FIGs & Learning Communities at : FIGs & Learning Communities at Texas Tech University
February 4-6, 2007 An Overview
Current Issues in Higher Education : Diminished Public Confidence
Increased Accountability
Restricted or Static Funding vs. Rising Costs
Increasingly Diverse Student Populations
Increased Emphasis on Collaboration
Focus on Students and Learning
Expectation for greater coordination, coherence integration from college experience/education
Current Issues in Higher Education
Slide3 : “A disturbing and dangerous mismatch exists between what American society needs of higher education and what it is receiving. Nowhere is the mismatch more dangerous than in the quality of the undergraduate preparation provided on many campuses. The American imperative for the 21st century is that society must hold higher education to much higher expectations or risk national decline.”
Wingspread Group, An American Imperative: Higher Expectations for Higher Education (1993)
Slide4 : “ Organizationally and operationally, we have lost sight of the forest. If undergraduate education is to be enhanced, faculty members, joined by academic and student affairs administrators must devise ways to deliver undergraduate education that are as comprehensive and integrated as the way students actually learn.”
Pascarella & Terenzini
Living with Myths (1994)
Slide5 : “The key to enhancing learning and personal development is not simply for faculty to teach more and better, but also to create conditions that motivate and inspire students to devote more time and energy to educationally purposeful activities, both in and outside the classroom.”
Student Learning Imperative (p. 1)
Pascarella & Terenzini : Pascarella & Terenzini Review of 2,600 books, chapters, journal articles, monographs, technical reports, conference papers and research reports for the past two decades
“What the research tells us is that a large part of the impact of college is determined by the extent and content of students’ interactions with the major agents of socialization on campus: faculty members & student peers.” : “What the research tells us is that a large part of the impact of college is determined by the extent and content of students’ interactions with the major agents of socialization on campus: faculty members & student peers.” Pascarella & Terenzini; “Living with Myths”,
Change, Jan.94
Alexander Astin : Alexander Astin Research at the Higher Education Research Institute
Ongoing for over 20 years
82 different outcomes measures
cognitive & affective measures
pre & post-test
Controlled for 140 student characteristics
Slide9 : “Perhaps the most important generalization to be derived from this massive study is that the strongest single source of influence on cognitive and affective development is the student’s peer group. . . [which has] enormous potential for influencing virtually all aspects of the student’s educational and personal development”
Astin, Involvement in Learning Revisited: Lessons We Have Learned, 1995
Slide10 : “Every institution of higher education should strive to create learning communities, organized around specific intellectual themes or tasks”
“Involvement in Learning” National Institute of Education (1984)
Learning Communities : Learning Communities “Learning communities are curricular structures that link different disciplines around a common theme or questions. They give greater coherence to the curriculum and provide students and faculty with a vital sense of shared inquiry.”
-Gabelnick (et. al.), 1990
Academic LC Definition : Academic LC Definition Fails to recognize that cognitive and affective are inextricably intertwined
Exclusive focus on relationship between curricular structure and different disciplines
Fails to capitalize on the educational importance of variety of student interactions in different settings
Learning Communities : Learning Communities “…Small subgroups of students… characterized by a common sense of purpose…that can be used to build a sense of group identity, cohesiveness, and uniqueness that encourage continuity and the integration of diverse curricular and co-curricular experiences.”
Alexander Astin,
Achieving Educational Excellence
Astin definition : Astin definition Focuses on student interactions that integrate the curricular and co-curricular experiences
Stresses function over structure
Slide15 : “A moderately large and consistent body of research indicates that students who live in residence halls programmatically designed to promote academic and intellectual development experience greater cognitive gains that students in conventional residence halls.”
