How to Maximize Student Success

how to increase student success in the online classroom and how to increase student success pdf free download
AndyCole Profile Pic
AndyCole,United Kingdom,Professional
Published Date:09-07-2017
Your Website URL(Optional)
Comment
What Matters to Student Success: A Review of the Literature Commissioned Report for the National Symposium on Postsecondary Student Success: Spearheading a Dialog on Student Success George D. Kuh Jillian Kinzie Jennifer A. Buckley Indiana University Bloomington Brian K. Bridges American Council on Education John C. Hayek Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education July 2006 July 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1 INTRODUCTION, CONTEXT, AND OVERVIEW...................................... 1 Purpose and Scope ........................................................................................... 3 2 DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ................................ 5 Framework for Student Success....................................................................... 7 3 MAJOR THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON STUDENT SUCCESS IN COLLEGE....................................................................................................... 11 Sociological Perspectives................................................................................. 11 Observations About the Tinto Model.................................................. 12 Social Networks ................................................................................. 12 Organizational Perspectives............................................................................. 13 Psychological Perspectives .............................................................................. 13 Cultural Perspectives........................................................................................ 14 Economic Perspectives .................................................................................... 15 Summary.......................................................................................................... 16 4 THE FOUNDATION FOR STUDENT SUCCESS: STUDENT BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS, PRECOLLEGE EXPERIENCES, AND ENROLLMENT PATTERNS................................................................ 17 Student Background Characteristics and Precollege Experiences ................... 18 Gender ............................................................................................. 18 Race and Ethnicity .............................................................................. 18 Academic Intensity in High School .................................................... 19 Family Educational Background......................................................... 19 Persistence........................................................................................... 21 Educational Aspirations and Family Support ..................................... 22 Socioeconomic Status ......................................................................... 22 Financial Aid....................................................................................... 23 Precollege Encouragement Programs ................................................. 25 Enrollment Patterns............................................................................. 27 Multiple Institution Attendance .......................................................... 28 Summary............................................................................................. 29 5 WHAT STUDENT BEHAVIORS, ACTIVITIES AND EXPERIENCES IN POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION PREDICT SUCCESS?.......................... 31 Expectations for College.................................................................................. 32 College Activities............................................................................................. 34 iii Minority-Serving Institutions.............................................................. 39 A Closer Look at Engagement in Effective Educational Practices.................. 40 Faculty-Student Contact...................................................................... 41 Peer Interactions.................................................................................. 42 Experiences with Diversity ................................................................. 43 Cocurricular Activities........................................................................ 44 Student Satisfaction............................................................................. 44 Student Characteristics..................................................................................... 45 First-Generation Students ................................................................... 45 Race and Ethnicity .............................................................................. 45 International Students ......................................................................... 46 Transfer Students ................................................................................ 46 Fraternity and Sorority Members........................................................ 47 Student Athletes .................................................................................. 47 Summary ............................................................................................. 48 6 WHAT INSTITUTIONAL CONDITIONS (POLICIES, PROGRAMS, PRACTICES, CULTURAL PROPERTIES) ARE ASSOCIATED WITH STUDENT SUCCESS? ................................................................................... 51 Structural and Organizational Characteristics.................................................. 52 Institutional Attributes: Residence Size, Type, Sector, Resources and Reputation..................................................................... 52 Campus Residences............................................................. 53 Sector ............................................................................. 53 Structural Diversity ............................................................. 54 Organizational Structure...................................................... 55 Institutional Mission............................................................ 55 Minority-Serving Institutions .............................................. 56 Programs and Practice...................................................................................... 57 New Student Adjustment .................................................................... 58 Orientation........................................................................... 58 First-Year Seminars............................................................. 58 Advising ............................................................................................. 59 Early Warning Systems....................................................................... 60 Learning Communities........................................................................ 60 Campus Residences............................................................................. 63 Student Success Initiatives.................................................................. 63 Remediation........................................................................ 