2013-2014 academic year.
“Proactive” initiatives underway include:
Enhancing the quality of academic advising, by:




Implementing a plan to phase out assigning graduate students to serve as academic advisors,
replacing them with full-time professional advisors;
Developing a systematic method through which advising is assessed;
Investigating (for the likely future purchase of) Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
software that will facilitate the communication of advisors with students and with each other as
they address student needs; and
Developing a May 2014 Advising Institute for faculty who will be advising students during
Quest, so that student-profile data is effectively utilized to direct students to combinations of
courses that give them a reasonable chance to succeed.
Offering additional academic and personal support, by:


Entering into a partnership with Link-Systems to provide NetTutor online tutoring to RU students
to supplement and complement the face-to-face tutoring available since 2005 in RU’s Learning
Assistance and Resource Center;
Refocusing UNIV 100, the one-hour introduction to higher education course taken by the vast
majority of RU freshmen, so that critical learning outcomes for new students are universally
addressed, and also piloting two-hour sections of the course. Effective fall 2014, UNIV 100 will
continue through the entire semester instead of ending after the first ten weeks. Course
8


instructors will have the opportunity to address matters like second semester registration and
preparation for final exams, which have heretofore not been covered;
Hiring (in Student Affairs) an assistant director of residential life for retention to address the
needs of at-risk students who live in residence halls; and
Revising the University’s “Early Alert” program so that students with academic, behavioral, or
emotional problems can be identified and offers of assistance can be delivered in a more timely
manner.
9
Involving students as valued members of the institution, by:


Planning for a more thorough orientation program in August 2014 for students who will not have
attended orientation in June or July; and
Enhancing fall “Welcome Week” activities.
Giving students the opportunity to participate in settings that foster learning, by:



Launching the Office of Undergraduate Research and Scholarship (OURS) to encourage and
support students interested in collaborating with faculty on scholarly and creative projects;
Expanding Living-Learning Communities. Based upon what the University learned through the
administration of the College Student Inventory to biology majors last fall, RU will in fall 2014
pilot “Biology Connections,” a residential learning community in which as many as 48 biology
majors will reside on the same floor of Stuart Hall, the residence hall which also houses their
advising center. They will also take some of their classes in common in the building. Faculty
will hold office hours and tutors help sessions in Stuart, the advising coordinator for the College
of Science and Technology will personally advise each of the students in the community, and the
residential life staff will design special programming with biology majors’ interests in mind; and
Fully implementing the Scholar-Citizen Initiative, the Quality Enhancement Plan RU submitted
to the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools in 2012 as part of its efforts to receive
reaccreditation.
“Reactive” initiatives implemented during 2013-2014 include:



III.
Revising the institution’s academic probation and suspension policies for the first time since
1996, such that they both recognize the transition issues faced by new students and “raise the bar”
for continuing students;
Eliminating exceptions to suspension and “SORTS,” the program designed to support students
who would otherwise be suspended, while simultaneously developing and offering in spring 2014
a new course, UNIV 150, for new students on academic probation; and
Sending personal invitations to academically suspended students, inviting them to apply for
readmission to RU if they are ready to do so, and offering them information about the
readmission process.
Consultant Observations
The observations below are among those Dr. Trites made about student life and learning on the campus of
Radford University during his September 17-18, 2013 visit and the initial visit conducted by the full
Noel-Levitz team assigned to RU on May 6-7, 2013. It is apparent that improved retention will be
important for achieving an overall enrollment goal of 10,000 students. RU should build off its current
success by further developing a systematic, intentional, and organized way to improve the success rates
for students.
As per Dr. Trites, there currently exists:

An experienced group of senior leaders who value and understand the essentials of student success and
advocate practices that encourage continuous improvement. The consultant commends these leaders
for initiating this partnership with Noel-Levitz as it is tangible evidence of the administration’s support
and commitment to improving the quality of student life and learning at Radford University.
10

A Retention Team and Faculty Task Force who demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of
student success essentials and a sincere commitment to increasing the quality of student life and
learning at Radford University.

An increase in the most recent annual retention rate for the fall 2012 new student cohort (78%) that is
slightly above the average return rate since 2006.

A recent report to the provost on current retention status and recommendations that demonstrates a
sophisticated understanding of retention principles and essentials.

An organizational structure that appears to be effectively moving the RU student success agenda and is
increasingly appreciated by key stakeholders.

Limited faculty discussion and consensus-building relative to some aspects of the university’s
retention programming.

An understanding and acceptance of the critical role accountability plays in all high-performing
organizations and its increasing influence in Virginia.

Evidence of an awareness of the importance of focusing retention programming not only on freshmen,
but also on sophomores and juniors in order to encourage successful transition toward graduation for
these cohorts of students.

Many excellent programs that serve to support RU students. Several of these are supported or have
been incubated by the Office of New Student Programs, including a UNIV 100 one-credit course
which is taken by a majority of new students and whose success has been well-documented. Also
present is an extensive campus life/student activities program with more than 250 clubs and
organizations available to students.

Agreement that data-informed decision-making is essential to improving student success and that
focusing on a “vital few” retention strategies that clearly align with targeted underperforming student
subpopulations will optimize the opportunity to achieve the desired outcomes.

