1. The Evolution of an Academic Success Program MOVING TOWARD THE TARGET: Margaret L. Mahlin and Karen M. Cole UNC Asheville mmahlin@unca.edu/kcole@unca.edu

2.  NC’s Designated Public Liberal Arts University  Approximately 3,700 students  Moderately selective entrance requirements  OneStop model/faculty advising UNC ASHEVILLE

3.  Funding model (retention and graduation)  Institutional retention challenges  Emotional Intelligence concerns ACADEMIC SUCCESS PROGRAM: WHY?

4.  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students  Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory grading  Authoritarian Model  Non-compliant students could be administratively withdrawn  2.25 semester gpa and 70% completion ratio MODEL 1 SPRING 2013 – PILOT SEMESTER

5. Tier 1  Meetings w/ faculty members and advisor  Tutoring  Workshops MAP Class  1hr weekly class  Meetings w/ faculty, career counselor, advisor  Forms to document the meetings  Tutoring  Workshops MODEL 1 REQUIREMENTS

6.  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 1 ADVANTAGES

7.  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 MODEL 1 DISADVANTAGES

8.  No budget  This was in addition to other advisor responsibilities  Authoritarian model  Enforcement was exhausting

9. FIGURING OUT WHO GOES WHERE

10.  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 1 RESULTS

11.  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 2 FALL 2013 – WE’RE GETTING CLOSER

12. Tier 1  Group meeting to review requirements  Meetings w/ faculty  Regular updates 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 MODEL 2 REQUIREMENTS

13.  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 2 ADVANTAGES

14.  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 2 DISADVANTAGES

15.  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

16.  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 2: RESULTS THE SEMESTER OF INTERVENTION

17. MODEL 3 SPRING 2014 TO PRESENT

18.  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 3

19.  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 3 REQUIREMENTS

20.  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 3 ADVANTAGES

21.  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 DISADVANTAGES

22.  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 3: RESULTS THE SEMESTER OF INTERVENTION (FALL 13-SPRING 15)

23.  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% MODEL 3 RESULTS AFTER TIER 1, AMP & MAP

24.  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. WHAT WE’VE LEARNED

25.  Margaret Mahlin, OneStop Advisor  mmahlin@unca.edu mmahlin@unca.edu  Karen Cole, Director of Advising and Learning Support  kcole@unca.edu kcole@unca.edu QUESTIONS?