Please review the Gardner Institute engagement opportunities below and ask your team considers how best to align action and potential timing.

Click the "+" sign in the lower right to add other activities your group considers important to your institutional transformation efforts that may need to integrated into work to advance student success.

Finally, add information about

*Timing (Ex. terms, ordering of events),

*Critical Considerations (Ex. what VP would be a good fit, we should engage students in the process, we may need release time),

*Priorities for Focus/Action: (Ex. Address student support service communications.)

Outcomes/Measures: (Ex. Participants will develop a plan of action to bring to the larger committee for review. Ex. The institution will work to develop new ways to track student engagement, we want to increase first-year retention by 3 percentage points for this student population.)

Potential participants (Ex. names or roles)

More academy and process info, including upcoming engagement dates, can be found here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1228v-_jWBQ5pi7AmyBXhd8z_gu_ypRHp/edit

Priorities for Focus/Action:

(1) Analysis of nuanced data about successful and non-successful students: what works?

• How do we measure what is working?

--how much is structural/student-related vs how much is associated with a specific course

• Revise pathways that are not working.

** for non-successful students in gateway courses, were they only non-successful in the gateway course only, or was it broader non-success?

-- for math classes, analyze non-success stratified by student preparation (e.g., prior courses, ALEKS scores), when students took the course (e.g, was their last math class 4 years ago)

** analyze current processes: right now, what is happening to students? e.g., DEV* --> WRTG 111/21x, MATH 0xy -> Math F105 -> college-level MATH classes

-- challenges for baccalaureate vs associates in terms of success markers

-- Proportion of students who reach their degree-progressing Math/English course within one year of entry

-- clarify advising for math classes (e.g., don't put a student in Math 113X if they want to take precalculus; don't put a student into math 105 if they are non-quantitative)

-- We should look at student success data at the level of TA vs Adjunct vs DevEd faculty vs non-DevEd faculty?

*** look back at students who took DEVMath courses and their success through subsequent math/science classes (e.g., what has happened to students who took math F105?), stratified by student grade data (e.g., C in Math 105N vs B vs A) and student preparation

--Look back at student success in GER NS classes (especially gateway classes, e.g., CHEM?) which have a (currently non-enforced ) math placement prerequisite, stratified by math preparation

(2) Identification of courses to revise?

Non-quantitative track

• MATH F113X

-- Spring 2025: trial no prerequisite? with an eye to assessing student challenges for the development of corequisite instruction and also as data collection [is "participation in the first two weeks" a better predictor than student mathematical preparation?]

• Consider revising MATH F055 as a lower-credit pathway into MATH F113X for students who need that (and not advising non-quantitative students into Math F105 who do not plan on taking math classes that require Math F105)

Note: further analysis of courses to revise needs to wait until there is nuanced data, see (1)

Semi-quantitative track

Stat 200X

More quantitative track

Math F105-> precalculus -> calculus

Timing (terms, ordering of events):

--ASAP: Get data to analyze before starting to identify pegagogical/courses to change

-- Identify courses that would benefit from corequisite instruction (e.g., data analysis for Math F113X in Spring 2025, with an eye towards developing corequisite support in Fall 2025?)

Begin with 3 course fall 2024

Critical Considerations:

--departmental structures and institutional barriers to collaboration and change

-- corequisite support hampered by staffing and institutional barriers (e.g., corequisite support through DEV writing working with ENGL faculty due to staffing and workload and pay issues); literature is divided in terms of 'should a corequiste course be developed'

-- challenges with CTC vs Troth Yeddha' zones of influence

-- improve graduate student mentoring for students who will end up in the classroom (science, comm, WRTG, math) [CTL is developing specific TA training] {Barrier: every department does it differently}

-- WORKLOAD issues are really, really challenging.

Outcomes/Measures:

Potential participants (names or roles):

MATH

Jill Faudree

Leah Berman

Judy Atkinson

A data person

DATA acquisition

Kendall

Jen T

a math person (Jill)

PAIR

WRTG

Jen Tilbury

Chris Miles

Ryan Henderson

Some English faculty member (Chris Coffman)

Kait Hazard?