The establishment of a new student retention goal of 82 percent by 2018, with no specific
subpopulations targeted for achieving this goal.
IV.
Situation Analysis
Retention Benchmarks
Radford University retention and graduation rates have been essentially stable for several years and
compare favorably with national four-year public colleges with traditional admissions selectivity.
The following tables document benchmark rates provided by American College Testing (ACT) and the
recent retention and graduation history at Radford University. These rates are comparable only in a
general way; ACT collects annual return on new, first-time degree-seeking freshmen, while RU’s Fact
Book contains rates for all freshmen in each cohort. Moreover, the ACT reports five-year graduation
rates, but RU graduation rates in the table below are for six years (i.e., 150 percent of the traditionally
expected time from matriculation to graduation), which is consistent with national Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) reporting practices. The RU Fact book tables demonstrate
a modest increase in graduation rates between five- and six-year reporting periods.
11
Annual Return Rate
Admissions Selectivity
BA
MA
PhD
Highly Selective
87.5
Selective
81.3
82.9
82.9
Traditional
69.5
71.2
73.6
Liberal
60.3
65.8
62.0
Open
58.8
66.3
75.6
89.5
Source: Compiled from ACT Institutional Data File, 2011
Cohort Graduation Rate
Admissions Selectivity
BA
MA
Highly Selective
77.8
Selective
60.3
55.4
54.8
Traditional
40.7
37.2
39.6
28.1
36.5
33.6
41.0
78.7
Liberal
Open
PhD
12.0
Source: Compiled from ACT Institutional Data File, 2011 – graduation in three years for associate
degree; five years for BA/BS
RU Persistence and Retention Rates
Radford University persistence and retention rates, illustrated in the table below, have been very stable for
several years and compare favorably with retention rates nationally for four-year public universities.
University Retention Rate Fall-to-Fall
Fall
Term
All
Freshmen
Retained
Next Fall
All
Sophomores
Retained
Next Fall
All
Juniors
Retained
Next Fall
Overall
Retention
2011
2,398
73.2%
1,834
83.6%
1,812
89.5%
81.2%
2010
2,066
75.0%
1,632
85.0%
1,965
90.1%
83.1%
2009
1,755
73.5%
1,950
84.8%
1,955
90.4%
83.2%
2008
2,228
75.9%
1,955
85.1%
1,848
90.4%
83.3%
2007
2,194
76.6%
1,863
84.4%
1,874
90.2%
83.4%
2006
2,117
74.9%
1,939
86.3%
1,865
91.0%
83.7%
2005
2,320
72.0%
1,959
83.1%
1,939
90.2%
81.2%
2004
2,177
75.9%
1,941
84.6%
2,001
90.3%
83.3%
2003
2,204
74.7%
2,074
84.5%
1,872
87.0%
81.7%
2002
2,247
75.7%
2,050
82.0%
1,816
87.4%
81.3%
2001
2,347
74.9%
1,992
82.3%
1,689
88.8%
81.2%
12
2000
2,193
76.4%
1,739
84.1%
1,719
89.6%
82.8%
1999
2,097
72.6%
1,728
82.5%
1,662
88.8%
80.6%
1998
1,970
73.0%
1,733
83.9%
1,643
87.4%
81.0%
Source: Radford 2013 Fact Book – A student was counted as retained if he/she enrolled the following fall
or graduated before the next fall. For the purposes of this table, freshmen are students who have
completed 0-25 credit hours; sophomores, 26-55; juniors, 56-85; and seniors, 86 or more.
RU Graduation Rates by Cohort
The following graduation rates illustrate a very stable rate for the most recent cohorts of RU students.
Six-year Graduation Rate by Cohort
Cohort
Graduated Six
Years
Six-Year Graduation
Rate
Fall 2006 Cohort
1,730
1,040
60%
Fall 2005 Cohort
1,890
1,054
56%
Fall 2004 Cohort
1,828
1,035
57%
Fall 2003 Cohort
1,800
1,020
57%
Fall 2002 Cohort
1,813
1,083
60%
Fall 2001 Cohort
1,875
1,055
56%
Fall 2000 Cohort
1,753
987
56%
Fall 1999 Cohort
1,655
849
51%
Fall 1998 Cohort
1,518
857
56%
Fall 1997 Cohort
1,619
890
55%
Fall 1996 Cohort
1,419
751
53%
Fall 1995 Cohort
1,381
719
52%
Fall 1994 Cohort
1,529
700
46%
Source: Radford 2013 Fact Book – Graduation in 150 percent of traditional time.
Retention and Graduation Rates at Virginia Public Universities
Radford University retention and graduation rates, as illustrated in the table below, are lower than several
other public universities in Virginia.
Institution
Retention Rate (Fall 2011
Cohort)
Six-Year Graduation Rate
(2004 Cohort)
University of Virginia—Main Campus
97%
93%
College of William and Mary
95%
90%
James Madison University
91%
82%
Virginia Tech
91%
80%
13
George Mason University
87%
63%
Virginia Military Institute
87%
70%
Virginia Commonwealth University
86%
50%
University of Mary Washington
85%
75%
Christopher Newport University
84%
60%
Old Dominion University
80%
50%
Longwood University
78%
59%
Radford University
76%
57%
Norfolk State University
73%
34%
Virginia State University
71%
41%
The University of Virginia’s College at
Wise
63%
48%
Source: Appendix D of 2012 RU Retention Report to the Provost
Goal Quantification Table
The table below offers trend data provided by the RU Office of Institutional Research for subpopulations
identified through a Noel-Levitz analysis of data for recent RU cohorts as at-risk. These trend data helped
the Retention Team quantify the goal statements.
Goal Category
Annual Return Rate Trend
Leading Indicators
Fall 2009
cohort
annual
return
retention
Students
who are
part of the
fall 2009
cohort
who
enrolled
fall 2010
Fall 2010
cohort
annual
return
retention
Students
who are
part of
the fall
2010
cohort
who
enrolled
fall 2011
Fall 2011
cohort
annual
return
retention
Students
who are
part of
the fall
2011
cohort
who
enrolled
fall 2012
Fall 2012
cohort
annual
return
retention
Students
who are
part of
the fall
2012
cohort
who
enrolled
fall 2013
Fall 2012
cohort term
persistence
Goal fall
2013
cohort
Goal fall
2014
cohort
I. Overall Retention
(new first-time-incollege freshmen)
76.0%
76.1%
74.3%
78.1%
89.2%
88.0%
76%
79%
82%
II. Late Commits
(Registered for
classes or after July
10)
64.9%
67.3%
53.8%
69.9%
82.0%
80.7%
70%
72%
74%
IIIa. College Major or
Subdivision (COBE)
73.0%
71.0%
68.5%
76.4%
89.4%
82.7%
75%
78%
80%
IIIb. College Major or
Subdivision (CSAT)
73.6%
73.1%
70.1%
75.9%
88.5%
83.0%
75%
78%
80%
14
Students
who are
part of the
fall 2012
cohort
enrolled
spring 2013
Fall 2013
cohort
term
persistence
Goals (see pages 19-23) for detail
Goal fall
2015
cohort
Students
who are
part of the
fall 2013
cohort
enrolled
spring
2014
IV. HS GPA
(2.92 or less)
66.0%
64.1%
65.0%
72.4%
84.6%
83.9%
68%
71%
74%
V. Residence Hall
(Madison, Muse,
Draper, Washington,
Tyler, Jefferson)
75.2%
73.6%
73.4%
77.6%
88.2%
87.1%
75%
78%
80%
VIa. Pell Grant
76.1%
74.3%
73.5%
77.5%
89.4%
86.5%
75%
76%
78%
VIb. Stafford Loan
but not Pell
72.2%
74.8%
70.1%
78.4%
90.5%
89.2%
75%
76%
78%
VII. Ethnicity
(Black or African
American)
74.3%
73.5%
69.5%
88.3%
92.4%
90.6%
76%
79%
82%
Constructing the Plan
I.
Force Field Analysis
Planning participants were asked to participate in a force field analysis early in the planning process
as part of a “level setting” of the current enrollment state at Radford University and to support honest
reflection on the underlying roots of the retention challenges. The driving and restraining forces
provided by participants are documented below.
Issue: Achieving Optimum Retention of Radford University Students
Driving
Restraining
List of driving forces:
List of restraining forces:



















II.
Moral obligation
Caring faculty and staff
Win-win
Student focused
Beautiful campus
Community oriented
Faculty/student collaboration
Education is the answer
Administrative support
Federal and state pressures
Lack of resources
Communication structure
Battle fatigue
Students are unprepared for college work
Unwillingness to change
Training
Technology consistency in advising records
Time
Faculty/student interaction
SWOT Analysis
Planning participants were asked to construct a SWOT analysis as a summative activity to prepare for
strategy idea generation. Those strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats are listed below as
they appeared on the flip charts.
Strengths
 Willingness to spend time with students
Weaknesses
 Teaching student’s responsibility
15












Willingness to look to better programs
Excellent staff, faculty and instruction
Excellent advising
UNIV 100
Beautiful campus
Advisors rock!!
Excellent institutional research – data on which to
base decisions
Faculty involvement with students inside and
outside class
Staff helping and caring
Passion for the students
NSP
Distribution of information
 Lack of communication – collaborations that go













together – how a message is conveyed…live phone
answers in critical offices (no phone tree), financial
aid, admissions, student accts.
Determining classes needed for our students
Providing classes students want in freshman year
Admit into major
No real solutions for students who cannot make it
in their major
Lack of training (technology)
Unwilling to change or merge to meet goals
What is the RU experience? Knowing who we are
Staffing and resources for student support centers
Infrastructure – staffing
Not doing enough to help students to better
understand their major
Technology issues in advising
Non vocal students slip through the cracks
Great resources but under resourced ($, staff)
Opportunities
Threats
 Re-think how work study/campus jobs are
 Demographic changes
 Funding – that provides resources to both students
administered
 Willingness to improve services
 Improve our interactions with freshmen
 Hook students into career services in their freshman






year
Build on FYE successes: scale up and out
Do more programming the first weekend (move-in
weekend)
Enrollment management – target majors
Distance education
Mentoring
Utilize QEP to create student engagement
opportunities in the early part of the RU experience
and staff/faculty
 Divisions over curriculum, research vs. teaching








