Armstrong State University
Armstrong is a comprehensive four-year institution that is teaching-centered and student-focused, providing diverse learning experiences and professional programs grounded in the liberal arts. Armstrong serves a very diverse population of both traditional and non-traditional students, representing nearly every state and 76 countries. Armstrong is committed to providing each student with an education that is transformative, experiential, rigorous and leading to student success.
Institutional Sector: State University
Armstrong State University
Armstrong is a comprehensive four-year institution that is teaching-centered and student-focused, providing diverse learning experiences and professional programs grounded in the liberal arts. Armstrong serves a very diverse population of both traditional and non-traditional students, representing nearly every state and 76 countries. Armstrong is committed to providing each student with an education that is transformative, experiential, rigorous and leading to student success.
Armstrong State University Institutional Profile
Armstrong State University Campus Plan Update 2015
Institutional Mission and Student Body Profile
Armstrong’s strategic plan, Charting Excellence Together, reaffirms our commitment as a teaching-first University, where student-focused and transformative education is valued, with the primary goal of fostering student success. The strategic plan serves as the lens through which faculty members, staff, administrators, and students view their roles, responsibilities, interactions and performance.
Our Complete College Georgia-Armstrong plan is consistent with our institutional mission of providing diverse and transformative learning experiences that lead to student success, with the overarching goal of supporting students from matriculation through to graduation. Armstrong has a history of service to the 6-county coastal Georgia region and to students who desire to enter college from a variety of pathways: traditional freshmen and transfer students, as well as non-traditional students who enter Armstrong to pursue new opportunities in their lives and careers. Slightly more than 30% of our first-time, full-time students are first-generation college students, who may not have had the benefit of parents, siblings, or mentors to help them understand and prepare for the college experience. More than one-third of Armstrong students are non-traditional adult learners who need flexible course offerings, support services, and career counseling. The number of potential non-traditional students in our region, including veteran and active duty military is large and drives many of our initiatives. (There are approximately 47,000 veterans and over 22,000 active duty personnel in the region.) Our students also often need assistance with financial aid and payment procedures, such as completing the FAFSA, submitting and signing required documents, understanding the variety of financial aid available, and managing money for college and personal expenses. Forty-nine percent of our students are Pell eligible, and over 85% of our students receive some form of financial aid. We provide numerous workshops on campus and in the community to meet this need.
Below are three tables of Armstrong student demographics. Table 1 gives the profile of an enrolled Armstrong undergraduate student in Fall of 2012, 2013 and 2014. Our population tends to be full-time, female Pell-eligible students who more often than not, are adult learners. The population distribution of students remains mostly stable, with a slight trend over these 3-years toward an increase in the number of full-time students, as well as an increase in the number of Pell eligible students. Also, we have growing populations of military and minority students. Our programs are geared to serve these populations and assure that they are progressing to their degree in a timely fashion.
Table 1: Armstrong Demographics, Total Enrolled
|
Fall 2012 |
Fall 2013 |
Fall 2014 |
||||
|
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
|
|
Total Undergraduates |
6,731 |
6,377 |
6,346 |
|||
|
Full-Time |
4,839 |
71.9% |
4,699 |
73.7% |
4,702 |
74.1% |
|
Part-Time |
1,892 |
28.1% |
1,678 |
26.3% |
1,644 |
25.9% |
|
Male |
2,369 |
35.2% |
2,133 |
33.4% |
2,120 |
33.4% |
|
Female |
4,362 |
64.8% |
4,244 |
66.6% |
4,226 |
66.6% |
|
Black or African American |
1,566 |
23.3% |
1,534 |
24.1% |
1,577 |
24.9% |
|
Latino/Hispanic |
462 |
6.9% |
460 |
7.2% |
456 |
7.2% |
|
Multiracial |
250 |
3.7% |
254 |
4.0% |
270 |
4.3% |
|
Pell Eligible |
2,904 |
43.1% |
2,732 |
42.8% |
2,910 |
45.9% |
|
First-Time Full-Time Freshman |
968 |
14.4% |
864 |
13.5% |
635 |
10.0% |
|
Adult Learners (Age 24 and Older) |
2,320 |
34.5% |
2,172 |
34.1% |
2,230 |
35.1% |
|
Veteran or Military Affiliated |
587 |
8.7% |
634 |
9.9% |
539 |
8.5% |
|
Learning Support |
153 |
2.3% |
157 |
2.5% |
166 |
2.6% |
Table 2 highlights the demographics of our entering student population for the last five years. New students are increasingly military students, Pell eligible, female and adult learners.