Participants: 6-12 Participants; faculty and staff with program knowledge

Outcomes: Action Plan to Reduce Curricular and Pathway Complexity and Enhance Student Success 

Priorities for Focus/Action:

See discussion/list of Data Questions under Gateway Courses

Timing (terms, ordering of events):

Begin CAC in summer/fall 2024

Critical Considerations:

Outcomes/Measures:

Potential participants (names or roles):

Leah Berman

Jill Faudree

PAIR participant

Jen Tilbury

Registrar's office

...

Priorities for Focus/Action:

• Early wins / Currently doing

  • First Year Academic Advising program implementation Fall 2023 begin

  • Coordinated Rural Advisor/Student Services staff training and development

• Priorities for Focus/Action

  • DEFINE ROLES (institution-wide approach): Defining roles will allow for continuity within the ENTIRE university where advisors report to different supervisors in different schools/colleges.  

    • Faculty Advisors / Mentors ~ the mentor role

    • Major Advisors

    • First Year Advisors

  • Seamless pathway for 2-year students

    • Clear path (academic/programming) from 2-year programs to 4-year programs

    • Clear path (advising/support) from 2-year programs to 4-year programs

  • Handoff from FYA to Major Advisors

    • Opportunity for a similar strategy for CTC/CRCD to TY handoff

  • Incorporation of 

    • Career Services (Internship and employment opportunities)

    • Extracurricular activities

    • Wellness & support resources

    • Advisor assigned early and accurately

  • First Year Experience

    • One credit courses 

    • Recommended/Required Orientation/Intro Workshops (online- rural students charged TY Orientation fees)

      • ABUS F070 - Job Readiness Skills

      • RD F100 - The University Experience

      • DEVS F101 - Skills for College and Career Success

    • Incorporate subject/interest area specialties

  • Where does UAF Advising leadership lie 

    • Pockets of advising and support services across system

Timing (terms, ordering of events):

Ongoing: First Year Advising

Critical Considerations:

• Advisor engagement and training across UAF (including Rural staff)

• Rural voices at the table when making decisions regarding student fees, accessibility, equity, advising oversight

• Funding (training and outreach, recruitment)

• First year experiences for students not on TY (not identified in the FYE program)

  • Rural/distance students - Orientation fees

• Compensation and support for advisors

Outcomes/Measures:

• Workshop/Intro course attendance 

• Faculty/advising guidelines established so that all UAF students get the same services

Potential participants (names or roles):

• AAC

• CRCD

  • RSS

  • Rural Advisors and student support staff

• SSS

• Major Advisors

• Faculty Advisors/Mentors?

• STUDENTS

• CTC Advising

• Registrar’s office

**Efforts incorporate UAAC structure and leadership

Priorities for Focus/Action:

• Priorities for Focus/Action

  • Identify what the transfer student experience is, what works and what is not working or creates delays in evaluation and registration for upcoming classes

  • Seamless pathway to TY for rural students having Alaska Advantage/Dual Credit experience

  • Review school/college involvement to find efficiencies and eliminate barriers 

  • Timing at the Department-Level Evaluation

  • Credit for Prior Learning

    • Research best practices through CAEL (Council for Adult Experiential Learning)

    • Reviewing/ identifying/publicizing(?) allowable certifications for students to pursue

    • Address barriers with technology when looking at modernizing the process

    • Reconsider fees associated with CPL

    • Change CPL credit from transfer credit to resident credit (similar to credit by exam within departments)

Timing (terms, ordering of events):

Begin 2024-2025 academic year

Critical Considerations:

• How do students navigate through the transfer process? 

• How do admissions and academic units work together to make the process quick, efficient and accurate for students? 

• How to address inconsistencies across departments? 

• Cross training between departments to identify alternate ways to earn transfer credit/credit for prior learning

Outcomes/Measures:

• Timing

• Accuracy

• Increase in the transfer student numbers

Potential participants (names or roles):

• Transfer Services

• Degree services

• Department/program chairs

• Majors advisors

Participants: 6-12 Participants per institution; faculty and staff with program knowledge

Outcomes: Action Plan to Improve institutional success with students completing the first year of college

Priorities for Focus/Action:

• Examination of who UAF students are and are predicted to be

• Examination of academic experience of first-year students

• Examination of co-curricular experience of first-year students

• Policy, programming, and data audit of first-year student efforts

Timing (terms, ordering of events):

UAF participated in the Academy on the First College Year in spring 2023

Critical Considerations:

Outcomes/Measures:

• Expand on the first-year advising initiative

• Begin work on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) initiative to work on gateway courses.

