CLU Professional Development Day

1
CLU Professional Development Day

• May 20, 2009

2
ISS Help Desk Survey

• Data Driven Decision Making
• Some Lessons Learned
• 2008-2009

With thanks and appreciation to Sue Bauer, Eileen
Leese, and Elena Montalto for designing and
administering the surveys and tabulating summary
results.
3
(No Transcript)
4
Participant Demographics
Lessons Learned Survey employees during school
year. Use surveys tailored to employees and
students. Test items before administering the
survey.
5
June 2008
Lesson Learned Ask questions that will provide
useful feedback.
6
Quantitative Feedback June 2008
N 158
7
Qualitative Feedback June 2008
Lessons Learned Listen to all the feedback
Surveys Echo Editorial Class Rep
Meeting(s) Petitions Help Desk Calls Be
proactive Communicate!
8
Help Desk Actions Taken

• Enhanced Help Desk student worker screening,
  training, and monitoring.
• Created binders with troubleshooting information
  for each student worker.
• Developed a Help Desk knowledgebase.
• Initiated call backs and email messages to
  clients to assess satisfaction and ticket
  completion.
• Provided Help Desk ticket number to clients.

9
Connectivity
10
Connectivity
11
Connectivity

• Summer 08 Replaced over half of the 115 access
  points on the wireless network
• Fall 08 Increased wireless network monitoring
  Internet bandwidth from 30 to 45 bps met with
  Res Life staff
• Winter 08 Solicited an advertising campaign on
  student connectivity for 09-10
• Spring 08 Tested and installed new access points
  in Grace and Mt. Clef received campaign
  materials

12
(No Transcript)
13
(No Transcript)
14
WebCT Course Management System

• Initiated CMS study pilot-tested alternatives
  Moodle Blackboard
• Noted student disappointment that not all faculty
  used WebCT searching for a product that appeals
  to students AND faculty
• Fixed bug with portal crashing

15
March 2009
Lesson Learned ITs about the entire department.
16
Next Steps

• Summer 2009 Finish analysis and develop actions
  plans from the 2009 IT survey implement new
  personal learning system
• Fall 2009 Administer LibQual survey start Get
  Plugged in campaign
• Spring 2010 Administer employee and student IT
  survey
• Always observe, act, assess, and communicate

17
Hope springs eternal in the human breastMan
never Is, but always To be blestThe soul,
uneasy and confin'd from home,Rests and
expatiates in a life to come.-Alexander
Pope,An Essay on Man, Epistle I, 1733
18
CoursEval Creating Opportunities Using
Resources So that Everyone Values Academic
Learning

• Melinda Wright
• Karissa Oien
• Seth Wagerman
• May 20, 2009

19
How it all began

• History of paper and pencil evaluations
• Melindas role in the process

20
(No Transcript)
21
Issues Arise

• Scantron Machine
• Hand enter evaluations
• Time consuming
• Re-evaluation of current method

22
Re-Evaluation

• CLU pilot of switching to online evaluations
• Course Evaluation possible vendors for online
  systems
• CoursEval

23
CoursEval

• Why is it a good fit for CLU?
• What it does for CLU?
• Process of new online evaluations
• http//courseval.callutheran.edu
• http//www.callutheran.edu/assessment/resources/Co
  urseEvaluations.php

