Hey Luke (And Melissa and Jamie)!
It sounds like you all are doing some work!
I see Stuart's point on having the weakest courses targeted. That is kind of how the Supplemental instruction program at Northwest is run. They target the classes that have a high fail rate.
As for some of your questions for consideration:
Do we financially limit the projects, how many man hours can we allocate to a single project?
How do we access applications?
I think when you are open to different sizes of scheme applications it will be hard to set a limit to funding. I would suggest as part of the application, the department would need to request a certain amount of funding and then break down what they would be spending it on. They could even make a presentation to CELT. CELT could then review the application and grant the funding they wanted or you could even grant less money if you see concerns in their plan and then the department would just have to make due. I do think that granting larger sums to less schemes would be the best route to start off with and secure future funding for mentoring.
How do we access applications?
This is a tough one. I think web-based would work or if you wanted to have the departments do presentations that could be good as well.
What do we call the scheme and how can we brand it/advertise it etc.?
Mentoring for Academic and Student Success (MASS)
Mentoring for Academic Programme (or Progress) (MAP) Then you could do things like, "Getting Lost in class? Find your MAP today to get help with navigating that tricky course!" I like the ideas of promotion through videos like the PAL scheme.
Overall, it looks like you guys have a great start. I think schemes that have a lot of one-on-one student support will probably be better.
Let me know if I can do anything else. I will take a closer look at the chart you posted.
Thanks!
Kirk
No comments:
Post a Comment