Table 2: 5-Year history of number of entering students, by underserved population
|
Fall 2010 |
Fall 2011 |
Fall 2012 |
Fall 2013 |
Fall 2014 |
||||||
|
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
|
|
Total entering undergraduate students |
2,086 |
2,220 |
1,789 |
1,597 |
1,602 |
|||||
|
Part-Time |
465 |
22.3% |
584 |
26.3% |
408 |
22.8% |
360 |
22.5% |
450 |
28.1% |
|
Adult Learners |
406 |
19.5% |
474 |
21.4% |
312 |
17.4% |
269 |
16.8% |
328 |
20.5% |
|
Military and affiliated |
145 |
7.0% |
173 |
7.8% |
146 |
8.2% |
152 |
9.5% |
245 |
15.3% |
|
First Generation |
651 |
31.2% |
699 |
31.5% |
562 |
31.4% |
492 |
30.8% |
486 |
30.3% |
|
Race/Ethnicity |
||||||||||
|
Asian |
73 |
3.5% |
71 |
3.2% |
68 |
3.8% |
66 |
4.1% |
48 |
3.0% |
|
Black or African American |
552 |
26.5% |
534 |
24.1% |
403 |
22.5% |
366 |
22.9% |
361 |
22.5% |
|
Hispanic |
117 |
5.6% |
163 |
7.3% |
125 |
7.0% |
124 |
7.8% |
117 |
7.3% |
|
American Indian or Alaska Native |
6 |
0.3% |
7 |
0.3% |
6 |
0.3% |
3 |
0.2% |
4 |
0.2% |
|
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander |
3 |
0.1% |
2 |
0.1% |
2 |
0.1% |
4 |
0.3% |
3 |
0.2% |
|
White |
1,258 |
60.3% |
1,327 |
59.8% |
1,018 |
56.9% |
966 |
60.5% |
971 |
60.6% |
|
2 or More Races |
74 |
3.5% |
111 |
5.0% |
70 |
3.9% |
68 |
4.3% |
80 |
5.0% |
|
Unknown |
3 |
0.1% |
5 |
0.2% |
97 |
5.4% |
0 |
0.0% |
18 |
1.1% |
|
Gender |
||||||||||
|
Female |
1,288 |
61.7% |
1,408 |
63.4% |
1,137 |
63.6% |
1,087 |
68.1% |
1,056 |
65.9% |
|
Male |
798 |
38.3% |
812 |
36.6% |
652 |
36.4% |
510 |
31.9% |
546 |
34.1% |
|
Pell Recipient |
825 |
39.5% |
931 |
41.9% |
756 |
42.3% |
651 |
40.8% |
709 |
44.3% |
Table 3 highlights the most recent data on 6-year graduation rates, in accordance with Goal 1. For the last three cohorts (2006-2008), the graduation rate is similar for all student populations, at nearly 30%. However, male students, Veterans, part-time and learning support students graduate at a much lower rate than other students. We have seen small increases in the number of non-traditional adult learners, as well as Hispanic and multiracial students graduating within 6-years, and we expect that trend to continue. We must address the decreasing rate seen for both Pell eligible and learning support students.
Table 3: Armstrong, 6-year Graduation Rates
% Graduated within 6 Years
|
% Graduated within 6 Years
|
% Graduated within 6 Years
|
|
|
First-Time Full-Time Cohort |
31.0% |
33.6% |
29.7% |
|
Male |
23% |
24.2% |
24.2% |
|
Female |
35.8% |
40.7% |
33.4% |
|
Black or African American |
35.2% |
43.9% |
25.3% |
|
Latino/Hispanic |
20.6% |
35.7% |
34.0% |
|
Multiracial |
26.7% |
35.4% |
30.4% |
|
Pell Eligible |
32.3% |
31.3% |
22.0% |
|
Adult Learners (Age 24 and Older) |
33.3% |
27.6% |
39.0% |
|
Veteran or Military Affiliated |
27.3% |
38.5% |
25.0% |
|
Learning Support |
25% |
21.7% |
18.0% |
|
Part-Time |
10.5% |
15.5% |
11.6% |
As Armstrong is an institution that enrolls a significant number of transfer students, it is important to monitor our total number of degrees granted, not just the FTFTF graduation rate. Table 4 shows the total degrees conferred for the last four years. We have seen a 27% increase in Associate degrees and a 15.7% increase in Bachelor’s degrees since FY 2012. In accordance with CCG Goal 1, Tables 5-6 additionally show the breakdown of the Associate and Bachelor degrees awarded by race and Table 7 indicates the number of STEM degrees awarded which have been on the rise.