III.
focus, general lack of coherent and cohesive use of
institutional vision/mission to guide decisions
Student-focused but not attentive to climate:
race/ethnicity
Provincialism, egocentrism, silo-mentality
Financial aid system $$
Recruitment – moving away from target population
Resistance to change
No money
More staff student advising and support (AP not
classified)
Emphasis on front-line services (e.g., financial aid,
compensation)
Student Satisfaction Data
The Student Satisfaction Inventory
In fall 2013, RU students were asked to complete Noel-Levitz’s Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI).
Although less than 10 percent of RU students completed the instrument, the feedback they provided can
help RU identify the areas students perceive as strengths and those to which additional attention should be
devoted. The table below notes (in order) specific areas of strength and challenge.
Strengths
Item Number
16
8
33
7
29
Item
The instruction in my major field is excellent.
The content of courses within my major is excellent.
My academic advisor is knowledgeable about requirements in my major.
The campus is safe and secure for all students.
It is an enjoyable experience to be a student on this campus.
16
68
39
55
6
69
72
45
76
65
26
Nearly all of the faculty are knowledgeable in their field.
I am able to experience intellectual growth here.
Major requirements are clear and reasonable.
My academic advisor is approachable.
There is a good variety of courses provided on this campus.
On the whole, the campus is well-maintained.
Students are made to feel welcome on this campus.
On the whole, classrooms are well-equipped with up-to-date instructional technology. (This was an
item RU added to the SSI.)
Faculty are usually available after class and during office hours.
Computer labs are adequate and accessible.
34
66
17
47
12
53
5
19
21
73
23
28
38
I am able to register for classes I need with few conflicts.
Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment.
Adequate financial aid is available for most students.
Faculty provide timely feedback about student progress in a course.
Financial aid awards are announced to students in time to be helpful in college planning.
Faculty take into account student differences as they teach a course.
Financial aid counselors are helpful.
My academic advisor helps me set goals to work toward.
The amount of student parking space on campus is adequate.
Student activities fees are put to good use.
Living conditions in the residence halls are comfortable (adequate space, lighting, heat, air, etc.)
Parking lots are well-lighted and secure.
There is an adequate selection of food available in the cafeteria.
Challenges
Noel-Levitz benchmarks each institution’s SSI data against similar institutions in its region. As compared
to those institutions, it was gratifying to learn that RU students express higher satisfaction with their
student experience on multiple items, and are less satisfied with only one:
Benchmarked SSI Data: Higher Satisfaction vs. Four-Year Public Institutions in the South
Item Number
16
8
33
7
29
68
36
39
55
58
69
72
45
25
47
65
49
2
59
35
Item
The instruction in my major field is excellent.
The content of the courses within my major is valuable.
My academic advisor is knowledgeable about requirements in my major.
The campus is safe and secure for all students.
It is an enjoyable experience to be a student on this campus.
Nearly all of the faculty are knowledgeable in their field.
Security staff respond quickly in emergencies.
I am able to experience intellectual growth here.
Major requirements are clear and reasonable.
The quality of instruction I receive in most of my classes is excellent.
There is a good variety of courses provided on this campus.
On the whole, the campus is well-maintained.
Students are made to feel welcome on this campus.
Faculty are fair and unbiased in their treatment of individual students.
Faculty provide timely feedback about student progress in a course.
Faculty are usually available after class and during office hours.
There are adequate services to help me decide upon a career.
The campus staff are caring and helpful.
This institution shows concern for students as individuals.
The assessment and course placement procedures are reasonable.
17
53
26
73
Faculty take into account student differences as they teach a course.
Computer labs are adequate and accessible.
Student activities fees are put to good use.
Benchmarked SSI Data: Lower Satisfaction vs. Four-Year Public Institutions in the South
Item Number
21
Item
The amount of student parking space on campus is adequate.
Data from the SSI were also benchmarked against those from southern four-year public institutions to
gauge the comparative overall level of satisfaction of RU students. Students responded on a Likert scale,
in which choosing “1” indicated the least satisfaction, and “7” indicated the greatest. Once again, relative
to students at similar institutions, RU students appear quite satisfied:
SSI Summary Questions
So far, how has your college experience met your
expectations? (1 to 7 Likert scale)
1=Much worse than expected
2=Quite a bit worse than I expected
3=Worse than I expected
4=About what I expected
5=Better than I expected
6=Quite a bit better than I expected
7=Much better than expected
Rate your overall satisfaction with your experience here thus
far.
1=Not satisfied at all
2=Not very satisfied
3=Somewhat dissatisfied
4=Neutral
5=Somewhat satisfied
6=Satisfied
7=Very satisfied
All in all, if you had it to do over, would you enroll here
again?
1=Definitely not
2=Probably not
3=Maybe not
4=I don’t know
5=Maybe yes
6=Probably yes
7=Definitely yes
***Difference statistically significant at the .001 level.
18
Radford
University SSI
National FourYear Publics—
Southern SSI
Difference
4.97
4.65
0.32***
1%
1%
5%
29%
30%
19%
13%
2%
2%
10%
36%
23%
12%
13%
5.69
5.31
0%
1%
4%
6%
15%
49%
21%
2%
3%
7%
10%
18%
38%
19%
5.77
5.36
1%
4%
4%
6%
11%
31%
39%
4%
6%
5%
9%
11%
27%
34%
0.38***
0.41***
Student Focus Group Verbatim Suggestions for Improvement
The following verbatim written responses were provided and organized by a focus group of RU freshmen
students who had been on campus for just a few weeks in response to the question: What should be done to
improve student success at RU? They were first written on post-it notes, placed into an affinity diagram (i.e.,
organized into categories), and subsequently transcribed by the consultant.
Employment

We need connections to job possibilities

Central area to access work-study would help a lot

It is hard to find a campus job here

We need more campus work-study

A work-study job fair would be help us find work on campus

Some campus jobs have bad hours requiring late work

I would like to work but can’t find a job

RU needs to keep organized about who is interested in working
Infrastructure

WiFi signs you off too fast

Improvement on internet

Professors and students have a few problems with D2L

Parking at night…need closer lots

The campus PD assistance is good

Better Wi-Fi

Tell students which version of Windows is being used so students aren’t late with assignments trying
to download the software
Learning

I like online tests

Gen eds should be cut down, because I am in the pre-nursing program and half the gen eds don’t even
matter for me and my future career; we don’t want to pay for classes that have no point for our career

Teachers need to be realistic about assignments

Some required assignments are not relevant

There is confusion about the core curriculum

More time to complete tests is needed

We are not provided enough information about resources that support learning

Tutoring is very helpful
19

I need test anxiety management help

I would like more study guides in my classes
Advising

I have no idea who my advisor is

We need help from career services figuring out what my major should be

Credit transfer is not assured so can be a waste of time and money

My credit transfer questions have gone unanswered

More assistance in choosing classes for new students is needed

Group advising is not effective

Some students are double majors or trying to balance more majors and need leniency with scheduling

The different advising requirements in different departments is confusing

Students who have transferred credits should still have just as much time to decide a major
Communicating with Students

Provide a process for one single individual to join intramurals…it is hard for one person