• Examine efforts to create a more intentional universal initial experience for UAF students.

Past participants (names or roles):

Jenn Pedersen

Montana Goss

Teddi Walker

Becky Phillips

Iris Harritt

Duration: 5 weeks, initial onboarding, and orientation with weekly synchronous meetings
Participants: Minimum of 5 institutional stakeholders with diverse experiences and responsibilities
Outcomes:  An action Plan Focusing on equitable retention.

Priorities for Focus/Action:

• Examination of student progression through an equitable outcomes focused lens

• Establish an equity focused retention statement establishing dedication to the work

• Prepare a plan to plan to begin next steps

Timing (terms, ordering of events): UAF participated in the spring 2021 Equity in Retention Academy.

Critical Considerations:

Outcomes/Measures:

• Equity retention statement established: The University of Alaska Fairbanks is committed to creating a student-centered environment both inside and outside of the classroom where the multifaceted identities of students are celebrated, supported, and inspired. Our goal is to develop data-driven strategies to eliminate obstacles and develop pathways for all students to achieve their academic and professional goals.

• Established Retention task force focused on 4 areas of work:

  • Academic factors (gateway courses, pedagogical and curricular barriers)

  • External Student Factors (financial, technology, childcare, transportation)

  • Sense of belonging (co-curricular offerings, campus climate, support for rural students)

  • Onboarding (bridge program, first-year experience, living learning communities)

  • 
    

Potential participants (names or roles):

Jen Tilbury

Priorities for Focus/Action: Identify all of the different groups on campus that already serve in this capacity (contact deans or relevant unit leads); define what is/is not considered as emergency aid; gather the different application processes used by the various units allocating these resources; identify gaps in resources available to students (what is available versus what is needed); need to better promote to increase awareness of these resources (incorporate into new student orientation) - increase visibility

Timing (terms, ordering of events): Fall 2025 to start (spend the next year on the groundwork; summer 2024 through summer 2025)

Critical Considerations: What are we currently spending on emergency aid or what resources are we already providing (e.g., food pantries, career clothing, winter gear, etc.); need to coordinate the full spectrum of availability; accessibility and transparency of aid; evaluate the role of emergency aid on student success; how much emergency aid is needed (include donor's)

Outcomes/Measures: Fewer drops for non-pay, higher retention rates for student that receive emergency aid, higher degree completion rate for students that receive emergency aid

Potential participants (names or roles): Financial Aid Compliance Specialist, ORCA, SSS, Honor's College, Vice Provost, representative from colleges/schools, Bursar, RSS, Development Office

Fall 2025

Priorities for Focus/Action:

• Academic Recovery Program: If student is on probation, provides coaching workshops on basic college info (how to read a syllabus, etc.) Would reduce ADQ students. When student is on probation, critical time for students. How can we get probation students to not get to ADQ. Will be mandatory for students on probation.

• Summer Orientation Program: Summer courses/workshops for incoming students who have no previous college experience, no matter credit amount (includes military students who have college credits). Learn college prep skills (note taking, time management, etc.) Also learn about the business side of it (Nanook Navigator, how to pay their bills, etc.) and what opportunities there are at UAF.

• Adjunct Training/Orientation Program: Training program for adjunct/new faculty members on how to put in grades, use tech, etc. Focus on Adjunct's because they are not included in New Faculty Orientation currently.

• Increase Engagement for Remote Students: Need to think more creatively to find ways that students can engage in the community and their peers. Hold listening session with rural students to hear what they want to be able to engage more in college life.

• Increase Sense of Belonging/Campus Climate: A lot of faculty are not taking the extra steps to engage students. They go to class and that's it. How can get (or make) faculty engage more with campus life? Example: faculty who don't have regalia wont go to graduation. Faculty that go to graduation their first year will continue to participate. Idea: make a regalia closet (like career services closet) where Faculty can use regalia if hey want to participate in graduation ceremony.

  • Can put tables and chairs outside so students can sit in public areas

  • Last week of classes and finals, put out snacks and things for students, and posters congratulating students.

