Category: Student Learning

Moving From Serendipity to Intentionality in Student Learning

On By Gavin HenningIn Assessment, Higher Education, Student Affairs, Student Learning1 Comment

NOTE: This was originally posted to ACPA Developments Volume 13, Summer 2015 Issue (June 2015)

Please visit ACPA Video On Demand where I discuss this concept in a video interview.

On a Friday night in late April in 1987, during the spring of my sophomore year, I was attending a movie with friends in Brody Hall at Michigan State University. Back then, the Residence Hall Association screened movies in select lecture halls across campus. We didn’t have Netflix back then. We didn’t even have cable.

After the movie an event happened that changed my life forever.

On my way out of the lecture hall I ran into a friend of mine, Stacy Huffman, from my hometown of Saginaw, MI, who had also attending the movie. As friends who hadn’t seen each other in a while (it was a 21 acre campus of 30,000+ students), we caught each other up on our lives. As the semester was nearing an end, we discussed our summer plans in Saginaw. Stacy said that she was going to be staying on campus working for the Academic Orientation Program. She continued that they were looking for one more male orientation leader and encouraged me to apply. The interviews were the next day and there was an opening at 8am.

Wiping sleep from my eyes I got early, ate my Wheaties, and headed to the interview. A few days later I was notified that I had been selected as an orientation leader. Serendipity opened the door to my first student affairs job and my career – although I didn’t comprehend it at the time.

Fast forward to June of 1993. Frustration and anxiety was setting in because I had recently graduated with my master’s degree from MSU and, unlike my classmates, was still job searching. And searching. And searching. There had been a few phone interviews and even a couple of campus interviews, but nothing panned out. Self-doubt became all-consuming as I wondered why no one wanted to hire me despite what I thought were excellent grades and extensive experience.

When hope was waning, serendipity struck again.

I received a call from the Department of Residence Life at the University of New Hampshire for an on-campus interview. A hall director job at UNH was my “perfect” job from the start of my search. Unfortunately for me, a few weeks before, shortly after the phone interview, I was told that they had hired other individuals for their open spaces. However, a residence hall director had decided to leave UNH in June, opening up a position. I jumped at the chance for a campus interview. Two months later I was packing up a U-Haul to make the trip Durham, New Hampshire for my “perfect” job. This position created the foundation of who I am as an educator today. Plus, UNH was where I met my current partner. Call it destiny. Call it kismet. Or maybe it was just chance. But, it this result was certainly not intentional.

The orientation leader position began my career in student affairs but working for the Department of Residence Life at the University of New Hampshire changed how I approached my job. While I learned many things during my six years in residence life, one word has stuck with me and was the concept that compelled me into assessment work. That word is “intentionality.” During numerous staff and supervision meetings hall directors discussed how we were being intentional in our outreach to students and in our programming. Intentionality became a mantra for my work then and the driving force for the assessment work I have been undertaking the past 15 years.

Synonyms for serendipity include chance and accident while synonyms for intentional include designed, deliberate, and planned. While not antonyms of one another the concepts of serendipity and intentional are opposed to each other. I think serendipity vs. intentionality is a tension we continue to struggle with today in regard to learning in higher education. All too often we assume or think that learning is happening outside of the classroom and we aren’t doing as much as we can to intentionally foster it. We can no longer rely on serendipity to ensure student learning and success.

External demands for accountability are increasing the need for intentionality. The completion agenda dominates the national discourse of higher education. Students, parents, and legislatures are questioning the return on investment of a college education and want to known what students are learning after paying exorbitant amounts of money. College administrators are questioning the value of student affairs in an era of service provision where students are customers and clients. During a program session with college presidents at ACPA15, when asked what the priority should be for student affairs, all panelists stated that college student educators need to be able to demonstrate how they and their work positively contributes to student learning and retention. The completion agenda at the federal and state level is a major thrust behind the current accountability movement in higher education. This emphasis on retention is not simply because of the individual benefits for students who graduate but because of the financial impact of tuition revenue and state appropriations for colleges and universities.

More important than external calls for accountability are the internal calls for accountability that originate from inside each one of us as college student educators. We chose this profession for our careers because of the want and need to positively impact lives of college students. Thus, we strive to do the best job we can to assist students. As a field, we need to make intentionality an interwoven thread in the fabric of everyday practice to ensure student success, both academically and personally.

Intentionally isn’t rocket science. It can be explained in a four-step process outlined by Linda Suskie (2009). The first step is to begin with what you want students to achieve (aka outcomes which an be learning, operational, or program). Once outcomes are identified, existing literature and other evidence are used to identify strategies to foster those outcomes in step 2. Step 3 is to collect and analyze data to determine if the outcomes are achieved and how outcome achievement can be improved. The final step is the most important – closing the loop by making improvements. Intentionally is a process, not a destination.

Suskie Cycle

Figure 1. Assessment cycle by Suskie, L. (2009). Assessing student learning: A common sense guide (2nd Ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

How Can ACPA Help You Be More Intentional
ACPA’s focus is student learning. As stated in our mission “ACPA supports and fosters college student learning through the generation and dissemination of knowledge, which informs policies, practices and programs for student affairs professionals and the higher education community” (ACPA, 2015). There are many ways ACPA can help you foster student learning, development, and success.

Individuals can leverage ACPA to help foster and support student learning by accessing the scholarship that is generated through various outlets. ACPA’s signature publication is the Journal of College Student Development. There are articles in each issue pertinent to faculty and practitioners alike. Previous issues include scholarship regarding experiences of Asian American and Latino/a students at an HBCU, the academic performance of Black emerging adults, a method to increase the grade point averages of fraternity members, and others.

About Campus is a scholarly publication directed towards practitioners. This bi-monthly magazine provides insights to improve practice in higher education. Past issues include articles addressing positive psychology, long-term success in work and life, as well as high impact practices.

In addition to these publications, and Developments which you are reading now, ACPA also sponsors books and monographs. This past year ACPA published Job One 2.0: Understanding the Next Generation of Student Affairs Professionals which focuses on the first jobs of college student educators as well as Working With Students in Community Colleges: Contemporary Strategies for Bridging Theory, Research, and Practice which provides approaches to help community college students be successful. Additional publications can be found here. ACPA books and monographs coupled with our other publications provide faculty and practitioners a library of research and scholarship to inform further research and practice.

Another major way that ACPA supports student learning, development, and success is helping college student educators across the spectrum of higher education bridge theory to practice. Some of this work is done through our acclaimed professional development events. Most of our activities are driven by curricula rooted in research. Upcoming events include

You can find additional professional development events here.

Theory to practice is also addressed in other venues including ACPA On Demand and Student Affairs Live, sponsored by ACPA. ACPA On Demand is collection of pre-recorded videos covering a variety of topics relevant to college student educators. Student Affairs Live is a weekly talk show viewed via GoogleHangouts covering critical emergent issues in higher education. Recorded versions of the shows are available the Student Affairs Live website and podcasts are available in iTunes.

As college student educators, we need to be much more intentional in how we cultivate student learning and development. While learning may happen by serendipity, we can’t rely on that. Our students – our future – are too important to rely on chance. ACPA is your go-to source for research, scholarship, and proven practices for fostering student success. Tap into the resources now!

References
ACPA (2015). Mission, vision, and values. Retrieved on April 8, 2015 from http://www.myacpa.org/values

Suskie, L. (2009). Assessing student learning: A common sense guide (2nd Ed). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

The Completion Agenda: Opportunities for College Student Educators

On By Gavin HenningIn Assessment, College Completion, Higher Education, Student Affairs, Student LearningLeave a comment

NOTE: This was posted as part of the ACPA President’s Blog for May 2015

Please visit ACPA On Demand for an interview of me discussing this topic.

Regardless of the news source one turns to, the completion agenda is in the headlines of the higher education section. It’s also the hot topic on the radar screens of policymakers’ and college presidents. While many higher education officials are concerned with the impact this federal policy has on higher education at the national, state, and local level, we as college student educators can actualize the opportunity the completion agenda presents. This policy provides a chance to demonstrate the impact we have on the success of college students.

In February of 2009, President Obama outlined his completion agenda with the goal of attaining the world’s highest proportion of college graduates by 2020 (Kanter, Ochoa, Nassif, & Chong, 2011). According to 2012 data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the United States ranks 19th out of 28 countries studied (Weston, 2014). There is some work to be done on this front.

President Obama presented three reasons supporting this policy. The first was that a college degree is required for 60% of jobs. In addition to being a requirement for the majority of jobs, an individual with a college degree earns 40% more over a lifetime than those without. This is a significant financial benefit. Finally, President Obama believed that an educated citizenry was needed for an engaged democracy (Kanter, Ochoa, Nassif, & Chong, 2011).

Future of Higher Education Funding
This policy position has influenced conversations regarding state funding for higher education with a new focus on program-based budgeting. With this budgeting model state allocations are based on results, in this case completion rates, rather than the number of students enrolled, which has been the traditional model. As of January 2015, 34 states had some form of program-based budgeting for higher education funding although the percentage of overall funding based on graduation percentages does vary (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2015).

We can debate the pros and cons of this form of program-based budgeting, but it appears to be the future higher education funding model. With continued financial issues impacting colleges and universities including Louisiana State University (O’Donoghue, 2015), student affairs budgets are in jeopardy requiring vice presidents to not only advocate for more resources but also defend current resources.