Table 4: Degrees Conferred
|
FY 12 |
FY 13 |
FY 14 |
FY 15 Preliminary |
|
|
Associate's Degrees |
55 |
64 |
49 |
70 |
|
Bachelor's Degrees |
881 |
977 |
1026 |
1020 |
|
Total |
936 |
1041 |
1075 |
1090 |
Table 5: Associate Degrees Conferred by Award Year
|
2010 |
2011 |
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
|
|
Asian |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
|
Black/ African American |
14 |
15 |
19 |
17 |
18 |
|
Hispanic/ Latino |
7 |
5 |
1 |
4 |
4 |
|
American Indian/ Alaskan Native |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
White |
49 |
40 |
31 |
37 |
19 |
|
Multiracial |
2 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
3 |
|
Unknown |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Total |
74 |
63 |
55 |
64 |
49 |
Table 6: Bachelor Degrees Conferred by Award Year
|
2010 |
2011 |
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
|
|
Asian |
25 |
27 |
24 |
31 |
42 |
|
Black/ African American |
162 |
199 |
189 |
206 |
222 |
|
Hispanic/ Latino |
26 |
55 |
50 |
57 |
56 |
|
American Indian/ Alaskan Native |
1 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
5 |
|
Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
|
White |
629 |
585 |
566 |
646 |
664 |
|
Multiracial |
8 |
25 |
42 |
31 |
34 |
|
Unknown |
17 |
15 |
5 |
1 |
2 |
|
Total |
868 |
909 |
881 |
977 |
1026 |
Table 7: STEM Degrees Conferred
|
2010 |
2011 |
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
||
|
Associate's |
n |
1 |
0 |
1 |
7 |
1 |
|
% |
1.4%% |
0.0% |
1.8% |
10.9% |
2.0% |
|
|
Bachelor's |
n |
108 |
117 |
111 |
113 |
144 |
|
% |
12.4% |
12.9% |
12.6% |
11.6% |
14.0% |
Armstrong’s retention data, shown in Table 8, indicate that our overall retention rate has seen an increase, while the rate for learning support students sharply decreased through 2013, before rebounding in 2014. Throughout this period, the retention rate for part-time students and Pell recipients have been relatively flat. New CCG strategies are in place to help improve our learning support student outcomes and retention.
Table 8: 5-year History of 1-year Retention Rates by Student Type
| 8a: Institutional | Cohort |
1-Year |
|
|
n |
n |
% |
|
|
Fall 2009 |
1116 |
737 |
66.0% |
|
Fall 2010 |
1208 |
771 |
63.8% |
|
Fall 2011 |
1176 |
779 |
66.2% |
|
Fall 2012 |
1062 |
691 |
65.1% |
|
Fall 2013 |
943 |
648 |
68.7% |
|
Fall 2014 |
692 |
469 |
67.8% |
| 8b: Full-time | Cohort |
1-Year |
|
|
n |
n |
% |
|
|
Fall 2009 |
963 |
672 |
69.8% |
|
Fall 2010 |
1088 |
711 |
65.3% |
|
Fall 2011 |
1067 |
732 |
68.6% |
|
Fall 2012 |
968 |
652 |
67.4% |
|
Fall 2013 |
864 |
605 |
70.0% |
|
Fall 2014 |
635 |
445 |
70.1% |
| 8c: Part-time | Cohort |
1-Year |
|
|
n |
n |
% |
|
|
Fall 2009 |
153 |
65 |
42.5% |
|
Fall 2010 |
120 |
60 |
50.0% |
|
Fall 2011 |
109 |
47 |
43.1% |
|
Fall 2012 |
94 |
39 |
41.5% |
|
Fall 2013 |
79 |
43 |
54.4% |
|
Fall 2014 |
57 |
24 |
42.1% |
|
8d: Pell Recipients |
Cohort |
1-Year |
|
|
n |
n |
% |
|
|
Fall 2009 |
381 |
281 |
73.8% |
|
Fall 2010 |
494 |
325 |
65.8% |
|
Fall 2011 |
485 |
324 |
66.8% |
|
Fall 2012 |
448 |
299 |
66.7% |
|
Fall 2013 |
395 |
260 |
65.8% |
|
Fall 2014 |
309 |
197 |
63.8% |
|
8e: Learning Support |
Cohort |
1-Year |
|
|
n |
n |
% |
|
|
Fall 2009 |
79 |
48 |
60.8% |
|
Fall 2010 |
76 |
46 |
60.5% |
|
Fall 2011 |
63 |
35 |
55.6% |
|
Fall 2012 |
23 |
11 |
47.8% |
|
Fall 2013 |
43 |
19 |
44.2% |
|
Fall 2014 |
32 |
21 |
65.6% |
Table 9 showcases five years of data on our credit hour benchmarks for Goal 2. These benchmarks indicate that we have been increasing the fraction of our students taking 15 hours or more per semester, with the largest gains seen at the freshmen level, attributable to our 15-to-Finish messaging at orientation and our pre-registration of all freshmen for 15 hours prior to their coming to orientation (piloted in 2014, full implementation in 2015).
