CADENCE

Quality Enhancement Plan, 2021–2026
CADENCE:
Connect → Assess → Develop → Engage →
Navigate → Create → Excel
Chief Executive Officer: Glenda Baskin Glover,

Ph.D., J.D., C.P.A.,
President
Accreditation Liaison: Charlise Anderson, Ed.D.,

Managing Executive Director,
Institutional Effectiveness,
Research, Planning, and
Assessment
Onsite Visit: March 16–18, 2021

Tennessee State University
Quality Enhancement Plan
CADENCE
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary 1
II. Process Used to Develop the QEP 4
III. Identification of the Topic 17
Coordinated Care 18
Individualized Advising 20
Navigable Educational Pathways 21
Career Development 21
Engagement 22
IV. Intended Outcomes 24

V. Literature Review and Best Practices 30
VI. Actions to be Implemented 36
Initiative 1: Institutionalize an Advising Coordinated Care Network 37
Initiative 2: Publish and Maintain Comprehensive Advising Resources Online 38
Initiative 3: Utilize Technology for Individualized Advising and Career Development 39
VII. Timeline 42
VIII. Organizational Structure 45
IX. Resources 48
X. Assessment 50
XI. References 56
Appendices 61
CADENCE
I. Executive Summary
Tennessee State University’s 2021–2026 Quality Enhancement Plan – titled CADENCE

(Connect → Assess → Develop → Engage → Navigate → Create → Excel) – seeks to promote
student success through holistic, integrative advising, including improved utilization of
academic and student support resources and the integration of educational and career
planning.
The challenge identified and addressed by CADENCE is the need to improve student access
to and utilization of existing programs and resources. The University’s advising, career
development, and academic and student support programs share notable strengths –
including capable leadership, qualified and dedicated staff, and the use of innovative
technology – but the full effectiveness of these services is limited by insufficient
coordination in a complex institutional environment that can be difficult for students to
navigate.
CADENCE addresses this challenge by implementing an expanded concept of academic

advising that goes beyond course selection and registration, providing coordinated support
for students in the major educational decisions and activities essential for their success.
Emphasizing factors of student success identified by the scholarship of academic advising
and other higher education research, CADENCE focuses on ensuring that students connect
with institutional resources early in their matriculation, develop an educational plan,
engage purposefully in curricular and co-curricular opportunities, and apply educational
experiences toward life and career goals.
For students, for advisors, and for the University, the word CADENCE is intended to
communicate this holistic, integrative vision of advising and student development both as
an acronym and as a metaphor.
As an acronym, CADENCE stands for vital steps in a student’s educational journey that are
supported by effective advising:
• Connect with advisors, faculty members, support services, and peers.

• Assess personal interests, values, strengths, and goals.
• Develop a personal educational plan.
• Engage purposefully in courses and co-curricular activities.
• Navigate opportunities, challenges, and choices.
• Create a career profile presenting experiences, accomplishments, and abilities.
1
CADENCE
• Excel in professional achievement, service, and lifelong learning.
As a musical metaphor, the word CADENCE communicates for students the plan’s vision of
education as a personal, dynamic, sequenced, and goal-directed processes. For the
University, the word CADENCE, connoting an ensemble in time and in sync, reflects the
plan’s emphasis on connection, communication, and coordination among units.
Holistic advising is widely recognized as vital to student success but has proved challenging
to implement in practice. CADENCE seeks to make this advising model an institutional
reality through three principal initiatives:
1. Institutionalize an advising Coordinated Care Network.
The Coordinated Care Network is a networking model for advising and student
support developed by the Education Advisory Board (EAB) and supported at its
member institutions by the advising platform EAB Navigate.
Building on the University’s current use of EAB Navigate, CADENCE institutionalizes

and expands the University’s Coordinated Care Network, deepening its connection
of advising, academic, and student support units. CADENCE provides an ongoing
leadership structure for the Coordinated Care Network through the CADENCE
Steering Committee and promotes its effectiveness through regular professional
development and through technical training and support.
2. Publish and maintain comprehensive advising resources online.
CADENCE recognizes the critical importance of comprehensive, current, and

accessible advising resources for the effectiveness of the Coordinated Care Network
and for the successful participation of students in educational planning, co-
curricular engagement, and other components of the plan.
CADENCE provides for the collection, review, and publication of existing advising
resources in a single online location during the first year of implementation
followed by the regular review, revision, and expansion of these resources. New
advising resources planned as a part of CADENCE include timelines – modeled in
part on EAB’s Experiential Major Maps – identifying opportunities for engagement
and career development at specific milestones during a student’s matriculation.
2
CADENCE
3. Utilize technology for individualized advising and career development.
CADENCE seeks to realize for students the full benefits of three technology
platforms already operational and in use at the University: EAB Navigate, “Tiger
Print” (Anthology Engage), and Handshake.
CADENCE envisions the expanded use of EAB Navigate as a primary resource of the
Coordinated Care Network in providing and documenting holistic, individualized
advising; the use of “Tiger Print” for documenting educational planning and co-
curricular engagement; and the use of Handshake for the creation and review of
student career profiles. The plan provides for student access to these platforms from
a single online location.
CADENCE recognizes advising as a teaching and learning process with a defined curriculum
and learning goals. CADENCE initiatives are designed to support students in developing
educational plans, based on defined personal and career goals, by the end of their first
semester, and in creating career profiles, drawing effectively on their educational
experiences, by the final semester of their degree program.
These educational plans and career profiles provide an opportunity for students to
demonstrate the achievement of CADENCE’s two stated learning outcomes:
1. Educational Planning
Students will be able to develop and utilize educational plans based on defined
personal and career goals.
2. Integration and Reflection
Students will be able to articulate and document the significance of curricular and
co-curricular experiences in the achievement of defined personal and career goals.
The first learning outcome is primarily captured in the first part of the CADENCE acronym
(Connect, Assess, Develop), with the second learning outcome reflected in the words of the
last four letters (Engage, Navigate, Create, Excel).
The assessment plan for CADENCE employs both direct and indirect methods in assessing
the achievement of these outcomes. Direct assessments include quantitative measures (the
3
CADENCE
number and percentage of students completing educational plans and career profiles) and
qualitative measures (the average scores achieved on rubrics evaluating the quality of
these artifacts). Indirect assessments analyze responses of first-year students and seniors,
respectively, to related survey items in the Advising Topical Module of the National Survey
of Student Engagement.
The development of CADENCE was guided by institutional research and strategic planning,
which have consistently identified the improvement of student retention, progression, and
degree completion as vital priorities. The campus-wide QEP topic proposal, review, and
selection process in 2018 and 2019 was informed by these priorities and specifically by the
University’s “Impact 2020” Strategic Plan, which emphasized the improvement of
graduation rates as its first goal. The University’s current Strategic Plan – “The Pathway to
Excellence 2025” – retains this emphasis on student success, reflected again in its first goal:
“Attract, prepare, and graduate scholars to change the world.” CADENCE aligns specifically
with two objectives (1.5 and 1.6) of the Strategic Plan that seek to strengthen student
support and engagement, respectively, in achieving this goal central to the mission of the
University.
II. Process Used to Develop the QEP
Leadership and Participation
Plans for the development of the University’s second QEP began with the constitution of a
QEP Topic Research Committee in November 2017 (Appendix 1).
In January 2018, the Topic Research Committee hosted a well-attended campus-wide

faculty and staff forum titled “Starting the QEP 2.0 Conversation” (Appendix 4).
The forum included a plenary session followed by breakout discussions. The plenary
session included an introduction to the concept and history of QEPs as a part of the
SACSCOC accreditation reaffirmation process, reflections by the director of the University’s
previous QEP, and information on “Using Our Institutional Research Resources” from the
Assistant Vice President for Effectiveness, Quality, and Assessment.
The forum’s breakout sessions included discussions of questions focused on the quality of
the University learning environment:
4
CADENCE
1. What enhancements of the learning environment at TSU would improve and enrich
your own work with our students most directly and significantly?
2. When you imagine an ideal learning environment for your work as a teacher, advisor,
and/or mentor in the future, what does this look like? How could a five-year QEP help
to realize some of this vision?
3. What areas of learning and ability would you value most as an employer of our
graduates? If considering our current graduates for employment or other opportunities,
where would you see strengths, and where would you see gaps?
4. Where are we serving the academic and career goals of our students well, and where
can we do better? What are the most significant barriers and challenges that our
students face academically? How can a QEP help our students to overcome these
barriers and meet these challenges?
5. What improvement initiatives have you seen or experienced elsewhere – or at TSU –

that you find inspiring and promising as a potential QEP focus? What are our best ideas
as higher education professionals, and how can we apply them to benefit our students
at TSU?
A more informed, individualized, and intentional approach to academic and student

support emerged as a priority concern in these breakout discussion sessions.
Faculty and staff members at the January 2018 forum were invited to submit short QEP
topic proposals during the spring term. Sixteen proposals (listed in Appendix 5) were
submitted and reviewed using an evaluation rubric (Appendix 4). The rubric included five
criteria: (1) Focus on Student Learning, (2) Scope, (3) Research (including relationship to
the University’s common Baccalaureate Learning Outcomes and Strategic Plan), (4)
Proposed Initiatives and Resources, and (5) Assessment Plan.
During the topic proposal period, members of the QEP Topic Research Committee engaged
with colleagues in their units and provided appropriate information as needed to support
the preparation of proposals. The Vice President for Student Affairs, who served on the
committee, also facilitated a discussion with student leaders in March 2018. This
discussion identified student onboarding, understanding of curricula, and earlier
connection to co-curricular opportunities as potential priorities.
5
CADENCE
In Summer 2018, two sets of proposals were recommended by the Topic Research
Committee for development into full QEP prospectuses. Two QEP prospectus writing teams
(Appendix 2) were commissioned to prepare these documents, which were written during
Fall 2018 and reviewed by the campus during Spring 2019.
The CADENCE prospectus later chosen as the basis for the QEP was developed from two
QEP topic proposals titled “Jump Start: Coordinated Care Network” and ““Teach
Competencies – The Skills for Students to Grow and Go.” The first proposal focused on
advising (freshmen and transfer students), learning communities linked to first-year core-
curriculum courses, and student transition to TSU. The second focused on early career
preparation and development for first-year and sophomore students through co-curricular
activities and infusing the career competencies into the academic curriculum. The
prospectus writing team comprised five members across divisions at the University
including academic and non-academic units. The team developed a QEP prospectus that
focused on enhancing: (1) student success through improved academic support, (2) career
development and readiness through targeted strategies for co-curricular advisement, and
(3) engagement to increase the overall retention, persistence, graduation, and job
placement rates.
The writing team summarized the development of the CADENCE prospectus as a three-step
process:
CADENCE Development Process

Merge the Two Proposals Develop the Topic Develop the Prospectus
Reviewed key components Discussed relative merits of Decided that cross-
of each proposal; discussed each proposal and functional collaboration and
options; and reviewed TSU conducted fact-finding incorporation are the crux
data to make informed activities; all decisions of the plan.
decisions. filtered through the lens of
viability.
The CADENCE QEP prospectus and a second prospectus on cultural competence and global
learning were published on the University’s internal network in Spring 2019, and the
faculty and staff were invited to complete a survey assessing each (Appendix 8). Based on
survey results and a review by the QEP Topic Research Committee, the Interim Vice
President for Academic Affairs selected the CADENCE prospectus as the basis for the
University’s QEP in 2019, and this decision was reaffirmed by the University President and
a new Academic Affairs administration in 2020 (Appendix 9).
6
CADENCE
A QEP Working Committee (Appendix 3) – comprising sixteen members from units in

Academic Affairs, Assessment and Accreditation, Enrollment Management, Student Affairs,
and Technology Services -- was formed at the beginning of the fall 2020 term to write a
QEP based on the CADENCE prospectus. During the remainder of 2020 and the first weeks
of 2021, the committee worked to bring greater focus to the plan, develop measurable
student learning outcomes, identify direct and indirect assessments, and ensure broad
participation in implementation. The working committee also recommended revising the
CADENCE acronym to focus on action verbs that align with student participation. A student
focus group affirmed this change as well as the direction of the plan.
The writing of the CADENCE prospectus, its review and selection, and its development into
the University’s 2021–2026 QEP were informed by institutional priorities reflected in the
University’s “Impact 2020” Strategic Plan and restated in “The Pathway to Excellence 2025”
Strategic Plan. The academic component of “Impact 2020” focused overwhelmingly on
retention, progression, and completion objectives, including the improvement of “advising
infrastructure,” and this emphasis continued in “The Pathway to Excellence 2025,” which
included two objectives aligned very closely with CADENCE:
1.5 Establish a comprehensive onboarding process inclusive of orientation, tutorial

support, advisement, registration, and other academic and student support services.
1.6. Provide students access to experiential learning, research, and engagement

opportunities.
CADENCE represents a primary strategy in the achievement of these two objectives.
Research
An important factor in the choice of the CADENCE prospectus as the basis for the
University’s 2021–2026 QEP was the quality of the institutional and external research
conducted by the prospectus writing team, which the QEP Working Committee continued
in the development of the QEP.
The external research supporting the development of CADENCE is included in Section V

