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 University Demographics

4. Residency/Gender Identity 21,338 Female & 18,807 Male
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. Our Majors
Applied Mathematics Biochemistry Biology Biology with Teaching Biophysics Chemistry Chemistry with Teaching Computer Science Computer Science and Physics - 5 Data Science Earth & Space Science with Teaching - 3 Environmental Science General Science with Teaching Geology Information Science & Technology - 359
Mathematical Economics Mathematics Mathematics & Computer Science w/ Teaching Mathematics & Technology w/ Teaching - 2 Mathematics with Teaching Mathematics & Computer Science Mathematics & Physics - 6 Natural Sciences Neuroscience: Cell & Molecular Pharmaceutical Science Physics Physics with Teaching - 3 Pre-Pharmacy Undeclared-Science and Technology - 71

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
Only 28.7% of May 2017 graduates will have had the same caseload advisor

10. Fall-to-Spring Retention
CST First Time Freshman (FTF) 1 Semester Retention Rates
Incoming Fall Term
CST FTF
In CST
1 Semester Later
Left CST
CST Retention Rate (%)
TU Retention Rate (%)
2015
1014
836
178 82 96
2016
1022
864
158 85 95

11. Fall-to-Fall Retention
CST First Time Freshman (FTF) 1 Year Retention Rates
Incoming Fall Term
CST FTF
In CST
1 Year Later
Left CST
CST Retention Rate (%)
TU Retention Rate (%)
2011
879
624
255 71 87
2012
827
598
229 72 89
2013
920
656
264 90
2014
880
605
275 69
2015
1014
667
347 66 91
2016
1022
692
330 68

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.
Discuss the need to assessment based on Middle States new standards, developed based on information obtained from the NACADA Assessment Institute

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
Surveys were sent to students and faculty advisors, Academic Advisor input was also considered. Feedback was also elicited from other advising offices on campus. These themes emerged.

15. Three Models Considered
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
CST First Time Freshman (FTF) 1 Semester Retention Rates
Incoming Fall Term
CST FTF
In CST
1 Semester Later
Left CST
CST Retention Rate (%)
TU Retention Rate (%)
2017
981
827
154 84 95
2018
937
772
165 82 94
CST First Time Freshman (FTF) 1 Year Retention Rates
Incoming Fall Term
CST FTF
In CST
1 Year Later
Left CST
CST Retention Rate (%)
TU Retention Rate (%)
2017
981
671
310 68 88
2018
937
620
317 66

28. Two Year Retention Rate
CST 2 Year Retention Rates
Incoming Fall Term
CST All
In CST
2 Years Later
Left CST
CST Retention Rate (%)
2016
4065
1485
2580
36.5%
2017
4042
1518
2524
37.5%
*data has not been officially verified through the university and is considered unofficial

29. Use of Advising Syllabus End of Year Comprehensive Assessment
First Year Advising
Use of Advising Syllabus
End of Year Comprehensive Assessment
Sent by
12.75% response rate year one
10.88% response rate year two
Incentivized by raffle
Only lost 16% of FY class Fall 2017-Spring 2018
Lost 18% of FY class Fall 2018-Spring 2019

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

35. Year 3 involves a newly mandated First Year Seminar
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:
Dylan:
Lawrence: