Submitted to the college of education and health sciences benedictine university lisle, illinois
Training of Faculty and Staff for Achieving the Dream Initiatives
Download 0.82 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Achieving the Dreams Training of Faculty and Staff at the College
- Learning Communities
- Establishing a Culture of Evidence
- Learning Outcomes
- Measuring Student Engagement
- Measuring Student Persistence
- Academic Performance in Community Colleges
- Grade Point Average - Academic Performance and Its Significance in the Job Market
Training of Faculty and Staff for Achieving the Dream Initiatives According to Lara Birnback and Will Friedman of Public Agenda (2009), stakeholder engagement is crucial to the success of Achieving the Dream. Stakeholder engagement is crucial to student and institutional success of community colleges. Stakeholders can report any obstacles to student success and achievement and help shape solutions to these problems (Birnback & Friedman, 2009). Achieving the Dream's process includes the training of faculty and staff to take part in the transformation to a learning-centered paradigm. It includes both adjunct and full-time instructors and professors. AtD has a philosophy of rigorous inclusion of adjunct faculty into the process of institutional change (AtD Public Agenda, 2011). Faculty engagement has been found to be crucial to the success of community college institutional policies and initiatives. According to a joint study by Public Agenda and Achieving the Dream in 2011, faculty engagement aids the institution by: "Shedding light on critical obstacles to student success, generating creative and practical solutions to close achievement gaps, leveraging faculty expertise in 'what works' to inform, drive and sustain change, foster a sense of shared ownership and responsibility for change efforts, minimize faculty resistance to, and improving implementation of, new practices, and insulating new practices from common derailers". (AtD Public Agenda, 2011, p. 5). Challenges that seemed to be obstacles to faculty engagement with student success initiatives included heavy workloads already placed on individual departments and various faculty members. When the workload is increased, the initiatives sent from institutional leadership are perceived to be a burden, and commitment to institutional goals is split among what the faculty perceives are higher priorities. In fact, they can be seen as distractions. Another perception by faculty might be that support is sought for too many institutional incentives with little focus on any one. Faculty must see the initiative as operationally feasible; otherwise, there is a hesitation to invest time. Faculty must also see a connection between the initiative and their own professional development or advancement, or at least the way it supports their function at the college. Resistance to mandates for initiatives is due to lack of faculty input into initiatives; such initiatives may be seen as something from the top level and down to their department without input from faculty or departmental staff. Faculty may also look at external causes that explain unprepared students coming into the community college system, and blame the K-12 sector. Faculty may resist institutional changes to the college when they feel the change belongs in the public school system. Another issue is that many colleges have not included adjunct faculty into institutional efforts of student success (AtD, Public Agenda, 2011). Institutional challenges include resistance due to new practices hindering existing institutional reward structures, based on prior practices. For faculty less established at an institution, this is a concern especially in matters of tenure or compensation. Some faculty resist AtD data due to the student participants not being a part of their particular student group, even if the student success principles apply across the academic spectrum. Institutions that have a strong autonomous faculty presence may resist change and even attempt to insulate other teachers or professors from institutional initiatives toward change that require faculty to take on new practices and responsibilities. Frequent leadership turnover is a threat to stability, and faculty is less likely to concern themselves with initiatives from upper-level institutional leadership until stability is seen. Silos within the college also threaten institutional teamwork not only among departments but also among upper leadership. It undermines efforts to engage faculty in institutional improvement practices and policies (AtD, Public Agenda, 2011). The following recommendations were made for faculty engagement and institutional improvement at community colleges by Achieving the Dream and Public Agenda: "When making the commitment to institutional change and improvement, it is important to exercise leadership that inspires a willingness among adjunct and full-time faculty to become active partners in the difficult and often uncomfortable work of change. When using data to assess achievement gaps and decide on specific interventions, invest in institutional research capacity to create both a culture of evidence and a culture of engagement, one that treats full-time and adjunct faculty as valuable partners in making sense of data. When designing strategies, provide the resources, incentives and recognition for full-time and adjunct faculty to engage intensively as tactical partners on the front line of institutional change. When implementing, evaluating, and improving strategies, institutionalize expectations and opportunities for continuous engagement in order to deepen full-time and adjunct faculty commitment to change efforts. When creating the conditions for sustainability and