(Literature Review and Best Practices). Internal research focused primarily on the analysis
of student success measures – drawing on state reports and data provided by the
7
CADENCE
Education Advisory Board (EAB) – and the results of the National Survey of Student
Engagement (NSSE).
The analysis of student demographic data and student success measures supported the
vital importance of holistic, individualized advising for the University’s student population.
The analysis of NSSE results – including survey results from the supplementary Advising
Topical Module administered in 2017 – strongly confirmed this need to improve advising
and suggested specific areas for focused attention.
According to Tennessee Higher Education Commission’s (THEC) annual fact book, TSU total
Fall 2018 enrollment comprised of 6,128 undergraduates, of whom 1,226 were FTF. 65% of
prior-year FTF had been retained from Fall 2017 to Fall 2018, and the institution’s six-year
graduation rate was 36.5%. Historically, TSU’s fall-to-fall retention rates and six-year
graduation rates have been below those of Tennessee’s other four-year universities
formerly governed by the Tennessee Board of Regents (TBR) and now designated as
Locally Governed Institutions (LGIs).
For Fall 2018, information provided through EAB allowed a closer analysis of key student
success indicators. Of 6,128 undergraduate students enrolled during this term, a significant
percentage were considered at-risk due to low high school GPAs, low ACT or SAT scores,
current institutional GPAs, course completion rates, and/or midterm grades.
Student data provided through EAB for this term showed that 36% of current students
received grades of D and/or F during midterms, 11% had a GPA below 2.0, and 14% had a
GPA between 2.0 and 2.5.
High percentages of students received final grades of F in Fall 2018. 32% of first-time
freshmen earned low grades, but 17% of juniors and 13% of seniors also received grades of
D or F, showing that the need for improved support and care was not limited to freshmen
and sophomores. 3,777 courses were dropped during this term.
8
CADENCE
Students Receiving Grades of D or F during Fall 2018
A comparison of high school and University GPAs for students enrolled in Fall 2018
supported the need for individualized advising support. TSU has a relatively high
percentage of admitted students with high school GPAs below the 2.5 threshold. In most
cases, students experience a slight drop in GPA in college compared to high school. Fall
2018 data confirmed this pattern for most TSU students but showed a GPA increase for
students who had a GPA of 3.5 or higher in high school. These distinctive trends reinforced
the need for differentiated, individualized advising and student support, with focused
attention to at-risk students.
9
CADENCE
High School GPAs of Enrolled Students, Fall 2018
High School and University GPAs of Enrolled Students, Fall 2018
The need to strengthen academic advising and student support was also reflected in the
percentage of first-time freshmen (Fall 2015 cohort) who had attained the University’s
progression benchmarks of 30, 60, and 90 hours in 2016, 2017, and 2018.
10
CADENCE
Progression Benchmarks, 2015–2017
Against the background of these student success indicators, results of the National Survey
of Student Engagement (NSSE) pointed specifically to the need to improve academic
advising and to strengthen the relationship of advising to goal-setting, planning, co-
curricular engagement, and career development.
In NSSE responses during the period from 2014 through 2017, first-year students
consistently rated their interactions with their academic advisor significantly lower than
seniors. In 2017, 35% of first-year students rated their interactions with their academic
advisor a 6 or a 7 on a scale of 1 to 7, compared with 51% of seniors. Both indicators, which
followed the pattern of previous years, pointed to significant needs for improvement.
11
CADENCE
Quality of Interactions with Academic Advisors, 2014–2017
Responses to survey items of the Advising Topical Module, administered in 2017, revealed
mostly minor differences in how first-year students and seniors viewed their interactions
with their advisors. The first Academic Advising question asked how often the student had
spoken with their advisor. Most first-year students (51%) said they had spoken with their
advisor once or twice, compared with 44% of seniors. Advisors are also expected to tell
their advisees about academic support options, like tutoring, or study groups. In 2017, 35%
of first- year students said their advisors did that very little or some, compared with 46% of
seniors. Advisors reached out to advisees about academic progress and performance
“Often” or “Very Often” according to 40% of first-year students and 36% of seniors.
Students were asked “During the current school year, which of the following has been your
primary source of advice regarding your academic plans. As indicated by the bar chart
below, academic advisors were not the primary source of advice for either first-year
students or seniors. First-year students relied on their own advisor (30%) or generally
available advisors (15%) as their main sources of information. For seniors, those numbers
were 35% and 10% for seniors. Seniors relied far more on informal advice from faculty
(24%) than did first-year students (12%).
12
CADENCE
Primary Source of Advice (% Using Either Assigned or Generally Available Advisor)
Three first-year students and four seniors mentioned using “other” sources as their
primary source of academic advising.
The survey asked students how often their advisor reached out to them during the current
school year (2016-2017). The graph below illustrates how often seniors and first-year
students report that their advisor never reached out to them.
Percent of Students Never Contacted by Academic Advisors, 2017
13
CADENCE
The following table summarizes responses to nine questions about the extent to which
academic advisors have: (1) “listened closely to concerns and questions.” (2) “been
available when needed,” (3) “provided useful information about courses,” (4) “informed of
important deadlines,” (5) “helped understand rules and policies,” (6) “helped with
academic difficulties,” (7)”informed of academic support options,” (8) “helped with
information on special opportunities,” and (9) “discussed career interests and post-
graduation plans.”
Academic Advising Components, 2017
These results indicate the perception that advisors not always available to help when
needed and reflect the need to improve advising specifically with reference to academic
support, special opportunities, and personal and career goals.
NSSE survey items measuring participation in High Impact Practices (HIPs) also suggested
the need to extend the concept of advising to include encouragement and support for these
activities. First-year students answered questions about participation in service learning,
learning communities, and research with faculty. Seniors had additional questions on field
experience/internships, study abroad, and culminating senior experiences.
14
CADENCE
NSSE data provided a snapshot of how often students participated in HIPs. The report
indicated the percentage of first-year students who participated in one HIP, or in two or
more HIPs. The data showed that 20% of first-year students did not participate in any HIPs.
Rate of Participation in HIPs
First-year students were asked about their intent to participate in three HIPs – study
abroad, internship or field experience, and a culminating senior experience like a senior
thesis or a capstone course. The following chart compares the percentage of first-year
students who expressed an intention of taking part in each HIP and the percentages of
seniors who reported enrollment in or completion in a HIP.
15
CADENCE
Intention and Actual Participation in HIPs, 2017
The NSSE surveys revealed some minor differences between what first-year students in
2014 reported they planned to do, and the rate at which seniors engaged in different HIPs
during their time at TSU. The comparison was potentially valuable because a majority of
the 2014 freshmen were seniors in 2017. The numbers provided an indication of the extent
to which students were supported in the achievement of their educational plans.
Planned versus Completed Participation in Selected HIPs:
16
CADENCE
Participation in learning communities dropped from 2014 to 2017 for seniors and for first-
year students. Participation in service learning by first-year students also dropped, from
82% in 2014 to 78% in 2017. Research with faculty for first-year students increased from
7% in 2014 to 10% in 2017. For seniors, the same remained consistent from 29% in 2014
to 30% in 2017.
Most first-year students who planned to complete a study abroad program did not
complete or participate in one. This reflected one part of a pattern evident when comparing
first-year students in 2014 with seniors in 2017. In 2014, 53% of first-year students
planned to take part in a “Culminating Senior Experience” and 45% of seniors in 2017 had
done so or were currently taking part in one. In 2014, 72% of first-year students planned to
complete an internship or field experience, while in 2017, 43% of seniors had done so or
were in a program when surveyed.
The internal research supporting CADENCE – including the composition of the University’s
undergraduate population, the analysis of student success measures, and the review of
survey results – contributed to a more accurate picture of the educational experiences of
the University’s students and affirmed the potential of holistic, integrative, individualized
advising to improve the quality, perceptions, and outcomes of this experience.
III. Identification of the Topic
The topic of CADENCE is holistic, integrative, and individualized advising. This advising
model acknowledges traditional distinctions in higher education – between academic and
career paths, between curriculum and co-curriculum, and among different university
divisions and units – but recognizes the primary importance of connections, rather than
distinctions, for student success. From the perspective of students, academic programs, co-
curricular opportunities, and career planning are part of a single educational path, and the
institutional environment is one university.
The title CADENCE captures its vision both as an acronym and as a metaphor.
As an acronym, CADENCE communicates the vital steps of a successful higher education

experience and the main goals of effective academic advising:
17
CADENCE
C Connect with advisors, faculty members, support services, and peers.
A Assess personal interests, values, strengths, and goals.
D Develop a personal educational plan.
E Engage purposefully in courses and co-curricular activities.
N Navigate educational opportunities, challenges, and choices.
C Create a career profile presenting experiences, accomplishments, and abilities.
E Excel in professional achievement, service, and lifelong learning.
The significance and resonance of CADENCE as a musical, marching band, and dance
metaphor is intended to communicate both to students and to the University as an
institution. For students, CADENCE evokes and affirms self-discovery and expression,
energy, movement, discipline, and purpose. A strong cadence resonates with and amplifies
the music of an internal voice and rhythm, providing pace, orientation, and connection.
This meaning of CADENCE is for students to hear their own voice, know where they are,
where they are moving, what the steps are, and when to take them.
For the University, CADENCE connotes an ensemble in time and in sync, reflecting the
plan’s emphasis on connection, communication, and coordination among units.
The core principles of CADENCE are: (1) coordinated care, (2) individualized advising, (3)
navigable educational pathways, (4) career development, and (5) engagement.
Coordinated Care
The innovative programs and novel approaches that are being used at TSU need to be
aligned to maximize success. At present, TSU uses a variety of programs related to student
care, but they need to be coordinated and evaluated. CADENCE addresses student success
18
CADENCE
through a Coordinated Care Network of professional advisors, faculty, and academic

coaches utilizing a comprehensive model that is uninform and intentional.
The University's current advising model involves professional and faculty advisors working
with students on an individual basis. First-time students are assigned to professional
advisors in the Academic Success unit during their first year and then transition to work
with faculty advisors in their major programs. Transfer and returning students with at least
60 credit hours are assigned to individual faculty advisors. Co-curricular and career
development resources and advising are not integrated consistently in this model.
The University’s adoption of EAB Navigate as an academic advising reporting and

networking platform has begun to bring academic support and student units together in
the shared use of this system. Areas currently linked by EAB include professional academic
advising, faculty advising, success coaching, and athletics. Expansion to include financial aid
and residence life is currently in progress. CADENCE will support the continued growth of
the Coordinated Care Network to other units and will ensure that the network is linked by
a common student success vision, a common advising philosophy, common resources, and
shared training and expertise.
CADENCE will provide comprehensive, current, recurring, and accountable training for all
members of the Coordinated Care Network. Training will focus on support for students in
the achievement of the two CADENCE student learning outcomes – (1) Educational
Planning and (2) Reflection and Integration – identified in Section IV below. This ongoing
emphasis on student outcomes will provide a consistent reference point and focus for
specific training topics and activities.
Within this framework, specific training programs will be designed with the support of
consultants and resources of the National Academic Advising Association (NACADA). The
NACADA consultants will assist in the design of the comprehensive training model, which
will focus on the informational and conceptual framework of advising and coaching. The
all-inclusive training will impact techniques, outcomes, advising theory, coaching theory,
and assessment. More specific topics will be prioritized based on a review of the current
advising structure and the identification of critical areas for improvement.
All training modules will be recorded and be made available for review as
needed. Recording the training modules will assist in creating systemic training and
onboarding process for new staff.
19
CADENCE
Training participants will be required to complete an assessment using the University’s