Terenzini, Pascarella & Blimling,
Journal of College Student Development, (1996)
Residence Halls as Learning Environments : Residence Halls as Learning Environments Extended Peer Interaction
Casual Learning
“Lunch & Learn”
Professional Staff
Social/Educational Programming
Seminar Space/Faculty Offices
University of Missouri – Columbia : Public, Land Grant University
Main Campus of a 4-campus system
AAU, Research Extensive Institution
Commitment to Undergrad Education
27,000 enrollment - 21,000 undergrad
30% Live on Campus (6000)
65% in Living-Learning Experience University of Missouri – Columbia
Campus Issues : Campus Issues Student Success
Commitment to Undergraduate Education
Retention/Integration
Personalizing/Humanizing Experience
Course Availability/Planning
Efficiency/Effectiveness
Student Success Objectives : Student Success Objectives substantially enhance academic achievement, retention and educational attainment for freshmen
make the campus “psychologically small” by creating peer reference groups for new students
purposely integrate curricular and co‑curricular experiences through the development of a seamless learning environment
provide a venue for enabling admitted students to register early for their fall classes
encourage faculty to integrate ideas, concepts, content, writing, assessment and research from their various disciplines, thereby enhancing general education outcomes for students
Learning Community Growth at MU : Learning Community Growth at MU Percentage of Residents in Learning Communities
Learning Community Growth : Learning Community Growth
Learning Communities at MU : Learning Communities at MU 123 Different Living/Learning Opportunities
Sponsored Learning Communities (22)
Freshman Interest Groups (101)
Sponsored Learning Communities : Sponsored Learning Communities Students Living Together w/ Common Interests/Purpose
Academic Majors (11)
Academic Interest (4)
Interest (7)
Assignment
Programming/Resources
Academic Partners/Stakeholders
Staffing Patterns
Little or No Physical Renovation
Academic Majors : Academic Majors Engineering
Men in Engineering
Nursing
Life Sciences (Biology etc.)
Health & Helping Professions
Pre-Veterinary Medicine
Agriculture
World of Business
Education
Natural Resources
Journalism & Communication
Academic Interest/Themes : Academic Interest/Themes Honors College
Human & Behavioral Sciences
Law & Society
Culture & Society
Common Interest/Experience : Common Interest/Experience Wakonse/Leadership
Pathways (Deciding/Exploring)
Pangaea
E.V.A. Success
ROTC
Greek Leadership
Junior/Senior
Freshman Interest Group : Freshman Interest Group Co-enrollment in 3 general education courses around a particular theme
1 credit proseminar
20 students (max.) enrolled in each FIG
Live together on same res hall floor
Peer Advisor (P.A.)
Faculty co-facilitator
Primary Emphasis on Fall Semester
Other characteristics
Learning Community Examples University of Missouri-Columbia : Learning Community Examples University of Missouri-Columbia Men of Engineering Engnr.FIG Non-FIG Frosh & Returners Carver Community of Science and Math Science Ed FIG Bio FIG Chem FIG Returning Residents Engnr. FIG
FIGs Program at MU : FIGs Program at MU Oct. 1994 – Visit to Oregon, Washington by VC C. Schroeder, Assc. Dean T. Tarkow, Chair J. David
Nov. 1994 – Initial Planning Meeting
Modify Oregon/Washington Model for MU
Add Residential Component
Create Faculty Role
March. 1995 – FIGs promotion/recruitment
Fall, 1995 – 21 FIGs, 225 students
Some original Co-facs still participating in 2006
Fall, 2004 – 89 FIGs, 1450 students
Fall, 2005 – 94 FIGs
Fall, 2006 – 101 FIGs (planned)
3 general education courses around a theme : 3 general education courses around a theme Utilizes existing courses
Students co-enrolled in same courses
Applies to all majors/areas of study
Seek to integrate coursework between classes or with co-curriculum
1 credit proseminar : 1 credit proseminar Pass/Fail
Taught by P.A. (under guidance of Co-fac)
College survival skills (time mgt., registration)
University resources (library, learning center)
Technology (e-mail, WWW home pages, Web research)
Attempted integration of courses
Reflect on college and/or transitional experiences
Field experiences of academic nature or related to FIG theme
20 students enrolled in each FIG : 20 students enrolled in each FIG Students co-enrolled in all three courses, i.e. same sections
Live together on same residence hall floor or in same learning community
Most are coed enrollment (implications for housing)
All levels of academic ability
Peer Advisor (PA) : Peer Advisor (PA) Upper-level student (initially most juniors and seniors, some sophomore and grad)
Strong academic ability
Differentiation between CA/RA job
Good interpersonal skills
Live on floor with students
Teaches proseminar along w/ faculty (actually do most teaching)
Compensation was initially about 1/3 of CA, now the same
Faculty co-facilitator : Faculty co-facilitator Volunteer or selectively recruited
Frequently teach one of the three classes in FIG
Assists with proseminar
Small development stipend of $250
70% tenured or tenure-track faculty
Some staff co-facilitators (almost exclusively academic staff)
Other characteristics : Other characteristics Open to all students (majors, academic ability)
Some FIGs:
Require higher math proficiency or Honors College enrollment
Appeal to or designed for specific majors/interests
Not “nested” in other Learning Communities (every LC has FIG except ROTC, Greek Leadership)
Cultural Event Participation
No additional cost for participants
Orientation program
Integrated into summer and fall orientation programs
Changed how all freshman are registered
FIGs have many positive impacts on students : FIGs have many positive impacts on students More involved on campus
Spend more time studying
Perceive the residence halls as more academically & socially supportive
More frequently have positive interactions with diverse peers
More frequent interaction with faculty
Report having an easier academic transition to MU
Are more likely to be retained and to graduate Compared to their peers, FIG students:
More freshmen in FIGs form academically relevant peer networks : More freshmen in FIGs form academically relevant peer networks
First-Year Retention (Entering class of 2003) : First-Year Retention (Entering class of 2003)
FIG students are also 1% to 8% more likely to Graduate : FIG students are also 1% to 8% more likely to Graduate
African American Graduation Rates Entering Classes of 1998-2000 : African American Graduation Rates Entering Classes of 1998-2000
Graduation within the major : Graduation within the major Recent assessment indicates that, at least for engineering students, the gains in graduation are within the major.
Engineering Graduation Entering class of 1998 with an initial interest in engineering : Engineering Graduation Entering class of 1998 with an initial interest in engineering
Co-enrollment strategies : Co-enrollment strategies Summarizing course descriptions
Preliminary course schedule
Enrollment coordination
Blocking courses/seats
Communication w/ Directors of Undergraduate Studies and Academic Advisors
Course registration during summer orientation
FIGs Assignment and preferences
Co-enrollment strategies Identifying courses : Co-enrollment strategies Identifying courses
Consultation with Academic Advisors
General Education Curriculum
Large lecture vs. Smaller classroom
Proseminar- for credit; pass/fail
Teaching methods - frequent feedback & testing
Math and English
Co-enrollment Issues : Co-enrollment Issues Courses may be cancelled by departments
Requirements for academic majors may change
Many students enter college with dual or AP credit
Students may be at various levels for math and science courses
Students frequently change majors
Holding courses can create bottlenecks
Enrollment Logistics : Enrollment Logistics Students are initially placed based on FIG preferences and housing application
Student profile sheets that contain academic attributes are generated
FIGs Coordinator places students in FIG courses based on attributes
In some cases, students are reassigned to another FIG based on qualifications
Coordinate assignments with Registrar
Seminar Content : Seminar Content Initially utilized U101 (Gardner) class syllabus
Dropped most U101 components based on student feedback
Most popular sessions – registration, theme-related activities
Reduced emphasis on writing, but still a component
Developed, utilized, abandoned textbook
Housing Assignment Strategies : Housing Assignment Strategies Identifying halls
Coed
ADA-accessible
Identifying floors
Coed-able
Retention/Renewals
Gender Balance in system
FIG Density per floor
Preference Priority over initial choices
Housing Assignment Strategies : Housing Assignment Strategies Roommate requests
Hand-assignment process
Bio Sheets
Calling
Other Learning Communities
Tentative Assignments
Automated Assignments
Staffing/Training : Staffing/Training PA/CA
Co-Fac
Hall Coordinators
Student Coordinators
Coordinator
Staffing/Training : Staffing/Training Management by Committee
Peer Advisor vs. Community Advisor
Integration of Peer Advisor w/ hall staff
Joint Training with C.A.’s
Direct and Indirect Supervision by RHC
Training as instructors/academic issues
Co-fac training/orientation (meet w/ PA)
Orientation : Orientation Summer Contact/Anticipatory Socialization
Welcome & Parent Orientation
Introduction of Staff & Faculty
Academic Event
Resource Tours
Visit Classrooms
Teams Challenge Experience
Modifications/Additions : Modifications/Additions Co-enrollment in Winter Semester (1997)
PA’s Required to “live-on” (1998)
Cultural Event (1998)
Theater, Concert Series, Jazz Series, RagTag
FIGs Bowl for United Way (1999)
Transfer Interest Groups (2000)
Parent Orientation and E-Newsletter (2002)
Winter Interest Groups (2003)
Blackboard (2003)
Common Pro-seminar times, multiple FIGs in same course sections (2003)
Modifications/Adjustments : Modifications/Adjustments Hall assignment preferences
Advanced placement/prior college credit
Course descriptions
FIG Proseminar Textbook
Greek/Commuter
PA integration/live-on requirement
Supervision (PA & Program)
Clear Partnership
Different FIG Versions/TRIGs
Lessons Learned : Lessons Learned Three Zones of an Institution
Culture and Value Differences
Lack of Understanding/Appreciation of distinct/unique roles of Faculty & Staff
Role Stereotyping/Misunderstanding
Lack of Common Understanding of what Constitutes Student Learning
Faculty Allegiance to Discipline, not Department or Institution
Selective Risk Taking is Essential
Accept “Win-Don’t Lose”
We can be our own worst enemies
Lessons Learned : Lessons Learned Importance of living accommodations