Increase size/area at the club fair

Create a club fair directory or group areas by subject

Maybe require a tour of certain halls/buildings

Pre-nursing is good at communicating

Club fair is good
IV.
Retention Goals
Following the analysis of available data and many hours of thoughtful conversation, the RU Retention
Team reached consensus on reasonable overall short- and long-range retention goals. They also identified
several populations they believed represented the best retention improvement opportunities. Following are
those populations and draft goal statements for each. All of these potential populations will need to be
reviewed prior to inclusion in the final plan, in consultation with institutional research, to ensure they
accurately reflect goals that are specific, measurable, and attainable and to ensure full alignment with
priority strategies. Following each statement, we present table(s) of data that participants used to inform
the draft goal selection. (These goals are summarized above in the table on page 13.)
A. Overall Goals
1. Radford University will achieve an overall retention rate of 76 percent for new freshmen
who entered the university fall 2013 and 79 percent for new full-time degree-seeking
students who enter the university fall 2014.
20
2. Radford University will achieve a retention rate of 82 percent for new freshmen who
enter the university fall 2015. Retention rates will remain in the 82-84 percent range, as
targeted by senior leaders at the institution, for subsequent cohorts.
Fall Term
Retention Rate (%)
2016
82.00 + (Goal)
2015
82.00 (Goal)
2014
79.00 (Goal)
2013
76.00 (Goal)
2012
78.00
2011
74.35
2010
76.10
2009
75.95
2008
78.24
2007
78.06
2006
76.80
2005
73.73
2004
78.47
2003
75.86
2002
77.49
2001
77.52
2000
79.08
1999
73.14
1998
75.88
1997
74.38
1996
75.30
1995
72.47
1994
68.10
1994-2012 Average
75.72
B. Goals for Subpopulations
1. Students committing to the university late in the admissions cycle. Radford University
will achieve a retention rate of 72 percent for those fall 2013 entering students and 74
percent for fall 2014 entering students who are admitted within 180 days of the beginning
of the fall term.
21
Retention Rates for Freshmen in Fall 2010, 2011, and 2012 Cohorts by Number of Days as an Admitted
Student
Rank
Days Between Admission and First Day of
Total
Number
Persistence Rate
Classes
Number
Persisted
(%)
1
257 or greater
1698
1413
83.22
2
210 to 256
1858
1452
78.13
3
181 to 209
1672
1226
73.33
4
180 or fewer
1930
1359
70.41
Total
7158
5450
76.14
In addition, Radford University will achieve a retention rate of 70 percent for fall 2013
freshmen students who registered for classes on or after July 10; 72 percent for similar
students in the fall 2014 cohort; and 74 percent for students in the fall 2015 cohort.
2. Students entering RU with declared majors in selected colleges. Radford University
will achieve an annual retention rate of 75 percent for fall 2013 entering students, 78
percent for fall 2014 students, and 80 percent for fall 2015 students who have declared
majors in the College of Business and Economics and the College of Science and
Technology.
Retention Rates for Freshmen in Fall 2010, 2011, and 2012 Cohorts by College of Declared Major at Census
Date
Rank
College
Total Number
Number Persisted
Persistence Rate (%)
1
CVPA
674
554
82.20
2
CEHD
1080
871
80.65
3
WCHHS
751
593
78.96
4
CHBS
1387
1055
76.06
5
PMAJ
1445
1071
74.12
6
CSAT
888
644
72.52
7
COBE
933
662
70.95
Total
7158
5450
76.14
3. Students entering RU with marginal high school GPAs. Radford University will
achieve an annual retention rate of 68 percent for students who enter fall 2013 with a high
school GPA of 2.92 or less; 71 percent for similar students in the 2014 cohort of entering
freshmen; and 74 percent for those entering RU in fall 2015. (The data in the table below
reflect “equal bins” of data as analyzed by Noel-Levitz. The 2.92 GPA was
recommended by RU’s Office of Institutional Research as being a more appropriate cut
point for RU populations.)
Retention Rates for Freshmen in Fall 2010, 2011, and 2012 Cohorts by High School Grade Point Average
Rank
GPA
Total Number
Number Persisted
Persistence Rate (%)
1
3.45 or higher
1741
1446
83.06
2
Missing
10
8
80.00
3
3.15 to 3.44
1803
1406
77.98
4
2.88 to 3.14
1766
1347
76.27
5
2.87 or lower
1838
1243
67.63
Total
7158
5450
76.14
22
4. Students living in Madison, Muse, Draper, Washington, Tyler and Jefferson residence
halls. These halls have historically had lower retention rates than others at RU. (As
indicated below, Pocahontas and Bolling have also had low rates, but they will be offline
in the near future because of renovations.) Radford University will achieve 75, 78, and
80 percent retention rates for freshmen in the 2103, 2014, and 2015 cohorts, respectively,
who live in these residence halls.
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Total
Retention Rates for Freshmen in Fall 2010, 2011, and 2012 Cohorts by Residence Hall
Building
Total Number
Number Persisted
Persistence Rate (%)
Floyd
328
286
87.20
Ingles
238
198
83.19
Norwood
39
31
79.49
Trinkle
307
244
79.48
Stuart
318
252
79.25
Peery
381
301
79.00
Moffett
639
494
77.31
Madison
117
88
75.21
Draper
507
380
74.95
Muse
2819
2102
74.57
Pocahontas
287
214
74.56
Washington
408
303
74.26
Tyler
254
188
74.02
Jefferson
147
108
73.47
Off-campus
277
196
70.76
Bolling
92
65
70.65
7158
5450
76.14
5. Students whose financial aid is insufficient to meet their needs. Radford University
will achieve a retention rate of 74 percent for fall 2013 entering freshmen with a
$2,208.01 or greater gap between financial need and financial aid offered. The retention
rate will increase to 76 percent for fall 2014 entering freshmen and 78 percent for fall
2015 entering freshmen in this situation.
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Total
Retention Rates for Freshmen in Fall 2010, 2011, and 2012 Cohorts by Financial Aid Gap
Gap Between Financial Need and
Total Number
Number Persisted
Persistence Rate
Financial Aid Offered
(%)
-$932.00 or less
1344
1074
79.91
-$931.99 to $0.00
1957
1507
77.01
Missing data
1784
1353
75.84
$0.01 to $2,208.00
730
540
73.97
$2,208.01 or more
1343
976
72.67
7158
5450
76.14
6. Students who are African-American. Radford University will achieve a retention rate of
76 percent for freshmen Black or African-American students in the fall 2013 cohort; 79
percent for those in the fall 2014 cohort; and 82 percent for those in the fall 2015 cohort.
(While other ethnic groups also have lower than average retention rates and will benefit
23
from retention strategies, the numbers of Black students at the RU makes that ethnic
group a notably sizable subpopulation of the total student body.)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Retention Rates for Freshmen in Fall 2010, 2011, and 2012 Cohorts by Ethnicity
Ethnic Group
Total Number
Number Persisted
Persistence Rate
(%)
American Indian or Alaska Native
36
35
92.11
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
27
22
81.48
White Caucasian
5993
4615
77.01
Hispanic of any race
256
193
75.39
Non-resident alien
4
3
75.00
Refused to disclose
81
60
74.07
Black or African-American
455
328
72.09
Two or more races
148
100
67.57
Asian
146
89
60.96
Race and ethnicity unknown
10
5
50.00
7158
5450
76.14
24
V.
Retention Strategy Action Plans
An essential step in the retention planning process is the formulation of appropriate key retention
strategies and action plans designed to achieve the goals that have been established. Strategies represent
the broad class of actions with long-term outcomes and are followed by detailed action plans which
represent the immediate, short-term action steps that collectively form each strategy. Developing good
activity/action plans is the most important, detailed, and time-consuming part of the quality enhancement
(retention) planning process. The activity/action plans that follow are the heart of this plan.
The action plans were developed in early 2014 by ad hoc teams of individuals representing RU faculty,
staff, and students who refined the work of larger groups who participated in discussions and workshops
led by Dave Trites in fall 2013. Each team was chaired by a “champion.” The initial action plans
included some overlap, so the Retention Team examined and further clarified the plans in March and
April 2014; it also prioritized actions within each of the strategies. Each plan includes the following:

Additional Steps: what specific actions should we take as we adopt each retention strategy?

Responsibility: who should have primary responsibility for making sure that the recommended
actions are taken? (We recognize that the individuals listed may delegate this responsibility to
someone who reports to him/her.)

Completion date: what is a realistic date by which the action should be completed? (Note that
multiple actions are already in various stages of completion.)

Cost: if available, what is the Retention Team’s best estimate of the cost of implementation of
the actions? Some actions, such as determining gaps in academic support services, involve doing
data analysis or further investigation. Other than the time of the individuals involved, these
actions are low- or no-cost. Other actions, like the expansion of learning communities, could
vary considerably in cost depending upon how complicated the community is, whether the
community is residential or not, etc. (For example, learning communities such as the existing
non-residential Core Connections program and the new Biology Connections community
referenced above forge connections between existing courses and utilize existing facilities and
personnel. These programs can therefore be offered at virtually no additional cost. However,
more expansive future programs may require renovations or new construction, and these campus
makeovers and additional compensation for faculty-in-residence and other providers could prove
quite costly. As reflected below, during the two-year life of this plan, we envision the creation
only of learning communities that take full advantage of existing resources, and can therefore be
offered at minimal cost.) Still other actions, such as bringing back Supplemental Instruction, will
clearly require a significant allocation of resources.

Outcome assessment: which of the goal categories (i.e., RU populations or subpopulations; see
page 13, above) have the potential to be positively impacted if the actions are taken? The Office
of Academic Assessment has been involved in conversations about the assessment of outcomes,
and specific assessment plans will be developed as action plans are approved and implemented.
The plans are listed on the pages that follow in the priority order recommended at the October 31November 1 Noel-Levitz workshop. As noted above, within strategies, items are listed in priority order.
25
Priority 1: Enhance Academic Support Services
Key Strategy: Ensure the optimum availability of academic support services in support of student learning.
Description/Explanation:
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/TIMETABLE
Additional Steps
Responsibility
Develop a program of
Office of the Provost
Supplement Instruction
(SI) to augment tutoring
support (ID faculty,
courses, training). Identify
coordination of SI to
ensure full and complete
deployment.
Increase staffing to ensure Office of the Provost
sufficient professional
staff to provide
administrative oversight
and sufficient student
tutors/SI peer leaders to
meet demand during peak
and non-peak times.
Create a search database
of existing supportive
options associated with
need (integrating forms of
support to encourage
access). Developing
specific marketing plans
for supportive services.
Steve Lerch in
conjunction with
admissions and offices
providing academic
support
Completion Date
Fall of 2015
Cost
$100,000 per year
Assessment
Goal categories I-VII
Summer 2014
Reassigned time for a
faculty member (estimate
$15,000 per year) +
$15,000 stipend
Goal categories I-VII
Possible administrative
assistant ($25-30,000)
Summer 2014
26
Cost of additional student
tutors/leaders determined
by implementation of the
SI
Time
Goal categories I-VII
Conduct a data analysis to
determine salient gaps and
need for academic support
services. Develop rules of
engagement (screening
criteria) for support
services (face-to-face or
virtual) to ensure efficient
alignment of student
needs with available
resources.
Create an administrative
position with oversight of
academic support
services, including but not
limited to academic
advising. Determine the
appropriate organizational
structure of those services.
Integrate additional
synchronous and
asynchronous online
approaches to support
creative tutoring efforts.
Susan Hudson
Summer 2014
Time
Goal categories I-VII
Mike Dunn and Steve
Lerch
Fall 2014
$100,000 + benefits per
year
Goal categories I-VII
Tracey Mattson
Online tutoring was
initiated in January 2014
Ongoing cost: $26 per
hour, or approximately
$65,000 per year
Goal categories I-VII
Academic Support Offices
will gather data
supplemented by NoelLevitz Student
Satisfaction Inventory
27
Identify a centralized,
Mike Dunn and Steve
Fall 2018
welcoming location for
Lerch
potentially combined
academic services.
Office of Finance and
Possibilities: a renovated
Administration, with input
existing building such as
from Office of the Provost
Whitt or Russell or a new and the Academic Support
Academic Support
Offices
Building. Tenants would
include DRO, LARC, SI
offices, career services,
pre-major advising, and
other offices providing
academic support.
Champion: Rachel Hall, Freshmen Advisor, Pre-major Advising Center
Ad Hoc Committee:
 Catherine Costello (Student representative)
 Jason Davis, Assistant Professor of Biology (Faculty representative)
 Angela DeVore-Greene, Director, Disabilities Resource Center
 David Horton, Assistant to the Dean, College of Science and Technology
 Steve Lerch, Interim Coordinator of Student Retention (NSP representative)
 Jackie McNabb, Director of Enterprise Systems
28
$30,000,000 (???)
Goal categories I-VII
Priority 2: Improve the Quality of Academic Advising
Key Strategy: Develop more systematic, intentional, and seamless advising interactions for students (especially for new freshmen) that
emphasize relationship building and high expectations.
Description/Explanation:
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/TIMETABLE
Additional Steps
Responsibility
Reexamine and evaluate
Connie Phillips in
the human resource
consultation with Bill
classification system (and Kennan, Human
pay) for advising to
Relations, and the Office
eliminate turnover of
of Finance and
professional advisors.
Administration
Provide seamless
Jackie McNabb
technology support for
advising.
Create adherence to an
essential list of advising
requirements; e.g., every
student knows the name
of his/her academic and
faculty advisors (mentor).
Develop a process to
increase the course
availability based on
student demand; i.e., wait
listing in registration and
scheduling courses and
sections based on degree
audits.
Completion Date
By the end of the 20142015 academic year
Cost
Dependent upon money
needed to appropriately
adjust compensation and
create new professional
advising positions
Outcome Assessment
Goal categories I-VII
As soon as a new CRM
(Hobsons?) can be
purchased
Cost of the software
package and RU
Information Technology
support staff
none
Goal categories I-VII
Money to fund additional
courses if needed. (Wait
listing will help us better
meet course demand, and
trends will identify
disciplines in which
additional faculty should
be hired.)
Goal categories I-VII
Loretta Estes, other
advising coordinators, and
April Newcomer (keeper
of the advising website)
Spring and Summer 2014
Matthew Brunner
Begin Spring 2014
29
Goal categories I-VII
Identify alignment options
for increasing uniformity
of advising services (i.e.,
online advising module
for all students, advising
at Quest, and advising
topics in UNIV 100)
Develop increased
opportunities for advising
prospective (new,
admitted) students for
success (prior to
enrollment).
Provide additional
professional development
to ensure advisors share
best practices including
access to needed data and
information (professional
travel for full-time and
faculty advisors, faculty
training, incl. an online
module).
Define the difference
between mentoring and
advising, define
mentoring standards, and
provide for a clear role for
faculty mentors and
professional advisors –
this could be college (or
department) based. Assess
place of advising in
faculty evaluation system
and recommend changes
to system if/as appropriate
Marc Jacobsen, Mike
Dunn and advising
coordinators
Summer and fall 2014
Initial cost of $12,500
funded by New Student
Programs to compensate
Quest Faculty Advisors
for participation in the
May 15, 2014 Quest
Advising Institute
No additional cost; during
Quest 2014, will use data
from instruments made
available through NoelLevitz partnership
Goal categories I-VII
Marc Jacobsen, Mike
Dunn, Joel Hanlon
Begin in spring 2014
Donna Oliver and
Deborah Kitts (assisted by
other Advising
Coordinators)
Research travel budget
during summer 2014;
create online faculty
advising module summer
2014
Cost of travel
Goal categories I-VII
Advising coordinators
(with input from deans
and chairs) and Faculty
Senate
Begin discussions, and
planning, in 2014-2015
academic year
Cost of hiring more
professional advisors;
potentially more
incentives for faculty
(those who keep advising
and those who want to
become mentors) – could
be monetary or other
types of compensation