Learning Management System after each learning module, demonstrating they have
acquired the knowledge. The NACADA consultant will assist with creating rubrics to assess
the advisors’ knowledge base and their ability to transfer their learned knowledge to
students in their caseload. A further component in the evaluation of training will be
collecting student surveys to assess delivery. New modules will be developed based on
student evaluation and ongoing observation of student needs.
Individualized Advising
Student care is critical to student retention and eventual career success. Many of our
students arrive on campus with multiple unmet needs that include deficiencies in academic
preparation, emotional support, financial security, and/or socioeconomic stability. Many of
them are fragile with inadequate coping mechanisms, and one unplanned event -- such as a
family emergency -- can derail their college experience. Borrowing from innovative
approaches at universities such as Georgia State University, CADENCE supports the use of
analytics to identify known barriers and keep students on a successful path.
The population of students from disadvantaged backgrounds at TSU is considerable, and a

dynamic analytical program that serves as an early warning sign and galvanizes
appropriate support networks is critical to moving students forward toward graduation.
Successful institutions tailor their services to the unique needs of individual students.
Historically, colleges treated all students as essentially the same. This blanket approach
dictates all students have the same needs. TSU has a disproportionate number of at-risk
undergraduate students, but not all students have the same risk factors. Because TSU
serves a population with diverse needs, we must diversify our interventions.
EAB uses analytical data to identify student problems and challenges from the onset,
supporting advising based on distinct needs. Students entering college with the minimum
GPA, low ACT/SAT scores, and limited financial resources may need more coordinated
interventions than those with strong college preparation and financial support. First-Time
Freshmen (FTF) students on academic probation, upper-level students without internships
and/or research experience, and students who experience difficulty transitioning to college
life may require more focused academic coaching, whereas students maintaining a high
GPA and progressing toward degree completion within four years may require advising
with different priorities.
20
CADENCE
A tiered model will allow academic coaches to focus their efforts on the higher-need
populations while offering appropriate guidance and support to higher performing
students as needed.
Navigable Educational Pathways
Developing a one-stop shop for digital information can increase student access to
information critical to a holistic educational journey. Academic forms, such as advising,
change of major, substitution, course equivalency, and other institutional forms used at
TSU will be evaluated, redesigned, or digitized to foster ease of understanding and
functionality. Students receive general education (major specific) advising forms during
their first year at TSU while they receive a departmental advising form or graduation
checklist during their junior year. Using one digitized record accessible by the student,
advisors, and coaches reduces misinformation and promotes transparency. Collaboration
and communication between the professionals working with each student standardize a
consistent message to students at all stages of their development.
Career Development
CADENCE reflects a higher education paradigm change that fuses career development and
academic training, so that career development is integrated into the academic experience
from day one of a student’s matriculation. This entails engaging students in career-based
counseling and training throughout their academic coursework. CADENCE borrows from
best practices at other universities that have achieved substantial gains in student
completion. CADENCE recognizes the concerns about the return-on-investment of a costly
college education and develops a four-year program that integrates academic preparation
with career development. Career development must be embedded in all phases of academic
preparation to meet the needs of global employers and our students. Employers want to
hire graduates who have developed career-readiness competencies so that these graduates
can be successful in the workplace.
CADENCE supports more rigorous career exploration by major for freshmen who do not
know the types of careers associated with various majors. The Career Development Center
currently assesses students for career aptitudes through the Kuder Career Interests
Assessment, but faculty members and advisors typically do not have access to information
from these assessments. Faculty academic advising is largely divorced from career
advising. CADENCE seeks to better integrate the various tools currently used at TSU to
match student skills and abilities with career marketability. In addition, initiatives to
21
CADENCE
engage, inform, and communicate with faculty will empower them to be more involved in
the career development trajectory of students.
As students progress, more rigorous career preparation opportunities will be fostered

through experiential learning such as work study, internships, international study, and
community-based learning opportunities. CADENCE incorporates career development in
academic advising so that students can make meaning of their holistic educational plan –
including both curricular and co-curricular activities – and leave campus with a portfolio of
real-world experiences. Through participating in co-curricular activities such as
experiential learning programs, conferences, and research opportunities, students will
have a better understanding of their knowledge and skills and be equipped to navigate a
desired career path for themselves.
Engagement
Student engagement within the first three weeks of their first enrollment term is critical to
academic success. Students who engage at the onset of their academic career develop a
relationship and identification with the institution, acquire knowledge of campus
resources, and build a foundation for networking and participation in vital co-curricular
and career development opportunities.
Co-curricular activities connect academics and career readiness. Through co-curricular

activities, students learn about leadership, emotional intelligence, problem-solving, and
working with diverse groups of people. Students are encouraged to participate in activities
outside of the classroom. CADENCE utilizes “Tiger Print” (Anthology Engage) to help
students track co-curricular activities and to build a co-curricular transcript documenting
these and other key learning and qualifying experiences. The CADENCE co-curricular
transcript, although not an official University credential, provides structured
documentation of co-curricular engagement, learning, and reflection, providing an
important career self-advocacy resource for students. Employers who interview our
students for career opportunities are interested in hearing about our students’ experiences
in and out of the classroom. Developing a co-curricular transcript teaches and equips
students to articulate their leadership and professional skills.
Co-curricular activities that will enhance the student’s career readiness competencies and
can be tracked through co-curriculum transcripts include:
22
CADENCE
• Internships
Internships enhance career readiness competencies through training and guidance

in a real-world professional environment. This form of experiential learning
increases the student’s chances of becoming employed after graduation because of
the skills learned, relationships built, and experience acquired. Additionally, through
interning with a company, students can discover a desired career path.
• Conferences
Conferences such as the Thurgood Marshall Leadership Institute offer students the
opportunity to network with career professionals while learning communications,
leadership, and global/intercultural fluency. Conferences develop the ability of
students to network with people from different universities, backgrounds, and
beliefs.
• Student Organizations, Clubs, and Advisory Boards
Students who join organizations and clubs develop soft skills by learning to work in
teams, solving problems effectively, interacting with a diverse group of people.
Many of the situations that students face in student organizations, they will face in
the workforce, such as being patient with a peer or working on multiple events
simultaneously. Student organizations offer a variety of ways for students to
develop into good leaders.
• Global Experiences
Global experiences at the University have traditionally been understood as study

abroad, but this definition is expanding to encompass a much wider range of
opportunities. Study abroad and other international education experiences open the
door for students to gain global or intercultural fluency. International internships,
whether at home or abroad, can link these experiences directly to career outcomes
for our students. Global experience can lead to global employment Institutions are
broadening the definition of global experience to reflect global learning that
includes cultural and social differences that appear in their local campuses and
communities. Students can gain global experience through general education
courses focused on a global perspective. The American Association of Colleges &
Universities (AAC&U) has affirmed a concept of international education recognizing
23
CADENCE
that global learning can happen anywhere and must happen on domestic campuses
as well as abroad (Nair & Henning, 2017).
IV. Intended Outcomes
Goal
The goal of CADENCE is to promote student success through holistic advising, improved
utilization of academic and student support resources, and the integration of educational
and career planning.
Student Learning Outcomes
The advising concept of CADENCE is an “advising as teaching and learning” model that
frames advising as an educational experience and student success as a product of student
learning.
The student learning outcomes of CADENCE are:
1. Educational Planning
Students will be able to develop and utilize educational plans based on defined
2. Integration and Reflection
Students will be able to articulate and document the significance of curricular and
co-curricular experiences in the achievement of defined personal and career goals.
The first learning outcome is primarily captured in first part of the CADENCE acronym
(Connect, Assess, Develop), with the second learning outcome reflected in the words of the
last four letters (Engage, Navigate, Create, Excel).
CADENCE learning outcomes complement the University’s five Baccalaureate Learning

Outcomes (Communication, Inquiry and Reasoning, Broad Knowledge of the Human and
Natural World, Specialized Knowledge and Skills, and Applied Knowledge and Skills) by
24
CADENCE
equipping students to develop and reflect on these competencies in the context of their
CADENCE includes analytical rubrics specifying criteria and levels of achievement for both
of its learning outcomes. In addition to their role in assessment, the rubrics serve as
learning resources and will be promoted to students, faculty, and advisors online and
emphasized in training, advising, and teaching.
CADENCE introduces and develops Learning Outcome 1 (Educational Planning) during the
first semester through new student orientation activities, the University’s required “Service
to Leadership” orientation course (UNIV 1000), and professional advising. CADENCE builds
on a career assessment and goal setting module in UNIV 1000, expanding, reinforcing, and
documenting this process in the context of advising. Students will demonstrate their
achievement of CADENCE’s Educational Planning learning outcome through the completion
of an educational planning form and successful, self-directed curriculum planning, and
registration for appropriate second-term courses.
CADENCE develops Learning Outcome 2 (Integration and Reflection) through ongoing

advising and career counseling. EAB Navigate and “Tiger Print” (Anthology Engage) will
document activities supporting this learning outcome. Students will demonstrate
achievement through the quality of resumes, online career profiles in Handshake, and
completion of a form including reflections on their educational and career development
experiences.
CADENCE includes analytical rubrics specifying criteria and levels of achievement for both
of its learning outcomes. The rubrics serve as learning resources and will be promoted to
students, faculty, and advisors online and emphasized consistently in training, advising,
and teaching.
25
CADENCE
CADENCE Rubric 1: Educational Planning
Artifacts: Educational Plan, Course Registration and Enrollment, Co-curricular Enrollment
Criterion Proficient Meets Expectations Needs Improvement Beginning or Not Evident

Goal ☐4 points ☐3 points ☐2 points ☐1 point
Development
The educational plan The educational plan The educational plan The educational plan does
presents clearly defined presents short-term and presents goals, career not present goals
short-term and long-term long-term goals supported information, and a supported by career
goals. Identified goals are by career research and a statement of personal research and a statement
supported by thorough clear articulation of interests, values, and/or of personal interests,
career research and personal interests, values, strengths. The plan may values, and strengths.
exploration and by an and/or strengths. require more precise
assessment of personal definition of goals and/or
interests, values, and evidence of thorough
strengths. career research and
personal reflection.
Curricular ☐4 points ☐3 points ☐2 points ☐1 point
Planning
includes a complete includes a complete includes a curriculum plan, not include a complete
curriculum plan. The curriculum plan. The but the timeline and/or curriculum plan
curriculum plan presents curriculum plan presents a sequence of courses supporting defined
an achievable timeline for timeline and appropriate presented may not reflect a educational goals.
program completion and sequence of courses for sufficiently informed
reflects an informed program completion. understanding of the
selection of appropriately Current course enrollment curriculum. The plan may
sequenced courses based and registration are require significant revision
on defined educational consistent with the to be achievable and/or to
goals. Current course curriculum plan. support defined
enrollment and educational goals. Current
26
CADENCE

registration are consistent course enrollment and
with the curriculum plan. registration may not be
consistent with the
curriculum plan.
Co-curricular ☐4 points ☐3 points ☐2 points ☐1 point
Planning
includes engagement in co- includes engagement in co- includes planned co- not include co-curricular
curricular opportunities curricular opportunities curricular engagement but engagement supporting
and expressly relates these that support defined needs to relate selected co- defined educational goals.
to defined educational educational goals. Selected curricular activities more
goals. Selected co- co-curricular activities and directly to defined
curricular opportunities the planned level of co- educational goals and the
support and integrate with curricular commitment are student's curriculum.
the student's curriculum appropriate for the Current co-curricular
plan, and the planned student's curriculum. engagement may not be
commitment level is Current co-curricular consistent with the plan.
appropriate. Current co- engagement is consistent
curricular engagement is with the plan.
consistent with the plan.
Rubric Score: ____
27
CADENCE
CADENCE Rubric 2: Reflection and Integration
Artifacts: Handshake Profile, Co-curricular Transcript, Transcript