Student Affairs usually must take the initiative
Student Affairs staff equally uncomfortable in “Faculty World”
Linking to Institutional Goals/Mission
Importance of Assessment
Consistent Collaborative Messages and “Cross Pollination”
Faculty generally unaware of student affairs and may be critical/envious of resources
Faculty just as concerned about “fitting in”
Program viewed as “guinea pig” or “silver bullet”
Lessons Learned Student Dynamics : Lessons Learned Student Dynamics Having 20 students who intimately know each other can create interesting dynamics in both large lecture courses and small class
Issue of academic dishonesty in both co-enrolled and FIG courses
Faculty clarification of difference between collaborative work and cheating
Recommendations : Recommendations Identify Key Academic Faculty (Admin.), Student Affairs and Res Life staff
Share excerpted readings; Retreat
Identify Funding Sources
Identify High Transition Halls
Personally Recruit Faculty & P.A.
Utilize Academic Support Resources
U101, Tutoring, Computing, Retention Services
Coordinate Marketing w/ Admissions
Joint Sponsorship/Ownership
Evolve/Expand Incrementally
Recommendations : Take the initiative in seeking out connections
Ask how you can assist others in achieving THEIR objectives
Examine enrollment trends/demands
Read departmental/faculty newsletters; attend faculty senate meetings
Identify obstacles that students face in delivery of academic/other support (reasonably correctable)
Identify partners who have combination of authority, resources, and commitment
Recommendations
Timeline (cont.) : Timeline (cont.) April, 1995
Returning student contracts due, assignments made (floors finalized)
Peer Advisors selected (welcome/discuss)
May, 1995
Students assigned to FIGs
Students hand-assigned to rooms
Students notified of FIG assignment, FIG-mates, schedule
Recommendations : Recommendations Develop an assessment strategy early
Utilize data in planning and refinement process
Identify performance indicators
Establish and maintain effective communication at all levels
Involve mid-level and support staff
Educate internal and external constituents
Recommendations : Recommendations Ensure programs consistent w/ institutional mission
Develop shared vision w/ faculty
Partnerships that meet faculty/student needs
Learn about faculty culture & reward system
Purposeful interaction between students and faculty
Connect out-of-class learning w/ academic objectives
Use residential facilities/technology to support learning
Learn about and integrate innovative instructional techniques
Recognize faculty & staff contributions
Schuh, (1999)
Recommended Readings : Recommended Readings Schuh, J.H., & Whitt, E.J. (1999). Creating successful partnerships between academic and student affairs. New Directions for Student Services, 87. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shapiro, N.S. & Levine, J.H. (1999). Creating Learning Communities. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Schuh, J.H. (Ed.) (1999). Educational Programming and Student Learning in College and University Residence Halls. ACUHO-I monograph. Columbus, OH.
Levine, J.H. (Ed.). (1999). Learning Communities: New Structures, new partnerships for learning (No. 26). Columbia, S.C. University of South Carolina.
Schroeder, C.C. (1999). Forging educational partnerships that advance student learning. In G.S. Blimling & E.J. Whitt (Eds.), Good Practice in Student Affairs: Principles to Foster Student Learning (pp. 133-156). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gabelnick, F., MacGregor, J. et.al (1990); Learning Communities: Creating Connections Among Students, Faculty & Disciplines,; New Directions for Teaching & Learning, #41. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Anecdotal Data Students : Anecdotal Data Students
82-85% recommend as is to friend
more w/ minor modifications
Addressed two major concerns
Will I fit in & make friends?
Can I make it academically?