24
Focus Groups

• Undergraduate
• Graduate
• ADEP

25
Moving Forward

• SPSS analysis of five select faculty members

26
Pen and Paper Evaluations Professor 1 Course
A Course B Professor 2 Course A Course
B Course C Professor 3 Course A Course
B Professor 4 Course A Course B Course
C Course D Professor 5 Course A Course
B Course C
Online Evaluations Professor 1 Course A Course
B Course C Professor 2 Course A Professor
3 Course A Course B Course C Course
D Professor 4 Course A Course B Course
C Professor 5 Course A Course B
27
Repeated Measures Analysis
Online Evaluations Professor 1 (MEAN
SCORES) Professor 2 (MEAN SCORES) Professor 3
(MEAN SCORES) Professor 4 (MEAN
SCORES) Professor 5 (MEAN SCORES)
Pen and Paper Evaluations Professor 1 (MEAN
SCORES) Professor 2 (MEAN SCORES) Professor 3
(MEAN SCORES) Professor 4 (MEAN
SCORES) Professor 5 (MEAN SCORES)
Sample Size 5 pairs of professors scores
28
Pen and Paper Evaluations Professor 1 Course
A Course B Professor 2 Course A Course
B Course C Professor 3 Course A Course
B Professor 4 Course A Course B Course
C Course D Professor 5 Course A Course
B Course C
Online Evaluations Professor 1 Course A Course
B Course C Professor 2 Course A Professor
3 Course A Course B Course C Course
D Professor 4 Course A Course B Course
C Professor 5 Course A Course B
29
Between-Groups Analysis
Pen and Paper Evaluations MEAN SCORES (Across
all courses and Professors)
Online Evaluations MEAN SCORES (Across all
courses and Professors)
Sample Size 100 data points
30
Foundations of Excellence

• Ensuring Student Success at CLU

31
A Little Bit of History

• Non-major faculty advisors 1974-77
• Learning Resources sections 1977-1982
• Freshman Colloquium 1983-1995
• CAPHE Grant 1996
• Portfolio Advising Program (later the RIPP) 1998
• Shared Freshman Reading 2004
• WASC FYE Taskforce 2004
• Foundations of Excellence 2008-2009

32
Policy Center on the First Year of College

• Policy Center provides
• Yearlong process, structure, and support for
  campus review
• External reviewer
• Uses Foundational Dimensions and performance
  indicators
• Develop strategic action plan for campus
  improvement.
• http//www.fyfoundations.org/

33
Summer 2008

• Steering committee chosen
• Steering committee conference in Ashville, North
  Carolina
• Co-chairs of nine Dimension Committees asked to
  participate
• Membership of committees discussed
• Dimension committees formed by September
• Timeline for reports stated
• Monthly meetings report findings, refine
  suggestions

34
Steering Committee

• Joan Griffin
• Kapp Johnson
• Halyna Kornuta
• Kristin Price
• Michaela Reaves

35
Dimension Committee Chairs

• Philosophy Kapp Johnson Melissa Maxwell
  Doherty
• Faculty Tim Hengst and Lorraine Purmort
• Learning Andrea Huvard and Henri Mondschein
• All Students Alan Goodwin and Marja Mogk
• Improvement Halyna Kornuta and Angela Naginey
• Organization Paul Witman and Melinda Roper
• Roles and Purposes Guy Erwin and Juanita Hall
• Diversity David Marcey and Anna Calderon
• Transitions Marylie Gerson and Dane Rowley

36
Campus Commitment

• 18 Staff/Administration
• 9 Alumni
• 9 Students
• 27 Faculty

37
Remember This is a review of the entire First
Year Experience, NOT a review of the seminar!
38
First Year Most Taken Classes

• Religion 100
• English 111
• Math 110, 115
• Political Science 102
• Spanish 101
• Biology/Geology
• History 101

39
Philosophy Dimension Report

• Findings
• CLU has no over-arching First Year Philosophy
• Certain sub-groups have one, e.g. the Seminar,
  Orientation, etc.

• Action
• Develop a Philosophy Statement
• Disseminate campus-wide the newly created
  philosophy
• Correlate the philosophy statement to the
  universitys stated mission.

40
Suggested Philosophy Statement

• The First Year Experience at California Lutheran
  University facilitates the transition of new
  students to a university life that fosters
  academic excellence and independent learning and
  living. The first year initiates the integration
  of students lives with the Universitys
  intellectual, cultural, and social climates.