Goal categories I-VII
30
Goal categories I-VII
Identify data needs to
Deborah Kitts;
Spring 2014
none
Goal categories I-VII
inform advising
Institutional Research
conversations (e.g., % of
current freshmen advised
by professional advisors).
Increase integration of
Ellen Taylor and advising Discussions in 2014-2015 Potential cost of
Goal categories I-VII
career advising into
coordinators
academic year.
additional staff in Career
advising process
“Distributed” model of
Center; cost of offering
(including job shadowing)
career advising by college additional COED 260
and integration of career
will begin in fall 2014.
courses and “Intro to
experiences (more
Major” courses
involvement with Career
Services, review of COED
260 courses and adding
“Intro to Major” courses.
Identify opportunities and Loretta Estes (and other
Discussions have begun
None unless students are
Goal categories I-VII
receptivity in colleges to
Coordinators)
spring 2014; ambassadors compensated for
advance ambassadors and
should be functioning in
mentoring
other peers to provide
all colleges by the end of
mentorship opportunities
the 2014-2015 academic
for students.
year
Champion: Loretta Estes, Advising Coordinator and Assistant to the Dean, Waldron College of Health and Human Services
Ad Hoc Committee:
 Emily Guise (Student representative)
 Marc Jacobsen, Associate Director, New Student Programs (NSP representative)
 Deborah Kitts, Advising Coordinator, College of Humanities and Behavioral Sciences
 Jackie McNabb, Director of Enterprise Systems
 Diane Millar, Chair, Communication Sciences and Disorders (Faculty representative)
 Donna Oliver, Advising Coordinator, College of Visual and Performing Arts
31
Priority 3: Increase the Potential of UNIV 100 (see note below)
Key Strategy: Develop alternative approaches to increase the potential of the UNIV 100 program in order to reach more new students with
“college knowledge” information critical to their success.
Description/Explanation:
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/TIMETABLE
Additional Steps
Responsibility
Investigate the potential to Michele Jenkins
reorganize UNIV 100 so it
runs to the end of the
semester – two-credits.
Develop a credentialing
system for UNIV 100
instructors to ensure
consistency of delivery,
outcomes, and
assessment.
Develop two-hour UNIV
100 sections with
particular themes for
specific subpopulations of
students, possibly linked
to introductory courses in
disciplines
Mike Dunn; Michele
Jenkins
Lauren Hatfield and new
NSP position with
assistance from
appropriate college or
department
Completion Date
UNIV 100 will run until
the end of the semester in
fall 2014. However, it
will remain only one
credit hour: instead of
meeting twice per week
for ten weeks, it will meet
twice per week for seven
weeks and once per week
for seven weeks. There
will be exploration of
expanding the course to
two credit hours during
the 2014-2015 academic
year.
Fall 2015
Cost
Approximately $70,000:
double the cost of the
current UNIV 100
(moving from one credit
to two credits)
Outcome Assessment
Goal categories I-VII
$37,500 for stipend to
train instructors (75 x
$500)
Goal categories I-VII
Fall 2015
Additional $16,000 to
pilot 10 sections at two
credits
Goal categories II-VI
32
Examine sub-population
success rates of themed
sections of UNIV 100.
Develop SRP 2014
predictive model.
Document the ROI that
UNIV 100 provides.
Mike Dunn NSP
Fall 2016
none
Goal categories II-V
Mike Dunn
June 1, 2014
Goal categories I-VII
Institutional Research, in
collaboration with New
Student Programs
Ongoing
Part of Noel-Levitz
collaboration
It currently costs
approximately $120,000
to offer UNIV 100. What
is the ROI because of the
impact of the course on
retention rates?
Goal categories i-VII
Champion: Courtney Bell, Coordinator, Disabilities Resource Office
Ad Hoc Committee:
 Dan Davidson, Chair, Department of Accounting and Finance (Faculty representative)
 Betty Dore, Professor, School of Teacher Education and Leadership (Faculty representative)
 Michele Jenkins, Associate Director of New Student Programs (NSP representative)
 Ashley Light, student representative
 Dana Trask, Assistant Advising Coordinator, College of Visual and Performing Arts
A Special Note about UNIV 100 and the College Student Inventory
Clearly, the most important campus-wide retention initiative we can put into place immediately will involve more effectively using Noel-Levitz
data in UNIV 100. The vast majority of new freshmen enroll in UNIV 100, and the course already plays an enormous role in the retention of new
students: data from Institutional Research show that those who have completed the course since its inception in 1995 have been approximately 11
percent more likely to be retained for their sophomore year than those who did not. Moreover, while there will undoubtedly be other resourcedependent initiatives we will want to put into place during 2014-2015, none will be as costly; the other “big-ticket” action items that are part of
this plan—like reviving Supplemental Instruction—will almost certainly take an entire year to put into place.
Noel-Levitz has developed the College Student Inventory (CSI) to enable institutions to gather information from entering freshmen very early in
their college careers. In addition to demographic data, the CSI uses students’ self-reported data so that institutions can assess their academic
motivation, ability to cope, and receptivity to support services. This information, in combination with the student’s Student Retention Predictor
33
(SRP)—a score that takes into account factors that have identified previous cohorts of students at the institution as being “at-risk”—can be used to
recognize individual students and groups of students who could benefit from early institutional intervention.
The retention dimensions of Noel-Levitz’s partnership with Radford University were initiated when Dr. Trites made his second visit to the
institution on August 12 and 13, 2013. Owing to the shortness of time between his visit and the beginning of the fall semester, rather than
attempting a full administration, the CSI was piloted at RU in the fall of 2013 in a small group of UNIV 100 and BIOL 160 classes. (The latter
were included at the request of the dean and department chair, who expressed special concern about the retention of biology majors.) Students
completed the CSI in a computer lab during the second week of classes. Staff from the New Student Programs then visited the classes, distributing
students’ individual reports and debriefing the class as a group. Students were given an assignment that involved responding to a question like:
“Now that you know more about your strengths and potential challenges, how will you use your strengths (e.g., the fact that you appear to be very
receptive to receiving academic assistance) to address areas of weakness (e.g., the fact that your verbal and writing confidence is shaky)?
The ideal situation, of course, is for every entering student to take the CSI and spend time with a faculty or staff member who will have at least
one one-on-one conversation with him/her about his/her report. That is, in fact, the plan for the administration of the CSI going forward.
Specifically:
1. Noel-Levitz’s College Student Inventory (CSI) will be administered to all new students during Quest 2014. Administration of the CSI to
all students is included in RU’s contract with Noel-Levitz, so there will be no additional cost incurred.
2. UNIV 100 has been expanded such that it does not end after ten weeks of the semester. It will meet twice weekly for the first seven weeks
of the semester and once weekly for the next seven. Instructors have indicated their preference that the course continue through the
semester so that they can better assist students with matters like working with advisors, registration for spring classes, and preparing for
finals, which currently occur after the course is over. Significantly, the extension of the class over the full semester will enable students to
take Noel-Levitz’s Mid-Year Student Assessment (MYSA), which complements the CSI and should be administered during the last few
weeks of the fall. The MYSA will also be administered at no additional cost to RU. (UNIV 100 is the only course in which most new
freshmen are enrolled, and unless we administer the MYSA as part of a course, response rates are likely to be miniscule.) Comparing CSI
to MYSA data will help us see where our students have grown and where they still need help.
There will be 21 class meetings of UNIV 100 instead of the current 20. If UNIV 100 instructors are paid equivalent to RU’s lowest-paid
adjuncts, they would earn $900/credit hour. However, while students will continue to receive one hour of credit, the 21 course meetings
will be equivalent to the number in a course worth 1.5 hours of credit. Therefore, each instructor should receive an instructional stipend of