Beneficial for Out of State Students
Makes Campus Conceptually Smaller
Anecdotal Data Staff : Anecdotal Data Staff
Quicker formation of community
Transcend Facility Challenges
Ease in Community Standards
Established Connections Faster
Anecdotal Data Parents : Anecdotal Data Parents
Assisted in Transition
Provided Academic Support
Eased Parental Concerns
Sibling Comparisons
Anecdotal Data Faculty : Anecdotal Data Faculty
Students attend class together
Better prepared for class
Participate in class (support)
Work outside of class together
Comparisons to Honors section
Planning & Implementation : Planning & Implementation FIGs Development
Implementation Strategies
Modifications/Lessons Learned
Recommendations
Formation of Planning Team : Formation of Planning Team Large Discussion Committee
Core Planning Group
Large Discussion Committee : Large Discussion Committee Admissions (Director)
Recruitment (Director)
Registrar (Director & Associate)
Faculty Enrichment & General Education (Director)
Learning Center (Director, First Year Experience Coordinator, Technical Educator)
Arts & Sciences College (Associate Dean)
Faculty (3-5, including Director of Lower Division English Writing & Biological Sciences Dept. Chair)
Residential Life (Director, Residence Hall Coordinators, Community Advisor, 4-5 Students)
Core Planning Group (original) : Core Planning Group (original) A & S Associate Dean (Faculty Rank)
Director of Residential Life
Director of Learning Center (Faculty Rank)
Academic Advisor
Hall Coordinator (2)
Graduate Student (Teaching Assistant)
2 Students
Core Planning Group (current) : Core Planning Group (current) Associate Dean, Arts & Sciences
Director of Residential Life
FIGs Coordinator
Assistant Director of Residential Academic Programs (RAP)
Hall Coordinator
3 Student Assistant Coordinators
Timeline (Cont.) : Timeline (Cont.) Aug. 1995 - 225 FIGs students, 18 FIGs
Aug. 1996 - 435 FIGs students, 32 FIGs
Aug. 1997 - 725 FIGs students, 50 FIGs
Jan. 1998 - Second semester component developed/implemented
Aug. 1998 – 900 FIGs students, 61 FIGs
May 1999 – First FIGs cohort graduates
June 1999 – Proseminar Textbook developed
Aug. 1999 – 965 FIGs students, 65 FIGs
Aug. 2000 – 1240 FIGs students, 79 FIGs
(new staffing structure/compensation)
FIG Expansion : FIG Expansion
Implementation Strategies : Implementation Strategies Housing Assignment
Co-enrollment
Staffing/training
Orientation
Housing Assignment Strategies : Housing Assignment Strategies Identifying halls
Coed
ADA-accessible
Identifying floors
Coed-able
Retention/Renewals
Gender Balance in system
FIG Density per floor
Preference Priority over initial choices
Housing Assignment Strategies : Housing Assignment Strategies Roommate requests
Hand-assignment process
Bio Sheets
Calling
Other Learning Communities
Tentative Assignments
Automated Assignments
Funding (1st Year) : Funding (1st Year) Split Funding
Res Life $38,500
Arts & Sciences $47,300
Salaries = 79% of budget
21 FIGs, 230 Students = $375/Student
Funding (2nd Year) : Funding (2nd Year) Split Funding
Chancellor $78,250 (50%)
Provost $39,100 (25%)
V.C.S.A. $39,100 (25%)
Salaries = 68% of budget
33 FIGs, 500 Students = $315/Student
FIGs Budget (6th Year) : FIGs Budget (6th Year) Split Funding
Chancellor $ 50,000 (11%)
Provost $100,000 (22%)
V.C.S.A. $100,000 (22%)
Residential Life $150,000 (33%)
Arts & Sciences $ 50,000 (11%)
Salaries = 88% of budget
79 FIGs, 1240 Students = $347/Student
For More Information: : For More Information:
Academic/Faculty
Ted Tarkow, Associate Dean, College of Arts & Sciences – TarkowT@missouri.edu
Res Life Overview
Frankie Minor, Director of Residential Life MinorF@missouri.edu
PA’s, Proseminar & Overall Nitty Gritty
Andrew Beckett, Coordinator, FIGs Program BeckettA@missouri.edu
FIGs Home Page http://www.missouri.edu/~figwww/
Outcomes : Outcomes Quantitative
Qualitative
Contributions to Student Success : Contributions to Student Success Involvement in campus and community activities
Higher participation rates in leadership positions and campus activities
Increased participation in in-hall study groups and increased satisfaction with group work
Better academic performance
Increased academic achievement for all abilities
Encouraging data on improved graduation rates
More frequent interaction with faculty and peers
Greater academic focus
Greater career focus
Deep, lasting friendships built around common interests
Slide84 : Had significantly higher levels of involvement, interaction, integration and gains in general education than did students in traditional residence halls.
