Let’s Team Up: How a Team-Based Approach to Academic Advising Can Improve STEM Student Success

1. Let’s Team Up: How a Team-Based Approach to Academic Advising Can Improve STEM Student Success Keith Schweiger Dylan Volpintesta Lawrence Mahoney-Jones

2. Objectives • Attendees will gain information about a new model of advising • Attendees will walk away with ideas to improve faculty advisor/professional advisor relationships • Attendees will discuss ideas to improve student access to advising

3. Temple UniversityDemographics

4. Demographics • Enrollment • 34,349 full-time students • 5,891 part-time students • Residency/Gender Identity • 21,338 Female & 18,807 Male • 27,645 PA residents • 12,595 Non-PA residents

5. CST Undergraduate Demographics • Enrollment • 3,594 full-time students • 328 part-time students • Residency/Gender Identity • 1,908 Female & 2,010 Male, 4 Unreported • 2,992 PA residents • 703 US Citizen, Non-PA residents • 227 International Students

7. Applied Mathematics - 12Biochemistry - 282Biology - 1461Biology with Teaching - 28Biophysics - 12Chemistry - 216Chemistry with Teaching - 12Computer Science - 763Computer Science and Physics - 5Data Science - 44Earth & Space Science with Teaching - 3Environmental Science - 112General Science with Teaching - 11Geology - 41Information Science & Technology - 359 Mathematical Economics - 10Mathematics - 63Mathematics & Computer Science w/ Teaching - 4Mathematics & Technology w/ Teaching - 2Mathematics with Teaching - 20Mathematics & Computer Science - 60Mathematics & Physics - 6Natural Sciences - 39Neuroscience: Cell & Molecular - 158Pharmaceutical Science - 22Physics - 56Physics with Teaching - 3Pre-Pharmacy - 47Undeclared-Science and Technology - 71 Our Majors

8. History of Our Model

9. Split with Faculty Advisors, Caseload Advising by Last Name • Pros • Increased connection to advising • Advisor satisfaction • Clear point person for any issues/concerns about the student • Cons • Staff Turnover/Leave • Balance with Advising Ladder • Consistency in assigned Academic Advisor • Calendar Availability • Student to Advisor Ratio: 413 to 1 • Less than ideal numbers of student retention in first year • Advisors unfamiliar with professional options in majors • Fly in 4

10. Fall-to-Spring Retention

11. Fall-to-Fall Retention

12. Office Mission Statement (as of 2016) • The College of Science and Technology's Center for Academic Advising and Professional Development utilizes best practices to facilitate undergraduate student development and academic growth while guiding students from pre-admission to degree completion. By establishing a support network of connections with faculty, campus resources and the Temple University community, our academic advisors encourage positive and independent thinking, provide professional planning, promote resource utilization and foster quality academic strategies for the students we serve. Through teamwork, collaboration and open lines of communication, we empower our students to take ownership of their decisions, choices, and goals relating to academic, personal, and professional aspirations.

13. Office Goals (as of 2016) • facilitate undergraduate student development and academic growth • guide students from pre-admission to degree completion • establish a support network of connections with faculty, campus resources and the Temple University community • encourage positive and independent thinking • provide professional planning • promote resource utilization • foster quality academic strategies • take ownership of decisions, choices, and goals relating to academic, personal, and professional aspirations

14. How The New Model Came To Be Students still value a caseload approach, but: • Practice didn’t match mission and goals • Need for intentional overlap to cover staffing shortages • Need to increase advisor access for first year students and improve retention • Advisors felt like generalists, not necessarily knowledgeable about the specifics for each major • Advisors struggled to learn curriculum for so many majors • Need for more Faculty Advisor/Academic Advisor interaction • Need to ease the workload placed on Faculty Advisors

15. Three Models Considered Model 1 • Divide into teams by academic discipline, but create a third team to focus on first year students and the transition into college • Biology, Chemistry, and Earth & Environmental Science (BCE) • Computer & Information Science, Mathematics, and Physics (CMP) Model 2 • Divide into teams by same disciplines, but at least one first year specialist is on each team, not a separate team Model 3 • Keep alpha-split, but have intentional overlap (meta alpha-split)

