Following up on Academically Adrift, I’m still reading US literature…
Student Success in College: Creating conditions that matter by George Kuh, Jillian Kenzie, John Schuh, Elizabeth Whitt and associates. Published in 2010 by Jossey Bass. San Francisco.
This second edition of the 2005 book has an updated preface and epilogue. It reports on findings from the 20 universities from the DEEP project (Documenting Effective Educational Practice) in the US. This project identified places where there was higher than expected graduation rates and scores on NSSE and tried to find out what caused them. This project was extremely influential in the US, with many colleges learning from the experiences of the original 20.
In brief, the main finding is that more students than would be expected, do well when the institution ‘cultivated campus cultures that encourage their students to take advantage of a variety of educational opportunities’. (p.3). There are two important things to note about this statement. First, academic access is defined when more students do well. Although this was driven by traditionally low graduation rates in the US (around 50%), it has resulted in institutions measuring their achievements by their ability to support all students. Second, education is seen in the broadest possible sense. The recommendations go way beyond ‘teaching’ to promote students to engage in a wide range of educationally purposeful activities that prepare and motivate students, including study abroad, engagement with peers and out of class contact with staff.
The DEEP project built on the established student engagement literature which has identified ways of organising teaching to promote students to invest time and effort on their studies (eg Chickering and Gamson’s seven principles). The second element of student engagement, perhaps less well known in the UK, is concerned with services that encourage students to devote their time to enriching extra curricular activities. The project used regression models to find relationships between measures of student engagement (from the NSSE) and student outcomes, alongside visits to the 20 colleges to interview staff and students, observe classes and analyse documentation, resulting in conditions which support student success.
There is a chapter for each of these six institutional conditions, explaining what was found and illustrating with examples from the case study visits:
- An institutional mission which both clearly articulates its educational purposes and aspirations, and which is enacted through allocation of resources and organization of services. As we found years ago in the blended learning review, missions should ‘complement the specific context and address their students’ needs’ (p. 28). The challenge is of course the fit between expressed and espoused mission. Examples include a commitment to global citizenship where more than half of students study abroad (Macalester College, p. 40), or a commitment to creating a learning community where half of faculty live on campus and there are annual fellowship awards to support student research with a member of staff (Sweet Briar college). There are other more familiar examples of institutions that cater to a particular group of students or value good teaching, but these extreme examples reinforce the point that there needs to alignment of uni activities with the mission.
- An unshakeable focus in student learning. A key difference between institutions that say they are committed to student learning and those that are, is the expectations of staff. At DEEP institutions staff are recruited, supported and rewarded for being teachers who are prepared to learn, experiment and innovate in order to create maximum opportunities for active and collaborative student learning. Staff are supported by the organisation of resources and services e.g. at Kansas University 80% of u/g classes have less than 30 students (made possible by having some core ‘supersize’ classes), at Evergreen State the dominant teaching method is ‘seminaring’.
- A sense of place, whether created through natural environment, architecture or design of learning spaces. Eg residences as ‘living-learning’ communities that encourage collaboration and cooperation (Kansas, Michigan) or incorporate academic advising (Miami)
- Pathways to student success. Teaching students what successful students do and how to take advantage of institutional resources, again aligned to mission. Eg Winston-Salem state uni locates first year teaching physically together in one building, together with student support (we could do this in. NLTB, by prioritizing first year room bookings?) or George masons system for identifying students at risk (we could do this through AAs/SSCs system)
- Improvement orientated learning organizations, after Senge, eg, cultivating community and willingness to experiment. We have started this with UWES and data driven evaluations of services, but need to work harder to share this way of working with all staff (focus for SESE 2020?) eg Wofford’s challenge to staff ‘if you had the assurance of sufficient time and institution, support to teach the sort of course you’ve always dreamed of, what would you do?’Shared responsibility for success. Staff help each other, students help each other. Eg Longwood University committees are organised around student experience not service organization so academics and student services together.
Finally, the authors look at the practices at the DEEP schools in relation to the clusters used in the NSSE: level of academic challenge, active and collaborative learning, student-faculty interaction, supportive campus environment and enriching educational experiences.
There is an important caveat tucked away (p.175) that these effective practices are effective because they are well suited to their context. There is also recognition that none of these practices are likely to achieve student success on their own, indeed the actual initiatives in these institutions are always changing. They make a difference because they are ‘woven together to create and sustain a campus culture that fosters student success’ (p. 263). If there is one lesson to be learned from this book, it is that in the DEEP colleges, such integration of mission, policies, practices is achieved because student success is everybody’s business – not AESC, not ‘the university’, not programme leads or academic advisors – everybody takes and shares the responsibility for making student success a priority.
Comments welcome. What should I read next?
Rhona