Georgia Southern University Campus Plan Update 2016

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Composite

Georgia Southern

1112

1115

1112

1113

1112

University System

1096

1110

1111

1065

1052

State Average

972

977

977

973

975

National Average

1011

1010

1010

1010

1006

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

3.20

3.21

3.24

3.27

3.29

Learning Support

Summer 2010-Spring 2011

Summer 2011-Spring 2012

Summer 2012-Spring 2013

Summer 2013-Spring 2014

Summer 2014-Spring 2015

Math

    Total #

87

57

47

45

33

    # Completed

47 (54%)

24 (42%)

25 (53%)

29 (64%)

23 (70%)

    # Stopped

    Attending

32 (37%)

21 (37%)

16 (34%)

12 (27%)

8 (24%)

    # Dismissed

8 (9%)

12 (21%)

6 (13%)

4 (9%)

2 (6%)

English

    Total #

37

18

7

6

12

    # Completed

28 (76%)

14 (78%)

5 (71%)

5 (83%)

11 (92%)

    # Stopped

    Attending

9 (24%)

4 (22%)

2 (29%)

1 (17%)

1 (8%)

    # Dismissed

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

Reading

    Total #

35

18

7

11

6

    # Completed

30 (86%)

12 (67%)

7 (100%)

11 (100%)

6 (100%)

    # Stopped

    Attending

5 (14%)

6 (33%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

    # Dismissed

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

Total Learning Support

159

93

61

62

51

% of University Freshmen Enrollment

5%

3%

2%

2%

2%

1st year retention: Fall 2011

2^nd year retention:

Fall 2012 (percentage point difference from prior year)

3^rd year retention:

Fall 2013 (percentage point difference from prior year)

Fall 2010 Cohort

First-time Freshmen

79.6%

64.8% (14.8)

56.7% (8.1)

Transfer Freshmen

68.6%

53.9% (14.7)

37.3% (16.6)

Fall 2012

Fall 2013 (percentage point difference from prior year)

Fall 2014 (percentage point difference from prior year)

Fall 2011 Cohort

First-time Freshmen

77.2%

61.9% (15.3)

55.9% (6.0)

Transfer Freshmen

73.7%

55.8% (17.9)

43.2% (12.6)

Fall 2013

Fall 2014 (percentage point difference from prior year)

Fall 2015 (percentage point difference from prior year)

Fall 2012 Cohort

First-time Freshmen

80.5%

65.8% (14.7)

58.8% (7)

Transfer Freshmen

60.6%

54.9% (5.7)

38.0% (16.9)

Fall 2014

Fall 2015 (percentage point difference from prior year)

Fall 2016 (percentage point difference from prior year)

Fall 2013 Cohort

First-time Freshmen

80.3%

64.9% (15.4)

Transfer Freshmen

64.3%

57.1% (7.2)

Fall 2015

Fall 2016 (percentage point difference from prior year)

Fall 2017 (percentage point difference from prior year)

Fall 2018 (percentage point difference from prior year)

Fall 2014 Cohort

First-time Freshmen

81.5%

Transfer Freshmen

76.3%

Year

# Admitted

Summer

(% of Freshman Enrollment)

% Retained Subsequent

Fall

% Retained Next

Fall (% Non-EIP Retained)

2006

391 (17%)

98%

82% (78%)

2007

435 (17%)

92%

78% (81%)

2008

484 (19%)

90%

81% (81%)

2009

492 (17%)

92%

80% (79%)

2010

476 (15%)

90%

82% (79%)

2011

505 (17%)

90%

83% (76%)

2012

529 (17%)

90%

81% (80%)

2013

582 (20%)

94%

76% (81%)

2014

572 (20%)

88%

81% (82%)

2015

547 (19%)

91%

Ten Year Average

501 (18%)

Fall Cohort

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

EIP

40%

45%

46%

51%

51%

Non-EIP

47%

50%

51%

51%

50%

High-Impact Strategy

Improve communication around the early alert system and to expand who receive early alerts

Related Goal

Increase the sophomore to junior progression rate from 64.9% (fall 2015) to 70% by fall 2020.