64 Student Support Services .................................................................... 65 iv Teaching and Learning Approaches................................................................. 66 Educational Philosophy....................................................................... 66 Pedagogical Approaches..................................................................... 67 Active and Collaborative Learning ..................................... 68 Feedback ............................................................................. 69 Instructional Technology..................................................... 69 Student-Centered Campus Cultures ................................................................. 71 Partnerships to Support Learning........................................................ 72 Designing for Diversity....................................................................... 72 Institutional Ethic of Improvement ..................................................... 73 Summary ............................................................................................. 73 7 HAT ARE THE OUTCOMES AND INDICATORS OF STUDENT SUCCESS DURING AND AFTER COLLEGE?............................................ 75 College and Postcollege Indicators .................................................................. 75 Grades ............................................................................................. 75 Economic Benefits and Quality of Life .............................................. 77 Learning and Personal Development Outcomes .............................................. 78 Cognitive Complexity......................................................................... 79 Living and Work Environments .......................................... 79 Knowledge Acquisition and Academic Skills..................................... 81 Humanitarianism................................................................................. 82 Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Competence...................................... 83 Student-Faculty Contact...................................................... 84 Living Environments........................................................... 84 Practical Competence.......................................................................... 84 Student-Faculty Contact...................................................... 86 Single-Sex Institutions ........................................................ 86 Summary.......................................................................................................... 86 8 ROPOSITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT STUDENT SUCCESS IN POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION........................................ 89 Propositions and Recommendations ................................................................ 89 Needed Research.............................................................................................. 100 A Final Word ................................................................................................... 105 REFERENCES................................................................................................. 107 v LIST OF APPENDIXES Appendix A: Note on Research Method .............................................................................. 149 Appendix B: Indicators of Student Success in Postsecondary Education............................ 151 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Correlations between institutional mean scores of NSSE clusters of effective educational practices and institutional graduation rates (N=680 4-year colleges and universities) ................................................................................. 36 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 What matters to student success....................................................................... 8 2 Student background characteristics and precollege experiences...................... 17 3 Factors that threaten persistence and graduation from college ........................ 27 4 Student behaviors and student engagement ..................................................... 32 5 Impact of engagement in educationally purposeful activities on first-year GPA (be pre-college achievement level) ......................................................... 35 6 Level of academic challenge for seniors, by enrollment.................................. 37 7 Student-faculty interaction: First-year students at 12 liberal arts colleges ...... 38 8 Who’s more engaged?...................................................................................... 39 9 The relationship between student success and institutional conditions ........... 52 10 Learning community participation rates, by Carnegie classification............... 62 11 Recommended components of developmental education initiatives ............... 65 12 Student success outcomes ................................................................................ 75 13 Outcome domains associated with college attendance .................................... 78 14 Principles for strengthening precollege preparation......................................... 90 vi July 2006 1. INTRODUCTION, CONTEXT, AND OVERVIEW Creating the conditions that foster student success in college has never been more important. As many as four-fifths of high school graduates need some form of postsecondary education (McCabe 2000) to prepare them to live a economically self-sufficient life and to deal with the increasingly complex social, political, and cultural issues they will face. Earning a baccalaureate degree is the most important rung in the economic ladder (Bowen 1978; Bowen and Bok 1998; Boyer and Hechinger 1981; Nuñez 1998; Nuñez and Cuccaro-Alamin 1998; Pascarella and Terenzini 2005; Trow 2001), as college graduates on average earn almost a million dollars more over the course of their working lives than those with only a high school diploma (Pennington 2004). Yet, if current trends continue in the production of bachelor’s degrees, a 14 million shortfall of college-educated working adults is predicted by the year 2020 (Carnevale and Desrochers 2003). The good news is that interest in attending college is near universal. As early as 1992, 97 percent of high school completers reported that they planned to continue their education, and 71 percent aspired to earn a bachelor’s degree (Choy 1999). Two-thirds of those high school completers actually enrolled in some postsecondary education immediately after high school. Two years later, three-quarters were still enrolled (Choy). Also, the pool of students is wider, deeper, and more diverse than ever. Women now outnumber men by an increasing margin, and more students from historically underrepresented groups are attending college. On some campuses, such as California State University Los Angeles, the City University of New York Lehman College, New Mexico State University, University of Texas at El Paso, and University of the Incarnate Word, students of color who were once “minority” students are now the majority; at Occidental College and San Diego State University, students of color students now number close to half of the student body. The bad news is that enrollment and persistence rates of low-income students; African