41
Faculty Dimension Report

• Findings
• CLU faculty teach first year students either in
  the seminar or in advising/class settings not the
  seminar
• CLU offers few rewards for teaching First Year
  Students

• Action
• Add module to New Faculty Orientation on first
  year students
• All faculty are 1st responders
• Review faculty reward system/ART
• Provide workshop and travel funding

42
Learning Dimension Findings

• 30 of faculty consistently teach First Years
• Adjuncts teach many first year students
• First Year learning goals are unclear
• High of Freshman DFWI courses
• Out-of-class learning needs assessment
• First year courses experiences are inconsistent

43
Learning Dimension Actions

•  Communicate SLOs
• Create a taskforce of faculty to develop
  specific
• learning goals for first year students.
•  Emphasize importance of first year courses with
  
• smaller sections and full-time faculty
•  Measure and analyze out-of-class learning data

44
Suggested Learning goals

• Quantitative Skills
• Study skills
• Information processing
• Problem solving and independent thinking
• Research
• Communication
• Rigor

45
All Students Dimension Findings

•  Freshmen Athletes
• Freshmen Honors Students
• Under-represented Students (Multicultural
• International Students)
• Non-Traditional Students Students According
• to Housing
• Academically Under-prepared Heightened
• Academic Needs Students
• Freshmen with Disabilities and Heightened
• Psychological Needs

46
All Students Suggestions Actions

•  A CLU Freshman Experience Mission
• Statement
• Adequate Personal Counseling Staffing
• Freshman Academic Advising
• The Freshman Seminar
• Dedicated First Year Experience Staff
• Member (or Freshman Dean)

47
Improvement Dimension Findings

• Complete a self study to address six campus-
• wide initiatives
•     Registration
•     Advising
•     Freshman Seminar
•     Residence Life (including Judicial Affairs)
•     Honors Program
•     Students Taking Academic Responsibility
• (STAR)

48
Improvement Actions

• Arrange for purposeful attendance at higher
  education events with a focus on the first-year
  experience.
• Invite external experts to review and share best
  practices of the first-year experience.
• Encourage and develop structures / opportunities
  for sharing campus-based
  knowledge/expertise about the first year and
  to develop a learning community.
• Develop a systematic approach to implementing the
  strategies for change.

49
Organization Dimension

• Actions
• Create and maintain an FYE website
• Conduct surveys for research
• Centralize First Year Student services
• Standardize FYE presentation
• Increase Funding.

• First Year Organizational Structure Currently is
• Freshman Seminar
• New Student Orientation

50
Diversity Dimension Findings

• Survey found the largest gaps between Students of
  Color and White student responses on questions
  relating to social class/economic status and to
  political perspectives.
• Underrepresented and Caucasian students are
  retained to their second year at a very similar
  rate. The 5 year average was 79 for
  Underrepresented students and 79.3 for Caucasian
  students.

51
Diversity Suggestions Actions

• Increase faculty diversity
• Co-Curricular Integration/Connection
• Expansion of Co-Curricular Offerings
• Modify Religion 100 to focus on
• world religions instead of Christianity.
• Create a course on the basis of a multiplicity
  of
• world religions/of non-religious world views
• Respond to Diverse Students Concerns
• Re-evaluate CORE 21 Requirements for Global
• Perspectives and U.S. Diversity

52
Roles and Purposes Dimension

• CLU does not fail, but does not succeed
  brilliantly either.
• There is much written material, in orientation
  and acculturation, and in the advising and
  mentoring process that deals with the overarching
  goals of higher education.
• Treatment of these topics is more implicit than
  explicit, including the syllabi used in freshman
  classes.

53
Roles and Purposes Findings

• Improve use of printed materials to articulate
  the purposes and roles of higher education.
• Make the overall educational principles and goals
  explicit in student handbook/majors/catalog.
• Explore this dimension in the first-year programs
• Bring aspects of the roles and purposes dimension
  to the forefront of the Freshman Seminar
  curriculum and conversation.

54
Transition Dimension Findings

• CLU maintains a high degree of accuracy in
  communication with students about enrollment and
  expectations
• Lack of clarity, consistency, and intentionality
  in the academic advising process.
• CLU uses new media effectively but lacks a
  virtual campus tour

55
Transition Findings

• Develop websites for each academic department and
  each major.
• Expand aid offerings and student employment
  opportunities
• Use STAR/SOAR models to expand communication/advis
  ing to students and parents.
• Create online/virtual tour on CLU admission
  website.
• Expand the CLU 101 Program
• Increased outreach to community organizations
  programs.

