1.3: Prescriptive Degree Maps

The Academic Advising initiative will be supported by the implementation of prescriptive degree map software that show students the proper timing and pacing of majors, degrees, gateway courses, and general education requirements necessary to ensure graduation in four to six years. Degree maps will serve as advising tools and assist students and advisors in developing an academic plan that fits course availability and can be adjusted to accommodate failure to complete courses, alternative options, and remediation needs prior to program start.

Prescriptive degree maps may be particularly useful when advising resources are limited. As academic departments implement mandatory advising for all their students they will find the self-advising feature and ease of communicating an academic plan to a large number of students particularly useful. This will allow the faculty to engage in academic advising beyond explaining degree and general education requirements. Furthermore, the information gathered from this database can be used in predicting the number of courses needed by departments and colleges for university planning purposes.

Project Working Group

Members: Dan Fortmiller, Sukhwant Jhaj, Robert Mercer, Cindy Baccar, Angela Garbarino, Pam Wagner, Kristen Patrick, Steve Harmon as needed, Jackie Balzer, as needed, Academic Department Designees, as needed

Pilot Project Team Leaders: Casey Campbell, CLAS; Doug Siegler, SBA; Jessica Wright, FPA

Project Description

Academic departments prepare and publish model four-year term-by-term course progressions for all majors which show students the proper timing and pacing of the major and general education requirements necessary to ensure graduation in four to six years. The degree maps will be developed in alignment with the official u.Achieve (neé DARS) degree audit requirements.

Recommendations and Decisions

• Add Steve Harmon from OAA to the workgroup on an as needed basis.
• During initial phases, keep the number of Degree Maps per program to a minimum, focusing on, traditional full-time and part-time pathways.
• Accommodate needs of transfer students.
• Ensure maps are aligned with official degree audit requirements.

Funding Required

Funding for u.Direct software and ARR administrative position has been assigned. Kristen Patrick, Degree Progress Coordinator, was hired by ARR to support this project. Small stipends are available to departments to support staff time commitment for developing degree maps. Funding will come from savings in new advisor budget.

Amount	Frequency	Purpose
$47,000	One Time	UDirect License
$58,400	Per year	1.0 FTE in Admissions, Registration and Records includes OPE CollegeSource, Inc.
$105,400	Total

Timeframe and Metrics

Initial Pilot Phase Goals

1. Pilot Degree Maps – Completed August 1, 2011

2. u.Direct Software Implementation – in process, Kick-off meeting held in December 2011.

3. Website Prototype Complete/Ready for Demo – Completed October 1, 2011

4. Completion – January 1, 2011 (See status, below)

Status of Degree Maps Collection Activity, January 15, 2012:

• 60% of all programs have been submitted and are in various stages of testing and posting to website.
• 80% of all CLAS majors have been submitted.

The following programs remain outstanding, and are currently being worked on by the respective units:

College of Liberal Arts & Sciences:  9 programs remain outstanding: Arabic, Chinese, German, History-Honors, Japanese, Physics-Environmental, Philosophy-Honors, Russian, and Sociology

Maseeh College of Engineering and Computer Science: All 8 programs remain outstanding.

College of Urban and Public Affairs: All 8 programs remain outstanding.

School of Fine & Performing Arts: 10 of 16 programs remain outstanding.

Outreach and follow-up with the remaining programs continues.

Status of u.Direct Software Implementation, January 15, 2012

• December: Project kick-off meeting with College Source Inc. (CSI)
• Project time-line draft developed by ARR-EITS work team and has been approved by CSI.
• EITS must give final approval for timeline and delivery dates in order to secure vendor commitment to schedule the onsite visit to provide training and implementation services.
• Ability to meet target dates impacts two important milestones in the project:
  • Vendor onsite training and implementation services targeted for March 12 -16, 2012 and
  • Move u.Direct to production environment by April 23^rd, 2012.
• If deadlines are not met, onsite visit and/or the move to production will be delayed.
• The ARR-EITS work group meets every two weeks to keep the technology aspects of the project moving.
  • This technical work group reports to the larger group on timeline task completion and will identify any problems that develop that prevent meeting deadlines.
• Need another workgroup to strategically plan for implementation and roll-out.
  • Examples: Do we try to use u.Direct for summer 2012 Orientation? Do we wait until ALL majors are coded to launch? Or develop a pilot program with selected majors? Advisor training? Promotion strategies to students?
  • Need to coordinate closely with the technical work team so as to track progress and understand more about the product and how it will work as we go through CSI training and onsite implementation.
  • Outcomes from this process will inform the roll-out plan. This team should include people who work closely with advising and orientation and who can make the time commitment to be a working member of this team, which would eventually include weekly or bi-weekly meetings.

Metrics:

Training for Advisors

1. Adviser Training Hours = Total # of hours spent in training
2. Percentage of advisers trained = Total # of advisers trained/Total # of departments trained
3. Percentage of department trained = Total # of department trained/Total # of departments

Advising Plans and Implementation

1. Departments/Colleges without Advising Plans = List of those departments without advising plans
2. Departments/Colleges without Degree Maps = List of those departments without degree maps
3. Accessibility of Advising Plans = Are advising plans 1 click from the department web page?
4. Use of Degree Maps = # of students who have created degree maps
5. Degree Map Reach = Do maps exist for all academic units?

Students Interacting with Advisors

1. Percentage of students with excessive credits for graduation (all students) = # Of students with>200 credits / Total # of students
2. Percentage of students with excessive credits for graduation (only those in a given graduating class) = # Of students with >200 credits (in graduating class) / Total # of students (in graduating class)
3. Percentage of student petitions due to perceived advisor error = # Of petitions, perceived advisor error / Total # of petitions
4. Percentage of UNST petitions: Measures advising that is ineffective = # Of UNST petitions / Total # of petitions
5. Student Satisfaction: Are students satisfied with their advisors and advising content? Based on survey results from post-advising sessions