American, Latino, and Native American students; and students with disabilities continue to lag behind White and Asian students, with Latino students trailing all other ethnic groups (Gonzales 1996; Gonzalez and Szecsy 2002; Harvey 2001; Swail 2003). There is also considerable leakage in the educational “pipeline.” According to the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (2004), out of every 100 ninth graders, 68 graduate from high school, 40 immediately enter college, 27 are still enrolled their sophomore year, and only 18 complete any type of postsecondary education within 6 years of graduating high school. These figures probably underestimate the actual numbers of students who earn high school degrees, because they do not take into account all the students who leave one school district and graduate from another (Adelman 2006), Even if the estimates are off by as much as 10–15 percent, far too many students are falling short of their potential. Another issue is that the quality of high school preparation is not keeping pace with the interest in attending college. In 2000, for example, 48 percent and 35 percent of high school seniors scored at the basic and below basic levels, respectively, on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Only five states—California, Indiana, Nebraska, New York, and Wyoming—have fully aligned high school academic standards with the demands of colleges and employers (Achieve 2006). Just over half (51 percent) of high school graduates have the reading skills they need to succeed in college (American College Testing Program (ACT) 2006). This latter fact is most troubling, as 70 percent of students who took at least one remedial reading course in college do not obtain a degree or certificate within 8 years of enrollment (Adelman 2004). In part, college costs that are increasing faster than family incomes are to blame. From 1990 to 2000, tuitions rose at private universities by 70 percent, at public universities by 84 percent, and at public 1 July 2006 2-year colleges by 62 percent (Johnstone 2005). Those hit hardest by cost increases can least afford it. Charges at public institutions increased from 27 percent to 33 percent between 1986 and 1996 for families in the bottom quartile, but only from 7 percent to 9 percent for families in the top income quartile. This means for each 150 increase in the net price of college attendance, the enrollment of students from the lowest income group decreases by almost 2 percent (Choy 1999). Because tuition and fees have been rising faster than family income, there are also more students today with unmet financial need (Breland et al. 2002; Choy). As Levine and Nidiffer (1996, p. 159) observed 10 years ago: The primary weakness of both colleges for the poor and financial aid programs is their inability to help poor kids escape from the impoverished conditions in which they grow up…. The vast majority of poor young people can’t even imagine going to college. By the time many poor kids are sixteen or seventeen years old, either they have already dropped out of school or they lag well behind their peers educationally. Once in college, a student’s chances for graduating can vary widely. For example, about 20 percent of all 4-year colleges and universities graduate less than one-third of their first-time, full-time, degree-seeking first-year students within 6 years (Carey 2004). Data from students enrolled in Florida community colleges as well as institutions participating in the national Achieving the Dream project suggest an estimated 17 percent of the students who start at a 2-year college either drop out or do not earn any academic credits during the first academic term (Kay McClenney, personal communication, April 20, 2006). Only about half of students who begin their postsecondary studies at a community college attain a credential within 6 to 8 years. An additional 12 percent to 13 percent transfer to a 4-year institution (Hoachlander, Sikora, and Horn 2003). Only about 35 percent of first-time, full-time college students who plan to earn a bachelor’s degree reach their goal within 4 years; 56 percent achieve it within 6 years (Knapp, Kelly-Reid, and Whitmore 2006). Three-fifths of students in public 2-year colleges and one-quarter in 4-year colleges and universities require at least 1 year of remedial coursework (Adelman 2005; Horn and Berger 2004; U.S. Department of Education 2004). More than one-fourth of 4-year college students who have to take three or more remedial classes leave college after the first year (Adelman; Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) 2005; National Research Council 2004). In fact, as the number of required developmental courses increases, so do the odds that the student will drop out (Burley, Butner, and Cejda 2001; CCSSE). Remediation is big business, costing at least 1 billion and perhaps as much as 2 billion annually (Bettinger and Long 2005; Camera 2003; Institute for Higher Education (IHEP) 1998b). At the University of Nevada Reno, for example, 454 of the 2,432 first-year students took remedial mathematics at a per-student cost of 306 (Jacobson 2006). For these and related reasons, the American College Testing Program (2005) declared that the nation has “a college readiness crisis.” Of the 45 percent of students who start college and fail to complete their degree, less than one- quarter are dismissed for poor academic performance. Most leave for other reasons. Changes in the American family structure are one such factor, as more students come to campus with psychological challenges that, if unattended, can have a debilitating effect on their academic performance and social adjustment. Consumerism colors virtually all aspects of the college experience, with many colleges and universities “marketizing” their admissions approach to recruit the right “customers”—those who are best prepared for college and can pay their way (Fallows et al. 2003). In a recent examination of college admissions practices, both 2-year and 4-year institutions appear to have deemphasized the recruitment of underserved minorities (Breland et al. 2002), and many state-supported flagship universities are admitting students mainly from high-income families (Mortenson 2005). This trend will have deleterious 2 July 2006 consequences for American society at a time when more people than ever before are enrolling in colleges and universities and the country is becoming more racially and ethnically diverse. Whatever the reasons many students do not achieve their postsecondary educational goals or benefit at optimal levels from the college experience, the waste of human talent and potential is unconscionable. What can colleges and universities do to uphold their share of the social contract and help more students succeed? Purpose and Scope This report attempts to address this set of critical issues by synthesizing the relevant literature and emerging findings related to student success, broadly defined. Our goal is to develop an informed perspective on policies, programs, and practices that can make a difference to satisfactory student performance in postsecondary education. The presentation is divided into eight sections along with supporting materials including a bibliography and appendices. As does Swail (2003), we take a cumulative, longitudinal view of what matters to student success, recognizing