continuous improvement, work to span silos and nurture a college culture that is inquiry-based, collaborative and transparent" (AtD, Public Agenda, 2011, p. 8). Faculty can be engaged in the Achieving the Dream initiative in several ways. Faculty, whether full time or adjunct can participate in core and data teams or student success committees and task forces, as well as provide leadership on these initiatives. They may serve as student success advocates, advisors, coaches, and mentors. They may work in institutional collaborative groups for redesigning courses, curricula and assessments. They may take part in retreats that discuss AtD data and strategies, and participate in focus groups, stakeholder discussions, as well as campus and community-wide meetings on student success. They may also participate in faculty development seminars linked to strategic improvements in student success (AtD, 2009). Achieving the Dream's Training of Faculty and Staff at the College College X reported in its 2007 AtD annual narrative report that their institutional cultural change had to involve the entire college community. This specific AtD initiative launched in 2006 was routinely discussed in Deans’ Council meetings, Academic and Student Affairs meetings, as well as meetings of staff, and full-time and adjunct faculty. Town Hall meetings for staff, faculty, and students were launched on all three main campuses. It was also discussed at a New Faculty Orientation Workshop. Faculty and staff were engaged in participating in the planning and implementation of AtD pilot initiatives (The College’s Narrative Report, 2007). Developmental Mathematics and English faculty, counselors, assessment and testing staff, as well as student and academic affairs administrators attended two workshops on the planning and implementation of AtD pilot initiatives. The report advised that there was a successful inter-campus and interdisciplinary exchange of ideas and experiences. Learning Communities Learning communities are small groups of college students that take two or more linked courses together (Price, 2005). These student groups share learning and campus experiences together while working together to improve their learning of the course material. In some cases, these students are progressive from one course to the next, sharing the academic experience and strengthening their engagement to peers and the college. The learning experience does help to form closer bonds not only among students but also between students and faculty. In some community colleges, student groups share in their progression through developmental education, then to a shared major, and finally, to a possible transfer to another college upon completion of their certificate or degree. Many colleges, and in particular, community colleges, have started and expanded learning communities as a way to promote student success (Price, 2005). The Washington Center for Undergraduate Education at Evergreen State College, founded in 1985 and also known as The Washington Center, works with both, four-year and two-year institutions, in advocating student success, and its largest focus are learning communities. In 1996 The Washington Center expanded support for learning communities with assistance from The Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) and the Pew Charitable Trusts. A 2002 survey by the Policy Center on the First Year of College brought evidence that all types of colleges and universities had established some form of learning communities and 62% of the responding institutions had students involved in learning communities in two or more courses (Barefoot, 2002). According to Nancy Shapiro, the Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs at the University System of Maryland, and Jodi Levine Laufgraben, Vice Provost for Academic Affairs and Assessment at Temple University, learning communities while different in scope and orientation do share several basic characteristics:
The characteristics of these learning communities are supposed to "create an integrated teaching and learning experience for participants" (Shapiro & Levine, 1999, p.6) (Price 2005, p.3). When the first group of Achieving the Dream colleges was chosen in 2004, 13 of 27 community colleges identified learning communities as intervention strategies for student success. In 2005, the institution where the research was conducted became a participating AtD college which also adopted the use of learning communities. Establishing a Culture of Evidence Evidence-based decision-making in higher education is the practice of using data to make decisions (Leimer, 2012). This includes strategic planning, assessments, performance planning, institutional effectiveness, and strategies for achieving student success. For the last twenty years, the U.S. department of Education (USDE) has leveraged pressure for public schools and colleges to improve and document student outcomes and achievements. States are required by the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act to monitor the performance of all elementary, middle, and high schools, based on students’ standardized test scores, to remediate (intervention by reconciliation of schools and the state on issues of concern), reorganize, or if necessary, close schools down that are unable to close student achievement gaps (Jenkins & Kerrigan, 2008). This also has led to states calling for accountability on student outcomes among public universities and colleges. State education boards, legislators, accreditation agencies, and boards of trustees have decided to seek evidence of student outcomes. Taking data collecting techniques and strategies from private industries and the medical field, and taking advantage of the consistent increase in Information Technology (IT) on campus, many colleges and universities now use data analyses to design, manage and improve student services, and discover ways of improving student learning. Institutions that are data-driven are now evidence-based, and strategies for student success are based on institutional reforms in the way they operate (Jenkins & Kerrigan, 2008). Achieving the Dream mandates that colleges create a culture of inquiry and evidence in which all decisions are based on evidence of what works to improve student outcomes (Jenkins, Ellwein, Wachen, Kerrigan & Cho, 2009). The college where this study was conducted, has been involved in Achieving the Dream since 2005, and refers to its institutional culture of evidence as pervasive, even as it engages in improvements that are thoughtful and data informed activities that contribute to student success (The institution's AQIP Report, 2012). The college reported that discussions about goals and targets were not present at the institution in the past, but that since 2012, a culture of evidence now exists with the institution tracking key performance indicators (KPIs). Through AtD, the college reported completion of action projects that led to standing committees and standardized processes (The institution's AQIP Report, 2012). Learning Outcomes In the summer of 2000, the League for Innovation in the Community College developed a network of sixteen community colleges in the 21st Century Learning Outcomes Project. The Project was funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts and launched by the League for Innovation in the Community College. The 21st Century Learning Outcomes Project was launched to design and test new outcomes-based methods for defining, assessing, and documenting student learning (Miles & Wilson, 2004). The project lasted for over three years and focused on five institutional objectives:
The college had already identified previous sets of core competencies and revalidated its existing General Education and Life Competencies such as communication, mathematics, sciences, the arts and humanities, social and behavioral sciences, cultural diversity-interdependence global awareness, computer and information literacy, critical thinking, and consumer awareness and health (Miles & Wilson, 2004). After the project concluded in 2004, the college moved into participating with Achieving the Dream. Measuring Student Engagement Student Engagement is measured differently from institution to institution, and may depend on a variety of factors, such as pre-entry socio-economic conditions, K-12 background, or family status. It may also depend on current factors while at the institution, such as expectations and aspirations, a direction or goal for personal achievement, faculty and class size, the social context or culture of the institution, or being attached to a learning community (Krause, 2005). Above all, student engagement to the institution and to learning communities is a key to success in the first year in the university. Student engagement is either student-driven or institution-driven (Kuh & Umbach, 2004). If student-driven, it represents the amount of time and effort a student puts into academic studies as well as educational and social activities on campus. If institution-driven, it represents how the college utilizes resources to create a student-learning environment, organizes curriculum (Kuh, 2004), or connects with the student from enrollment, the registration process, financial aid process, academic planning and counseling, formation of learning communities, technology use, and online access to institutional aids and campus events. For Student Affairs, student engagement is critical to both student persistence and academic performance (Strayhorn, 2008). Students are less engaged at community colleges than at four-year institutions. Improved methods of student engagement may aid the student through the first year and contribute to student success. Student success can be improved if institutions create avenues of communication that connect students to faculty, staff, and other students. A proposed method is the increased of use of technology (Hrabowski III & Suess, 2010). Student engagement has been a high priority with institutions for many years (Evidence supported in the literature of Astin, 1977, 1985; Chickering, 1969, 1974; Feldman & Newcomb, 1969; Pace, 1979; Kuh, 1981; Sanford, 1962). Salisbury University in Maryland has a Foundations of Excellence Task Force created due to faculty concerns about academic performance among first-year students. Surveys conducted there revealed that 66% of first-year students studied ten hours or less a week compared to 45% of first-year students at peer institutions (Cohea-Weible, Dawkins-Gordy, & Perrault, 2005). Task Force recommendations were:
Several instruments exist to measure student engagement, such as focus groups, student surveys, personal interviews, and aggregate data to establish a percentage of students involved in learning communities, extracurricular activities, the use of student mentors or tutors, the use of academic counselors, and student-faculty engagement. Measuring Student Persistence Student persistence, much like student success and student engagement, is defined differently across institutions and the literature. However, the term implies a verb action, “to persist,” indicating an individual action by the student, and reflects the student's effort to maintain good academic standing at the college. Retention is an institutional term used to indicate whether the student is still enrolled during the next semester. Since this study focuses on first year students only, student persistence in this study is assessed from the first day of classes to the time the student either drops or continues