Table 9a: Students Enrolled in 15 Hours or More
|
2010 |
2011 |
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
||
|
Freshmen |
Cohort |
2637 |
2383 |
2168 |
2048 |
1883 |
|
n |
476 |
600 |
604 |
525 |
606 |
|
|
% |
18.1% |
25.2% |
27.9% |
25.6% |
32.2% |
|
|
Sophomore |
Cohort |
1470 |
1580 |
1542 |
1415 |
1471 |
|
n |
331 |
373 |
412 |
414 |
382 |
|
|
% |
22.5% |
23.6% |
26.7% |
29.3% |
26.0% |
|
|
Junior |
Cohort |
1224 |
1267 |
1414 |
1243 |
1345 |
|
n |
292 |
307 |
393 |
375 |
413 |
|
|
% |
23.9% |
24.2% |
27.8% |
30.2% |
30.7% |
|
|
Senior |
Cohort |
1587 |
1583 |
1607 |
1671 |
1647 |
|
n |
410 |
405 |
470 |
557 |
516 |
|
|
% |
25.8% |
25.6% |
29.2% |
33.3% |
31.3% |
|
|
Total |
Cohort |
6918 |
6813 |
6731 |
6377 |
6346 |
|
n |
1509 |
1685 |
1879 |
1871 |
1917 |
|
|
% |
21.8% |
24.7% |
27.9% |
29.3% |
30.2% |
|
Table 9b : Students Completing in 30 Hours or More by Spring Semester
|
2011 |
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
2015 |
||
|
Associate's |
24 |
11 |
3 |
13 |
161 |
|
|
Completed 15 Hours |
n |
13 |
8 |
2 |
12 |
149 |
|
% |
54.2% |
72.7% |
66.7% |
92.3% |
92.5% |
|
|
Completed 30 Hours |
n |
0 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
72 |
|
% |
0.0% |
18.2% |
66.7% |
23.1% |
44.7% |
|
|
Bachelor's |
1063 |
1015 |
929 |
819 |
611 |
|
|
Completed 15 Hours |
n |
894 |
854 |
809 |
732 |
530 |
|
% |
84.1% |
84.1% |
87.1% |
89.4% |
86.7% |
|
|
Completed 30 Hours |
n |
171 |
224 |
327 |
318 |
237 |
|
% |
16.1% |
22.1% |
35.2% |
38.8% |
38.8% |
Table 10 indicates the number of credits to a degree (Goal 3), which has been trending downward. We are starting to see changes in the total credits to a degree for our associate degree students (down 12%), but we have not yet seen appreciable changes for our bachelor degree students. On average, students are still taking approximately 30% more credits to obtain associate degrees and roughly 10% more to receive bachelor’s degrees (although with some of our degree programs requiring up to 132 hours, the actual percentage of hours beyond the minimum required is likely significantly lower).
Table 10: Number of credits at degree completion
|
FY 11 |
FY 12 |
FY 13 |
FY 14 |
FY 15 |
|
|
Number of collegiate credits earned at degree conferral for students earning associate degrees. |
95.42 |
85.18 |
86.38 |
92.35 |
84.97 |
|
5-year history of the number of collegiate credits earned at degree conferral for students earning bachelor’s degrees. |
138.28 |
136.96 |
139.05 |
137.35 |
137.58 |
As shown in Table 11, students are completing courses with greater success each year, supporting improvement on Goal 3.
Table 11: Percentage of credits successfully completed (A, B, C, P, S) versus attempted (A, B, C, D, F, U, W, WF) each fall semester for the past 5 years. (Goal 4 Outcome Metric 4.1)
|
Fall 2010 |
Fall 2011 |
Fall 2012 |
Fall 2013 |
Fall 2014 |
|
82.3% |
83.0% |
84.3% |
86.0% |
87.1% |
To address CCG Goal 6, we have found that after joining the Adult Learning Consortium and subsequently reviewing and changing our prior-learning assessment exam scores (for AP and CLEP), we are now providing 23% more AP credits to incoming students. In addition to increases in AP credits, as indicated in Table 12, our CLEP credits have remained constant to slightly higher, and we expect this to grow with marketing and our new centralized advising model, where professional advisors can encourage CLEP testing. While our dual-enrollment population and credits earned have increased, our IB credits have trended downward, likely a result of not marketing Armstrong to local IB schools, which is something we have targeted for Fall 2016 and beyond. We expect our dual-enrollment numbers to continue to increase with the newly implemented MOWR changes in Fall 2015.