Demonstration of Priority and/or Impact

Historically, and as affirmed by the data in Table 4, the institution has witnessed the greatest attrition in first-time freshmen between the junior and senior year; however, it can be argued that this result is a consequence of students experiencing difficulties in their sophomore year. For instance, students whose grades fall and who get into academic difficulties during the sophomore year may eventually give up or transfer out by their senior year. Other students who encounter financial aid issues may elect to work more hours and attend class less or spend less time on class work. Greater investigation of sophomore students is needed to understand what is happening with this student population, identify potential barriers, and alleviate where possible to help students return for successful junior and senior years. A more robust early alert system, communicated more effectively and open to more students, will address these issues

Primary Point of Contact for this Activity

Name: Dr. Christopher Caplinger

Title: Director of the First-Year Experience Program

Email: caplinca@georgiasouthern.edu

Summary of Activities

Recognizing that improving performance measures takes time, Georgia Southern has opted to develop multi-year goals; therefore, most of 2015-2016 was devoted to planning and organizing the applicable action teams. For example, the former Interim Provost launched a series of campus-wide Student Success Workshops, comprised of deans, associate deans, department chairs, and select faculty. This group will continue to meet periodically during the forthcoming academic year. As of the end of spring 2016, two sub-committees had been initiated: (1) to review academic policies and procedures that may act as barriers to student success and progression and propose revisions (addressed in goal 3); and (2) to improve communication around early alerts and to expand who receives early alerts.

The sub-committee on early alerts met and made two sets of recommendations. One was to improve communication through the establishment of injection messages which students receive when they log into the campus single sign-on. Previously, students only knew they received early alerts if they 1) actively logged into the system to check their alerts or 2) received an email or phone message from an advisor or other staff member. The committee further customized the messages based on the type of alert the faculty member submits.  Therefore, a student who has attendance problems receives a different message than one who has missed assignments or a student who has earned low grades on initial assignments. Previously, students only received the alert abbreviation (for instance: “UA”) which they had to use a key to interpret (in the previous example, “Unsatisfactory Attendance”). These changes went into effect Fall 2016.

The second set of changes, proposed to go into effect Fall 2017, requires Faculty Senate approval. Presently, the only students who receive early alerts are those classified as freshmen, irrespective of the specific classes they are taking. We propose to change the early alerts based upon specific courses rather than the students’ classification. Alerts are most appropriate for introductory courses in which students often struggle and/or which are gateways for progression in the major. The current system does not effectively identify students who may be struggling in these courses. Some students for which faculty wish to submit an early alert are not able to receive alerts (and indeed, a growing number of students enter Georgia Southern as sophomores due to AP or dual enrolled credit and never receive alerts). In other cases, faculty end up with a small number of students classified as freshmen in an upper division course for which early alerts are less appropriate. In this case, they often only find out they need to submit when they receive an injection page or communication from their dean’s office. This change will simplify the process and align it with its intended purpose. The proposal is for all students taking classes in Areas A-E of the core curriculum to potentially receive alerts. Departments who oversee courses outside Areas A-E could also opt in to making alerts available for their courses as well.

Another proposed change is to remove the option of “Satisfactory,” which is not really an early alert, but a remnant of an older system that called early alerts “midterm grades.” Too often, faculty still conceive of alerts as midterm grades, often waiting as long as possible to submit because they want to provide the best snapshot of how students are doing at the time of the deadline to submit. This delay defeats the purpose, which is to send an early warning as soon as possible. The proposal is to replace “Satisfactory” with “no alert,” thus still requiring faculty to submit, but working toward changing faculty perception of early alerts.

Measures of Progress

Metric/data element:

Fall Term Retention and Graduation Rates Table (http://em.georgiasouthern.edu/osra/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/fb1516.pdf, p. 50) produced by the Office of Strategic Research and Analysis, Georgia Southern University annual Fact Book. For each fall term, the table reports the entering cohort number, the retention rate cohort number, 1^st year retention, 2^nd year retention, 3^rd year retention, and 4^th year retention along with graduation data. For this goal, focus will be placed on the retention rate reported under 2^nd year retention.