that students do not come to postsecondary education tabula rasa. Rather, they are the products of many years of complex interactions with their family of origin and cultural, social, political, and educational environments. Thus, some students more than others are better prepared academically and have greater confidence in their ability to succeed. At the same time, what they do during college—the activities in which they engage and the company they keep—can become the margin of difference as to whether they persist and realize their educational goals. We used the following questions to guide our review: • What are the major studies that represent the best work in the area? • What are the major conclusions from these studies? • What key questions remain unanswered? • What are the most promising interventions prior to college (such as middle school, high school, bridge programs) and during college (such as safety nets, early warning systems, intrusive advising, required courses, effective pedagogical approaches)? • Where is more research needed and about which groups of students do we especially need to know more? • How does the work in this area inform a theory about student success? Throughout, we use a “weight of the evidence” approach, emphasizing findings from high quality inquiries and conceptual analyses, favoring national or multi-institutional studies over single-institution or state reports. Of particular interest are students who may be at risk of premature departure or underperformance, such as historically underserved students (first generation, racial and ethnic minorities, low income). We are also sensitive to changing patterns of college attendance. For example, more than half of all students start college at an institution different from the one where they will graduate. Increasing numbers of students take classes at two or more postsecondary institutions during the same academic term. Equally important, most institutions have nontrivial numbers of undergraduate students 3 July 2006 who are underperforming, many of whom are men. Identifying and intervening with these students are essential to improving achievement and persistence rates. As we reviewed the literature, we were sensitive to identifying polices and practices that would be relevant to various entities. That is, in terms of promoting student success: • What can the federal government do? • What can states do? • What can the for-profit postsecondary institutions do? • What can not-for-profit public and private postsecondary institutions do? • What can families do? • What can high schools do? • What can and should students themselves do? 4 July 2006 2. DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Given the strong demand from various quarters to demonstrate evidence of student success in postsecondary education, we should not be surprised that multiple definitions of the construct exist. Among the more commonly incorporated elements are quantifiable student attainment indicators, such as enrollment in postsecondary education, grades, persistence to the sophomore year, length of time to degree, and graduation (Venezi et al. 2005). Many consider degree attainment to be the definitive measure of student success. For the 2-year college sector, rates of transfer to 4-year institutions are considered an important indicator of student success and institutional effectiveness. Indeed, transfer rates will become even more important for all sectors with students increasingly attending multiple institutions, as we explain later (de los Santos and Wright 1990; McCormick 1997b). At the same time, it is important to note that students attending 2-year institutions are pursuing a range of goals (CCSSE 2005; see also Cejda and Kaylor 2001; Hoachlander, Sikora, and Horn 2003): • To earn an associate’s degree, 57 percent; • To transfer to a 4-year school, 48 percent; • To obtain or upgrade job-related skills, 41 percent; • To seek self-improvement and personal enjoyment; 40 percent; • To change careers, 30 percent; and • To complete a certificate program, 29 percent. Student success can also be defined using traditional measures of academic achievement, such as scores on standardized college entry exams, college grades, and credit hours earned in consecutive terms, which represent progress toward the degree. Other traditional measures of student success emphasize postgraduation achievements, such as graduate school admission test scores, graduate and professional school enrollment and completion rates, and performance on discipline- or field-specific examinations such as the PRAXIS in education and CPA tests in accountancy. Still other measurable indicators of success in college are postcollege employment and income. Some of the more difficult to measure aspects of student success are the degree to which students are satisfied with their experience and feel comfortable and affirmed in the learning environment. Astin (1993b) proposed that satisfaction should be thought of as an intermediate outcome of college. Taken together, students’ impressions of institutional quality, their willingness to attend the institution again, and overall satisfaction are precursors of educational attainment and other dimensions of student success (Hossler, Schmit, and Vesper 1999; Strauss and Volkwein 2002), and are proxies for social integration (Tinto 1993), or the degree to which a student feels comfortable in the college environment and belongs to one or more affinity groups. Student success is also linked with a plethora of desired student and personal development outcomes that confer benefits on individuals and society. These include becoming proficient in writing, speaking, critical thinking, scientific literacy, and quantitative skills and more highly developed levels of 5 July 2006 personal functioning represented by self-awareness, confidence, self-worth, social competence, and sense of purpose. Although cognitive development and direct measures of student learning outcomes are of great value, relatively few studies provide conclusive evidence about the performance of large numbers of students at individual institutions (Association of American Colleges and Universities (AACU) 2005; National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education 2004; Pascarella and Terenzini 2005). All of these measures of student success have been explored to varying degrees in the literature, and there is wide agreement on their importance. In recent years, a handful of additional elements of student success have emerged, representing new dimensions, variations on common indicators, and harder to measure ineffable qualities. Examples of such indicators are an appreciation for human differences, commitment to democratic values, a capacity to work effectively with people from different backgrounds to solve problems, information literacy, and a well-developed sense of identity (AACU 2002; Baxter Magolda 2001, 2004). Novel definitions are borne out of ingenuity and necessity and often require measures of multidimensional constructs. In part, their emergence is due to the increased complexity of the postmodern world and the need for institutions to be more inclusive of a much more diverse student population. Indeed, greater attention to diversity—race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, age—has led to more nuanced, alternative