Table 12: Credit for Prior Learning
|
FY 11 |
FY 12 |
FY 13 |
FY 14 |
FY 15 |
|
|
Number of students enrolled in dual enrollment or joint enrollment programs |
73 |
60 |
62 |
79 |
84 |
|
Number of college credits awarded to dual enrollment students or joint enrollment students |
867 |
633 |
716 |
864 |
803 |
|
Number of credits awarded by institution awarded based on AP exams |
3,776 |
4,193 |
4,241 |
4,238 |
4,651 |
|
Number of credits awarded by institution awarded based on International Baccalaureate exams/degree completion |
25 |
37 |
51 |
25 |
13 |
|
Number of credits awarded by institution based on CLEP scores |
471 |
449 |
478 |
524 |
472 |
|
Number of DANTES credits |
0 |
0 |
11 |
6 |
11 |
Finally, a new initiative allows us to address CCG Goal 7 to improve our learning support completion rates, which have remained constant over the last five years. Beginning in Fall 2015, our learning support courses were overhauled to the co-remediation model. In addition, our academic advising restructure, a Goal 4 initiative, will provide a dedicated professional advisor for non-traditional students.
Table 13: Learning Support Enrollment and Completion
|
System or Institution Required |
Completed Within 2 Semesters |
Completed Within 3 Semesters |
Completed Within 4 Semesters |
|||||
|
n |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
||
| English* |
13 |
11 |
84.6% |
11 |
84.6% |
11 |
84.6% |
|
| Math * |
90 |
24 |
26.7% |
43 |
47.8% |
43 |
47.8% |
|
| Reading* |
3 |
2 |
66.7% |
2 |
66.7% |
2 |
66.7% |
|
| Unduplicated |
91 |
25 |
27.5% |
44 |
48.4% |
44 |
48.4% |
|
|
* all are stand-alone remediation. Armstrong moved to co-remediation in fall of 2015. |
||||||||
|
Reading remediation eliminated, Fall 2015 |
||||||||
Institutional Goals and Strategies
Our overarching CCG-Armstrong goals are to:
- Increase in the number of undergraduate degrees awarded by Armstrong, by 0.5% per year (CCG Goal 1);
- Increase the number of degrees awarded on-time, by increasing our 6-year graduation rate by 0.5% per year (CCG Goal 2);
- Decrease the number of excess credits toward degree 10% by 2020 (CCG Goal 3);
- Implement and expand improvements in advising services for FTFTF and at-risk students, to improve freshman and sophomore retention rates to 80% and 59% respectively (CCG Goal 4);
- Restructure instructional delivery to support educational excellence and student success, especially in the area of remediation (CCG Goal 7); and
- Improve college access for students who are non-traditional, military, first-generation, and/or from historically underrepresented groups (CCG Goal 6).
High Impact Strategy |
Implementation of Adult Learning Consortium Principles for awarding credit based on verifiable experience or prior learning. |
Goal |
1. Increase in the number of undergraduate degrees awarded by Armstrong, by 0.5% per year 2. Increase the number of degrees awarded on-time (raise our 6-year graduation rate 0.5% per year for each student type) 3. Decrease the number of excess credits toward degree, by 10% by 2020 |
Summary of Activities |
We have implemented the recommended principles of the Adult Learning Consortium. Specifically, we added the PLA portfolio, adjusted our minimum CLEP scores to the recommended 50, expanded our AP and IB credit acceptance policies, offered challenge exams in courses where no CLEP exam exists and worked to improve our ACE/JST transcript acceptance policies and procedures. We have evaluated over 60 ACE course recommendations and are working to simplify the awarding of ACE course credits. We were funded in 2014-2015 by the USG College Access Challenge grant to improve our ACE/JST transcript evaluation process, which resulted in the 60 courses reviewed. This strategy involves faculty who are on the adult learner committee, our testing center, our transfer evaluation and Registrar staff, our Liberty Center director and staff and all of our professional advising staff. |
Baseline Status |
We award a 5-year average of 4,734 PLA credits from AP, IB, CLEP and DANTES (Table 12). We graduate, on average, 33% of our adult students in 6-years and 30% of our military affiliated students (Table 3). |
Interim Measure of Progress |
Each of these items was fully in place for the 2014-2015 academic year and continues for 2015-2016. We have had some increases in the number of credits awarded via AP, DANTES and dual-enrollment. We have also seen an increase in our adult-learner graduation rate, which was 39% for our 2008 cohort. |
Measure of Success |
We expect to see a continued measurable increase in the use of these credit options within our student population, coupled with a measured decrease in the number of excess credits at graduation. Success in this area is evidenced by a steady increase in the graduation rate of adult students and traditional student (AP) using these credit options. |
Lessons learned |
Prior learning assessment (PLA) is multi-faceted and requires dedicated staff to manage the process. For some students, the portfolio option requires a significant amount of work that they are reluctant to do. Thus, adult students generally prefer CLEP exams or an ACE credit evaluation over a portfolio option. Having a well-trained and staffed testing center and advising center can assist with educating students on their PLA options. |
How does meeting these goals increase student completion?