• OTHER COMMENTS:

  • Everyone is responsible for retention, but how often do we talk about that with facilities, staff, etc.? Idea: create a campaign (can be fun, have a tagline), to remind folks that they have an impact on student success. "I do __. I am UAF.". Make t-shirts, posters, etc.

  • Make data more transparent and available. This is make it easier to celebrate the smaller wins.

  • Efforts can often be disaggregated. If we make these efforts more unified, we can be more focused, recognize smaller efforts that are happening, and prevent overlaps.

  • Smaller assessments can make a big impact, but don't get evaluated very often. For example, student outreach is often overlooked.

  • Nanook Brotherhood and Nanook Sisterhood: celebrates and supports black students. Can we expand this type of group to include other types of students?

Timing (terms, ordering of events): Begin as soon as form campus team to examine the work

• Academic Recovery Program: We can design this and possibly roll it out in January 2025.

• Summer Orientation Program: Can do pilot program in Summer 2025.

• Adjunct Training/Orientation Program: Will eventually get clause in contract that orientation is mandatory. But we can roll out a pilot program before the mandatory aspect can be put into the contracts. We can also begin implementing some aspects of this training in the new Faculty Orientation.

• Increase Engagement for Remote Students: Can do actions immediately.

Critical Considerations:

• Academic Recovery Program: Diversify in Faculty to help balance workload. Maybe focus on bringing in Faculty that don't do much service. Look at ALI group. Resources: work-release time, disaggregated data for probation students. Registrar for the data (flag students, etc.).

• Summer Orientation Program: Incentive to get students to come: Make it 1 credit for electives.

• Adjunct Training/Orientation Program: Anupma: will put orientation in new faculty contracts. Emphasis on keeping efforts towards measuring this at a minimum.

• Increase Engagement for Remote Students: Chucki and Bristol Bay has lower engagement. Bethel has a student government ASUAF. Ask ASUAF how to bring in distance student voice. Can expand ASUAF to smaller campuses? Two sides of engagement: 1. How to increase remote student and faculty engagement, and 2. How to increase mostly in-person or optionally in-person folks to come to campus and engage more on campus.

• Increase Sense of Belonging/Campus Climate: Little things mean a lot. Like graduating students walking past their professors and waving means a lot to students. We can add an additional layer of celebration to the graduation. Doesn't have to be during the ceremony itself, but can be during the week.

• OTHER COMMENTS: We usually focus on 1st and 2nd year, but even if students drop off in year 3+, it effects graduation rates. How can we also bring in 3+ yr retention.

Outcomes/Measures:

• Academic Recovery Program: Decrease the amount (or percentage) of students who are on probation and go to ADQ.

• Summer Orientation Program: Less students on drop/Withdraw list. Less students that ask for aid help after the deadline for payments. (increase financial preparedness). Can compare summer program students to a group of students with similar background but did not participate in summer program. Look at grades, talk to faculty who interact with them, etc.

  Measure use of resources and activities on campus.

  Students take assessment after their first term so they have time to reflect.

• Adjunct Training/Orientation Program: Complete accurate database of adjunct faculty, maintain the database in Airtable. Canvas Shell with materials, looks professional, is accessible. Less missing grades, can do a survey that will sent out to faculty asking if they know how to do things (but something similar was done in the past and made faculty upset).

• Increase Engagement for Remote Students: Unsure

Potential participants (names or roles):

• Academic Recovery Program: Jenny Kinne, Jen Tilbury, Jenn Pederson (remote students), CTL. A faculty member, maybe Amanda Langhorst, or Denise Kind (but she's busy), or Kristie Huffington, Seth Jones (Philosophy), Carrie Baker, (1 STEM Faculty, 1 CLA admin/faculty), Nathan Belz, Haley Hanson.

• Summer Orientation Program: Kendall Newman. Orientation (Gretchen Ronnie, help make it seamless), first-year advisors, Jennie Kinne (Academics 101).

  Financial aid.

• Adjunct Training/Orientation Program: Provost office will handle it. Lisa Yancey. Brian, Dan Darrow, Holly McDonald, Jenn Pederson, Julia Manfredini, Heather Moreira, Rural Adjunct, non-Rural Adjunct.

• Increase Engagement for Remote Students: Christian Settler, Haley Hanson.

Duration: One year, after data has been obtained, with initial onboarding during summer, fall, or spring, and meetings periodically during the academic year.