16. Three Team Approach Wins! • Creation of Biology, Chemistry, and Earth & Environmental Science (BCE) Advising Team • 1 Assistant Director, 4 Academic Advisors • Student to Advisor Ratio- 379 to 1 • Creation of Computer & Information Science, Mathematics, and Physics (CMP) Advising Team • 1 Assistant Director, 3 Academic Advisors • Student to Advisor Ratio- 249 to 1 • Creation of First Year Advising (FYA) Advising Team • Director of Advising, 2 Academic Advisors • Student to Advisor Ratio: 343 to 1

17. Responsibilities Under New Model • First Year Advising • Advise all first year students from orientation through end of 1st year • Work on all first year initiatives, regardless of major • Goal is to increase student retention numbers by assisting with transitional issues that lead to attrition • Discipline Teams (BCE and CMP) • Advise all other students (transfers and beyond first year) through graduation, broken up by discipline, and develop initiatives for these students • Maintain connections with faculty advisors • Increase access by creation of Same Day Appointments

18. Group Activity! • What are some things that you like about this model versus your office’s current model? • How can this team advising model be improved on? • How can a team advising model affect academic advising at different types of institutions (community college, liberal arts, HBCU, religious, etc.)?

19. Advisor Experiences with the New Model

20. Keith Schweiger (First Year Advising)

21. Lawrence Mahoney-Jones (CMP Advising)

22. Dylan Volpintesta (BCE Advising)

23. Abby Cohen (BCE Advising, New Perspective)

24. How Our New Model Helped Improve Faculty Advisor Relations

25. Faculty Advisor Relationship Improvements • Initial reaction to new model was very positive • Stronger relationship between academic and faculty advisors • Discipline meetings with each department every semester • Newsletter that goes out to faculty advisors • “Discipline specific teams provide advisors opportunity to specialize, so professional advisors seem to be better focused on and knowledgeable about discipline-specific issues”. • “I think it's been good to have accountability - known faces on both sides of the advising table, so we feel freer to ask questions of each other and know whom to contact.”

26. Assessment Methods

27. First Year Retention Under Model

28. Two Year Retention Rate *data has not been officially verified through the university and is considered unofficial

29. First Year Advising • Use of Advising Syllabus • End of Year Comprehensive Assessment • Sent by e-mail • 12.75% response rate year one • 10.88% response rate year two • Incentivized by raffle

30. FYA Learning Outcomes • Get connected to campus • Year 1: 96% learned of campus resources through us and used them • Year 2: 94% learned of campus resources through us and used them • Get connected to advising • Year 1: 94% know who to contact • Year 2: 96.4% know who to contact • Get to know your faculty • Year 1: 93% made a connection with a faculty member outside of class • Year 2: 92.9% made a connection with a faculty member outside of class • Draft a personal statement • No response Year 1, goal was eliminated for Year 2

31. FYA Learning Outcomes • Solidify academic goals • 67% believe they are in the right major in Year 1 • 69% Year 2 • 24.78% plan to study abroad • 38.1% Year 2 • 65% plan to incorporate research into their undergraduate plan • 76.2% Year 2 • 78% plan to obtain an internship/co-op • 78.6% Year 2 • 95% plan to shadow professionals in their desired field • 88.1% Year 2

32. FYA Learning Outcomes • Create a graduation plan • 62% made a full plan in Year 1 • 54.8% in Year 2 • Explore potential career paths • 94% are confident in their potential career path choice • 89.3% in Year 2 • 73% are aware of multiple career path options within their majors • 73.8% in Year 2 • 65% have considered pursuing alternative career paths • 67.9% in Year 2

33. Student Satisfaction Surveys • Overall positive response • Some students did express frustration about how the system works • Unsure if they had a specific advisor or not • Nothing stood out to many students regarding changes that need to be made • “My advisor has always been friendly” • “It was really easy to get an appointment, in and out”

34. Year 2 Changes • Continued increases in Academic Advisor availability • Automated Graduation Review Process • Introduction of Satellite Advising

35. Where Do We Go Next? • Year 3 involves a newly mandated First Year Seminar • On the Horizon: Introduction of Flipped Advising

36. Thank You! • Questions and Comments? • Contact Us: • Keith: keiths@temple.edu • Dylan: dvolpintesta@temple.edu • Lawrence: Lmahoneyjones@temple.edu