Identifying, examining and removing barriers to student success, for example, by evaluating prior learning and giving students appropriate transfer credit, reduces the amount of time to complete a degree by not asking students to take courses that are not needed. Additionally, through better advisement, we can have students develop appropriate goals and a clear plan for completing their degree programs. Each of these strategies can help a student establish and follow a plan that enables them to graduate in four years.
Targeting improvements to our learning support population will help us increase the retention rate of these students, many of whom are adult learners, thereby having an impact on retention.
Finally, by establishing better pedagogical practices, such as co-remediation of learning support, the use of supplemental instruction and peer-mentors in core and high DFW rate courses, students can graduate more quickly, by successfully earning core course credit on-time.
What are the barriers?
The barriers at Armstrong are also prevalent at most other institutions. Students have trouble paying for classes, maintaining their HOPE scholarships and balancing school, family and work obligations. Faculty need to be encouraged and rewarded for developing innovative pedagogy that promotes student success, which can be difficult in tight budgets. Finally, advisors have high workloads and yet must also be constantly involved in continuing education to stay abreast of transfer rules, changes in financial aid and academic policy, as well as student development theories and trends. Improved professional development for advisors can be a challenge to accomplish, especially when there is high turnover in these positions. On our campus, this is being addressed this year with a restructuring of academic advisement to even the advising loads and provide improved professional development. We are continuing to work through these challenges and look for opportunities to be creative in our approaches so as to minimize each of these barriers.
Summary of Goals, High-Impact Strategies, and Activities
High Impact Strategy |
Implementation of new technology to assist advisors and students with degree planning and intrusive advising (DegreeWorks, EAB Student Success Collaborative (EAB-SSC), and Grades First). |
Goal |
4. Implement and expand improvements in advising services for FTFTF and at-risk students |
Summary of Activities |
DegreeWorks was released to Students in March of 2015. Faculty and staff were trained regarding the use of DegreeWorks, and additional training has been offered in the Fall of 2015. GradesFirst was implemented for all incoming freshmen, athletes, learning support and academic probation students beginning Fall 2014. For Fall 2015, GradesFirst was expanded to include all students under 60 hours with less than a 2.6 GPA and included all students on academic warning, all freshmen, sophomores, athletes and learning support students. We are in a proof of concept phase with the EAB-SSC to develop our risk model for student graduation. If the proof of concept is successful, EAB-SSC will be added to the advising platform by Fall 2016. All academic advising staff, tutor center staff, IT staff, and the Registrar’s office are involved in both DegreeWorks, GradesFirst and EAB-SSC. |
Baseline Status |
Our baseline GradesFirst data indicates that 15% of students are at risk of failing a course, but, of those students, 48.6% go on to pass the course after intervention by an academic advisor. Faculty respond to Grades First Alerts at a rate of 62%. In the EAB-SSC platform, four majors have been chosen for the pilot, and additional majors will be added in the Spring of 2016, so that we may identify gateway courses and students who are at risk of not graduating in their chosen major. |
Interim Measure of Progress |
DegreeWorks will be used to improve advising communication and will see increased use by students. GradesFirst will see continued usage and the number of faculty reports of at-risk students who pass a course will increase. We expect to see increased demand for tutoring services based on Early Alert Interventions. |
Measure of Success |
DegreeWorks usage will reduce advising errors and will help students map their path to a degree, resulting in a measurable (10%) decrease in the excess credits students accumulate (Table 10). We expect to see measurable increases in student earned versus attempted hours, as well as both four- and six-year graduation rates as a measure of success, due to early alert interventions. GradesFirst will see continued usage and the number of faculty reports will increase (target 75%), and the number of at-risk students who pass a course will increase (target 60%). Our EAB risk model is predicted to help us identify an additional 5% of at-risk students over a baseline prediction model. |
Lessons Learned |
In the past, Armstrong has not effectively used available technologies and data to assist us with intrusive advising and academic coaching. The implementation of these new technologies requires significant buy-in from faculty and training for faculty and staff. A small amount of intentional outreach to a student can make a big difference in how the student engages with the campus and is ultimately retained. |
High Impact Strategy |
Centralization of 1st and 2nd year advising to normalize caseloads and provide targeted advising and coaching/intervention services to specific student populations (freshman, transfer, adult, military and secondary-admit programs) |
Goal |
