460 likes | 597 Views
If this is so Easy, Why is it so Hard to Do?. John Lee UNC Conference: Student Success “A Campus-Wide Commitment” October 24, 2007. What is the Problem?.
E N D
If this is so Easy, Why is it so Hard to Do? John Lee UNC Conference: Student Success “A Campus-Wide Commitment” October 24, 2007
Grades and test scores, rather than privilege, determine success today, but that success is largely being passed down from one generation to the next. A nation that believes that everyone should have a fair shake finds itself with a kind of inherited meritocracy.New York Times, May 24, 2005
Research and theory on student persistence have yet to influence, on a national scale, student persistence in higher education
According to a 2003 report by ACT, the five-year graduation rates at four-year institutions throughout the past 20 years have ranged from 50.9 percent to 54.6 percent
The enrollment gap between low- and high-income students has shrunk over the last 20 years, but rates of college completion have not improved for low-income students
According to the 2003 ACT report, of those students starting at a 4-year college, 48 percent of low-income students graduate while 67 percent of high income students did so
“There is no one specific type of successful retention organization and/or successful implementation strategy” -Vincent Tinto
I. Have an institutional focus on student retention and outcomes, not just on enrollment
Consistent Leadership • Strong leadership from top administrators who create an institutional culture that promotes student success. They talk about it, fund it, and recognize success • A central person, office, or committee that coordinates retention activities across academic and student affairs • Use data about retention in the decision-making process, as well as to evaluate retention programs
Institutional focus on student outcomes • Make personnel decisions consistent with improving student outcomes • Communicate the importance of student success, and the expectations for each participant, to the whole college • Be consistent in your efforts • Measure outcomes and report them to the community
Institutional focus on student outcomes • Gain faculty support • Explain that improving student success is not an erosion of standards • Maintain high expectations for student success • How do we engage students in their education?
Engage Students • Encourage high levels of student involvement and engagement in campus activities and programs. • Create well-developed first-year programs in which student participation is mandatory or high. • Improve instruction in “gatekeeping” introductory courses, particularly in mathematics.
Support for underperforming students • Concentrate on the first year • Profile of an at-risk student • First generation college • Low income • Inadequate academic preparation • Older, with children • Attends part-time
Types of support • Proactive • Identify the problem early • Reach out to the student • Structured • Advising • Mentoring • Find the right help
III. Have well-designed, well-aligned, and proactive student support services
Support Students • Early warning and advising systems to monitor student progress and to intervene when student performance is low. • Academic and social support services that students use due to proactive efforts to coordinate services; these services must be widely advertised. Faculty and staff should be knowledgeable about the available services. • Special programs for at-risk student populations, incorporating effective retention practices.
Critique of student support services • A common problem on many campuses is that efforts directed towards helping first-year students achieve success are “self-contained, uncoordinated, and even unknown to each other”
Be proactive with student support services • Anticipate which students may have problems, and help them before they drop out • Reach out to high-risk students; they will not come to you • Maintain an aggressive advising program
IV. Provide support for faculty development focused on improving teaching
What goes on in the classroom, stays in the classroom • There is no one model for improving teaching; it depends on content • Students must feel that they are learning something worthwhile and are making progress • Student engagement in the learning process is critical
Some obvious solutions • Small classes • Reward good teaching • Regular academic reviews for students • Supplemental support • Develop a teaching/learning center for new faculty
Elements of successful developmental education programs • Context-specific and valued by the learning community • Centrally structured and well coordinated with the organization • Instructors committed to the students and the field • Provide multilevel curricula with credit options and exit criteria • Integration of a variety of instructional methods • Integrate learning and personal development strategies and services • An evaluation system focused on outcomes and continuous program improvement -McCabe & Day, 1998
Learning is facilitated when the student participates responsibly in the learning process. — Carl Rogers
V. Experiment with ways to improve the effectiveness of instruction and support services
Applied Experiments • Develop a hypothesis—why do you think students drop out? • Run an experiment—make changes to the program • Measure outcomes—did the change make a difference in the outcome? • Accept or reject the hypothesis
Constant improvement • Marginal improvements in specific operations add up • A continuous cycle
VI. Use institutional research to track student outcomes and improve program impact
Track student outcomes • Disaggregate student populations • Student unit record system • Use longitudinal data to identify problems and evaluate outcomes
Soft data sources are important • Student focus groups • Interviews with faculty • Individual class analysis • What are the characteristics of students that drop out prior to the end of the semester? • Why did they leave?
1. Mission conflict • Public universities are torn between an impulse toward excellence that leads to an emphasis on research and tighter admission standards, and providing access to a broad range of students
2. Structural problems • Universities are federations, with a central government overseeing semi-autonomous colleges/schools • The bigger the university, the less attention is paid to student persistence at the top levels of the administration • This makes it difficult to institutionalize a consistent approach to improving student persistence
3. No coordination among offices • Efforts to improve persistence are often program-specific, and in many cases depend on available extra funding • The programs are often aimed at helping minority and low-income students or students with physical or learning handicaps
4. Inconsistent data • Most universities do not systematically use data to track their students and see where they have problems • Universities depend on special studies or occasional reports to evaluate their overall success
5. Incentives • External factors influence the amount of attention persistence receives. These include: • Changes in state support • External accountability requirements • Numbers of student applications • Accreditation requirements
6. Inadequate Aid • Low-income students work a great deal while they attend the university • Financial aid programs have competing purposes, and may not provide a coherent safety net
7. Low expectations and effort • With some exceptions, most students do not work very hard in their classes. They attend class sporadically and do not do much work outside of class • If engagement is a key to persistence, this lack of academic engagement may be an important avenue to explore • Faculty should demand more of students
Conclusion • Persistence is a systemic problem, and no one player can fix it • If you don’t change anything, nothing will change • Keep focused on student outcomes -- that is all that counts • Reengineer; don’t add on • Set priorities -- you cannot do it all at once • Keep at it
“Plans are only good intentions unless they immediately degenerate into hard work.”-Peter Drucker
Thanks to • Jennifer Engle and Colleen O’Brien of the Pell Institute • The Lumina Foundation, which has funded so much of our work
Sources • Raising the Graduation Rates of Low-Income Students, Pell Institute, 2004 • Demography Is Not Destiny: Increasing the Graduation Rates of Low-Income College Students at Large Public Universities, Pell Institute, 2006 • Moving From Theory to Action: Building a Model of Institutional Success, Tinto and Pusser, for NPEC, 2006 • Community College Management Practices that Promote Student Success Jenkins, 2006 CCRC Brief 31