understandings of student success. For example, although the educational progress of women and minority groups has long been an important policy concern, trend analyses by gender or race have tended to mask important within-group differences with regard to access to and participation (as distinguished from enrollment) rates in postsecondary education. That is, enrollment rates are often calculated as the percentage of high school graduates who are currently in postsecondary education. To more accurately reflect the educational progress of the nation, the proportion of a total age cohort enrolled in postsecondary education or who have completed at least 2 years of postsecondary education should be calculated. Such analyses better represent racial and ethnic differences in educational progress, because the lower high school completion rates of minorities are taken into account (U.S. Department of Education 1997, 2003a). In addition, student success indicators must be broadened so that they pertain to different types of students, such as adult learners and transfer students, and acknowledge different patterns of participation by including measures such as course retention rates and posttransfer performance. Adult learners pursue postsecondary education for a range of reasons, such as wanting to be better educated, informed citizens (49 percent), enhancing personal happiness and satisfaction (47 percent), obtaining a higher degree (43 percent), making more money (33 percent), and meeting job requirements (33 percent) (Bradburn and Hurst 2001; The Education Resources Institute and Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) 1996). For this reason, academic and social self-confidence and self-esteem are other important student outcomes that are receiving more attention. In fact, Rendon (1995) found that the most important indicators of Latino student success include believing in one’s ability to perform in college, believing in one’s capacity as a learner, being excited about learning, and feeling cared about as a student and a person. Such transformational changes—from being a repository for information to becoming a self-directed, lifelong learner—are important for all students, especially those who have been historically underserved by postsecondary education. Student persistence research is another area where new conceptions have emerged about the factors that influence students’ ability and commitment to persist. Studies of nontraditional students, commuters, and other underrepresented populations have identified external factors that affect student persistence, such as parental encouragement, support of friends, and finances (Braxton, Hirschy, and McClendon 2004; Cabrera et al. 1992; Swail et al. 2005). Studies of first-generation students suggest the important role that student characteristics and behaviors, including expectations and student effort, play in student 6 July 2006 persistence and other measures of success in college (Pascarella, Pierson et al. 2004; Pike and Kuh 2005; Terenzini et al. 1996). Broadened definitions of student success also are influenced by economic realities and workforce development needs. Due to the changing nature of society and the demands of a knowledge-based economy (Carnevale and Desrochers 2002), there is a growing awareness that what was once an appropriate high school education is no longer sufficient to succeed in college and the workforce in the st 21 century (American Diploma Project 2004). Some state postsecondary coordinating agencies, such as the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education, have increased the pressure on educational systems to demonstrate that students have gained knowledge and skills that employers expect of successful students and workers. Some of these workforce requirements are aligned with general education outcomes, such fostering an orientation for inquiry, developing democratic values, and cultivating problem solving skills. For reasons we will discuss later, student engagement is another indicator of student success that has received considerable attention in recent years (Kuh 2001, 2003; Pascarella and Terenzini 2005). As mentioned earlier, a substantial body of research indicates that once students start college, a key factor to whether they will survive and thrive in college is the extent to which students take part in educationally effective activities. A broad, holistic definition of student success must include all of these indicators and speak to three questions: 1. What do we want and need of students, before and after they enroll in postsecondary education? 2. What happens to students during their postsecondary studies? 3. What are the implications of these definitions for informing policy and practice and improving student and institutional performance? For the purposes of this report, student success is defined as academic achievement, engagement in educationally purposeful activities, satisfaction, acquisition of desired knowledge, skills and competencies, persistence, attainment of educational objectives, and postcollege performance. Framework for Student Success Figure 1 is the guiding framework for our analysis. Instead of the familiar “pipeline” analogy depicted by a direct route to educational attainment, a more accurate representation is a wide path with twists, turns, detours, roundabouts, and occasional dead ends that many students may encounter during their educational career. As we shall see, this figure is a more realistic portrayal of contemporary postsecondary education. The first section of the path represents students’ precollege experiences. We summarize the effects of academic preparation in K–12 schools, family background, enrollment choices, and financial aid and assistance policies on various dimensions of student success. These and related factors and conditions affect the odds that students will do what is necessary to prepare for and succeed in college. In figure 1, mediating conditions are represented as transitions that students must successfully navigate to continue their education. They include remediation courses that do not count toward graduation but which are necessary to acquire college-level academic skills, financial aid policies that facilitate or hinder their 7 July 2006 continued enrollment, and the need to work many hours off campus which can prohibit students from fully engaging in the college experience. If students are not able to successfully find their way through these screens, they may be either temporarily or permanently separated from the college experience. Figure 1. What matters to student success The next part of the path—the college experience itself—includes two central features: students’ behaviors and institutional conditions. Student behaviors include such aspects as the time and effort students put into their studies, interaction with faculty, and peer involvement. Institutional conditions include resources, educational polices, programs and practices, and structural features. At the intersection of student behaviors and institutional conditions is student engagement. We focus on student engagement because it represents aspects of student behavior and institutional performance that colleges and universities can do something about, at least on the margins, whereas many other factors such as precollege characteristics