4. Implement and expand improvements in advising services for FTFTF and at- risk students to improve freshman and sophomore retention rates |
Summary of Activities |
Prior to centralization, we piloted having the academic advisors pre-register all freshmen for 15 hours prior to their attending orientation, and we discussed the need to take 15 hours with all students during their orientation sessions. Beginning January 1, 2016, our 13 professional academic advisors will be housed under one director who will be able to develop a campus-wide vision and mission for advising of the freshmen and sophomore students. The new structure will provide better coordination of advising, mentoring and coaching services and improved advisor professional development, so that we can better focus on freshman and sophomore retention. The new advising team will run our supplemental instructor (SI) program so that the SIs can be appropriately trained and assessed. We have expanded our SI program in freshman and sophomore classes, which has contributed to a 1-2% higher retention rate in courses with SIs than in courses without SI. Implementation for the 2015-2016 academic years also includes revising 15-to-Finish initiatives, pilots of appreciative and intrusive advising training and SAP training for advisors. |
Baseline Status |
As of Fall 2015, our freshmen retention rate, for associate and bachelor seeking students, is currently 71.8% (70.1% for FTFTF bachelor seeking only; Table 8). Our sophomore retention rate (bachelor seeking only) currently stands at 54.1%. |
Interim Measure of Progress |
Progress is measured by an increase in freshmen (bachelor and associate seeking) retention rate (Table 8), which hovers on average at 69% year to year, but currently stands at 71.8% for Fall 2015 (ahead of CCG target by 0.3%). A reduction of students on SAP, a decrease in DFW rates and an increased number of credits completed in the first two years will show that we are headed in the right direction (Table 9). Finally, increasing our sophomore retention rate, currently 54.1% for Fall 2015 (ahead of CCG target by 1.5%), will significantly increase our overall retention and graduation rates. |
Measure of Success |
We expect to achieve an institutional 80% retention rate for FTFTF students and a sophomore retention rate of 59% by 2020. We are also targeting an increase in the ratio of earned to attempted hours (90%), as shown in Table 11 and an increase in the number of students in the freshman and sophomore years taking 15 credits each semester (by 1% per year, See Table 9). |
Lessons Learned |
Professional advisors are key to student retention, especially in the early college years. Professional advising and counseling take a significant investment of time and resources to be successful. The complicated curriculum, financial aid rules, and the many stresses that accompany the transition from high school to college are best managed by a dedicated professional advisor who is responsive to students and knows the resources available to the student. Students can and should be mentored by faculty to pursue their academic and professional dreams and engage in their academic discipline. Students often need additional support and coaching to realize their full potential. Pre-registration of all freshmen is best accomplished with teamwork and cross training. Most students and parents expressed satisfaction with their student’s schedule. Data will be acquired at the end of fall 2015, to measure the impact of this component of the strategy. |
High Impact Strategy |
Workshops, programming, and community outreach regarding college readiness and financial options/incentives, targeted to adult, military, first-year and historically underrepresented students. |
Goal |
5. Improve college access for students who are non-traditional, military, first-generation, and/or from historically underrepresented groups. |
Summary of Activities |
Armstrong eliminated all non-course fees for active-duty military, expanded course offerings at the Liberty Center and increased our offering of evening, flex-term and hybrid classes for adult/military students. A military education coordinator recruits and provides assistance to veteran and military students. We have significant outside partnerships with Fort Stewart, Hunter Army Airfield, and the Community College of the Air Force. We hold adult information sessions and adult one-day registration sessions. The Office of Hispanic Outreach and Retention held 25 sessions in the community to address Hispanic student questions and concerns about college. A Hispanic Outreach and Retention Coordinator recruits and coaches Hispanic and Latino students. Financial Aid conducts financial workshops each year in the neighboring counties. Our academic advising office hosted 20 community visits in the local six-county region to recruit for dual enrollment programs. Our “Tickets for Success” program, run by our advisors, provides information on study skills, financial aid, impacts of SAP and course withdrawals and other necessary success information to current students. We have a full-time First Year Experience (FYE) director, who works to implement our QEP, “First Class”, which provides first-year students with education on campus resources and information literacy competency. Peer mentors have been added to numerous FYE courses to assist the faculty and students. Our Office of Multicultural Affairs provides a USG-funded mentoring program for African American males (MOVE), African American females and Hispanic males. |
Baseline Status |