Baseline measure:

Fall 2014: 64.9%

Interim measures of progress:

Fall 2018: 68%

Benchmarking data will continue to be collected on when the largest percentage of unsatisfactory early alert grades are submitted. These trend data will be used to measure the success of expanding early alerts if and when implemented in fall 2017. Data will also be collected on the number of unsatisfactory early alerts converted to satisfactory by the end of the semester as well as the number of satisfactory early alerts that became unsatisfactory by the end of the semester.

Measures of success:

Fall 2020: 70%

Lessons Learned

Faculty can enter early alerts for freshmen as early as the first day of classes and extending over a seven week period. In spring 2015, 41.2% of unsatisfactory early alerts were submitted during the final week (week 7). For fall 2015, 44.8% of unsatisfactory early alerts were submitted during week 7. During spring 2016, 51.7% of unsatisfactory early alerts were submitted in week 7. Posting early alerts this late in the semester hinders students’ ability to get ‘back on track’ academically. The proposed changes are designed to encourage faculty submission much earlier.

High-Impact Strategy

Implement Soar in 4 campaign.

Related Goal

Increase the percentage of sophomore students enrolling in 15 or more credit hours per semester from 39.8% (fall 2015) to 45% by fall 2020 and junior students from 43.5% (fall 2015) to 50% by fall 2020.

Demonstration of Priority and/or Impact

In the study, “Redefining Full-Time in College: Evidence on 15-Credit Strategies” (Klempin, 2014), the benefits of a 15-credit course load per semester are documented. A minimum full-time load is not sufficient to allow students to graduate on time. The study examines different strategies, including expanding flat tuition to cover 12 to 20 credits, which resulted in an increase in credits attempted per semester. Given Georgia Southern’s primarily traditional, full-time undergraduate population, encouraging students to register for a 15-credit hour load per semester has considerable potential to reduce time to degree.

Primary Point of Contact for this Activity

Name: Alan Woodrum

Title: Assistant Provost

Email: alanwoodrum@georgiasouthern.edu

Summary of Activities

By the end of spring 2016, a SOAR in 4 teaser video had been created and distributed on campus. A splash video for SOAR in 4 was distributed at summer 2016 orientation. Both videos have three objectives: (1) promote graduation in four years by telling students that the data show they are more likely to graduate if they complete 15-17 hours per semester; (2) boost GPAs by informing students that students completing more than 15 hours per semester have higher GPAs than those who take fewer hours; and (3) save students money by telling them that taking a 12 credit hour load per semester puts them on track to graduate in 5 years which will cost students an additional $10,000.

Measures of Progress

Metric/data element:

Percentage of sophomores registered for 15 or more credit hours; percentage of juniors registered for 15 or more credit hours each fall semester. Report produced by the Office of First-Year Experience.

Baseline measure:

Fall 2015 Sophomores: 39.8% registered for 15 or more credit hours

Fall 2015 Juniors: 43.5% registered for 15 or more credit hours

Interim measures of progress:

The interim measure of progress will be 41% of sophomores registered for 15 credits or more in fall 2016 and 45% of juniors registered for 15 credits or more in fall 2016.

Percentage of Students by Classification Who Enrolled in 15 or More Credit Hours

Measures of success:

Fall 2020 Sophomores: 50.0% registered for 15 or more credit hours

Fall 2020 Juniors: 50.0% registered for 15 or more credit hours

Lessons Learned

Although data show that students who complete 15-17 credit hours per semester are more likely to graduate, in many cases, it is important to recognize that for certain majors, it is in the best interest of students to take advantage of specific opportunities (i.e., internships, co-ops) which may prolong their time to graduation, but better prepare them for their careers.