Reflection ☐4 points ☐3 points ☐2 points ☐1 point
and
Integration: The profile and supporting The profile and supporting The profile presents The profile does not
Curriculum documents effectively documents satisfactorily knowledge and skills present substantial and
present knowledge and present career-related developed in the degree specific career-related
skills developed in the knowledge and skills program but does not knowledge and skills
degree program, including developed in the degree sufficiently demonstrate developed in the degree
both general and program. the relationship of these program.
specialized competencies. competencies to
The profile demonstrates educational and career
integrative learning with goals.
an emphasis on formative,
career-related experiences
and the achievement of
educational goals.
Reflection ☐4 points ☐3 points ☐2 points ☐1 point
and
Integration: The profile and supporting The profile and supporting The profile presents The profile does not
Co- documents effectively documents satisfactorily knowledge and skills present substantial and
curriculum present knowledge and present career-related developed through co- specific career-related
skills developed through knowledge and skills curricular engagement but knowledge and skills
co-curricular engagement. developed through co- may not sufficiently developed through co-
The profile demonstrates curricular engagement. demonstrate the curricular engagement.
integrative learning with relationship of these
an emphasis on formative, competencies to
career-related experiences educational and career
goals.
28
CADENCE

and the achievement of
educational goals.
Career ☐4 points ☐3 points ☐2 points ☐1 point
Application
The profile and supporting The profile and supporting The profile draws on The profile does not
documents effectively documents satisfactorily educational experiences meaningfully apply
apply educational apply educational and qualifications in the educational experiences
experiences and experiences and pursuit of defined career and qualifications to the
qualifications to the qualifications to the goals but may not pursuit of defined career
pursuit of defined career pursuit of defined career sufficiently demonstrate goals.
goals. The profile goals. self-advocacy, awareness
demonstrates capable self- of employer expectations,
advocacy, an awareness of job-related research,
employer expectations, and/or professional
specific job-related communication.
research, and professional
communication.
Rubric Score: ____
29
CADENCE
The CADENCE Assessment Plan detailed in Section X below includes direct and indirect
assessment of both learning outcomes. The plan provides for the direct assessment of the
learning outcomes using the rubrics above, each of which identifies three criteria and four
levels of attainment. The indirect assessment component uses survey items from the
recently updated Advising Topical Module of the National Survey of Student Engagement
(Appendix 10). These survey items address the extent to which advising has supported
first-year students and seniors, respectively, in the achievement of their educational and
career goals.
V. Literature Review and Best Practices
The goals and strategies of CADENCE are supported by the scholarship of advising, by
models presented in numerous advising-focused QEPs, and by research available to the
University as a member of EAB. These sources inform the concept of academic advising
that CADENCE seeks to institutionalize, the plan’s integrative vision, and the steps
proposed for its implementation.
Academic Advising Concept
Higher education research in recent decades has promoted the recognition of academic
advising as a developmental process vital to student success and intrinsic to the
educational mission of colleges and universities. This philosophy of academic advising
emerged beginning in the early 1970s and was presented in contrast to an understanding
of advising as an important but peripheral support service focused primarily on course
selection and registration.
Writing for the Journal of College Personnel in 1972, Burns B. Crookston characterized
conventional approaches to advising as “prescriptive” and proposed – as expressed in the
title of the article – the alternative of “a developmental view of advising as teaching.”
Crookston’s article identified ten dimensions of advising (abilities, motivation, rewards,
maturity, initiative, control, responsibility, learning output, evaluation, and relationship)
and listed elements of “prescriptive” and “developmental” advising side by side with
reference to these dimensions. Comparing the two approaches, Crookston argued for the
greater benefits of “developmental” advising in centering the student, building trust,
promoting collaboration, supporting mature decision making, and encouraging personal
growth (Crookston, 1972).
30
CADENCE
The features of Crookston’s “developmental” advising model are evident in much of the
extensive scholarship of academic advising published since, including key recommended
advising practices. Walter Earl, for example, drew on Crookston’s framework when
introducing the term “intrusive” (now “proactive”) advising in 1987. “Intrusive” advising
emphasizes the responsibility of advisors to take initiative in identifying and addressing
the academic needs of students rather than awaiting self-referrals. Earl argued that this
advising practice combined both “prescriptive” and “developmental” approaches, utilizing
the advisor’s knowledge and expertise while also addressing student needs holistically
(Earl, 1987). Crookston’s “developmental” approach is even more evident in the concept of
“appreciative” advising. Introduced in 2002 by Jennifer L. Bloom and Nancy Archer, this
practice employs David Cooperrider and Diana Whitney’s four “appreciative inquiry”
phases (discovery, dream, design, and destiny) as an intentionally positive and affirming
framework for academic advising (Bloom & Archer, 2002). The positive outcomes of
“proactive” and “appreciative” advising are now well established. Miller and Irons (2014)
suggest that “proactive” advising is more beneficial when engaging with high-need
students, while the “appreciative” advising model focuses on enhancing a student’s
strengths. The two advising models can also be applied together or interchangeably based
on students’ needs.
The most significant elaborations and applications of Crookston’s concept of “academic

advising as teaching” are more recent. The title of a 2005 article by Marc Lowenstein in the
NACADA Journal asked, “If advising is teaching, what do advisors teach?” Noting that
Crookston left this question largely unanswered, Lowenstein suggested that the learning
goal of academic advising was the ability of the student to comprehend the curriculum:
I suggest that an excellent advisor does the same for the student’s entire
curriculum that the excellent teacher does for one course. … Learning
transpires when a student makes sense of his or her overall curriculum just
as it does when a person understands an individual course, and the former is
every bit as important as the latter. In fact, learning in each individual course
is enhanced by the learning of the curriculum, and thus may continue long
after the course has been completed. Finally, whereas the individual course is
the domain of the professor, the overall curriculum is most often the domain
of the academic advisor, and the excellent advisor coaches the student
through the process of learning the curriculum (Lowenstein, 2005, p. 65).
The NACADA “Concept of Academic Advising” (2006) is also situated squarely within the
framework of “academic advising teaching.” In addition to its preamble and summary, the
31
CADENCE
NACADA concept comprises three sections: (1) “The Curriculum of Academic Advising,” (2)
“The Pedagogy of Academic Advising,” and (3) “Student Learning Outcomes of Academic
Advising.” The statements on pedagogy and learning outcomes are intended as a
framework for approaches specific to individual institutions. The section on curriculum
expands on Lowenstein’s definition and explicitly includes elements such as the vision of
higher education, the institutional environment, the role of the co-curriculum, and the
development of personal goals:
The curriculum of academic advising ranges from the ideals of higher

education to the pragmatics of enrollment. This curriculum includes, but is
not limited to, the institution’s mission, culture and expectations; the
meaning, value, and interrelationship of the institution’s curriculum and co-
curriculum; modes of thinking, learning, and decision-making; the selection
of academic programs and courses; the development of life and career goals;
campus/community resources, policies, and procedures; and the
transferability of skills and knowledge (National Academic Advising
Association, 2006).
Although proactive, developmental, inquiry-based, and pedagogical approaches to

academic advising have been established in both scholarship and professional standards
for many years, the application of these approaches cannot be assumed in practice. Like
conventional lecturing pedagogy – characterized by Alison King as “the sage on the stage”
(King, 1993) – transactional approaches to advising are rejected in theory but are also
widely in evidence.
Integration of Academic and Career Advising
The integration of academic and career advising presents one of the most promising paths
to protecting and improving student-centered advising in the current higher education
environment. Writing for New Directions in Higher Education in 2018, Joseph Lynch and
Tracy Lungrin argue that this integration helps to preserve quality, individualized advising
amidst time-to-degree and other pressures while also better promoting overall academic
success. Observing that advisors in an environment focused on completion goals “may run
the risk of returning to a more task-oriented or prescriptive approach,” Lynch and Lungrin
call for early and sustained attention to career development as a fundamental component
of holistic advising (Lynch & Lungrin, 2018).
32
CADENCE
Lynch and Lungrin explore four practical dimensions of integrating academic and career
advising: (1) differences between faculty and professional (“primary-role”) advising
models, (2) training and professional development, (3) the creation of networks, and (4)
expected student learning outcomes. Lynch and Lungrin recognize value of both faculty and
“primary-role” advising models, emphasize the importance of a “strong investment in
structured and continual advisor training” (referring to the resources of NACADA and
NACE) in both cases, and recommend “referral technology and online note-taking systems”
in the creation of advising networks. Significantly, they caution against assessment based
primarily on enrollment statistics and instead recommend assessment based on advising
learning outcomes. The learning outcomes recommended by Lynch and Lungrin are: (1)
career exploration and goal setting based on self-assessment, (2) participation in
experiential learning, (3) the ability to reflect on and assess learning, and (4) the ability to
describe and present the acquisition of skills (2018).
The challenges facing higher education in preparing students for careers are also the
subject of extensive scholarly research. According to a 2017 Strada-Gallup study of 32,000
randomly selected college students, only one third believed they would graduate with the
skills to be successful in the job market (Gallup & Strada, 2017). The National Association
of Colleges and Employers (NACE) has also surveyed college students and employers and
found large gaps between student perceptions and employer perceptions of career
readiness. According to NACE (2018), students tend to have higher perceptions of their
own readiness than employers. CADENCE recognizes both the general career development
challenges facing higher education and the more specific obstacles affecting many TSU
students.
Co-curricular engagement and engagement in High Impact Practices (HIPs) are vital in
overcoming these challenges and obstacles and improving retention, persistence, and
career readiness. The concept of “extra-curricular” activities has increasingly given way in
higher education to an understanding of the centrality of co-curricular engagement to
student learning. To encourage and document this comprehensive approach to learning,
many institutions have begun to explore the creation of expanded transcripts that present
career-relevant experiences and skills obtained through both the curriculum and the co-
curriculum (Fain, 2015; Mangan 2015). The co-curricular transcript is an effective
approach to tracking the leadership, team-building, and other career skills that students
learn through their co-curricular experiences outside of the classroom. Learning these
skills and competencies often complement the classroom experience.
33
CADENCE
Numerous resources explore the similarities and differences between “career counseling”
and “career advising.” Spencer Niles and JoAnn Harris-Bowlsbey (2012) describe career
counseling as “a formal relationship in which a professional counselor assists a client, or a
group of clients, to cope more effectively with career concerns (e.g., making a career choice,
coping with career transitions, coping with job-related stress, or job searching).” Virginia
Gordon (2006) notes that career counseling differs from career advising because it is more
psychological and problem-focused and defines career advising as a process “which helps
student[s] understand how their personal interests, abilities, and values might predict
success in the academic and career fields they are considering and how to form their
academic and career goals accordingly” (p. 12).
The integration of academic and career advising has particular relevance for African
American and first-generation students. The ACT report on The Condition of College and
Career Readiness (2014) found that African American students have made substantial gains
over the years in academic performance and attainment. However, the college readiness of
these students is still behind the preparedness of many other groups. The majority of TSU
undergraduate students are African American, and many have substantial academic
challenges upon enrollment. In addition, a high percentage of TSU enrollees are first-
generation college students. In the First Generation and Continuing-Generation College
Students: A Comparison of High School and Postsecondary Experiences (2017) report
released by The National Center for Education Statistics, there is a 44-percentage point
difference in bachelor’s degree completion rate between first-generation students and
continuing-generation students. Institutions serving these groups face challenges in raising
completion rates.
Implementation Models
In addition to the review of scholarly literature and recent advising-focused Quality

Enhancement Plans, the example Roane State Community College (RSCC) in Tennessee has
provided an important model for CADENCE’s training model and curriculum. RSCC coaches
receive a three-month, intensive training designed to address the critical needs that
students will face during their matriculation. The coaches are empowered by increased
knowledge of institutional programs, processes, and departments that benefit and affect
their students. RSCC created a Success Coach program geared toward assisting students in
everything from admissions to academics, from career counseling to financial aid (Fowler,
2016).
34
CADENCE
More broadly, CADENCE draws on practical research provided by the Education Advisory
Board (EAB) to its members. EAB regularly publishes “Student Success Case Studies” and
other research that promote its products and services in the context of innovative projects
and practices among its member colleges and universities. As indicated below, institutions
using EAB have reported: (1) increased tuition revenue, (2) increased graduation,
retention, and persistence rates, and (3) improved academic progress and performance.
Four-year Institutions – Return on Investment Following Implementation of EAB
Increased Tuition Revenue
Georgia State University $3M additional tuition revenue
Eastern Kentucky University $1.67M additional tuition revenue
Middle Tennessee State University $1.5M additional tuition revenue
University of Tennessee at $556K additional revenue from tuition and

Chattanooga fees
Increased Graduation, Retention, and Persistence
University of South Alabama 12% point improvement in retention rate
California State University, 11% point increase in six-year graduation

Fullerton rate
Middle Tennessee State University 10.8% point of increase in freshman retention

rate
Virginia Commonwealth 8% point of increase in four-year

University graduation rate
Improved Academic Progress and Performance
University of Central Missouri 45% increase in first-year students earning

30+ credits
Clayton State University 14% increase in attempted summer credit

hours
35
CADENCE
Public University in the Pacific 7% decrease in time to degree for full-time

Northwest freshmen
Georgia State University 8 fewer credit hours at completion on

average
As reflected in the list above, EAB’s “Student Success Case Studies” emphasize progression
and completion outcomes, but the integration of advising and career development has also
become a significant component of its student success concept and an important focus in its
work. In 2017, the Academic Affairs Forum of EAB published an extensive (184-page)
guide, titled Integrating Academic and Career Development, presenting many practical
strategies that inform the initiatives of CADENCE.
VI. Actions to be Implemented
The implementation of CADENCE includes three principal initiatives that work together to
move the University from more conventional, one-on-one, prescriptive advising practices
toward a team-based, holistic, and adaptable model that meets the individual needs of
students, equips them to navigate the University environment independently, and supports
them in their personal and career goals.
These three initiatives include: (1) establishing and institutionalizing a Coordinated Care
Advising Network across academic and student support services; (2) publishing and
maintaining current advising resources in a central online location; and (3) utilizing
technology to enhance advising through analytics, the tracking of co-curricular
experiences, and career development.
Initial implementation of these initiatives – focused on the creation of structures,

resources, and processes – occurs in Year 1, with some elements extending into Year 2.
Ongoing implementation includes the strengthening, institutionalization, and refinement of
the initiatives and generally occurs in Years 2–5.
The impact of each initiative will be measured with reference to the CADENCE Assessment
Plan (Section X). The data provided by the Assessment Plan includes the number and
percentage of students completing key advising and career development processes
(educational plans, co-curricular transcripts, and career profiles), and the plan also
evaluates and monitors the quality of the artifacts documenting these processes. The
Assessment Plan also provides for the annual surveying of students regarding the amount
36
CADENCE
and quality of advising support provided in support of their academic and career goals. The
effectiveness of CADENCE initiatives will be tracked and monitored with reference to these
measures for both first-year and senior students.
Initiative 1: Institutionalize an Advising Coordinated Care Network
While there are several programs and offices connecting with students during their
matriculation, consistency and collaboration are vital to eliminating obstacles and
confusion students may face while seeking assistance at TSU.
The first initiative of CADENCE is therefore the implementation of a Coordinated Care

Network. EAB defines a Coordinated Care Network as an entity that allows any team to
support students on their path to graduation via customized appointment scheduling,
reporting, and data access to assist with decision support (2018).
The CADENCE Coordinated Care Network is a student support system including

professional advisors, faculty advisors, and career counselors and potentially extending to
other academic and student support personnel. The purpose of the network is to aid
students in academics, advising, career readiness, mentoring, and wellness. It will provide
wrap-around services that create an intricate safety net for the TSU student.
To centralize the institution’s decentralized student support services, intensive training is

needed. Training will consist of cross-training faculty and staff on key processes affecting
the student experience. Creating a one-stop shop professional trained to meet the diverse
needs of students will benefit faculty, staff, and students.
Initial Implementation (2021–2022)
During Year 1, the CADENCE Director and Steering Committee will confirm the initial
membership of the Coordinated Care Network, develop training resources, and begin
training for all Coordinated Care Network members.
The training curriculum will include critical information familiarizing participants with
institutional processes affecting students from onboarding through graduation. Building on
the current training curriculum for Academic Success Advisors, it will also be informed by
best practices and current trends in academic advising and academic coaching.
37
CADENCE
As detailed in Section III above, training curriculum subjects will include financial aid,
registration process, student records, general education, academic departments, adult
learning, transfer process, major exploration, emotional intelligence, and cultural
competence. Training resources and tools will be accessible electronically for all trainees.
An evaluation and certification process will ensure that participants have mastered the
information and met the goals of the training.
Ongoing Implementation (2022–2026)
During the summer semesters of Year 2 through 5, the CADENCE Director and Steering
Committee will develop a comprehensive training model to address changing processes,
new programs, changing climate, and trends affecting student success, as well as updating
training materials.
Initiative 2: Publish and Maintain Comprehensive Advising Resources Online
Information critical to student success is distributed at present across a range of websites

at the University, and this information is not consistently current. This presents obstacles
and challenges for both students and advisors.
The second initiative of CADENCE addresses this longstanding issue through the regular
review, revision, and development of essential advising information and the publication of
this information to a central online location in an attractive, accessible, and user-friendly
format.
One model among many for this initiative is the One Stop Student Services website of the
University of Minnesota: https://onestop.umn.edu/
During Year 1, the CADENCE Director and Steering Committee will lead the Coordinated
Care Advising Network in the review of current advising resources, the revision or redesign
of these resources as needed, and the development of new resources. This work may be
supported by consultants.
Existing advising resources and recommended new resources include:
38
CADENCE
Current Resources New Resources

• Program Degree Maps • Advising Manual and Curriculum
• Academic Success Center Forms • Advising Syllabi
• Academic Success Center Training • New Student Orientation Syllabus
Documents • Advising Checklists
• Records Office Forms • Experiential Major Maps
• Career Development Resources
Experiential Major Maps are a resource recommended by the EAB. These maps identify key
steps and transition points in onboarding, matriculation, and program completion. In
addition to curricular information (e.g., registration, program admission, and application
for graduation), the University’s maps will also indicate dates for initial career assessment,
resume completion, creation of online career profiles, and other career development
milestones.
By the end of Year 1 the CADENCE Director and Steering Committee will work with the
University webmaster to create a one-stop website presenting updated and new advising
and academic success resources in a single online location.
During the fall semester of Year 2, the CADENCE Director and Steering Committee will
develop an annual calendar for the review and updating of advising resources. This
calendar will guide the ongoing implementation of Initiative 2.
Initiative 3: Utilize Technology for Individualized Advising and Career Development
Traditional advising consisted of the following dimensions: (1) exploration of life goals, (2)
exploration of vocational goals, (3) program choice, (4) course choice, and (5) scheduling
courses (O'Banion, 1994). This one-size-fits-all model no longer satisfies students’ needs.
As TSU strives to improve student experience while increasing retention, persistence, and
graduation rates, we must create an advising model addressing the deficits of our
population while building on their strengths.
The University’s current onboarding processes and advising models are not sufficiently
customized to the widely ranging needs and goals of our diverse student population.
Onboarding and advising practices currently distinguish among students primarily by
39
CADENCE
admission type, selected major (if applicable), and standardized test scores. Initial advising
may include more in-depth assessment of students’ needs, interests, and career goals, but
this is not a major component in the current design of onboarding and advising processes.
The third initiative of CADENCE addresses this gap through the utilization of three
information technology platforms.
The first platform is EAB Navigate, which is already in use by all Academic Student Success
Center advisors and several academic departments. EAB Navigate promotes more
individualized and effective advising through analytics identifying strengths, challenges,
and risks for specific students and through an online information and documentation
system that supports collaborative team approaches to advising. The case management
advising model facilitated by EAB assists in serving a population with diverse needs and
facilitates targeted interventions to aid in student success. Using EAB analytical data to
identify student problems and challenges creates a level of care customized according to a
student’s need.
The second platform is “Tiger Print” (Anthology Engage), currently used in the University’s
Student Affairs Division for promoting, managing, and tracking student organization
membership and participation. CADENCE will expand the use of this platform to support
and document educational planning, curricular and co-curricular engagement (including
undergraduate research, internships, and study abroad), and reflection. The goal setting
and planning facilitated by the platform create an additional layer of understanding the
uniqueness of an individual student.
The third platform is Handshake, already actively supported by the University’s Career
Development Center, promoted by advisors, and used by a significant number of students.
Approximately 40% of seniors have active Handshake accounts. CADENCE builds on the
existing use of this system to ensure that students begin developing Handshake profiles
early in their matriculation and can effectively use this system to present career-relevant
educational experiences and pursue professional opportunities.
During Year 1, the CADENCE Director and Steering Committee will work with academic
units and Technology Services to ensure that all professional and faculty advisors are
correctly identified and associated with assigned advisees in the Banner student
information system.
40
CADENCE
The CADENCE Director and Steering Committee will also ensure that all members of the
Coordinated Care Network have appropriate levels of access to EAB Navigate, “Tiger Print,”
and Handshake.
The use of EAB in Year 1 will include implementation of the case management advising
model, targeted communications to students by Career Development staff, and
documentation of career advising for all entering first-year and transfer students.
Professional advisors will collaborate with the coordinator for UNIV 1000 to ensure that
personal goal setting and career development activities in this course are included in
regular advising appointments. “Tiger Print” will be used for maintaining documentation of
these activities (resumes, educational plans, and career assessment results).
The CADENCE Director and Steering Committee will continue to work each semester with
academic units Technology Service to ensure that advisor information in the Banner
student information system is current and that all members of the Coordinated Care
Network have appropriate levels of access to EAB, “Tiger Print,” and Handshake.
41
CADENCE
VII. Timeline
Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Task 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025 2025-2026 Person(s) Responsible
#
Sum Fall Spr Sum Fall Spr Sum Fall Spr Sum Fall Spr Sum Fall Spr Sum Fall Spr
1 Identify Coordinated Steering Committee
Care Network units.
Create and implement a
Coordinated Care
Network policy and
procedure.
2 Review, assess, and Steering Committee
revise Coordinated Care
Network policy and
procedure
3 Hire CADENCE Provost
Director and support
staff.
4 Form an EAB leadership CADENCE Director and
committee to integrate Steering Committee
system institution-wide.
5 Train faculty, staff and CADENCE Director, Steering
coordinated care units on Committee and EAB
EAB. Administrator
6 Review, assess, and CADENCE Director, Steering
revise EAB training as Committee and EAB
needed. Administrator
7 Develop and Implement CADENCE Director, Steering
Experiential Major Map. Committee, and Director of
Career Services
8 Develop and update a CADENCE Director
comprehensive advising
model to include a
manual, curriculum and
syllabus. Create advising
rubric and advising pre-
and post-assessments.
9 Review, assess, and CADENCE Director
revise advising model,
advising rubric, and
42
CADENCE

#
advising pre-and post-
assessments as needed.
10 Implement intensive CADENCE Director, Steering
training model for Committee, and Director of
advisors. Career Services
11 Review, assess, and CADENCE Director, Steering
revise training model as Committee, and Director of
needed. Career Services
12 Collaborate with the CADENCE Director
coordinator for UNIV
1000 to establish and
review advising modules
in the course.
13 Implement features CADENCE Director, Steering
supporting CADENCE Committee and University
in “Tiger Print.” webmaster
14 Develop and implement CADENCE Director, Steering
a one-stop website. Committee and University
webmaster
15 Update and maintain CADENCE Director, Steering
one-stop website. Committee and University
webmaster
16 Develop an annual CADENCE Director and
calendar for the review Steering Committee
and updating of advising
resources.
17 Assess current university CADENCE Director and
programs used to Steering Committee
promote student success.
18 Finalize timeline for CADENCE Director, Steering
CADENCE and metrics Committee and Director of
for assessments. Institutional Planning
19 Monitor all initiatives CADENCE Director and
using appropriate Steering Committee
performance metrics.
20 Assess program CADENCE Director and
performance and student Steering Committee
learning outcomes
annually, documenting
43
CADENCE

#
the use of results.
Prepare and submit
annual assessment
reports.
21 Conduct formative CADENCE Director and
macro-assessment of Steering Committee
CADENCE initiatives
and outcomes, making
adjustments as
appropriate. Include
macro-assessment in
annual assessment
report.
22 Conduct summative CADENCE Director and
macro-assessment and Steering Committee
prepare the QEP Impact
Report for submission to
the SACSCOC in March
2026.
44
CADENCE
VIII. Organizational Structure
As a QEP focused on student learning and learning outcomes, CADENCE will be housed
within Academic Affairs under the direct supervision of the Provost and the Chief of Staff to
the Provost.
The CADENCE budget provides for the appointment of a full-time CADENCE Director and
full-time administrative assistant. The CADENCE Director and the Director of the Academic
Success Center will be responsible for the implementation and assessment of CADENCE
with the support of a CADENCE Steering Committee, including the directors of participating
academic and student support units and representatives of the faculty. The Steering
Committee will provide the leadership and accountability structure for the CADENCE
Coordinated Care Network.
Key roles and areas of responsibilities include:
Role Areas of Responsibility

CADENCE Director Leadership of CADENCE implementation among the units
of the Coordinated Care Network. Regular convening of
CADENCE Steering Committee. Coordination of
communication and collaboration among participating
units in implementation. CADENCE promotion. Adherence
to timeline. Data collection, assessment, and reporting.
Academic Success Center Leadership of CADENCE implementation within the
Executive Director Academic Success Center. Collaboration with the CADENCE
Director in the design and delivery of training for other
Coordinated Care Network units (faculty and student
support services). Management of advising referral
technology (EAB Navigate).
CADENCE Administrative Office management and administrative support for the
Assistant CADENCE Director.
CADENCE Steering Representation of Coordinated Care Network units in the

Committee oversight of CADENCE implementation. Leadership of
CADENCE participation in units represented. Collaboration
with the CADENCE Director and representatives of other
units in the oversight of CADENCE implementation and the
recommendation of improvements.
Director of Advisement and Integration of CADENCE principles, strategies, and
Student Transitions initiatives in the supervision, training, and evaluation of
advisors/coaches.
Advisors/Coaches Integration of CADENCE initiatives in advising.
Communication and development of CADENCE Student
45
CADENCE
Learning Outcomes. Support for students in the

development of educational plans, co-curricular
transcripts, and career profiles. Participation in CADENCE
professional development.
Faculty Advisors and Participation in CADENCE Coordinated Care Units,
Student Support Staff including training, the development and use of shared
advising resources, and support for students in the
achievement of CADENCE student learning outcomes.
The following chart presents the proposed CADENCE leadership and organizational
structure:
46
CADENCE
47
CADENCE
IX. Resources
Proposed Budget
Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total

(2020 - (2021 - (2022 - (2023 - (2025 - (2026 -
2021) 2022) 2023) 2024) 2026) 2027)
Personnel/Fringe $60,000 $344,250 $344,250 $344,250 $344,250 $344,250 $1,781,250

Equipment, $15,000 $25,000 $17,500 $17,500 $17,500 $17,500 $110,000
Supplies,
and Printing
Professional $20,000 $50,000 $30,000 $45,000 $30,000 $30,000 $205,000
Development/
Training
Website $3,000 $10,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $25,000
Development/
Maintenance
Travel $- $45,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $35,000 $140,000
Assessment $7,500 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $107,500
(General)
Assessment $- $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $50,000
(Qualitative)
Total $105,500 $504,250 $444,750 $459,750 $444,750 $459,750 $2,418,750
Personnel (New Positions)
CADENCE Director: This position will be full-time and will include primary
responsibility for the leadership of CADENCE in collaboration with the Academic
Success Center Director. The estimated 12-month salary is $75,000 (plus
$26,250 in fringe benefits) beginning summer 2021. The cost over five years is
$506,250.
Academic Success Advisors (5): These five positions will be full-time at 100% effort
towards CADENCE. The estimated 12-month salary per position is $45,000 for a
total of $180,000 (plus $63,000 in fringe benefits) beginning summer 2021. The
cost for the Academic Success Advisors over five years is $1,215,000 (total for
four roles).
Administrative Assistant: This position will be full-time at 100% effort toward

CADENCE. The estimated 12-month salary is $32,000 (plus $11,200 in
fringe benefits) beginning Summer 2021. The cost for the CADENCE
Administrative Assistant over five years is $216,000.
48
CADENCE
Personnel (Existing, Independently Funded Positions)
CADENCE Steering Committee: Leaders and representatives of Coordinated Care

Network units.
Academic Student Success Center Director (1), Director of Advising (2), and
Advisors (12)
Career Development Center Director (1) and Coordinator (1)
Faculty/Program Advisors (approximately 60)
Equipment, Supplies, and Printing
Equipment: Technology (computers, laptops, printers, etc.)

Supplies: General Operating supplies
Printing: (newsletters, flyers, etc.)
$15,000 year 0; $25,000 year 1; $17,500 year 2; $17,500 year 3; $17,500 year 4, and
$17,500 year 5. Total $110,000.
Professional Development
Programs and Training

$10,000 year 0; $40,000 year 1; $20,000 year 2; $35,000 year 3; $20,00 year 4, and $20,000
year 5. Total $145,000.
Travel: Travel supporting participation in conferences and other professional development

$45,000 year 1; $20,000 year 2; $20,000 year 3; $20,00 year 4, and $35,000 year 5. Total
$140,000.
Website Development/Maintenance
Website Development/Maintenance:
$3,000 year 5. Total $25,000.
Assessment (General)
Assessment Instruments: Assessment tools and instruments will be purchased

over the implementation period, including the Advising Topical Module of the
National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)
$20,000 and year 5. Total $107,500.
49
CADENCE
Assessment (Qualitative)
Reviewers for the Qualitative (Rubric-based) Assessment of CADENCE Artifacts

$10,000 year 1; $10,000 year 2; $10,000 year 3, $10.000 year 4, and $10,000 year 5. Total
$50,000.
X. Assessment
The CADENCE Assessment Plan is based on the University’s Institutional Effectiveness

model, which includes a seven-step assessment cycle:
This assessment cycle will occur annually in accordance with the University’s assessment
calendar. Annual assessments reports will document assessment results, analysis, and the
use of results for improvements.
The CADENCE Assessment Plan additionally includes formative macro-assessment at the

end of Years 2 and 4 and summative assessment in Year 5. Formative assessments in Years
2 and 4 will inform potential adjustments to CADENCE initiatives and effectiveness
measures.
50
CADENCE
The CADENCE Assessment Plan applies both direct measures (quantitative and qualitative
evaluation of educational plans and reflections) and indirect measures (analysis of survey
results) in evaluating the achievement of its student learning outcomes.
Direct Assessments
Direct assessments apply analytical rubric scoring to artifacts or sets of artifacts for each
learning outcome. The primary artifact for the assessment of Student Learning Outcome 1
is an educational plan completed during a student’s first semester. The primary artifacts for
the assessment of Student Learning Outcome 2 are the career profiles and co-curricular
transcripts of graduating seniors. The CADENCE rubrics identify three criteria and four
attainment levels for the assessment of each CADENCE learning outcome.
The direct assessments will require sampling within the population of students admitted as
either first-time freshmen (FTF) or transfer students with fewer than 60 credit hours (T1).
Although CADENCE potentially benefits all undergraduate students, FTF and T1 students –
who have direct contact with professional advisors and coaches during the onboarding
process and will participate more fully in CADENCE – are appropriate subjects for the
assessment of the plan’s effectiveness. Due to the size of this cohort and the complexity of
the assessment metrics, a random sample of this population will be selected. The sample
size n will be no less than 100 and will also comprise at least 10% of the total population.
This sample will allow for true representation of the total population.
Indirect Assessments
Each learning outcome will also be assessed indirectly using Item 4 and Item 5 of the
Advising Topical Module of the National Survey of Student Engagement (Appendix 10).
Item 4 addresses “how often” students have received advising in five domains: (1)
“academic goals and future plans,” (2) the relationship of the major to these goals and
plans, (3) “special opportunities” including high impact educational practices, (4) co-
curricular engagement, and (5) support resources for the health, psychological, and
financial well-being. The indirect assessment measure related to Item 4 is the percentage of
responses of “often” or “very often” averaged for all five of these domains.
Item 5 addresses “how much” specific individuals or groups have “helped you develop your
academic goals and future plans.” The eleven listed individuals or groups include: (1)
assigned advisors, (2) generally available advisors, (3) faculty “not assigned to advise you,”
51
CADENCE
(4) online systems, (5) published resources, (6) student support services, (7) a success
coach, (8) a peer “advisor or mentor,” (9) friends and fellow students, (10) family, and (11)
others. The indirect assessment measure related to Item 5 is the percentage of responses of
“quite a bit” or “very much” averaged for assigned advisors, online systems, published
resources, and student services staff.
The following table present the first three assessment steps of the assessment cycle for
each CADENCE outcome, including measurement tools and initial benchmarks for both
direct and indirect assessment.
52
CADENCE
Student Learning Outcome Measurement Tool Criteria for Success/ Performance

Target
Student Learning Outcome 1: Direct Assessments Direct Assessments
Educational Planning
1. Quantitative analysis of the percentage of Year 1 (2021–2022)
Students will be able to develop and utilize new students (FTF and T1) completing
educational plans based on defined personal educational plans during the first semester 1. 90% of new students (FTF and T1) will
and career goals. of matriculation. complete educational plans during the first
semester of matriculation.
2. Rubric scoring of educational plans.
Evaluation will include comparison of The establishment of this benchmark was
educational plans with current course informed by course completion rates for the
registration and enrollment and with co- University’s orientation course – Service to
curricular enrollment. Leadership (UNIV 1000) – which is required of
FTF and T1 students and supports CADENCE
The rubric is included in Appendix 12. career assessment, goal setting, and
educational planning components. Completion
Indirect Assessments rates for Fall 2018 and Fall 2019 were 88%
and 83% respectively.
1. First-year student responses to Items
4a–4e of the Academic Advising Topical
2. 80% of sampled educational plans will
Module of the National Survey of Student
obtain a total rubric score of 9 (“Meets
Engagement.
Expectations”).
2. First-year student responses to Items 5a,
5d, 5e, and 5f of the Academic Advising Year 1 assessment results will inform
Topical Module of the National Survey of performance targets for Year 2.
Student Engagement.
Survey items are included in Appendix 13.
Year 1 (2021–2022)
1. 43% of first-year students will indicate that

advisors and others provided support with
53
CADENCE

Target
reference to Items 4a–4e “often” or “very
often.”
This performance target is derived from the

2020 national average for these survey items.
2. 33% of first-year students will indicate that

advisors and others identified in Items 5a, 5d,
5e, and 5f helped “quite a bit” or “very much”
in the development of goals and plans.

Year 1 assessment results will inform

performance targets for Year 2.
Student Learning Outcome 2: Direct Assessments Direct Assessments
Integration and Reflection
1. Quantitative analysis of the percentage of Year 1 (2021–2022)
Students will be able to articulate and graduating seniors, admitted as FTF or T1,
document the significance of curricular and co- completing co-curricular transcripts and 1. 30% of seniors admitted as FTF or T1 and
curricular experiences in the achievement of career profiles. graduating in May 2022 will complete co-
defined personal and career goals. curricular transcripts and career profiles.
2. Rubric scoring of co-curricular
transcripts and career profiles. This benchmark was established in
consultation with the Career Development
The rubric is included in Appendix 12. Center, which affirmed 30% as an appropriate
criterion with reference to the current
Indirect Assessments percentage of seniors with active Handshake
accounts. The percentage of seniors with
1. Senior responses to Items 4a–4e of the active Handshake accounts in Spring 2021 was
54
CADENCE

Target
Academic Advising Topical Module of the 39.9%, a smaller portion of which represent
National Survey of Student Engagement. full Handshake profiles.
2. Senior responses to Items 5a, 5d, 5e, and 2. 80% of sampled co-curricular transcripts
5f of the Academic Advising Topical Module and career profiles will obtain a total rubric
of the National Survey of Student score of 9 (“Meets Expectations”).
Engagement.
Survey items are included in Appendix 13. performance targets for Year 2.
Year 1 (2021–2022)
1. 39% of seniors will indicate that advisors

and others provided support with reference to
Items 4a–4e “often” or “very often.”

2. 32% of seniors will indicate that advisors

and others identified in Items 5a, 5d, 5e, and 5f
helped “quite a bit” or “very much” in the
development of goals and plans.


performance targets for Year 2.
55
CADENCE
XI. References
Literature
Ambrose, G. A., & Chen, H. L. (2015). 360° folio networking: Enhancing advising
interactions and expanding mentoring opportunities with ePortfolios. Theory Into
Practice, 54(4), 317–325.
Ambrose, G. A., Martin, H. E., & Page Jr., H. R. (2014). Linking advising and e-portfolios for
engagement: design, evolution, assessment, and university-wide
implementation. Peer Review, 16(1), 1–8.
American College Testing. (2014). The condition of college & career readiness 2014. Iowa
City: Author.
Buyarski, C. A., Aaron, R. W., Hansen, M. J., Hollingsworth, C. D., Johnson, C. A., Kahn, S.,
Landis, C. M., Pedersen, J. S., & Powell, A. A. (2015). Purpose and pedagogy: A
conceptual model for an ePortfolio. Theory Into Practice, 54(4), 283–291.
Campbell, S. M., & Nutt, C. L. (2008). Academic advising in the new global century:
Supporting student engagement and learning outcomes achievement. Peer
Review, 10(1), 4–7.
Carey, S. J. (2008). From the editor. Peer Review, 10(1), 3.
Clydesdale, T. T. (2016). The purposeful graduate: Why colleges must talk to students about
vocation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Crookston, B. B. (1972). Developmental view of academic advising as teaching. Journal of

College Student Personnel, 13, 12–17.
Drake, J. K. (2013). Academic advising approaches: strategies that teach students to make the
most of college. (First edition.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dyce, C. M. & Albold, C. & Long, D. (2013). Moving from college aspiration to attainment:
Learning from one college access program. The High School Journal 96(2), 152-165.
56
CADENCE
Education Advisory Board (2017). Integrating academic and career development: strategies
to scale experiential learning and reflection across the curriculum. Washington, DC:
Author.
Education Advisory Board (2020). Student success case study compendium highlighting 21
institutions that improved outcomes to deliver a return on education for their
students. Washington, DC: Author.
Fain, P. (2015, July 13). Beyond the transcript. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/07/13/project-create-models-
broader-form-student-transcript.
Fowler, B. (2016, September 21). Roane State success coaches offer extensive mentorship
for students. Retrieved from https://www.roanestate.edu/?10684-News-Roane-
State-Success-Coaches-offer-extensive-mentorship-for-students.
Freeman, L. C. (2008). Establishing effective advising practices to influence student

learning and success. Peer Review, 10(1), 12–14.
Gallup & Strada Education Network. (2017). 2017 College student survey: A nationally
representative survey of currently enrolled students. Retrieved from
https://news.gallup.com/reports/225161/2017-strada-gallup-college-student-
survey.aspx
Gordon, V. N. (2006). Career advising: An academic advisor's guide. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Hudzik, J. K. (2011). Comprehensive internationalization: from concept to action.

Washington, DC: NAFSA: National Association of International Educators.
Hughey, K. F., Nelson, D. B., Damminger, J. K., & McCalla-Wriggins, B. (Eds.). (2009). The
handbook of career advising. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass and the National Academic
Advising Association.
King, A. (1993). From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College Teaching, 41(1), 30-35.
57
CADENCE
Lowenstein, M. (2005). If advising is teaching, what do advisors teach? NACADA

Journal, 25(2), 65–73.
Magolda, M. B. B., & King, P. M. (2008). Toward reflective conversations: An advising

approach that promotes self-authorship. Peer Review, 10(1), 8–11.
Mangan, K. (2015, July 15). Making transcripts more than ‘a record of everything the
student has forgotten. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from
https://www.chronicle.com/article/making-transcripts-more-than-a-record-of-
everything-the-student-has-forgotten
Miller, R. L., & Irons, J. G. (Eds.) (2014). Academic advising: A handbook for advisors and
students. Volume 1: Models, students, topics, and issues. Retrieved from the Society for
the Teaching of Psychology website: http://teachpsych.org/ebooks/academic-
advising-2014-vol1
National Academic Advising Association. (2006). NACADA concept of academic advising.

Retrieved from https://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Pillars/Concept.aspx
National Association of Colleges and Employers. (2018, February 19). Are college graduates
“career ready”? Retrieved from https://www.naceweb.org/career-
readiness/competencies/are-college-graduates-career-ready/
Nair, I., & Henning, M. (2017). Models of global learning. Washington, DC: Association of
American Colleges & Universities.
Niles, S. G., & Harris-Bowlsbey, J. E. (2012). Career development interventions in the 21st
century. (Fourth edition.) New York, NY: Pearson Education.
O’Banion, T. (1994). An Academic Advising Model. NACADA Journal,14 (2), 10-16.
Pedescleaux, D. S., Baxter, G., & Sidbury, C. (2008). Transforming learning: academic
advising at Spelman College. Peer Review, 10(1), 24–26.
Redford, J., & Hoyer, K. M. (2017). First generation and continuing-generation college
students: A comparison of high school and postsecondary experiences. Washington,
DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
58
CADENCE
Steingass, S. J., & Sykes, S. (2008). Centralizing advising to improve student outcomes. Peer
Review, 10(1), 18–20.
Studley, J. S. (2016). Career readiness meets institution-wide outcomes measures. NACE

Journal, 76(4), 30–33.
Sullivan-Vance, K. (2008). Reenvisioning and revitalizing academic advising at Western

Oregon University. Peer Review, 10(1), 15–17.
Tennessee Higher Education Commission. (n.d.) 2017–2018 Tennessee Higher Education

Fact Book. Nashville, Tenn.: Author.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.
(Second edition.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Walters, G. (2016). Developing competency-based advising practices in response to

paradigm shifts in higher education. NACADA Journal, 36(1), 66–79.
Ward, C., & Moser, C. (2008). E-Portfolios as a hiring tool: Do employers really
care? EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 31(4), 13–14.
Workman, J. L. (2015). Exploratory students’ experiences with first-year academic advising.

NACADA Journal, 35(1), 5–12.
Quality Enhancement Plans
Albany State University, “Guiding Persistence to Success (#GPS),” 2021.
Alvin Community College, “Success Through Engaged Advising,” 2020.
Central Carolina Community College, “MAP: My Academic Pathway,” 2017.
Centenary College of Louisiana, “Foreword! (Integrated Advising),” 2019.
Christian Brothers University, “Make the Connection: Improving Academic Advising at

CBU,” 2010.
59
CADENCE
Delgado Community College, “The RIGHT Path: Realistic Individual Goals Happen Through
Advising,” 2015.
Eastern Shore Community College, “Advising GPS: Go, Plan, Succeed,” 2018.
Georgia State University, “College to Career: Career Readiness Through Everyday

Competencies,” 2019.
McNeese State University, “Navigate Your Future,” 2017.
Northwestern State University, “Academic and Career Engagement (ACE),” 2008.
Polk State College, “Explore to Complete,” 2020.
Rockingham Community College, “Student Success Through Orientation, Advising, and

Relationships (SOAR at RCC),” 2013.
Santa Fe College, “Navigating the College Experience,” 2012.
Talladega College, “Advancing Academic Advisement,” 2019.
Thomas Nelson Community College, “Plan Now. Succeed Now. Advising to Empower
Student Success,” 2015
University of Dallas, “Discern, Experience, Achieve: Preparing for Life and Work in a
Changing World,” 2014.
University of North Georgia, “On Time and On Target,” 2016.
Virginia Highlands Community College, “SOAR: Strengthening Orientation, Advising and

Retention,” 2008.
60
CADENCE
Appendix 1: QEP Topic Research Committee, 2017–2019

Name University Position/Role Email
Dr. Catherine Assistant Professor, Department of Civil carmwood@tnstate.edu

Armwood and Architectural Engineering
Dr. Ronald Interim Dean, College of Health Sciences rbarredo@tnstate.edu

Barredo
Dr. Pamela Burch- Assistant Vice President for Effectiveness, psims@tnstate.edu

Sims Quality, and Assessment
Dr. Joel Dark, Associate Dean, College of Liberal Arts jdark@tnstate.edu

Chair
Dr. Fadi Fawaz Assistant Professor, Department of ffawaz@tnstate.edu

Economics and Finance
Dr. Tracey Ford Vice President for Student Affairs tford14@tnstate.edu
Dr. Samantha Interim Chair, Department of Languages, scurtis@tnstate.edu

Morgan-Curtis Literature, and Philosophy
Dr. John Robinson Professor, Department of Biological jrobinson@tnstate.edu

Sciences
Dr. Cheryl Seay Director, Distance Education and cseay1@tnstate.edu

Multimedia Services
Dr. Kimberly Assistant Professor, Department of Social ktriplett@tnstate.edu

Triplett Work and Urban Studies
Dr. Thurman Assistant Professor, Department of twebb8@tnstate.edu

Webb Psychology
Dr. De’Etra Young Assistant Professor, Department of dyoung23@tnstate.edu

Agricultural and Environmental Sciences
61
CADENCE
Appendix 2: QEP Prospectus Writing Teams, Fall 2018

QEP Writing Team I - Global Learning and Intercultural Competency
Name University Position/Role
Dr. Jill Anderson Associate Professor, Department of Languages, Literature, and

Philosophy
Dr. Courtney Nyange Associate Professor, School of Nursing
Dr. Roxane Pajoul Assistant Professor, Department of Languages, Literature, and

Philosophy
Dr. Jewell Winn Executive Director, Office of International Affairs
Dr. De’Etra Young Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural and

Environmental Sciences
QEP Writing Team II – Transitions for Success
Name University Position/Role
Ms. Kimi Bonner Director of “Sixty to Success” (S2S) Initiative, Title III Programs
Dr. Kenneth Chilton Associate Professor, Department of Public Administration
Dr. Tracey Ford Vice President, Division of Student Affairs
Ms. Tina Reed Associate Director, Career Development Center
Dr. Tamara Rogers Associate Professor, Department of Computer Science
Ms. Tiffany Steward Assistant Vice President, Division Enrollment Management and
Student Success
62
CADENCE
Appendix 3: QEP Working Committee, 2020–2021

Dr. Charlise Managing Executive Director, cander57@tnstate.edu

Anderson Office of Institutional Effectiveness,
Research, Planning, and Assessment
Ms. Kimi Interim Executive Director, Student kbonner7@Tnstate.edu

Bonner, Co- Success, Division of Academic Affairs
chair
Ms. Emily Career Coordinator, Career ebriggs1@tnstate.edu

Briggs Development Center
Dr. Elizabeth Associate Professor, Department of ebrown2@Tnstate.edu

Brown Public Health, Health Administration,
and Health Sciences
Ms. LaTonnsya Assistant Dean of Student Conduct, lburney@Tnstate.edu

Burney Division of Student Affairs
Dr. Joel Dark, Associate Dean, College of Liberal Arts jdark@tnstate.edu

Co-chair
Ms. Antoinette Associate Director, Career aduke2@Tnstate.edu

Duke Development Center
Ms. Isabelle Program Coordinator, “Sixty to ilangham@Tnstate.edu

Langham Success” (S2S) Initiative, Title III
Programs
Mr. Karl Applications Director, Office of Karl.Lehenbauer@Tnstate.edu

Lehenbauer Technology Services
Dr. Tyrone Interim Associate Director, University tmiller11@tnstate.edu

Miller Honors College
Dr. Samantha Interim Dean, College of Liberal Arts scurtis@Tnstate.edu

Morgan-Curtis
63
CADENCE
Appendix 3: QEP Working Committee, 2020–2021

Dr. Evelyn Associate Vice President, Division of enettles1@Tnstate.edu

Nettles Academic Affairs
Dr. Sharon Executive Director of Institutional speters@Tnstate.edu

Peters Planning and Program Review, Office
of Institutional Effectiveness, Research,
Planning, and Assessment
Dr. Cara Chief of Staff, Office of the Provost and crobin22@Tnstate.edu

Robinson Vice President for Academic Affairs
Dr. Erik Director, Center for Service Learning ESCHMELLER@Tnstate.edu

Schmeller and Civic Engagement
Dr. Carjamin Director of Admissions and cscott39@tnstate.edu

Scott Recruitment, Division of Enrollment
Management
64
CADENCE
Appendix 4: “Starting the QEP 2.0 Conversation” Forum, January 2018
Starting the QEP 2.0

Conversation
Tuesday, January 9, 9:00-11:00 a.m.
Performing Arts Center
E.T. Goins Recital Hall (Room 174)
All faculty and staff are encouraged to participate in this

campus-wide forum exploring potential topics for our second
SACSCOC Quality Enhancement Plan.
Please click here to register.
Further information and ongoing updates on the development of

TSU’s 2020-2025 QEP are available at www.tnstate.edu/qep.
65
CADENCE
Starting the QEP 2.0 Conversation

E.T. Goins Recital Hall (PAC, Room 174)
Tuesday, January 9, 2018, 9:00-11:00 a.m.
Plenary Session
Welcome and QEP Overview Dr. Joel Dark
Reflections on QEP 1.0 Dr. Samantha Morgan-Curtis
Using Our Institutional Research Resources Dr. Pamela Burch-Sims
Comments and Questions Dr. Joel Dark
Orientation for Smaller Group Meetings
Group Meetings
Group Number Facilitators Room

1 Dr. Armwood and Dr. Triplett 176
2 Dr. Barredo and Dr. Fawaz 177
3 Dr. Burch-Sims and Dr. Robinson 178
4 Dr. Dark and Dr. Seay 208
5 Dr. Ford and Dr. Webb 210
6 Dr. Morgan-Curtis and Dr. Young 285
66
CADENCE
Starting the QEP 2.0 Conversation

Questions for Consideration/Discussion
1. What enhancements of the learning environment at TSU would improve and enrich your own
work with our students most directly and significantly?
2. When you imagine an ideal learning environment for your work as a teacher, advisor, and/or
mentor in the future, what does this look like? How could a five-year QEP help to realize
some of this vision?
3. What areas of learning and ability would you value most as an employer of our graduates? If
considering our current graduates for employment or other opportunities, where would you
see strengths, and where would you see gaps?
4. Where are we serving the academic and career goals of our students well, and where can we
do better? What are the most significant barriers and challenges that our students face
academically? How can a QEP help our students to overcome these barriers and meet these
challenges?
5. What improvement initiatives have you seen or experienced elsewhere – or at TSU – that you
find inspiring and promising as a potential QEP focus? What are our best ideas as higher
education professionals, and how can we apply them to benefit our students at TSU?
67
CADENCE
QEP 2.0 Small Group Session Report

Group #: ________
Discussion Facilitator: __________________________________
Name Check the boxes below if you would like

to be contacted for a follow-up meeting
or regarding the development of a QEP
Topic Short Proposal.
Follow-up Meeting Short Proposal
☐ ☐
☐ ☐
☐ ☐
☐ ☐
☐ ☐
☐ ☐
☐ ☐
☐ ☐
☐ ☐
☐ ☐
☐ ☐
☐ ☐
☐ ☐
☐ ☐
☐ ☐
☐ ☐
☐ ☐
☐ ☐
68
CADENCE
☐ ☐
Recommended QEP Topics
Indicate below at least one and no more than three topics emerging from your group session as
recommended focus areas for TSU’s 2020-2025 QEP.
Ranking of proposed topics is optional.
Priority #
Recommended Topic Comments/Notes
(if applicable)
69
CADENCE
70
CADENCE
Appendix 5: QEP Topic Proposal Template, Spring 2018

The QEP Topic Research Committee invites faculty and staff colleagues to suggest topics for the
University’s 2020-2025 Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP). Both individual and group proposals
are welcome.
If you would like to participate, please provide the information requested below, and email the
completed form to Dr. Joel Dark (jdark@tnstate.edu) by Wednesday, May 9.
Faculty/staff name(s):
Enter text.
1. Proposed QEP title/subject:
Enter text.
2. Intended student learning outcome(s) and/or student success outcome(s):
Enter text.
3. Student cohort(s) (select all that apply):
☐ First-year students
☐ Sophomores
☐ Juniors and seniors
☐ Non-traditional students
☐ Major(s) (Enter text.)
☐ Other (Enter text.)
4. Related TSU Baccalaureate Learning Outcomes:
☐ Specialized knowledge and skills

☐ Broad knowledge of the human and natural world
☐ Inquiry and reasoning
☐ Communication
☐ Applied knowledge and skills
5. Relationship to TSU Impact 2020 strategic priorities and/or other University

planning:
Enter text.
71
CADENCE
Appendix 5: QEP Topic Proposal Template, Spring 2018

6. Related research and/or higher education initiatives, including other QEPs if
applicable:
Enter text.
7. Describe briefly (approximately 100-500 words) the specific initiatives proposed to

improve student learning and/or student success with reference to Item 2 above.
Include existing and potential resources needed for these initiatives.
Enter text.
8. Describe briefly (approximately 100-500 words) measures that could be used to

assess a QEP focused on the proposed topic. These may include existing indicators
of student achievement and/or new assessments.
Enter text.
72
CADENCE
Appendix 6: QEP Topic Proposals, Spring 2018

Topic Proposal Submitted By
Excelling as Global Citizens by Enhancing Cultural Anderson, Jill, et al.