Reported greater gains in general education associated with cultural arts, interaction with peers and the intellectual content of their interactions
Reported higher levels of institutional commitment
College Student Experience Questionnaire
FIG Students first year
College Student Experience Questionnaire: Long Term Effects (freshmen to sophomore year) : College Student Experience Questionnaire: Long Term Effects (freshmen to sophomore year) Perceived gains in general education: non-fig students “catch up” their second year
FIG students “maintain” their lead as far as use of library
FIG Students widen their lead as far as their participation in clubs and organizations
National Survey of Student Engagement : National Survey of Student Engagement Provide support to succeed academically
LC 3.06 Traditional 2.69
Entire educational experience
LC 3.24 Traditional 2.99
Start over at same institution
LC 3.40 Traditional 3.14
Freshman Survey Data (CSEQ) : Freshman Survey Data (CSEQ) Factor FIGs L.C. FTC
Faculty-Student Interaction 2.50 2.09 2.00
Academic Integration 2.79 2.85 2.72
Social Integration 2.98 2.96 2.89
Perceived Quality 3.22 3.23 3.18
Institutional Commitment 3.12 3.08 3.01
Intent to Persist 3.84 3.89 3.75
FIG Students: : FIG Students: Experienced intellectual development strongly related to two integration measures – involvement in residence halls and interaction with faculty.
Were retained in the residence halls (up to 10%) and at the institution (87% vs. 82%) in significantly greater percentages than non-participants
Students in FIGs binge drink less frequently than non-FIG students
Students are more engaged in the academics (NSSE)
Winter Semester Co-enrollment : Winter Semester Co-enrollment
FIG Students: : FIG Students: Had significantly higher levels of involvement, interaction, integration and gains in general education than did students in traditional residence halls.
Reported greater gains in general education associated with cultural arts, interaction with peers and the intellectual content of their interactions
Were retained in the residence halls and at the institution in significantly greater percentages than non-participants.
FIG Students: : FIG Students: Experienced intellectual development strongly related to two integration measures – involvement in residence halls and interaction with faculty.
Preliminarily appear to graduate in significantly higher percentage than non-participants.
Reported higher levels of institutional commitment
Slide93 : Academic Performance
FIGs FIGs+LC F.T.C.
Predicted GPA 2.87 2.87 2.75
Actual GPA 3.02 3.04 2.81
Residual GPA .15 .18 .06
Academic Performance* Minority Students : Academic Performance* Minority Students FIGs L.C. F.T.C.
African-American 2.82 2.26 2.25
All Minority 2.97 2.46 2.35 * Controlled for Entering Academic Ability
Retention at : Retention at FIGs L.C. F.T.C.
Fall - Winter 95.6% 99.6% 91.1%
Fall - Fall 87.1% 89.1% 81.5%
Freshman Survey Data : Freshman Survey Data Factor FIGs L.C. FTC
Faculty-Student Interaction 2.50 2.09 2.00
Academic Integration 2.79 2.85 2.72
Social Integration 2.98 2.96 2.89
Perceived Quality 3.22 3.23 3.18
Institutional Commitment 3.12 3.08 3.01
Intent to Persist 3.84 3.89 3.75
Timeline : Timeline October, 1994 - Vice Chancellor and 2 Faculty visit Univ. of Washington
November, 1994
Res Life asked to respond and to develop initial outline
First planning committee meeting
January, 1995 - Rough Outline of Program
(courses, proseminar, P.A. position, halls assessment)
Timeline (cont.) : Timeline (cont.) February, 1995
Recruit Peer Advisors
Refine Program Outline
March, 1995
Housing contracts mailed to students
Preliminary floors/houses identified
FIGs booklet sent with letter from Chancellor
Timeline (cont.) : Timeline (cont.) June, 1995
Housing tentative assignments mailed
Summer Welcome (orientation & registration), schedule
July, 1995
Request for changes accommodated when possible
Final assignments sent
Timeline (cont.) : Timeline (cont.) August, 1995
P.A.’s write FIG-ees
P.A.’s return early for training (meeting w/ faculty)
FIG-ees (and all students) arrive
Information session for FIG-ees
Classes begin