56
Consistent themes

• Create and disseminate a First Year Philosophy
• Evaluate Freshman Year Coordinator suggestion
• Improve Faculty Advising Model
• FYE website/virtual tour

57
Now the work continues
58
PRIDE Program Review, Improving Departmental
Effectiveness
Examine program effectiveness
Different perspectives
The big picture
Showcase your department
Take a closer look
Your program
Highlight what you do
www.teachnet.ie
Stories from the Field

• Dan Kuntz Athletics
• Lisa L. Buono Counseling and Guidance
• Pat Holmberg Athletics

59
California Lutheran University Athletic
Department Program Operations A Review

• Dan Kuntz

60
Purpose

• The purpose of the California Lutheran University
  (CLU) Athletic Department review was to assess
  various operational areas for their
  effectiveness.

61
The Assessment Requirement

• All Division II and III National Collegiate
  Athletic Association (NCAA) affiliated schools
  must complete the NCAA Institutional Self Study
  Guide (ISSG) once every five years.
• Submission of page with signatures deliverable
  to NCAA audit possible
• President
• Athletic director (AD)
• Senior womans administrator (SWA)
• Faculty athletics representative (FAR)
• Director of financial aid
• Director of admissions

62
Instruments

• Institutional Self Study Guide (ISSG) survey
• Responses from stakeholders
• Feedback from the Faculty Athletic Policy
• Committee (FAPC)

63
Data Collection

• Yes/No answers from stakeholders - Completed
• Comments from 11 stakeholders - Completed
• Faculty Athletic Policy Committee Feedback -
  Completed
• Post ISSG feedback from stakeholders Next Step
• Student and coach surveys Next Step

64
Results

• Stakeholder Responses 100 cooperation
• President Required- Faculty Athletic
  Representative (FAR) Required- Director of
  Admissions Required- Director of Financial Aid
  Required- Athletic Director (AD) Required-
  Senior Womens Administrator (SWA) Required-
  Student Athlete Advisory Committee (SAAC)
  president Invited- Human Resources
  Representative Invited- Head Athletic Trainer
  Invited- Student Support Services Invited-
  Faculty Athletic Policy Committee (FAPC) Invited
  - external review)- Assistant Athletic Director
  Invited

Process

• Timeline / Instruction memorandum
• Highlight sections of ISSG
• Calls/ Initial and follow up E-mails to
  respondents
• Electronic distribution of response process for
  study guide
• Electronic distribution of ISSG
• Electronic collection of ISSG responses
• Assimilation of responses into single ISSG for
  FAPC review
• Faculty Athletic Policy Committee review and
  feedback
• Action plans for improvement

65
Visual Presentation of Athletic Department ISSG
Operations Review Process
President
FAPC
ISSG
CLU Sports
AD
FAR
SWA
Assistant AD
VP Enrollment
Financial Aid
HR
Admissions
By Dan Kuntz
SSS
Stakeholders
SAAC
Trainer
66
Recommendations

• Expand communication of the NCAA Division III
  philosophy
• Share how CLU athletics contributes to the
  educational process
• Clarify job description of the Senior Womans
  Administrator
• Develop a student athlete exit interview process
  - satisfaction
• Write sports medicine procedures for student
  athletes
• Increase athletic staff development
• Develop a student athlete handbook
• Survey female athletes
• Conduct an updated Title IX study once a tenth
  womens sport is added

67
Lessons Learned

• Transport your department in a new direction by
  using the BUS
• Being inclusive
• Using staff ideas to design specific action plans
  from reviewer feedback
• Share operational innovations and improvements
  with others
• Leadership Reflection Effective leaders
  embrace the abilities and passions of others to
  build exemplary organizational teams that create
  exemplary programs

68
EXPLORING THE NEED FOR STUDENT-ATHLETE
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING AT CALIFORNIA LUTHERAN
UNIVERSITY

• Patrick Holmberg
• P.R.I.D.E.
• Program Review Investing in Departmental
  Effectiveness

69
(No Transcript)
70
Purpose

• The purpose of this assessment study was to
  explore the need for educational programs and
  services to best meet the developmental needs of
  California Lutheran University (CLU)
  student-athletes.