are typically beyond the direct control of the student or the college or university. Equally important, high levels of student engagement are associated with a wide range of educational practices and conditions, including purposeful student-faculty contact, active and collaborative learning, and institutional environments perceived by students as inclusive and affirming and where expectations for performance are clearly communicated and set at reasonably high levels (Astin 1991; Chickering and Gamson 1987; Chickering and Reisser 1993; Kuh et al.1991; Pascarella 2001; Pascarella and Terenzini 1991, 2005). These and other student behaviors and institutional conditions discussed in more detail later are related to student satisfaction, persistence, educational attainment and learning and development across a variety of dimensions (Astin 1984, 1985, 1993b; 8 July 2006 Bruffee 1993; Goodsell, Maher, and Tinto 1992; Johnson, Johnson, and Smith 1991; McKeachie et al. 1986; Pascarella and Terenzini; Pike 1993; Sorcinelli 1991). Finally, we briefly summarize the literature on the desired outcomes and post-college indicators of student success. Among the many functions of postsecondary education in a knowledge-based economy is preparing students to live productive, satisfying, responsible and economically self-sufficient lives. Indeed, given the massive investments of public and private resources in building and sustaining postsecondary educational institutions, knowing how individual students and the larger society benefit is, perhaps, the most important barometers of the degree to which students succeed in college. 9 July 2006 10 July 2006 3. MAJOR THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON STUDENT SUCCESS IN COLLEGE As Kurt Lewin once said, there is nothing more practical than a good theory. Given the importance of student success in college, using instructive perspectives to guide research and practice is essential. Fortunately, a handful of sound approaches are available, though as we shall see no single view is comprehensive enough to account for the complicated set of factors that interact to influence student and institutional performance, what Braxton, Sullivan, and Johnson (1997) call “the student departure puzzle.” The most often cited theories define student success in college as persistence and educational attainment, or achieving the desired degree or educational credential. These perspectives emphasize to varying degrees the importance of academic preparation and the quality of student experiences during college. This section is organized around an adaptation of Tinto’s (1986) and Braxton’s (2003) frameworks of college student departure. The theoretical perspectives we summarize are sociological, organizational, psychological, cultural, and economic, all of which contribute to our understanding of student success in college. Sociological Perspectives Tinto’s (1975, 1987, 1993) interactionalist theory is the dominant sociological perspective, having attained near paradigmatic status (Braxton, Sullivan, and Johnson 1997; Pascarella and Terenzini 2005). Grounded in Van Gennep’s (1960) anthropological model of cultural rites of passage, Tinto postulates that students first must separate from the group with which they were formerly associated, such as family members and high school peers, undergo a period of transition “during which the person begins to interact in new ways with the members of the new group into which membership is sought” (Tinto 1993, p. 93), and incorporate or adopt the normative values and behaviors of the new group, or college. For Tinto, students who leave college are those who are unable to effectively distance themselves from their family or community of origin and adopt the values and the behavioral patterns that typify the environment of the institution they are attending. Tinto advances academic and social integration as complementary but independent processes by which students adjust to college life. Academic integration represents both satisfactory compliance with explicit norms, such as earning passing grades, and the normative academic values of the institution, such as an engineering school that values the physical sciences over the arts. Social integration represents the extent to which a student finds the institution’s social environment to be congenial with his or her preferences, which are shaped by the student’s background, values, and aspirations. Social integration is often measured as a composite of peer-to-peer interactions and faculty-student interactions, while academic integration reflects satisfaction with academic progress and choice of major (Kuh et al. 1994). Thus, student persistence is a function of dynamic relationships between the individual and other actors within the college and their home community. Tinto proposed that increased levels of academic and social integration will lead to greater commitment to the institution and to the goal of graduation (Bean 1983). These commitments in turn increase the likelihood a student will persist and graduate. Further, he asserts that families pass on advantages of their social position to their children via a process of expectation development, an idea consistent with status attainment theories and the literature on first-generation students. 11 July 2006 Observations About the Tinto Model Despite its popularity, Tinto’s theory has only modest empirical support. For example, only 8 of the 11 multi-institutional studies that attempted to link academic integration and persistence provided support for the relationship. Single institution studies examining the relationship between academic integration and persistence are less clear. Nineteen of 40 studies Braxton et al. examined did not indicate a link between persistence and academic integration. Support for social integration as a predictor of persistence is more robust than for academic integration (Braxton, Sullivan, and Johnson, 1997), suggesting that increasing social integration leads to greater institutional commitment, and thus greater likelihood of persistence to graduation. Another promising proposition is that a high level of commitment to the goal of graduation from college can compensate for a low level of commitment to the specific institution, and vice versa. Braxton and others concluded that the operational definitions for academic and social integration are inadequate and methodologically flawed (Braxton and Lien 2000; Braxton, Sullivan, and Johnson 1997; Hurtado and Carter 1997). For example, Tinto’s specific conceptualization of academic integration may not be equally applicable to all students (Berger 2000), nor have the links between the stages of separation, transition, and incorporation been empirically verified (Nora 2001–02). Although Elkins, Braxton, and Glenn (2000) found some support for the separation stage of the model, Nora speculated that because students may leave college at any time, the stages are less distinct in real-life settings than they are presented conceptually. One reason for the absence of empirical support for the academic integration construct is that the model artificially separates student experiences that may be part of one broad social integration construct (Kuh and Love 2000). This suggests more refined measures are needed: “Perhaps survey items developed to measure these constructs