At ACPA16 in Tampa, ACPA sponsored a panel of five college presidents who came up through the ranks of student affairs. These presidents included Joe Bertolino from Lyndon State College, Marybeth Cooper from Springfield College, Tom Jackson from Blackhills State University, Steve Tyrell from North Country Community College, and Karen Whitney from Clarion University. During this panel each president emphatically stated the need for college student educators to demonstrate their impact on retention and graduation. The continued that support of retention and graduation is the key to demonstrating value within a college or university.

Turning Crisis Into Opportunity
Some may view the issue of declining resources and centralized focus on retention as a crisis facing college student educators – a crisis that shifts to a financial bottom line, not students. However, a focus on retention actually centers on students and how educators can help each individual graduate. When one takes a moment to reviews the literature regarding retention and graduation, college student educators play a key role many of those success factors.

John Braxton, William Doyle, Harold Hartley, Amy Hirschy, Willis Jones, and Michael McLendon published Rethinking College Student Retention in November of 2013. (For a review of the book in the Journal of College Student Development 55(6), visit https://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_college_student_development/v055/55.6.henning.html) In this text, the authors discuss their theories of retention for residential colleges and commuter institutions explaining how they tested each. The factors influencing retention in residential colleges include:

  1. Commitment to getting a degree.
  2. Commitment to attending an institution.
  3. Social integration (degree of social affiliation and congruency of beliefs, norms, and values of the community – in other words “connection” and “fit”)(antecedents include). Social integration can be deconstructed into:
    • Commitment of the institution to student welfare: Concern by the institution to the growth and development of students.
    • Community potential: Feeling connected to a group of individuals.
    • Institutional integrity: Words and actions of faculty and staff are congruence with mission and values.
    • Proactive social adjustment: Ability to adjust in a proactive manner to overcome challenges.
    • Psychosocial engagement: Amount of psychological energy students invest in social interactions with peers and their participation in extracurricular activities.
    • Ability to pay: Satisfaction with cost of attending/seeing college as a financial value.

The components in the theory of retention at commuter colleges include the following:

  1. Student entry characteristics (SES, parents education, ability, race, gender, etc.).
  2. External environment (finances, support, work, family, community).
  3. Campus environment, which includes:
    • Student characteristics interaction with campus environment (being motivated to adapt to this type of environment, motivation to graduate, and self-efficacy)
    • Organizational characteristics that foster academic and intellectual development including,
      1. Commitment of the institution to student welfare: Concern by the institution to the growth and development of students
      2. Institutional integrity: Words and actions of faculty and staff are congruence with mission and values

Upon reviewing these two theories, it’s clear that college student educators play a major role in retention. Here are just some of the roles we play:

  • We demonstrate that the institution cares.
  • We connect students with campus communities.
  • We support them as they continually adjust.
  • We create opportunities to engage.
  • We are also conduits to support the mission and values of the institution.

What Can We Do and How Can ACPA Help
First, college student educators must become familiar with retention theory. As professionals it is our responsibility to bring theory into practice. When we use theory, we build and hone our practice on research rather relying on anecdotes and ideas of what “might work.” Being familiar with theory also permits college student educators to better tell the story of our impact on student success. And, in language that faculty are familiar – research and scholarship. And perhaps more importantly, we will be able to describe the outcomes of our work in the words of university leaders and educational policy makers – retention and graduation.

The focus on completion presents college student educators with an opportunity to be more intentional in our work but to also demonstrate our impact beyond housing students, feeding students, and helping them have fun.

ACPA is here to help you leverage this opportunity. Review the research and scholarship that ACPA generates and disseminates in the Journal of College Student Development, About Campus, Developments, as well as ACPA sponsored books and monographs. Bridge theory to practice by attending a professional development institute such as the Student Affairs Assessment Institute or the Residential Curriculum Institute. Connect with colleagues doing similar work. ACPA’s state chapters, coalitions (formerly standing committees), commissions, and newly created communities of practice provide these connection opportunities.

We have an opportunity in front of us. Rather than seeing it as a crisis or obstacle, we should leverage it to demonstrate our impact, but more importantly to help students succeed. ACPA can assist you in your journey. Tap into the resources now!

 

References
Donoghue, J. (2015). LSU drafting ‘academic bankruptcy’ plan in response to budget crisis. The Times-Picayne (2015, April 22). Retrieved from http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/04/lsu_academic_bankruptcy.html

Kanter, M., Ochoa, E., Nassif, R., & Chong, F. (2011). Meeting President Obama’s 2020 college completion goal. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/meeting-president-obamas-2020-college-completion-goal.

National Conference of State Legislatures (2015, January 13). Performance-Based Funding for Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/performance-funding.aspx

Weston, L. (2014). OECD: The US has fallen behind other countries in college completion. BusinessInsider (2014, September 9). Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/r-us-falls-behind-in-college-competition-oecd-2014-9 .