$1,350.
34
3. Fifteen “CSI experts” will be trained during the summer to visit UNIV 100 classes and do group debriefs of the CSI results early in the
fall. Each will receive $100 for the training and class visits. Three members of the New Student Programs staff did this for the pilot of 16
sections last year, but we need more “experts” to cover 70 sections early in the semester.
4. UNIV 100 instructors will be trained to do individual CSI debriefs with their students. At a minimum, we want them to have meetings
with the five or so students in each class identified by the CSI as being most at-risk. Ideally, they will spend at least some one-on-one
time with each student, regardless of his/her level of risk. We would propose adding $200 to each instructor stipend to cover summer
training and the time they will spend discussing CSI results with individual students.
In fall 2013, Faculty Instructors received $1,000 stipends. Therefore, apart from Peer Instructor stipends—which will be unchanged for 2014—the
cost to deliver 70 sections of UNIV 100 was $70,000. Beginning in 2014, each faculty instructor would receive an instructional stipend of $1,350
to cover the delivery of the course plus an additional $200 for work with students using the CSI, for a total of $1,550. Over 70 sections of the
course, the additional cost is $550 x 70, or $38,500. Adding the stipends of the “CSI experts” (15 x $100, or $1,500), the cost of implementing
this initiative next year will be an additional $40,000 beyond the current UNIV 100 budget. The assumption is that financial support for this
initiative will come from state funding earmarked for retention.
At some point during the 2015-2016 academic year, students in the fall 2014 freshmen cohort will be administered a third Noel-Levitz instrument,
the Second-Year Student Assessment (SYSA). The method through which the SYSA will be administered has not yet been determined. However,
as with the CSI and the MYSA, the costs of our students taking the MYSA and its analysis by Noel-Levitz are included in RU’s contract with
Noel-Levitz.
35
Priority 4 (tie): Develop Additional Learning Communities
Key Strategy: Identify and develop additional residential and non-residential learning community approaches that will expand access to the
“power of the cohort” for new freshmen students.
Description/Explanation: These learning community options should include both residential and nonresidential experiences
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/TIMETABLE
Additional Steps
Responsibility
Completion Date
Cost
Outcome Assessment
Residential life realities
Mike Dunn and Lauren
Early February 2014;
none
Goal categories I-VII
need to be studied to
Hatfield meet with key
result was location of
determine capacity for
individuals in Residential Biology Connections; a
developing residential
Life
pilot learning community
learning
for fall 2014, in Stuart
Communities.
Hall
Identify faculty who may
Mike Dunn and Susan
February 2014
none
Goal categories I-VII
be interested in
Hudson (in conjunction
participating in learning
with Joel Hagen for
communities.
Biology Connections)
Determine if residential
halls could be limited to
freshmen and sophomores.
Mike Dunn, Lauren
Hatfield, and other
members of Residential
Life staff
March 2014
none
Goal categories I-VII
Investigate/research past
learning community
success at Radford and
best practices at other
institutions to determine
what “works.”
Mike Dunn and Steve
Lerch from NSP; Irvin
Clark and Residential Life
staff
March 2014
none
Goal categories I-VII
36
Determine potential access
to residential classrooms
in the context of safety and
security and other areas
that are natural places for
learning communities to
be located; remodel sites
if/as needed
Conduct focus group of
freshmen to ID learning
community preferences.
Redo training for
residential life staff who
will work in learning
communities to emphasize
theme-related
programming.
Promote/market learning
communities to encourage
student participation.
Lauren Hatfield
Mid-march 2014
None, unless building
renovations are required
Goal categories I-VII
New NSP position
Fall 2014
none
Goal categories I-VII
Mike Dunn and Lauren
Hatfield
Summer 2014 for staff
working with Biology
Connections; future
summers as new
residential communities
come online
May 2014 for Biology
Connections
none
Goal categories I-VII
Minimal costs for flier
development and mailing
Goal categories I-VII
May 2015
none
Goal categories I-VII
May 2015
none
Goal categories I-VII
Susan Hudson for Biology
Connections; new NSP
position for future
communities.
New NSP position;
Lauren Hatfield and other
Residential Life staff
Identify ways to integrate
student life and
professional
activities into learning
communities.
Investigate connecting
New NSP position
learning community with
autobiographical writing
class to accelerate personal
connections with
individual stories.
37
Evaluate retention rates for Mike Dunn and Susan
Summer 2014
none
two-credit UNIV100
Hudson
students for out-of-state
and at-risk students
offered during fall 2014.
Compare retention rates
Mike Dunn and
Fall 2014
none
for dual enrollment
Institutional Research
students enrolled and not
enrolled in Core
Connections
Evaluate reasons why
Lauren Hatfield, new NSP Ongoing. Data for
none
students are and are not
position, and Institutional Biology Connections
academically successful in Research
community will be
learning communities at
available in Fall 2015
RU.
Identify coordination
New NSP position; Mike
Fall 2014. New options
none
options for expanding
Dunn; Lauren Hatfield
for fall 2015 should be
residential and nonidentified by late in the
residential learning
fall 2014 semester
communities….creative
options may be
appropriate.
Champion: Donna Dunn, advising coordinator, College of Education and Human Development
Goal categories I-VII
Goal categories I-VII
Goal categories I-VII
Goal categories I-VII
Ad Hoc Committee:
 Niels Christensen, Assistant Director of the Honors Academy and Professor of Psychology (Faculty Representative)
 Megan Coulter, Associate Registrar
 Mike Dunn, Director, New Student Programs (NSP representative)
 Lauren Hatfield, Assistant Director of Residential Life for Retention
 Alexis Male (Student representative)
 Pat Shoemaker, Dean, College of Education and Human Development
38
Priority 4 (tie): Facilitate Student Access to Campus Employment
Key Strategy: Develop a uniform, user-friendly, complete, single point of access for students who desire to work on-campus.
Description/Explanation:
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/TIMETABLE
Additional Steps
Responsibility
Work with RU administration to develop
Steve Lerch and
policies that ensure that all student
Carolyn Sutphin, in
employment opportunities are posted on a collaboration with
centralized access point.
appropriate
representatives from
Financial Aid, Student
Affairs, and Finance
and Administration
Determine the best place to manage and
Jaime Hunt, Carolyn
maintain the access point that provides
Sutphin and
maximum campus employment access for representative from
students.
Financial Aid
Educate campus about and advertise the
University Relations
central point of access (for students and
employers).
Develop hiring practices that allow fair
Teresa Slaughter, in
and equal access to existing positions.
conjunction with
Examine logistics underlying individual
Financial Aid and all
department hiring processes
RU divisions and
colleges
Inventory all campus employment
Cindy Eller, in
opportunities that exist and determine the
conjunction with IR,
impact of campus employment on
HR, Financial Aid, and
retention. (i.e., sub-populations)
NSP
Tag employment opportunities to allow
John Liptak and Tim
students to match their needs and
Filbert
qualifications with job requirements
(including service, freshmen friendly and
volunteer opportunities).
Completion Date
May 2015
Cost
none
Outcome Assessment
Goal categories I-VII
May 2015
none
Goal categories I-VII
May 2015
none
Goal categories I-VII
May 2015
none
Goal categories II and
IV
May 2015
none
Goal categories I-VII
May 2015
none
Goal categories I-VII
39
Determine a process that connects
Mike Dunn
May 2015
freshmen with campus employment
opportunities matched to their set of needs
and attributes.
Champion: Alice Coughlin, Associate Director for Student Activities Operations
none
Ad Hoc Committee:
 Suzanne Ament, Associate Professor of History (Faculty representative)
 Joel Hanlon, Senior Assistant Director, New Student Programs (NSP representative)
 Laura Jacobsen, Associate Professor, School of Teacher Education and Leadership (Faculty representative)
 Jerry Lester, Assistant Director of Financial Aid
 Kaleb Newago (Student representative)
 Barbara Porter, Director of Financial Aid