do not capture the complexities and subtleties of the interactions between students and institutions that affect persistence” (Kuh and Love, p. 197). Social Networks Although there is some disagreement about how to best operationalize various components of the Tinto model, most agree that for students to succeed in college, they must learn to negotiate foreign environments and interact effectively with strangers (Kuh and Love 2000). Thus, interpersonal relationships both on and off campus play a role in mediating student success in college. Also, the different sets of values and norms represented by home life and college need to be taken into account when studying various aspects of student success. This view is consistent with a social networks perspective that college students’ relationships with faculty and staff and peers as well as family, friends, and mentors contribute to student satisfaction, persistence, and what students gain from college (Astin 1977, 1993b; Kuh et al. 2005b; Kuh et al. 1991; Pascarella and Terenzini 1991, 2005; Tinto 1975, 1987, 1993). Social networks are “structures of relationships linking social actors” (Marsden 2004, p. 2727). The nature of these relationships and the extent to which they support students in their college-based activities or present obstacles to academic progress can vary along multiple dimensions. For example, Berger and Milem (1999) found that the students most likely to persist are those whose values, norms and behavior are already congruent with dominant patterns on campus. They, along with Attinasi (1989), emphasized the importance of making connections early on with peers and faculty members. Skahill (2002–03) found that commuters were less likely to persist and had fewer friends attending the college; in contrast, residential students made more new friends, were more tightly connected with the institution, and were more likely to persist. Similarly, Kenny and Stryker (1996) found that social adjustment to college for racially and ethnically diverse students was primarily a function of their family support 12 July 2006 networks; for White students, however, social adjustment was more strongly tied to college friendship networks. Pescosolido (1994, p. 276) likened social networks to a psychological safety net: “When individuals exist in social structures which are too regulated or too integrated, the safety net closes up. There is no flexibility or ‘give’ to the social safety net. When they experience a crisis, in essence they hit a wall which shatters rather than supports.” At the other extreme, insufficient integration and or regulation may leave an individual without enough support during difficult times or without information needed to deal with problems or who to turn to for help, and they fall through holes in the safety net. “It is only in the center of the net, where social networks are balanced and moderate in their provision of integration and/or regulation, in which individuals can be safely ‘caught’” (Pescosolido p. 276). Social networks help explain why social integration is more difficult for certain groups of students, while the family influence is all the more influential (Chamberlain 2005). Organizational Perspectives Organizational perspectives emphasize the institutional structures and processes that are thought to affect student performance. Among the more important features are institutional size, selectivity, resources, and faculty-student ratios. The most frequently cited organizational perspective, Bean’s (1983) student attrition model, posits that beliefs shape attitudes, attitudes shape behaviors, and behaviors signal intents. A student’s beliefs are affected by experiences with the institution, which then evolve into attitudes about the institution, which ultimately determine a student’s sense of belonging or “fit” with the institution. Thus, students’ perceptions of the fairness of institutional policies and the responsiveness of faculty and staff presumably affect decisions to persist or leave the institution. Similarly, the leadership and decisionmaking approaches favored by senior administrators are also thought to have some affect on student satisfaction and adjustment (Berger and Braxton 1998). Pike and Kuh (2005a) lend some support to this view by suggesting that negative perceptions of the campus environment are associated with a variety of general institutional characteristics, including size, control, mission (i.e., Carnegie classification), and location (urban, suburban, rural). Nonetheless, the links between these features of institutional functioning and student behavior are not well explicated and, in Braxton’s (2003) judgment, lack explanatory power. Psychological Perspectives Bean and Eaton (2000) used attitude-behavior theory to emphasize the importance of student characteristics to success in college. They proposed that personality traits such as self-efficacy help a student persevere when faced with academic and social challenges; those with a strong, better developed self-concept are more confident about their ability to succeed, while those who are less confident are more likely to founder and give up when encountering difficult circumstances. Similarly, students guided by an internal locus of control believe they can work their way through situations, while those who are externally controlled may conclude that fate has determined their course, especially when facing trying times; as a consequence they may give up and leave college prematurely. Consistent with this view is Dweck’s (2000) work on self-theories about intelligence. According to Dweck, most students tend to hold either an entity view or an incremental view of their ability. In the former, intelligence is essentially fixed; in the latter, intelligence is something that can be expanded through continued learning and experience. It is possible, Dweck discovered, that students’ views of their abilities can be altered by structuring early learning experiences in a new subject by starting with what students are good at. “Those who are led to believe their intelligence is a malleable quality begin to take 13 July 2006 on challenging learning tasks and begin to take advantage of the skill-improvement opportunities that come their way” (Dweck, p. 26). This has powerful implications for many historically underserved students who have doubts about their abilities to do college-level work and persist to graduation (Kuh et al. 2005b). This information can be used to help faculty members understand the consequences of prematurely judging the talents and abilities of their students. Expectancy theory, self-efficacy theory, and motivational theory suggest that students are predisposed to seek out certain kinds of activities during college (Kuh 1999; Olsen et al. 1998), such as how to spend time, which, in turn, affects their performance inside and outside the classroom (Bandura 1982; Dweck and Leggett 1988). Psychological contract theory (Rousseau 1995) holds that students have certain beliefs about the appropriate nature of relationships with peers, faculty, and staff. A key feature of this psychological contract is that there is an implicit agreement between the student and the institution as to how one is to respond to the other. These understandings rarely become explicit or orally articulated by the student, though the institution