71
Background

• Student-athletes are young people in transition
  who, like most college-age individuals, must
  confront formidable developmental challenges
  (Ferrante, Etzel Lantz, 2002).
• The critical difference, however, is that these
  people must do so in an environment that presents
  a unique, complex set of demands (Engstrom,
  Sedlacek McEwen, 1995).

72
Data Collection

• Qualitative interviews with CLU Athletic
  Department Administrators and sport coaches
• Inductive-deductive content analysis

• Quantitative data collected from a CLU
  student-athlete survey
• 95 participants (25)
• NCAA Needs Assessment Survey
• Flashlight
• SPSS descriptive and comparative statistical
  analysis

73
Results

• The following qualitative themes emerged
• Engagement
• Personal Growth/Maturity
• Athletic Development
• Student-Athlete Retention

74
Results

• Quantitative findings indicated that first and
  second year student-athletes believed they used
  campus resources significantly (p .04) less
  than upperclassmen.

75
Recommendations . . .
Academic Athletic Goals
Build Trusting Relationships
Campus Resource Awareness
76
Lessons Learned . . .

• Assessment is a good thing
• Start small
• Assessment is a process
• Invite others to collaborate

77
Dialectic Action Research Spiral (Mills, 2000)
78
Questions?
79
RETENTION -Different Perspectives -Different
Challenges

• Cathy Alexander, Institutional Research Officer
• Maria Kohnke, Associate Provost Registrar
• Stephanie Mercer, Enrollment Systems Manager
• Angela Naginey, Director of Retention

80
(No Transcript)
81
One Student at a Time

• A comprehensive university, provides a
  challenging academic environment servicing
  approximately 2100 undergraduates and 1300
  graduate students

82
Agenda

• Address the Why
• Undergraduate Process and Implementation
• Graduate Process and Implementation
• Next Steps
• Questions

83
Undergraduate Retention Background

• Doing great things
• Current Programs in Place
• Mandatory orientation for all first time freshmen
• First year freshmen seminar class
• Residence hall policies activates
• Task force to address retention issues
• FTF retention rate was good but declining

84
CLU Assessment System
85
Comprehensive Approach to Retention

• Needed to develop a focused, comprehensive plan
  that addressed all students
• Needed more coordinated and focused strategies
• For the traditional undergraduates
• Improved coordination and communication across
  departments
• Improved communication to the entire campus
  community retention progress and goals
• For the graduate/adult programs
• Get a beginning look at the numbers and process
• Connect the data to the programs

86
Definitions

• Undergraduate Programs
• Standard approach to define retention
• Graduate and Adult Programs
• Multiple definitions as we refined our approach
• Baseline Data- who started during a 7 year
  period, remained active or completed
• Streamlined Data who started in an academic
  year, attended or completed in successive years