High-Impact Strategy

Develop and implement a campus-wide academic success plan that transforms the way in which remediation is accomplished by identifying the specific needs of students on academic warning that are currently being unmet and the resources required to meet those needs. Such a plan would include efforts to identify and revise existing policies which impede students’ ability to progress. [Note: the Academic Success Center is housed in the Division of Student Affairs and Enrollment Management. As an initial step in re-envisioning the Center, a search was conducted in spring 2016 to replace the outgoing director. Unfortunately, the search did not result in a hire and has now been re-opened. Success of this goal depends, in part, on successful filling of this critical position.]

Related Goal

Reduce the percentage of students in an academic warning category (operationalized as any category other than good standing) by five percentage points by spring 2021 through a review of institutional academic policies which may impede a student’s ability to progress and through transforming the way that remediation is accomplished.

Demonstration of Priority and/or Impact

While the Academic Success Center tracks the progress of learning support students in developmental math, English, and reading courses, it does not appear that the institution tracks the subsequent performance, progression, and graduation rates of these students nor can the Academic Success Center (with its current resources) handle the need for additional services for students who fall into at-risk status during the course of their academic studies. By far, the larger group of students who fail to register for the subsequent semester are those who experience registration and academic success issues. A mid-semester report of fall 2015 registered students showed 302 students who did not register for spring 2016 by January 27, 2016. Of these 302 unregistered students, 70 or 23% did not register due to registration and academic success issues. These students exhibited a fall 2015 GPA in the 1.78 to 1.94 range, suggesting that they need additional academic support/assistance. Three students (1%) were unable to get the courses they needed. These three students held an average fall 2015 GPA of 2.99. Another 161 students, 53%, were transferring out with an average fall 2015 GPA of 2.88. While advisors can and do refer at-risk students to available campus resources, Academic Affairs is unable to address this need solely on its own. Rather what is needed is a campus-wide academic success plan that identifies the specific needs currently being unmet and the resources required to meet those needs.

Primary Point of Contact for this Activity

Name: Alan Woodrum

Title: Assistant Provost

Email: alanwoodrum@georgiasouthern.edu

Summary of Activities

Most of 2015-2016 was devoted to planning and organizing the applicable action teams. For example, the former Interim Provost launched a series of campus-wide Student Success Workshops, comprised of deans, associate deans, department chairs, and select faculty. This group will continue to meet periodically during the forthcoming academic year. As of the end of spring 2016, two sub-committees had been initiated: (1) to review academic policies and procedures* that may act as barriers to student success and progression and propose revisions (e.g., current academic standing policy); and (2) to expand the Early Alerts to include key core curriculum classes, incorporate “kudos,” and propose 5 and 10 week reporting dates (addressed under goal 1).

*The following data helped to identify potential academic standing policies which may be acting as a barrier to student success. A comparison of ‘not registered’ students from spring 2015 to spring 2016 revealed a total of 79 additional ‘not registered’ students for spring 2016. Twenty-seven of the 79 students who did not register in spring 2016 had a Warning 1 academic standing. An additional 16 were on Probation 1. These two groups alone accounted for 54% of the 79 unregistered students. It is believed that the University’s academic standing policy is too punitive, encouraging students to drop-out or transfer before hitting Exclusionary standing. The institution’s current policy determines academic standing based upon cumulative GPA and does not account for students who may still be in academic difficulty but have a successful current semester, ending the term with a GPA of over 2.0. While a GPA above 2.0 is good, it may not be sufficient to raise the overall GPA to 2.0 or above, forcing the student into the next stage of academic standing and one step closer to Exclusion, sending negative feedback to the student despite a good academic semester performance.

Another policy that needs to be re-visited is the grade forgiveness policy. Again, the current policy mandates that all attempts at a course be included in the GPA. Ideally, a student would be allowed a set number of credits (e.g., 15 credit hours/3 courses) where they could select the higher grade only to apply to their GPA.

Measures of Progress

Metric/data element:

The percentage of ‘not registered’ undergraduate students in spring term (n = number of ‘not registered’ undergraduate students as of the Wednesday in January after the end of drop/add divided by the number of prior fall semester ‘eligible to register’ undergraduate students.) The goal is to reduce by 5% with the understanding that the baseline changes each year.