 Carolyn Sutphin, Career Services and Community Engagement
40
Goal categories I-VII
Priority 6: Manage Enrollment Strategically
Key Strategy: Manage enrollment strategically, especially for first-time, degree-seeking, academically underprepared, and late admit students
by using data to align outreach approaches with desired retention outcomes; e.g., capacity of targeted majors, learning readiness of applicants,
desired profile of entering class, and consideration of alternate entrance criteria for late applicants.
Description/Explanation: This approach will balance input financial management with student-centered outcome management
considerations.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/TIMETABLE
Additional Steps
Responsibility
Completion Date
Cost
Outcome Assessment
Examine admissions
James Pennix and Damian December 2014
none
Goal categories II and IV
criteria focusing on those
Allen
indicators that are highly
correlated to retention.
Encourage the University James Pennix
July 2014
Additional names can be
Goal category I
to strategically expand the
purchased for $.34 each. It
recruitment market and
is estimated a minimum of
align growth with
50,000 additional names
appropriate supportive
will be needed. Total
services.
estimate $17,000.
Provide special
Mike Dunn and Loretta
Fall 2014 (pilot)
Current resources will be
Goal category II
orientation, transition
Estes
reallocated to
services, and advising
accommodate separate
support for late commits
sessions for identified atand other at-risk
risk populations.
populations.
Investigate the nature of
Damian Allen
December 2014
none
Goal categories I-VII
the late commit challenge:
Answer the question of
why the late commits are
leaving and their reasons
for departure. Also,
investigate the impact of
financial considerations
on the enrollment of late
commits.
41
Refine a communication
flow that focuses the
attention of late admits on
financial aid issues.
Use campus employment
as retention strategy for
late committing and
enrolling students.
Investigate specific yield
strategies to decrease
number of late commits.
Develop a strategic
financial aid plan to
increase retention.
Allison Pratt and Barb
Porter
Fall 2014
none
Goal categories I-VII
Ellen Taylor and Barb
Porter
Plan in place by March
2015
none
Goal categories I-VII
James Pennix and Damian
Allen
Summer/Fall 2015
none
Goal categories I-VII
Wendy Lowe, Allison
Pratt and Barbra Porter
July 1, 2014 (Plan) for
fall 2015 class
While additional
resources will be
necessary to expand the
University’s internal
financial aid pool, no
additional cost will be
incurred in the
development of the plan.
Champion: Debra Templeton, Assistant Vice President and Director of Institutional Research
Ad Hoc Committee:
 Damian Allen, Reporting and Faculty Data Warehouse Manager, Institutional Research
 Kim Butterfield (Student representative)
 Art Carter, Associate Dean, College of Science and Technology and Chair, Information Technology (Faculty representative)
 Tabitha Greear, assistant advising coordinator, Waldron College of Health and Human Services
 James Pennix, Dean of Admissions/Doug Brady, Associate Director of Admissions
 Chad Reed, Director, Office of Budget and Financial Planning
 Lindsay Skeens, Assistant Director, New Student Programs (NSP representative)
42
Priority 7: Integrate Career Awareness into all Students’ First Year Curricula
Key Strategy: Integrate career awareness into all new student’s first-year curriculum to ensure a more complete understanding of the chosen
majors for decided students and of available alternatives for deciding students.
Description/Explanation:
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE/TIMETABLE
Additional Steps
Responsibility
Investigate the persistence Patti Williamson, Nasim
reporting of pre-major
Schwab, Susan Hudson,
retention to inform
and new NSP position
understanding of the
transition process into the
student’s major choice
Create additional
Steve Lerch, and
opportunities for students individual advising
to learn more about
coordinators or
majors during the intake
department chairs for each
process (electronic and
college
otherwise). Review the
assignments of advisees to
ensure identification of
new student assignments.
Integrate advising practice Jackie McNabb
issues into (Hobsons)
CRM ongoing training
and support.
Completion Date
December 2014
Cost
none
Outcome Assessment
Goal categories I, II, and
III.
Fall term 2014
none
Goal category I and III.
August 2014 decision
anticipated
Part of cost of Hobsons
contract
Goal categories I-VII
43
Development of the career
coaching approach,
including assignments and
development of coaching,
résumé prep, alumni
bridge development,
advisory boards,
internships and
programming that are
college specific.
Develop a required careerrelated experience for all
majors (Intro to Career).
Ellen Taylor in
coordination with
individual college
leadership (college deans,
advising coordinators, and
leadership teams)
Conversations with
College Leadership will
begin spring 2014. The
implementation strategy is
contingent upon new
funding request, currently
under consideration.
Dependent upon level of
funding received through
new funding initiative.
Goal categories III and
VII
Susan Underwood and
Justin Anderson; Nasim
Schwab; Patti Williamson
Fall 2015 development;
fall 2016 Implementation
Will vary by college
Goal categories II, III and
V
Use the CSI and other
Susan Hudson; new NSP
Summer 2014
none
information to inform
position
educational planning and
major choices…early in
the intake process.
Champion: Nasim Schwab, Advising Coordinator, College of Business and Economics
Ad Hoc Committee:
 Justin Anderson, Assistant Professor of Biology (Faculty representative)
 Dan Davidson, Chair, Department of Accounting and Finance (Faculty representative)
 Susan Hudson, Retention Projects Manager (NSP representative)
 James Lollar, Chair, Department of Marketing (Faculty representative)
 Brittni McMillian (Student representative)
 Ellen Taylor, Director of Career Services and Community Engagement
 Susan Underwood, Advising Coordinator, College of Science and Technology
 Patti Williamson, Advising Coordinator, Pre-major Advising Center
44
Goal category I-VII
VI.
A Final Word
This plan does not ensure results. It would be folly for this or any plan to guarantee retention outcomes.
However, it does document a disciplined appraisal of current retention realities at Radford University. It
also reflects thoughtful goal setting taking those realities into account.
Utilizing our knowledge of the characteristics of RU students and best practices in student retention, this
document identifies priority improvement targets and outlines specific strategies and attendant action
plans. It was developed through a careful planning effort involving representatives of diverse RU
constituencies, all of whom are dedicated to facilitating student success. Upon approval, this plan will
serve as a communication tool that describes what RU expects to achieve and how it will accomplish it.
Radford University has already committed significant financial and human resources to improving student
retention. This plan proposes specific future retention goals, points RU in a direction that should enable
our institution to achieve those goals, and recommends a direct and practical route the University should
take to reach its destination. Continuing investment by the RU community is crucial for the success of
this plan. We are confident that our investment will pay significant dividends for our institution and—
more importantly—for the students who attend our University and the families who entrust their sons and
daughters to us.
45
APPENDIX
Radford University Retention Committee








Neils Christensen, Associate Director, RU Honors Academy, and Professor of Psychology
Irvin Clark, Associate Vice President for Student Affairs and Dean of Students
Mike Dunn, Director, New Student Programs
Loretta Estes, Assistant to the Dean and Advising Coordinator, Waldron College of Health and
Human Services
Lauren Hatfield, Assistant Director of Residential Life for Retention
Susan Hudson, Retention Projects Manager, New Student Programs (part-time)
Michele Jenkins, Associate Director, New Student Programs
Steve Lerch, Interim Coordinator of Student Retention (part-time)
Radford University Faculty Retention Task Force






Art Carter, Associate Dean, College of Science and Technology, and Associate Professor and
Chair, Department of Information Technology
Mary Ferrari, Professor of History
Jessica Goldsmith, Assistant Professor, Department of Interior Design and Fashion
Dale Henderson, Associate Professor and Chair, Department of Management
Kevin LoPresto, Associate Professor, School of Teacher Education and Leadership
Diane Millar, Professor and Chair, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders
46