Competency
Jump Start: Coordinated Care Network Bonner, Kimi, et al.
Interdisciplinary Learning Burris-Kitchen, Deborah
How effective and pointed customer service could Collier, Brenda

make difference. ‘Striving for Excellence’. Excellence
as the Habit indicates you have reached the goal of
Excellence, when customer service does not reflect that
value.
Oh, the Places You’ll Go: Transferable Skills for Lifelong Dachowski, Elizabeth
Learning
Technology Enhancement Commitment Hierarchy Field, Christopher, et al.

(TECH)
Improving Educational Outcomes through Evidence- Hammond, Marie

based Faculty Development
Establishing a Black Male Initiative to Increase Hargrove, S. Keith

Retention at TSU
An Institutional Commitment to Excellence in Teaching Kelly, Kiesa

(ICE-T)
Promoting Reflection, Innovation, Mastery, and McMurray, Nolan, et al.

Engagement (PRIME)
Online Graduate Programs Melton, Robbie
“Teach Competencies – The Skills for Students to Grow Reed, Tina

and Go”
Enhancing services, accessibility and increasing the Robles, Wilfred (JR)

presence of the TSU Writing Center
Quality comes with quality control Siddiquee, Tasneem
73
CADENCE
Appendix 6: QEP Topic Proposals, Spring 2018

TSU Graduates as Critical Problem Solvers for the Venkatraman, Santosh, et al.
Future Job Markets
TSU Going Global: Exploring the World at Home and Winn, Jewell, et al.
Abroad
74
CADENCE
Appendix 7: QEP Topic Proposal Evaluation Rubric, Spring 2018
Criterion Rating
Excellent Good/Acceptable Lacking
Focus on Student ☐The proposal identifies specific, ☐The proposal identifies and focuses on ☐The proposal may relate to student learning
Learning meaningful, and measurable student learning specific outcomes related to student learning and/or student success but does not focus
outcomes and/or indicators of student success and/or student success. sufficiently on specific student outcomes.
and focuses consistently on the achievement
of these outcomes.
Scope ☐The scope of the proposal is appropriate for ☐The scope of the proposal is appropriate for ☐The proposal may present promising ideas
a five-year initiative demonstrating the a QEP but may need to be broadened for for a QEP, but the scope of the proposal itself
University’s commitment to significant greater institutional quality enhancement or is either too broad or too specific.
quality enhancement. refined for feasibility.
Research ☐The proposal derives significantly from ☐The proposal is informed by University ☐The proposal may be informed by
TSU planning and assessment documents – assessment and planning and draws on other institutional or other educational research but
including Baccalaureate Learning Outcomes relevant resources. does not sufficiently demonstrate this
and the 2017-2020 Strategic Plan – and other relationship.
relevant resources such as SACSCOC
guidelines, other QEPs, and higher education
scholarship.
Proposed ☐The proposal presents specific initiatives ☐The proposal includes specific action steps ☐The proposal may include some action
Initiatives and for the achievement of its intended outcomes for the achievement of its goals and identifies steps, but these do not provide a sufficient
Resources and identifies resources (existing and/or some resources (existing and potential) for foundation for further planning.
potential) for these activities. Proposed these activities.
initiatives provide compelling examples for
more developed planning.
Assessment Plan ☐The proposal identifies appropriate student ☐The proposal suggests at least one measure ☐The proposal may reference assessment but
learning/success measures for the assessment for the assessment of its intended outcomes. does not sufficiently identify potential
of its intended outcomes. These may include assessment measures.
indicators already assessed by the University
and/or the design of new assessments.
75
CADENCE
Appendix 8: QEP Prospectus Review Survey, Spring 2019

TSU QEP Proposal Review
Thank you for taking the time to review the two proposals under consideration for the
development of the University's 2020-2025 Quality Enhancement Plan.
Please respond to all questions in each section of this survey.
Indicate your primary role at the University.
o Administration
o Faculty
o Staff
o Other ________________________________________________
Beyond Borders: Developing Global Leaders and Cultural Competence
Proposed Focus Area
The SACSCOC Principles of Accreditation specify that a QEP should focus on "an issue the institution
considers important to improving student learning outcomes and/or student success."
Do you agree that the proposed focus area is an important priority for the improvement of student
learning and student success at TSU?
o strongly agree
o agree
o neutral
o disagree
o strongly disagree
76
CADENCE

Proposed Plan
The SACSCOC Principles of Accreditation require that a QEP "commits resources to initiate,
implement, and complete the QEP."
Do you agree that the proposed plan includes appropriate strategies and resources for the
achievement of its goals?
o strongly agree
o agree
o neutral
o disagree
o strongly disagree
Proposal Strengths
What aspects of the proposal have the greatest potential for the improvement of student
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Area for Improvement
What aspects of the proposal, if any, need to be reconsidered or revised?

________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
77
CADENCE

New Paradigms in Student Success: Care, Academics, DEvelopment, Navigating
Careers, & Engagement (CADENCE)
Proposed Focus Area
The SACSCOC Principles of Accreditation specify that a QEP should focus on "an issue the
institution considers important to improving student learning outcomes and/or student
success."
Do you agree that the proposed focus area is an important priority for the improvement of
student learning and student success at TSU?
o strongly agree
o agree
o neutral
o disagree
o strongly disagree
Proposed Plan
The SACSCOC Principles of Accreditation require that a QEP "commits resources to initiate,
implement, and complete the QEP."
Do you agree that the proposed plan includes appropriate strategies and resources for the
achievement of its goals?
o strongly agree
o agree
o neutral
o disagree
o strongly disagree
78
CADENCE

Proposal Strengths
What aspects of the proposal have the greatest potential for the improvement of student
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Area for Improvement
What aspects of the proposal, if any, need to be reconsidered or revised?

________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
79
CADENCE
Appendix 9: Presidential Approval of QEP Topic
80
CADENCE
Appendix 10: NSSE Academic Advising Topical Module, Survey Items

Retrieved from: https://nsse.indiana.edu/nsse/survey-instruments/topical-
modules/academic_advising.html
1. During the current school year, how many times have you discussed your academic
interests, course selections, or academic performance with the following
individuals? Response options: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 or more, Not applicable
a. Academic advisor, faculty, or staff assigned to advise you

b. Academic advisor(s) available to any student
c. Faculty or instructor(s) not assigned to advise you
d. Student services staff (career services, academic support, Trio, etc.)
e. Success or academic coach
f. Peer advisor or mentor
g. Other, please specify:
2. Do you know how to contact (in person, email, phone, or online) an advisor at your
institution? Response options: Yes, No, Unsure
3. Thinking about academic advising, how much have people and resources at your
institution done the following? Response options: Very much, Quite a bit, Some, Very
little, Not applicable
a. Been available when needed

b. Provided prompt and accurate information
c. Provided information about learning support services (tutoring, writing center,
success skills, etc.)
d. Notified you of important policies and deadlines
e. Reached out to you about your academic progress or performance
f. Followed up with you regarding something they recommended
g. Asked questions about your educational background and needs
h. Actively listened to your concerns
i. Respected your identity and culture
j. Cared about your overall well-being
81
CADENCE
Appendix 10: NSSE Academic Advising Topical Module, Survey Items

4. Thinking about academic advising, about how often did someone at your institution
discuss the following with you? Response options: Very often, Often, Sometimes,
Rarely, Never, Not applicable
a. Your academic goals and future plans

b. How your major or expected major relates to your goals and future plans
c. Special opportunities (study abroad, internship, service-learning, research, etc.)
d. Participation in co-curricular activities (organizations or clubs, performing arts,
sports, etc.)
e. Resources for your well-being (health, counseling, financial guidance, etc.)
5. How much have each of the following helped you develop your academic goals and
future plans? Response options: Very much, Quite a bit, Some, Very little, Not
applicable
a. Academic advisor, faculty, or staff assigned to advise you

b. Academic advisor(s) available to any student
c. Faculty or instructor(s) not assigned to advise you
d. Online advising system (degree progress report, etc.)
e. Website, catalog, or other published sources
f. Student services staff (career services, academic support, TRIO, etc.)
g. Success or academic coach
h. Peer advisor or mentor
i. Friends or other students
j. Family members
k. Other, please specify:
6. Regarding academic advising, who has been the most helpful and in what way?
82

CADENCE

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CADENCE

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Quality Enhancement Plan, 2021–2026

Chief Executive Officer: Glenda Baskin Glover,

Accreditation Liaison: Charlise Anderson, Ed.D.,

Onsite Visit: March 16–18, 2021

Navigable Educational Pathways 21

IV. Intended Outcomes 24

Initiative 2: Publish and Maintain Comprehensive Advising Resources Online 38

Initiative 3: Utilize Technology for Individualized Advising and Career Development 39

Tennessee State University’s 2021–2026 Quality Enhancement Plan – titled CADENCE

CADENCE addresses this challenge by implementing an expanded concept of academic

• Connect with advisors, faculty members, support services, and peers.

• Excel in professional achievement, service, and lifelong learning.

1. Institutionalize an advising Coordinated Care Network.

Building on the University’s current use of EAB Navigate, CADENCE institutionalizes

2. Publish and maintain comprehensive advising resources online.

CADENCE recognizes the critical importance of comprehensive, current, and

3. Utilize technology for individualized advising and career development.

2. Integration and Reflection

II. Process Used to Develop the QEP

Leadership and Participation

In January 2018, the Topic Research Committee hosted a well-attended campus-wide

5. What improvement initiatives have you seen or experienced elsewhere – or at TSU –

A more informed, individualized, and intentional approach to academic and student

CADENCE Development Process

A QEP Working Committee (Appendix 3) – comprising sixteen members from units in

1.5 Establish a comprehensive onboarding process inclusive of orientation, tutorial

1.6. Provide students access to experiential learning, research, and engagement

CADENCE represents a primary strategy in the achievement of these two objectives.

The external research supporting the development of CADENCE is included in Section V

Students Receiving Grades of D or F during Fall 2018

High School GPAs of Enrolled Students, Fall 2018

High School and University GPAs of Enrolled Students, Fall 2018

Progression Benchmarks, 2015–2017

Quality of Interactions with Academic Advisors, 2014–2017

Primary Source of Advice (% Using Either Assigned or Generally Available Advisor)

Percent of Students Never Contacted by Academic Advisors, 2017

Academic Advising Components, 2017

Rate of Participation in HIPs

Intention and Actual Participation in HIPs, 2017

Planned versus Completed Participation in Selected HIPs:

III. Identification of the Topic

As an acronym, CADENCE communicates the vital steps of a successful higher education

C Connect with advisors, faculty members, support services, and peers.

A Assess personal interests, values, strengths, and goals.

D Develop a personal educational plan.

E Engage purposefully in courses and co-curricular activities.

N Navigate educational opportunities, challenges, and choices.

C Create a career profile presenting experiences, accomplishments, and abilities.

E Excel in professional achievement, service, and lifelong learning.

through a Coordinated Care Network of professional advisors, faculty, and academic

The University’s adoption of EAB Navigate as an academic advising reporting and

Training participants will be required to complete an assessment using the University’s

The population of students from disadvantaged backgrounds at TSU is considerable, and a

Navigable Educational Pathways

As students progress, more rigorous career preparation opportunities will be fostered

Co-curricular activities connect academics and career readiness. Through co-curricular

Internships enhance career readiness competencies through training and guidance

• Student Organizations, Clubs, and Advisory Boards

Global experiences at the University have traditionally been understood as study

IV. Intended Outcomes

Student Learning Outcomes

The student learning outcomes of CADENCE are:

2. Integration and Reflection

CADENCE learning outcomes complement the University’s five Baccalaureate Learning