Moving Toward the Target:

Moving Toward the Target: The Evolution of an Academic Success Program Margaret L. Mahlin and Karen M. Cole UNC Asheville mmahlin@unca.edu/kcole@unca.edu

UNC Asheville • Moderately selective entrance requirements • OneStop model/faculty advising • NC’s Designated Public Liberal Arts University • Approximately 3,700 students

Academic success program: Why? • Funding model (retention and graduation) • Institutional retention challenges • Emotional Intelligence concerns

Model 1Spring 2013 – Pilot semester • Two tiered Model • Tier 1 • All other students including those returning after suspension. • Tier 2 - Making Academic Progress (MAP) class • Only available to those who were suspended in Fall 2012 • Substitution for serving their suspension • Required 1 hour weekly course • Single section for 41 students • Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory grading • Authoritarian Model • Non-compliant students could be administratively withdrawn • 2.25 semester gpa and 70% completion ratio

Model 1Requirements Tier 1 MAP Class 1hr weekly class Meetings w/ faculty, career counselor, advisor Forms to document the meetings Tutoring Workshops • Meetings w/ faculty members and advisor • Tutoring • Workshops

Model 1Advantages • Identical requirements for all students • Required students to meet w/ their faculty early in the semester • MAP only included students who were taking it as an alternative to suspension • Academic Standing policy only counted cumulative GPA.

Model 1Disadvantages • Didn’t address the real issue • Emotional intelligence and self-management are the main reasons our students are struggling. • Too little, too late for some students • Cultural shift for faculty and students • Until Spring 2013, struggling students didn’t really have any restrictions or demands placed on them. • Increased requirements on faculty

No budget • This was in addition to other advisor responsibilities • Authoritarian model • Enforcement was exhausting

Figuring out who goes where

Model 1results • MAP students • 41 students who were suspended in Fall 2012 • 18 earned a 2.0 or above the semester of intervention (43.9%) • Tier 1 students • 127 students who were on Academic Warning status (cumulative gpa below 2.0) • 70 students earned a 2.0 or above the semester of intervention (55.1%)

Model 2Fall 2013 – we’re getting closer • 3 Tier Model • Tier 1 • Students who are the closest to Good Standing • Making Academic Progress (MAP) class • No longer a substitution for suspension • 1 section • Accountability, Momentum, Persistence (AMP) class • Composed of volunteers only • 1 section • Team taught • Focus on emotional intelligence and non-cognitive skills • A-F grading scale

Model 2Requirements Tier 1 Classes (MAP and AMP) Weekly meetings Concurrent sessions to allow for student choice Reduced paperwork Focus on meeting w/ faculty and advisor Option to earn additional points • Group meeting to review requirements • Meetings w/ faculty • Regular updates

Model 2Advantages • Team teaching reduced the workload for each advisor • Increased focus on EI and non-cognitive skills • Tier 1 group appointments • Reduced time commitment to Tier 1 students • Increased student choice meant increased student buy-in

Model 2Disadvantages • Individual attention with MAP/AMP increased advisor workload and emotional commitment • Maintaining accurate records was challenging • Academic Standing policy change • Prior to Fall 2013, only had to have cumulative gpa 2.0 or above • Now, must maintain semester and cumulative gpa 2.0 or above and 67% completion ratio. • Approximately a 300% increase in the number of students served

Model 2Results • AMP • 31 students • 23 earned a 2.0 or above the semester of intervention (74.19%) • MAP • 29 students • 17 earned a 2.0 or above the semester of intervention (58.62%) • Tier 1 • 40 students • 22 earned a 2.0 or above the semester of intervention (55%)

Model 2: Results the semester of intervention • Tier 1 (all students) • 0.40 (on 4.0 scale) increase in semester gpa • Students who earned an A-C grade in AMP or MAP • AMP • 0.92 increase in semester gpa • MAP • 1.32 increase in semester gpa

Model 3Spring 2014 to present

Model 3 • 3 tiered model • AMP is no longer for just voluntary students • Separate AMP and MAP curricula • AMP = freshman and sophomores, MAP = juniors and seniors • Expansion from 1 section each of AMP and MAP to 3 sections each (6 sections total) • Due to changes in Academic Standing policy, more students must be served • For Tier 1, information is delivered via email instead of group meetings • Single instructor per course • Return to Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory grading • A-F grading was complicated • Students didn’t find the possibility of a 1 credit hour A enough of an incentive

Model 3Requirements • Tier 1 • Completion of a google form • Initial meeting with faculty • Breakdown of syllabi for each class • AMP and MAP • Weekly class (1 credit hour) • A few core requirements • Individual meetings with faculty • Students select from a menu of other assignments to earn the rest of their grade • Tutoring, Career Center, counseling, goal statements

Model 3Advantages • Increased student engagement and ownership • Classes are taught workshop style • Reduced requirements for Tier 1 students • Transitioned from individual meetings with all students to having them complete an extensive google form • Includes questions about their current academic situation and other issues they may be struggling with • Data indicates students continue to be successful even after they complete our Academic Recovery Program

Model 3Disadvantages • Approximately a 300% increase in students served due to our new Academic Standing policy • AMP and MAP have the best success rates, but they are also the most time and energy intensive for advising staff • Difficulty in assigning students to each group • Originally, we used an elaborate combination of term gpa, cumulative gpa, attempted hours, and earned hours • Now, we sort students by class • Students who go back and forth between Good Standing and Academic Warning • May be taking AMP/MAP multiple times.

Model 3: Results the semester of intervention (Fall 13-Spring 15) • Tier 1 (all students in Tier 1) • 0.59 (on 4.0 scale) increase in semester gpa • No easy way to separate compliant and non-compliant students in Banner • Students who earned an S (or A-C) grade in AMP or MAP • AMP • 0.84 increase in semester gpa • MAP • 1.17 increase in semester gpa

Model 3Results after Tier 1, AMP & MAP • Number of students who earned a 2.0 or above the semester after intervention • Control group (no intervention from 2012): 38.3% • Since they were under our prior Academic Standing policy, many of these students were never even officially on Academic Warning. • Tier 1 students: 48% • AMP students who earned an S grade: 53.2% • MAP students who earned an S grade: 65.8%

What we’ve learned • Focus on self-management strategies and emotional intelligence • Less prison warden; more big sister/brother • Save time wherever possible • Google forms • The real test is whether they continue to succeed.

Questions? • Margaret Mahlin, OneStop Advisor • mmahlin@unca.edu • Karen Cole, Director of Advising and Learning Support • kcole@unca.edu

Moving Toward the Target: