SETTING THEM FREE: MOVING ADVISING FROM REQUIRED TO DESIRED

1. SETTING THEM FREE:MOVING ADVISING FROM REQUIRED TO DESIRED Susan Poch, Ph.D Jeremy Lessman, Ph.D WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY

2. Session Outcomes Participants will understand: • The pros and cons of a mandatory advising program • The criteria for development of a pilot with cross-campus collaboration • How to build advising learning outcomes for first year students • The challenges of moving from one advising model to another

3. First, some background • Decades-old mandatory advising model with registration holds • Some Pros… • Some Cons… • We needed a change!

5. To what then? • How do we set our students free from required advising appointments to desired independence? • Goal: meet with students when they need assistance and focus more time on students who need it. • Provost called for a move to "equitable advising" • Fall 2016

6. What is Equitable Advising? • A model where students who need more from their advisor have greater opportunity to meet with their advisors • Redistributes the advisor’s workload in favor of students’ real needs • Students who don’t want help aren’t forced to come in just to be able to register

7. 2016 Pilot “Decoupled advising and registration” • Test the actions of students who were not required to see an advisor prior to registration • Assigned academic advisors • Encouraged and reminded, but not required • Differentiate between advising and registration

8. Goals of Equitable Advising Pilot • Access to advisors when students need help • More productive advising appointments • Support students' personal development  • Empower autonomous decision-making • Build higher-level academic skills

9. Pilot Details • Criteria • 30 credits (earned at WSU) to 90 credits • Good academic standing • Same major/program as previous semester • Full-time enrollment previous term • Who? • Advisors volunteered for initial cohort (Fall 2016) • Neuroscience, Chemistry, Communication, General Studies, Comparative Ethnic Studies, Women’s Studies (Validity) • Spring 2017 added Business, Sport Management, Molecular Biosciences

10. What we did… • Initial communication with students about pilot • Tracked student appointments of those in the cohort • Communication to students about academic success and registration tools • Added a “positive service indicator” to students’ academic center as a reminder

11. What Happened? • Student confusion • Over-communication initially • Student behavior • Advisor hesitancy/skepticism

12. The DATA We tracked • Total number of students who registered correctly • Number of students who became deficient • Number of students who did not register • Positive finding: pilot students who didn’t meet with an advisor remained on track for graduation!

13. DATA Fall 2016 Cohort Academic Deficiencies: cohort members only 11 deficiencies/408 cohort members = 2.7% 7 deficient under rule 38 1 deficient under rule 39** 1 Probation – Rule 38 1 first cumulative warning 1 second cumulative warning ** Student was cohort eligible after Spring 2016 Cohort Statistics 417 students entered the cohort 408 students ended the semester in cohort Enrollment Status 1/3/17: 355 enrolled full time (87%) 15 enrolled in 9-11 credits 7 enrolled in 6-9 credits 3 enrolled in < 6 credits 28 were not registered for Spring 2017 Students with RAM remaining 122 active RAM indicators (30%) 23 were not registered spring 2017* 2 were enrolled in < 6 credits 3 were enrolled in 6-9 credits 6 were enrolled in 9-11 credits 88 were enrolled full time *includes withdrawn students

14. DATA Spring 2017 Cohort Cohort Statistics 997 students entered the cohort 974 students ended in cohort Enrollment Status 5/17/17: 673 enrolled full time (69%) 74 enrolled in 9-11 credits 47 enrolled in 6-9 credits 42 enrolled in < 6 credits 138 were not registered Fall 2017 Students with RAM remaining 259 active RAM indicators (27%) 53 were not registered Fall 2017 8 were enrolled in < 6 credits 13 were enrolled in 6-9 credits 15 were enrolled in 9-11 credits 170 were enrolled full time Academic Deficiencies: cohort members only 43 deficiencies/974 cohort members = 4.4% 39 deficient under rule 38 0 deficient under rule 39 1 Probation – Rule 38 2 first cumulative warning 1 second cumulative warning

15. DATA Two-time Cohort Members Two-time Cohort Members: 184 two-time participants 3 deficient (all under Rule 38 after Spring 2017) = 1.6% ---------------------------------------------------------- 10 not enrolled for Fall 2017 3 enrolled in <6 credits 7 enrolled in 6-9 credits 12 enrolled in 9-11 credits 152enrolled full time (82%)

16. What we learned, beyond the data • Change in communication to students • (less is more and more is more) • Deliberate education for students on self-service tools • Greater collaboration with campus partners • ASWSU, NSP, ES • More training for advisors • Changing the culture • Establish coherent learning outcomes

17. Establishing Student Learning Outcomes • How do we know students know what we want them to know in order to be successful with degree progression? • Milestones! • ASWSU online tutorials completed by second semester of first year

18. Some Challenges/Pitfalls • Students did not understand pilot or degree requirements • Unequal support from administration across departments • Data analysis and initial student group set-up is manual and time consuming • Advisors still had to track students

19. Challenges/Pitfalls, cont… • Inconsistent use of tools by advisors • No control for individual advisor practice • Advisor turnover messes everything up! • Need to teach advisors how to teach students about the program and the tools

20. Our Experience • Culture change in individual advising units • Empowered students = confidence in registration • Education for students = responsibility for and ownership of academic success • Opened the door for different types of advising appointments

21. Conclusions • Best of Both Worlds: mandatory for some and not for others • Student education about resources is critical • Communication must be consistent and frequent • Assessment is essential • Many things need to be put in place before fall 2018 • Technology • Advisor training and adoption

23. Acknowledgements • Pilot Steering Committee: • Sara Ackerson, Anna Chow, Samantha Gizerian, Chioma Heim, Doug Juneau, Jeremy Lessmann, Colleen McMahon, Veronica Mendez-Liaina, Dee Posey, Gary Saunders, Sara Stout, Nicolas Swaab, Audrey Van Nuland, Josh Whiting, Brooke Wolf • Office of Undergraduate Education • Provost's Office • Enterprise Systems • Associated Students of Washington State University

24. QUESTIONS…Susan Poch Jeremy Lessmannpoch@wsu.edujlessman@wsu.edu