87
First Time Freshmen Retention Graduation Rates
Entered Fall 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 5 Yr. Avg.
Entering First Time Freshmen 324 326 364 392 330 336 402 385 403 424 382
Retention Rates Retention Rates Retention Rates Retention Rates Retention Rates Retention Rates Retention Rates Retention Rates Retention Rates Retention Rates Retention Rates Retention Rates
Retained 2nd yr 81.50 82.50 78.80 79.60 82.40 78.00 84.30 78.20 76.70 81.40 79.90
Retained 3rd yr 70.10 72.40 67.90 67.90 73.00 69.60 71.60 68.80 67.20   70.20
Retained 4th yr. or Graduated 64.80 67.80 66.50 66.80 71.80 67.30 69.70 67.80     68.40
Graduation Rates Graduation Rates Graduation Rates Graduation Rates Graduation Rates Graduation Rates Graduation Rates Graduation Rates Graduation Rates Graduation Rates Graduation Rates Graduation Rates
Graduated 4 yrs 56.50 55.20 57.10 59.90 59.40 53.90 57.20       57.10
Graduated 5 yrs 63.00 65.00 62.40 61.70 68.50 60.10         64.10
Graduated 6 yrs 63.30 67.80 63.50 63.30 69.70           65.50
88
UG Retention Planning Process
Task Timing
CLU created Director of Retention position November 2007
Director implemented targeted retention strategies November/December 2007
Expanded attrition reports with Institutional Research January 2008
Created Undergraduate Retention Committee February 2008
Drafted Undergraduate Retention Committee purpose March 2008
Held Retention Summit for Retention Committee July 2008
Purchased retention communication and tracking software August 2008
Drafted Traditional Undergraduate Retention Plan September 2008
Coordinated and hosted Retention Consultant Assessment October 2008
Retention Committee and Strategic Planning Steering Committee approved Retention Plan October 2008
Created Graduate/Adult Student Retention Committee November 2008
89
Undergraduate Retention Plan

• Main Goal of the Plan
• Increase the four year graduation rate
• Strategies
• Select and implement retention software with an
  Early Alert component
• Evaluate, improve and enhance academic advising
• Explore and identify possibilities of improved
  customer service and office communication of
  student services

90
Undergraduate Plan-Next StepsOne Student at a
Time

• Enhanced awareness and visibility
• Enhanced relationships
• Retention and graduation rates
• Retention purpose goals
• Implement Plan
• Foundations of Excellence in the First Year
  Project
• Customer service training
• Faculty Enrollment Committee reviewing faculty
  advising
• Enhanced communication and tracking of students
• More focused approach for specific attrited
  populations

91
Summary Data on Attrition Summary Data on Attrition Summary Data on Attrition Summary Data on Attrition Summary Data on Attrition Summary Data on Attrition Summary Data on Attrition
Traditional Undergraduate Programs Traditional Undergraduate Programs Traditional Undergraduate Programs Traditional Undergraduate Programs Traditional Undergraduate Programs Traditional Undergraduate Programs Traditional Undergraduate Programs
Attended Fall 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006
  Total Total Total
Total Attrition 190 11 232 13 260 14
Freshman 141 74 178 77 199 77
Transfers 49 26 54 23 61 23
Enrollment Status After CLU            
Transferred to another institution 151 80 198 85 193 74
Did not enroll at another institution/unknown 39 20 34 15 69 27
Attended 1 other institution 60 40 106 53 162 84
Attended 2 other institutions 53 35 62 31 27 14
Attended 3 or more other institutions 38 25 25 13 4 2
Attended graduate school 1 gt1 1 gt1 0 0
Transferred to            
2 year institution 103 68 125 63 98 51
Another 4 year Institution 48 32 73 37 95 49
4 year public 31 65 49 67 68 71
4 year private 17 35 24 33 27 29
Another California School 102 68 141 71 139 70
A school outside California 49 32 57 29 54 30
Graduated with a Bachelors 10 6 1 gt1 0 0
92
Graduate Background

• Data Drivers
• Course scheduling, marketing, enrollment
  management, program review, accreditation, grant
  writing, new program development, faculty hiring
  justification
• Lack of required systematic reporting
• Lack of resources
• Lack of comparative research on
  masters/post-baccalaureate certification programs

93
Graduate Timeline
Task Timing
Associate Provost for Graduate/Adult Programs and Accreditation appointed Fall 2004
Provosts Office and Registrar surveyed students who had not enrolled in a course during the 2004-2005 academic year Spring 2005
Director of Marketing for Graduate/Adult position created Spring 2007
Enrollment Systems Manager for Graduate/Adult Programs position created Fall 2007
Director of Retention position was created to address issues of retention for all students Fall 2007
Institutional Research Office reporting standardized for Graduate/Adult Student Learner Programs Fall 2007
Purchased retention communication and tracking software Summer 2008
Created Graduate/Adult Student Learner Retention Committee Fall 2008
Beginning institutional inventory of retention practices Spring 2009
94
Graduate/Adult Reporting Evolution
Baseline
  Total Active Completed Withdrew
Master/Credential Program N
Business Administration 987 28.20 47.40 24.40
Public Policy and Administration 84 28.60 32.10 39.30
Computer Science 52 82.70 7.70 9.60
Marital and Family Therapy 116 31.00 57.80 11.20
Clinical Psychology 74 16.20 67.60 16.20
Teacher Preparation 1,830 20.30 48.90 30.80
Special Education 393 35.40 33.10 31.60
Curriculum and Instruction 203 15.30 39.40 45.30
Educational Leadership 318 15.40 43.70 40.90
Counseling and Guidance 757 23.10 57.70 19.20
Total 4,814 24.10 47.70 28.20
95
Year to Year Retention Grad Rates
Streamlined
Academic Year 0001 0102 0203 0304 0405 0506 0607
All MBA - New Students 134 129 137 160 155 196 311
Retained or Graduated Retained or Graduated Retained or Graduated Retained or Graduated Retained or Graduated Retained or Graduated Retained or Graduated Retained or Graduated
2nd Year 74.6 81.4 71.5 82.5 86.5 83.2 88.1
3rd Year 73.1 72.9 65.7 71.3 74.8 76.5  
4th Year 72.4 68.2 62.0 71.3 62.6    
5th Year 73.1 69.0 59.1 72.5    
6th Year or more 72.4 69.8 61.3        
Graduated Graduated Graduated Graduated Graduated Graduated Graduated Graduated
within 1 year 2.2 8.5 17.5 16.3 23.9 19.9 19.9
within 2 years 36.6 28.7 33.6 40.0 50.3 40.8  
within 3 years 54.5 50.4 46.7 54.4 60.0  
within 4 years 66.4 61.2 54.7 64.4      
within 5 years 69.4 66.7 56.9    
within 6 years 72.4    
Academic year Summer, Fall, Winter and Spring of the same fiscal year Academic year Summer, Fall, Winter and Spring of the same fiscal year Academic year Summer, Fall, Winter and Spring of the same fiscal year Academic year Summer, Fall, Winter and Spring of the same fiscal year Academic year Summer, Fall, Winter and Spring of the same fiscal year Academic year Summer, Fall, Winter and Spring of the same fiscal year Academic year Summer, Fall, Winter and Spring of the same fiscal year Academic year Summer, Fall, Winter and Spring of the same fiscal year
96
Specialized Populations
3 Year Average Attrition Rate By All MBA (N650) Traditional MBA (N396) IMBA (N127) Online MBA (FP) (N127)
2nd yr 19.5 14.4 4.7 24.4
3rd yr 25.6 28.2 4.8 39.4
4th yr 34.5 36.8 4.8 50.0
97
Term to Term Enrollment Mgmt.
Fall MPPA 06FA 06FA 07FA 07FA 08FA 08FA 3 yr. Avg.
Continuing students 31   34   49 36
New students 10   7   16 11
Fall Total 41 172 41 204 65 282 113
Eligible - Not enrolled 2   4   3   4
December Graduates 3   6   4 3
Graduation rate of continuing students 9.7   17.6   8.2 9.7
new students 24.4   17.1   24.6   24.1
Return rate-non grads/eligible students 93.9   89.5   94.2   89.7
Net Fall as a of Summer 132.3   91.1   130.0 114.1
98
Graduate/ADEP Next Steps

• Created the Graduate/Adult Learner Retention
  Committee
• Defining benchmarks for graduate and adult
  learner programs
• Creating an institutional inventory of retention
  practices for our 20 different graduate and adult
  programs

99
One Student at a Time

• What is my role?

100
Questions/Comments?
Feel free to contact Cathy Alexander
alexander_at_clunet.edu Maria Kohnke
kohnke_at_clunet.edu Stephanie Mercer
mercer_at_clunet.edu Angela Naginey
naginey_at_clunet.edu