Over the last three years, the average graduation rates of each group targeted with this strategy (military, African-American, Hispanic, multi-racial, non-traditional learners and traditional freshmen) have fluctuated widely without showing a definite trend upward. Each group has a graduation rate that averages from 30.2-34.8% (Table 3). |
Interim Measure of Progress |
Progress would be evident in a dampening of the major fluctuations of this data, such that a trend upward for a number of years would be recognized. |
Measure of Success |
Measurable and consistent increases of at least 0.5% per year in the adult, military, Hispanic, African American, and non-traditional student enrollment, retention and graduation rates would be an indicator of our success. |
Lessons Learned |
Resources targeted to improving student retention and graduation are not one-size-fits-all. Consistent resources and time must be dedicated to the specific needs of each population. |
High Impact Strategy |
Implement co-remediation in learning support courses |
Goal |
6. Restructure instructional delivery to support educational excellence and student success, especially in the area of remediation. |
Summary of Activities |
The Departments of Languages, Literature and Philosophy, Department of Mathematics, IT, Registrar, Advising, Admissions, and Testing Services worked together to implement the new co-remediation models for learning support. |
Baseline Status |
Tables 3, 8e and 13 show our learning support graduation, retention and success data, respectively. These numbers are all quite low and improvements in this area could yield large results. |
Interim Measure of Progress |
Students coded as learning support will have lower DFW rates in their Core A classes beginning Fall 2015. Fewer learning support suspensions will be issued. More non-traditional students and more freshmen at the lowest end of our admissions spectrum will receive the needed support to succeed in their early math and English courses, thus improving the number of credits earned and improving their 1-year retention rate. |
Measure of Success |
Our completion rate for learning support and Core area A courses for this population will increase, by 1% per year to 2020. The graduation rates for students in learning support will increase 1% per year to 2020. |
Lessons Learned |
Large curricular changes, such as a change in the way that learning support is taught, delivered, implemented on the technology side and assessed for success requires a significant effort from many units on campus. It is at least a year long process to implement. |
Additional High Impact Strategies for CCG-A
We rebranded, changed our marketing and recruitment message and adjusted our admissions standards for our Pirate Passage bridge program for summer 2015. We placed the program under FYE and used our newly-created holistic admissions review team to place students more intentionally into the summer bridge program. This led to our first 100% pass-rate in the program and a retention to Fall 2015 of 100% for our 2015 cohort. Our 1-year retention rates for this program have been trending upward over the last three academic years and now sit at 79.5%. We also have a significant number of living-learning communities (LLCs) in the dormitories. These learning communities have assisted with retention by providing additional support to First-year students. Our Honors, Science and Technology LLCs had 1-year retention rates to Fall 2015 of at least 85%. We have recently created a commuter student learning community in hopes of assisting commuter students with campus services designed to increase their persistence.
Observations
In reviewing our original CCG-A plan, we have noted that many of the original proposed goals are incorporated within these modified and more focused goals. Our original goals were to improve access for traditionally underserved groups, improve student success and rates of credential completion and increase alumni and donor engagement to support student access and success. We have made strides and are making strides in each of these areas. Each of the previous tactics has been implemented. This includes initiating MOUs with Savannah Tech, Georgia Southern and the Community College of the Air Force, to reaching out to educate the local community, to an increased commitment and fundraising for student gap funding to prevent stop-outs. From these initiatives, we have begun to see significant increases in degree production (Table 3). Based on preliminary FY 2015 numbers, our degree production is up 18% since 2012. While these increases may not be solely attributable to CCG activities, the results of our collective efforts are positive. We believe our efforts are having an impact, and we are confident that the numbers of graduates and enrollees will continue to increase. Our modified goals, as stated above, show our continued commitment to the original goals from our 2012 plan, with formative changes and expansions of new goals and strategies. For example, since learning support, part-time and African American male students have the lowest six-year graduation rates, we are re-doubling our efforts to address their needs, while continuing the higher levels of service we now provide to military and FTFTF students. To this end, in addition to our continued participation in the AAMI program, we have recently received our first a $1.1 M TRiO student support services grant from the U.S. Department of Education, to focus retention and graduation initiatives on our low-income, Pell-eligible students.