may set forth expectations in catalogues and other such materials as codes of conduct. When the student perceives the contract is breached, the student may lose trust in the institution as represented by peers or faculty. Thus, what students generally expect to have happen when they start college shapes their behavior, which, in turn, affects their academic performance and social adjustment to college life (Howard 2005; Kuh 1999). Cultural Perspectives Cultural perspectives suggest that many historically underrepresented students encounter challenges when they get to college that make it difficult for them to take advantage of their school’s resources for learning and personal development. Student perceptions of the institutional environment and dominant norms and values influence how students think and spend their time. Taken together, these properties influence student satisfaction and the extent to which students take part in educationally purposeful activities (Astin 1977, 1993b; Kuh et al. 2005b; Kuh et al. 1991; Kuh and Whitt 1988; Pascarella and Terenzini 1991, 1995). With this in mind, one school of thought is that student-institution fit models of adjustment such as Tinto’s may be framed by culturally biased assumptions about what is necessary to survive and thrive in college (Attinasi 1989, 1992; Gonzalez 2000–01; Kuh and Love 2000; Rendon, Jalomo, and Nora 2000; Tierney 1992, 1993). The point of contention is whether students need or should be expected to conform to prevailing institutional norms and mores if they conflict with those of their family of origin (Tierney 1992). Jalomo (1995) found, for example, that Latino community college students were able to successfully operate in the multiple contexts of home and school, but the transitions were challenging. Successfully navigating dual environments of home and college, Rendon, Jalomo, and Nora argue, is the responsibility of, and demands effort by, both the individual and institution; students should not be left to manage and resolve these differences on their own, especially when the college environment values conventions and traditions that students perceive to be alien or antithetical to their own. Gonzalez (2000), Ortiz (2004), and Torres (2003) describe the tensions first-generation Latino students feel between college and home life. Students who are first in their families to be raised in the United States seem to experience a greater degree of conflict between home life and college life (Torres 2003). This tension (often stronger for Latinas, traditionally expected to remain at home) stems not just from simply leaving home, an experience that may not seem as significant to them as actually being away from home. Many Latinos wrestle with this tension and various cultural issues throughout their college experience. Similarly, Turner (1994) likened the experience of students in the cultural minority to that of being a guest in someone’s home; one never achieves a sense of ownership or feeling like a full member of the academic community. These students are lonely and do not perceive that faculty, staff, and administrators are interested in their well-being and academic success. 14 July 2006 To London (1989), first-generation students stand on the margin of two cultures: that of their friends and family at home contrasted with the college community. Compared with students whose parents attended college and socialized them from a young age to consider college an inevitable rite of passage London (1989), and and Nuñez and Cuccaro-Alamin (1998) believe that many first-generation students experience college-going as severing important relationships at the same time they are trying to resolve the conflicts generated by the pressures to succeed educationally and family perceptions that they are rejecting traditional family norms and values by being in college. Although many first-generation students are White, the disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic minorities within this group merits special consideration for two reasons. One is that these students may face educational challenges associated with their racial or ethnic minority status in addition to those related to being first-generation college students. Even well-meaning primarily White institutions (PWIs) often maintain culturally biased policies and practices that contribute to cultural alienation for minority students that blunts their socialization because students get mixed messages about what is expected of them (Torres 2003; Swail 2003). As Cuyjet (1997) pointed out, group membership in various campus subcommunities may appear to be nominally open, but in practice minority students may see them as unwelcoming. It is also possible that White first-generation students—especially those from low-income family backgrounds—experience conflicts and challenges similar to those of first-generation ethnic minority students. Bourdieu’s construct of habitus provides an instructive lens for understanding the complexities and nuances of the experiences of first-generation and ethnic minority students. Habitus refers to a system of enduring dispositions that incorporates previous experiences that can impose unconscious limits on an individual’s educational and career aspirations (Bourdieu and Passeron 1977). Habitus also shapes individual actions, such as choosing a major field, or perceiving opportunities that are available to them, such as doing research with a faculty member or studying abroad. Habitus is also a heuristic for exploring the complex and deep-rooted patterns that have limited access of historically underserved students to postsecondary educational opportunities. The construct is especially useful when combined with the social networks view for understanding individual behavior in a specific institutional setting and the meaning that students make of college life (Horvat 2003; Lareau and Horvat 1998). Although habitus can perpetuate self-conceptions of low status and may predispose students to use less productive educational strategies, it also has a dynamic component that allows the possibility that students can adopt new approaches to managing academic and social challenges. Developing new ways of responding can be triggered in different ways, such as encounters with new situations, exposure to the habitus of others, or interacting with people who originate from very different backgrounds, all of which occur with regularity in the college environment (Harker 1984; Lamont and Lareau 1988). One of the more desirable outcomes of such experiences is developing higher aspirations for academic achievement and personal development. Economic Perspectives One more way of viewing the factors that influence student departure decisions is to weigh the costs and benefits of staying in college and participating in various activities. That is, if a student perceives that the cost of staying in school or becoming involved in a certain activity—such as orientation, a first-year seminar, internship, or study abroad—outweighs the return on investment, they will forgo the opportunity and leave college prematurely (Braxton 2003). Costs are thought to include tuition and fees as well as lost income; benefits represent future earnings and other less tangible outcomes 15

Advise: Why You Wasting Money in Costly SEO Tools, Use World's Best Free SEO Tool Ubersuggest.