• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Collaborative Design of a Tailored Advising Program
 

Collaborative Design of a Tailored Advising Program

on

  • 468 views

Collaborative Design of a Tailored Advising Program

Collaborative Design of a Tailored Advising Program
Cynthia Shields & Don Weasenforth, College College


UNT Advising Conference
May 16, 2012
#UNTAdv12

Statistics

Views

Total Views
468
Views on SlideShare
468
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • CS
  • CS- 3 main campuses: Frisco, McKinney and Plano, north of Dallas- 50,000 students# professional advisors:16/17 FT advisors
  • DW
  • DWMain objectives of pilot:- Provide intrusive intervention- Involve faculty- Plan for scalability-Limit expense
  • CSIdentification of students after initial TSI assessmentNotification of students (college email, personal email, personal phone)Group/Individual advising – faculty and professional advisorCollege Success course
  • CSSurvey used at advising sessions to develop student profiles
  • CS- ENGL0300: 15 students 6.04% - 63/98 (64%) placed in ENGL0300/0305 - MATH0300: 9 students 3.6% - 104/185 (56%) placed in MATH0300/0302 - READ0300: 17 students 6.9% - 126/220 (57%) placed in READ0300/0305
  • DW
  • DW

Collaborative Design of a Tailored Advising Program Collaborative Design of a Tailored Advising Program Presentation Transcript

  • Collaborative Design of a Tailored Advising Program Cynthia Shields Don Weasenforth Collin College May 16, 2012 4th Biennial UNT Advising Conference
  • Collin College Context• 3 main campuses• 50,000 students• 16/17 FT professional advisors in district• DE: centralized unit, 5 departments, 53 FT faculty, 4 staff with district-wide responsibilities
  • Advising Pilot• Designs: prescriptive/developmental; faculty, professional advisors, technologies (cf., Heisserer & Parette 2002)• Faculty advisers (Frost 1991, Heisserer & Parette 2002, King & Kerr 2005, McArthur 2005) – Importance of role, training & rewards• Student needs (Frost 1991, Smith 2007) – Confidence, “belonging,” motivation & commitment
  • TIDE Design• Boylan (2009): Targeted Interventions for Developmental Education Students – Take inventory of campus/community resources – Develop student profiles – Assess individual students – Advise using assessment – Deliver targeted interventions – Monitor students – Revise interventions as needed
  • Current Plan: General Parameters
  • Preliminary Observations• 340 placed in advising program• 238 (70%) registered for advising sessions• 33 (14%) no-shows• 205 (60%, 86%) attended advising sessions• Majority placed in lower levels• Trend toward lower scores• Problems: incomplete applications (meningitis, residency; payment; reassessment; writing placement)• Personal characteristics: # hours employed, financial aid, family responsibilities, native language
  • Future Program Development• Evaluation• Expanding/streamlining program – Individual advising for continuing students – Identifying students in need of advising • TSI completion • Cognitive diagnostic tests • Non-cognitive diagnostic tests – Determining forms of advising based on personal profiles (Boylan 2009)
  • Future Program Development• Non-cognitive factors (Bloom 1976, Long 2008, McCabe 2003, Sedlacek 2004) – 25% of performance (Bloom 1976) – Compensatory relationship (Sedlacek 2004) – Affective variables: attitude toward learning, motivation, autonomy, willingness to spend time on academic tasks – Personal characteristics: # hours employed, financial aid, family responsibilities, native language