until the end of the academic year. Student persistence can be affected by many factors, such as family or financial concerns, academic failure, and lack of engagement with the college, which leads to the student dropping out, or even transferring to another institution in the first year. Part-time enrollment can further obscure the definition of student persistence, as many will drop out for years at a time, taking courses only as needed or according to personal interest (DeVoll, 1989). Defining student persistence could not be done without paying attention to the integration of students into academic or social life at an institution. Student engagement is a contributor to the connection of a student to a campus and its academic purpose. The social integration of a student to the campus is measured by peer-to-peer (student-to-student) or faculty-to-student interactions, which becomes a dynamic that contributes to student persistence (Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges & Hayek, 2006). Studies of underrepresented populations or nontraditional students indicate the presence of external factors that affect student persistence, and yet are beyond the control of the institution (Kuh et al., 2006). Community colleges today, for the most part, exist to accept any student in their communities and to provide access to higher education for any students that may apply. With this access comes great responsibility. It is the community college that admits students without selectivity (with the possible exception of geographic location). Remedial studies are of primary importance to community colleges so much that, many offer three or four remedial mathematics or English courses, just to get the student to college level in these disciplines. In many community colleges, the majority of students will complete a placement test that finds them below college level and will begin remedial studies prior to their major. Academic Performance in Community Colleges Achievement gaps exist between minority and non-minority students as well as among students from high and low socio-economic conditions (Fairlee, Hoffmann, & Oreopoulos, 2011). Community colleges enroll most of the minority students in the United States and almost half of all students attending public higher education (The Aspen Institute, 2013). President Obama has initiated a proposal to increase the number of college graduates by five million by 2020. The proposal suggests that K-12 and early college programs will be called upon to increase reading, literacy and other basic education requirements, to make students college ready. Lifting high school students out of illiteracy would be a welcome accomplishment for community colleges that spend much of their budget attempting to sustain remedial programs and keep these students engaged so that they may persist, attain college–level proficiency and academic achievement and become degree-seeking students. In 2005, the MDRC (Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation) did a qualitative study of community college students under the Opening Doors Demonstration model, where interviews were conducted with a small sample of 47 students at two locations, which were Lorain County Community College in Elyria, Ohio and Kingsborough Community College in Brooklyn, New York. At Lorain, the Opening Door program enhanced student advising services, while at Kingsborough, small learning communities were used to assist the students. Students were told to discuss their preparation for college, academic performance, family and work responsibilities, and connections to faculty, staff, and other students. Findings of the study revealed that many younger students (age 20 and under) reported they attended college largely to please their parents and did not feel a strong personal motivation to succeed. Many students between 21 and 25 reported enrolling to escape low-wage work and instead provide a higher standard of living for their families. Parenting responsibilities of students with children interfered with studying and attending class. Finally, making friends in college was not that important to interviewed students. However, at the Lorain campus, individualized attention to students in the advisory model helped students avoid academic problems in such as overloading their class schedules. At Kingsborough, the students who had coordinated curricula through learning groups reported higher levels of personal attention than those in traditional classrooms (Gardenhire-Crooks, Collado & Ray, 2006). Grade Point Average - Academic Performance and Its Significance in the Job Market Grade Point Average (GPA) is an indicator of how successful a student has been in their education. Some institutions will look at high school GPA and extracurricular activities, as well as a college interview, as critical components to admission. Some community colleges have standards or cutoffs to participate in certain programs, such as medical (nursing) or physical therapy. For these programs, prior GPA at the institution may range anywhere from 2.5-3.5, depending on the institution. Graduate schools, on a global perspective, generally do not accept students with less than a 2.5 GPA unless there it was accommodated with a record of extracurricular activities. Even then, a look at most graduate school websites recommend between a 3.0-3.3 or above GPA for admission. Again, a simple check on institutional websites will give this information. For community colleges, however, the driving purpose of attendance there is to get a skill in order to get a job in the marketplace. It then falls to those doing interviews in the marketplace to determine whether GPA is a strong indicator of competence when hiring. Download 0.82 Mb. Share with your friends:
|