Clayton State University-[node:field-date:custom:Y]--Predictive Analytics

High-impact strategy

Advise students within a centralized structure that capitalizes on predictive data analytics to promote deeper student advisor connections and uses consistent advising practices.

Related Goal

Implement an intrusive advising that is informed by predictive data analytics to keep students on track to graduate.

Summary of Activities

In January 2015 Clayton State hired a Director of Advising to lead the implementation of the new advising model.

Clayton State is in the process of moving toward centralized advising system. By August 2015, the majority of students will be advised in a one-stop advising center. Based on a graduated timeline, the center will serve all students from the first year to graduation, providing a continuity of service.

The First-Year Advising and Retention Center (FYARC) continues to advise first-year students using an intrusive advising model. Key components include multiple required advising sessions each semester and use of assessment tools including MAP-Works, a student retention management system, and MajorFOCUS, a career assessment to inform advising conversations.

Advisors are increasing the use of DegreeWorks and the EAB Student Success Collaborative (SSC) to monitor student progress.

Baseline Status

Recent changes to our advising structure first began in fall 2011 with the establishment of the FYARC. Baseline data for retention and graduation rates are shown below for the cohort year prior to the intervention.

Baseline Retention and 4 – Year Graduation Rates

Historical baseline data (F05 – F09) shows that the six-year graduation rate is at 30.0%.

Six-Year Graduation Rate*

*Six-year graduation rate data is not yet available for the 2010 cohort (pre-intervention).

Interim Measures of Progress

Increasing Use of Predictive Analytics:  Over the past two years, Clayton State implemented DegreeWorks and the Student Success Collaborative (SSC) as additional advising tools. Utilization of these tools is increasing. For example, during the last half-year, advisors have logged into the SSC an average of 200 times. This is a large increase compared to initial use of the system by advisors. As described above, the University is still in the process of restructuring advising and implementing guidelines to ensure consistent advising practices.

Retention and Graduation Rate:  

Because the addition of predictive analytics occurred in 2013, Clayton State will monitor the 2013 FTFT cohort to determine the overall success of the new strategy.

Retention rates from 2013 to 2014 were 68.3% and suggest preliminary success with the strategy as compared to prior years (above).

Retention Rate FTFT Cohort

Graduation rates for the intervention cohort will not be available until May 2017.

Measures of Success

In the coming year, Clayton State will define measures of success with the new advising structure. To facilitate this process, an assessment committee was assembled and charged with development of more specific assessment measures under the new advisory model. Institutional data workbooks have been produced using the SSC software. This preliminary data will help guide the assessment process.

Lessons Learned

Integration of the SSC opened the doors to conversations campus-wide around intentional advising and student success. In August 2014, Provost Dr. Kevin Demmitt charged an advising task force to explore advising structures that would capitalize on the capabilities of the SSC platform. The task force recommended centralizing all professional advisors under a new director of advising and transitioning faculty from an advising to mentoring role. Clayton State is currently in the process of moving to a centralized advising system.  For fiscal year 2015 Clayton State received from the state three new advising lines to support the transition of advising responsibilities from faculty to professional staff.  Even with these new positions, advising loads for professional advisors remain above 400 students within certain colleges, which limits the scope and ability for advisors to fully adopt an intrusive advising model.