"High-Impact" Practices: What We Know about their Impact on Underserved Students

1. "High-Impact" Practices: What We Know about their Impact on Underserved Students Jayne E. Brownell Alma R. Clayton-Pedersen October 17, 2008

2. Compass Project

3. Literature Review Project • What are the proven outcomes of 5 “high impact” activities? • Learning communities • Service learning • Undergraduate research • First-year seminars • Capstone experiences • Is there a differential impact on underserved student populations? • What is the quality of this research? • Where are the gaps?

4. In today’s presentation… • Do these results ring true with your experience? • How might these results inform your own practice on your campus? • What else do you need to know to make this information useful for your use?

5. Underserved Students • Underrepresented students of color • Low-income students • First-generation students

6. Underrepresented Students of Color • Now represent about 1 in 3 college students, compared to 17% in 1976 • Students enrolled in postsecondary education immediately after high school: • Latino: 46.9% • African-American/Black: 52.7% • Native American: 46% • White students: 68.9% • Asian-American students: 75.2% • Still lag behind in rates of degree attainment

7. Low-Income students • Less rigorous HS curriculum, likely to begin in a community college and to attend part time, and likely to be older, first-generation students

8. First-Generation Students • 22% of college students entering from 1992 to 2000 were first-generation • Twice as likely to leave without a degree compared to those whose parents earned a bachelor’s degree • Progress toward the degree at a slower rate, taking fewer classes and more stop outs

9. Learning Communities

10. Types of Learning Communities • Two or more linked courses on a common theme • Linked courses with an extended orientation FYS • Linked courses with an integrative seminar • Residentially based or not (LLC) • Cohorts could travel together class to class, or may be enrolled in larger classes and brought together for an attached seminar

11. Outcomes studied • Positive impact on persistence • Mixed or minimal impact on GPA • Positive impact on: • Transition to college • Peer and faculty interaction • Sense of belonging • Levels of engagement, in and out of the classroom • Perception of a supportive campus climate

12. Outcomes, continued • Liberal education outcomes: • Critical thinking • Intellectual development • Integrative thinking • Reading/writing skills • Open to new perspectives/ ideas • Engagement with diversity • Civic engagement • Development of values and ethics

13. Outcomes for Underserved Students • Higher grades and persistence • Easier college transition • More faculty and peer interaction • Builds identity as a learner/ helps to find one’s voice • Sense of belonging • Gains in intellectual development

14. Quality matters • Selection of courses to link • Gateway courses • Addition of seminars • Course design and goals for the classes • Use of instructional teams • Use of engaging pedagogies • Classroom environment • Faculty development

15. Service-Learning

16. Service-Learning • A form of experiential education that connects community based activities with opportunities that are intentionally designed to promote student learning and development (Jacoby 1996). • Academic course or program with service component (not co-curricular volunteerism absent a curricular element).

17. Outcomes Studied • Academic Outcomes • Course grades and GPA • Persistence • Higher levels of academic engagement • Gains in critical thinking, writing skills • Civic Outcomes • Civic behavior • Social responsibility • Social justice orientation • Sense of self-efficacy • Commitment to service-oriented career

18. Outcomes, continued • Other Outcomes • Gains in moral reasoning • Greater tolerance/reduced stereotyping • Greater interaction with faculty

19. Outcomes for Underserved Students • Increased retention rates • Better academic performance (grades) • Positive changes in civic attitudes • Negative experiences/ isolation due to orientation or nature of service-learning experience

20. Quality Matters • Opportunities for structured reflection • Faculty connects material with service experience • Number of service hours • Quality of service (e.g., contact with clients vs. paperwork) • Supervision at site

21. Undergraduate Research

22. Undergraduate Research • Inquiry, creative activity, or scholarship conducted by undergraduates mentored by faculty (typically in major) • Can be collaborative or individual project • Intentional usage with underrepresented students– UROPs and SROPs

23. Outcomes Studied • Persistence • Graduate school enrollment • Improvement in research skills • Increased interaction with faculty and peers • Gains in problem-solving and critical thinking • Greater satisfaction with educational experience

24. Outcomes for Underserved Students • Mostly limited to SROPs/UROPs • Persistence • Graduate school enrollment

25. Quality Matters • Quality of faculty mentoring

26. First-Year Seminars

27. Types of First-Year Seminars • Extended orientation seminars • Academic seminars with uniform content across sections • Academic seminars with variable content • Pre-professional or discipline-linked seminars • Basic student skills seminars • Hybrid

28. Outcomes studied • Positive impact on persistence and graduation • Minimal, short-term impact on GPA • Positive impact on: • Peer and faculty interaction • Levels of engagement, in and out of the classroom • Perception of a supportive campus climate • Knowledge of campus resources • Ability to manage one’s time • Multicultural awareness

29. Outcomes for Underserved Students • Short-term benefits for grades and persistence • No studies looked at other outcomes for these populations

30. Quality Matters • Selection of FYS type based on goals • Number of credits offered • Use of instructional teams • Use of engaging pedagogies • Connections with learning communities, service-learning

31. Capstone Experiences

32. Capstone Experiences • Typically in senior year • Can be a course, seminar, project (overlap with undergraduate research) • Learning Focus: • Learning in major (majority of capstones) or • Learning over college career (general education – less common)

33. Outcomes Studied • Most “research” involves description of capstone courses vs. examination of outcomes • Some limited evidence for applying and integrating knowledge in major • No studies identified related to underserved students

34. Assessment of the research • Mostly single institution studies • Tend to look at outcomes over a short span of time • Limited range of outcomes studied • Selection bias, lack of control groups, reliance on self-report measures • Little information about the impact on underserved students

35. Recommendations for Future Research • Study experiences of underserved students • Expand outcomes research from just grades/persistence to student learning • Work to eliminate selection bias • Utilize comparison groups • Longitudinal approaches

36. Back to our early questions • Do these results ring true with your experience? • How might these results inform your own practice on your campus? • What else do you need to know to make this information useful for your use?

37. One more question… • How are you, or could you, add to this body of knowledge based on the work you’re doing on your campuses?

38. We would love your feedback • The full draft document will be available for review from AAC&U

39. Questions for us?