Participants: Individual faculty members or teams of institutional faculty 

Outcomes: Plan for initial course design/redesign 

Priorities for Focus/Action:

Timing (terms, ordering of events):

Begin TLA in summer of 2024

Critical Considerations:

Outcomes/Measures:

Potential participants (names or roles):

-Develop an institutional level vision of what student success is and a communication plan to deliver it to campus: how is student success defined at Fairbanks? Develop a strategic communication plan to promote the core vision of student success and that keeps campus informed of the work being done to achieve that goal.

-Examination of Course Redesign: Redesign of pedagogical practices and enhancement of co-curricular support structures to improve student pass rates in developmental education courses and other key areas.

-Access to disaggregated data: Provide faculty and advising staff access to disaggregated student progression and course results data to examine and help plan for mitigating equity gaps occurring across course outcomes and student retention and progression.

-Student Voice: Need to incorporate student input into the vision of and planning process for student success to create a more inclusive student experience.

-Policy Review: An examination of institutional policy, resource management, and delivery of student success programming is necessary to examine where redundancy and potential competing goals might be hindering progress.

-Institutional Metrics: Institutional level metrics that track the institutional definition of student success need to be established and widely distributed as part of the strategic communication plan.

Duration: Monthly virtual meetings for one year, with two in-person multi-day retreats (fall, summer). 

Participants: Chief Academic Officers 

Outcomes: Participants explore the environmental and psychological conditions that support innovation and apply an innovation toolkit to design a plan for improvement of one, or more, campus systems.

Priorities for Focus/Action: Online Q&A forum (i.e., the grapevine recast as Nanook News to give and get information; searchable website)

Timing (terms, ordering of events): Immediately and ongoing

Critical Considerations: When large changes are considered, all stakeholders need to be involved (both their input is included in the decision-making process and how that information is communicated; shared governance); need role clarity to make informed decisions (e.g., Faculty Senate, Deans, etc.); Grapevine communication to reduce/squash rumors

Outcomes/Measures: Increase employee satisfaction; improve campus morale, understanding, transparency, and trust; improvements on campus in terms of what is going on

Potential participants (names or roles): Provost, Chancellor, Vice Chancellors, Deans, Faculty Senate, Unit leads, UR

Group 2 discuss – (Kendell Newman Sadiik, Sandra Wildfeuer, Jak Maier, Judy Atkinson, Chris Miles, Jill Faudree, Leah Berman, KC Alu, Joi Lockhart, Cassie K, Ryan Henderson, Amy Bristor) - Teaching and Learning Academy, Gateway Course Redesign, and Curricular Analytics Community

Group 3 discuss – (Owen Guthrie, Ginny Kinne, Gabby Russell, Kacey Miller, Becky Phillips, Amy Wald, Abel Bult-Ito) - Advising Redesign and Transfer Experience Redesign

Group 4 discuss - (Alex Hirsh, Ashley Munro, Bryan Uher, Shelbie Umphenour, Chantelle McGinnis, Anna Gagne-Hawes) - First/Second Year Redesign, CAO Innovation Community, Emergency Aid

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1eSvP0Z7Ze0HKkE4Y3WX62V2UjvTHuajT?usp=drive_link

• TA training across campus being developed by CTL

• Aggressive clarification of advising pathways for MATH (e.g., don't put students who want to end up in Math F113X into Math F105) (and advising for writing?)

Priorities for Focus/Action: All students

Timing (terms, ordering of events): Start fall 2024

Critical Considerations: New Student Orientation; students that are accepted but not yet enrolled (admit not enrolled); continuing not enrolled students; what resources are available and what additional resources are needed; are clear pathways in place for students to know their options and complete their degrees (what is in place currently, what is needed); staff workloads; are there redundancies (process improvements); need for more mental health services/is the model the correct model (how can we better provide mental health resources to meet student needs); better communication to students and within the university communication for registration;

Outcomes/Measures: Improve retention and 6-year graduation rates; improve the quality of the student experience, create a sense of belonging and community

Potential participants (names or roles): Wood Center, Retention Team, SSC, Residence Life, CTC, Student Affairs Staff, Advisors from Academic Units, SRC/Athletics, Student Orientation Staff, Nook, Relevant Student Services Offices, Rural Campuses, RSS, DMVS, Transfer Student Advising, ORCA