Baseline measure:

Baseline measure is the number of ‘eligible to register’ undergraduate students in the fall semester. While this number will vary each fall term, the objective is to reduce by 5% by the end of drop/add the following spring semester.

Interim measures of progress:

The strategies for this goal (review of academic standing and grade forgiveness policies and development of a campus-wide academic success plan) are still under active development. Measures of progress will be continuing to collect data on the number/percentage of students who are not registered and their current academic standing along with data for students on academic standing and current GPA. These benchmarking data will allow progress to be tracked once changes have been fully implemented.

Lessons Learned

Having returned from attending the University System of Georgia’s workshop on Beyond Financial Aid, we are more cognizant of ways in which we could help students who are unable to register for financial reasons. While the University does provide some financial literacy activities, they are currently offered in a decentralized, ad hoc fashion. It would be worthwhile for us to develop an integrated and centralized message regarding financial literacy that all units could tap into when conducting their individual activities. As part of a financial literacy program, students would be informed of student loan implications and obligations as well as provided with tools for managing those funds to support their education. For example, sharing information with students on the median student loan debt by program, average starting salary in their chosen field, and the amount of time it would take them to pay back the student loan might provide them with incentives for better managing loan resources, reducing the number of students who fall into financial difficulties.

High-Impact Strategy

Reduce barriers to degree completion via participation in Gateways to Completion® and focus on intrusive advising (building relationships) to keep students on track for graduation.

Related Goal

Increase the first-time freshmen six-year graduation rate from 50.4% (fall 2009 first-time freshman cohort) to 55% by 2020.

Demonstration of Priority and/or Impact

While Georgia Southern has the data to indicate which gateway courses cause students the most difficulty, it is less known what the specific problems are that students have. Through implementation of Gateways to Completion®, the institution will begin to collect the data needed to identify the problems in gateway courses that can be barriers to student success and retention.

Primary Point of Contact for this Activity

Name: Alan Woodrum

Title: Assistant Provost

Email: alanwoodrum@georgiasouthern.edu

Summary of Activities

During summer 2016, course(s) were selected for piloting Gateways to Completion® during fall 2016. During the pilot phase, opportunities for improvement will be identified. Full implementation of Gateways to Completion® is set for spring 2017.

The College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences (CLASS) utilizes a model of intrusive advising that has also demonstrated success in converting students, who have been in academic difficulty at one or more points in their academic studies, to graduates. This model was employed to address an unmet need to serve at-risk students. Beginning in fall 2014, whenever a student falls into academic difficulty or is identified by the advisor as at-risk, the student’s regular advisor implements intrusive advising practices. Key among these practices is the use of academic success plans—multiple levels of plans that are assigned based upon the level of the student’s need. Advisors also refer students to campus resources as needed. Of the students who began fall 2013 in academic difficulty, 22 (4%) have now graduated. Of the students in academic difficulty at the start of fall 2014, 28 (4%) have now graduated. Of those in academic difficulty at the start of fall 2015, 28 (5%) have now graduated. Six percent (n=34) of students in academic difficulty at the start of spring 2016 graduated. It is hoped that Gateways to Completion® will allow us to apply similar efforts on a much broader scale.

Measures of Progress

Metric/data element:

Fall Term Retention and Graduation Rates Table (http://em.georgiasouthern.edu/osra/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/fb1516.pdf, p. 50) produced by the Office of Strategic Research and Analysis, Georgia Southern University annual Fact Book. For each fall term, the table reports retention data along with the following graduation data: graduation rate cohort number, percentage who graduated in 4 years or less, percentage who graduated in 5 years or less, and percentage who graduated in 6 years or less. For this goal, focus will be placed on the percentage of students who graduate in 6 years or less.

Baseline measure:

Fall 2009 first-time freshman cohort: 50.4%

Interim measure of progress:

Fall 2013 first-time freshman cohort: 53.0%

One interim measure of progress will be successful launching of the Gateways to Completion® by spring 2017.

Measures of success:

Fall 2015 first-time freshman cohort: 55.0%