OSSO: Helping Online Students Succeed at the University of North Dakota

An Online Orientation for Online Students

by

Chelsea Marie Mellenthin

Bachelor of Science, University of North Dakota, 2011

A Scholarly Project

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty

of the

University of North Dakota

In partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

Master of Science

Grand Forks, North Dakota

May

2016

ii

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ ii

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ vi

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii

Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... viii

Scholarly Project Reflection Essay ................................................................................................ ix

Chapter I.......................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 2

Who are Today’s College Students? ............................................................................................ 4

Age and Gender ...................................................................................................................................... 5

Traditional vs. Non-Traditional .............................................................................................................. 5

Age............................................................................................................................................................. 5

Rate of attendance...................................................................................................................................... 5

Marital status. ............................................................................................................................................ 6

Dependents. ............................................................................................................................................... 6

Veterans. .................................................................................................................................................... 6

Race/Ethnicity ........................................................................................................................................ 6

Socioeconomic Status ............................................................................................................................. 7

First-Generation ...................................................................................................................................... 8

Online ..................................................................................................................................................... 8

Summary of Today’s College Students .................................................................................................. 8

Involvement ................................................................................................................................. 9

Promoting Involvement for Student Success........................................................................................ 10

Sense of Belonging ............................................................................................................................... 11

Underrepresented Student Populations ................................................................................................. 13

Out-of-Class Engagement .................................................................................................................... 14

Learning communities. ............................................................................................................................ 16

Service-learning. ...................................................................................................................................... 18

Pedagogies of Engagement................................................................................................................... 19

Promoting involvement and faculty development. .................................................................................. 21

iii

Student-faculty interaction ....................................................................................................................... 22

Summary of Involvement ..................................................................................................................... 24

Expectations ............................................................................................................................... 24

Student Expectations ............................................................................................................................ 25

Classroom expectations. .......................................................................................................................... 25

Out-of-class expectations. ........................................................................................................................ 29

Institutional Expectations ..................................................................................................................... 32

Shaping expectations through collaboration with administration. ........................................................... 32

Shaping classroom expectations. ............................................................................................................. 34

Shaping expectations through advising. .................................................................................................. 36

Expectations Dissonance ...................................................................................................................... 37

Summary of Expectations..................................................................................................................... 39

Support ....................................................................................................................................... 39

Academic Services ............................................................................................................................... 40

Academic advising................................................................................................................................... 41

Programs. ................................................................................................................................................. 46

Social Support ...................................................................................................................................... 50

Mentoring. ............................................................................................................................................... 50

Living-learning communities. .................................................................................................................. 51

Out-of-class influences. ........................................................................................................................... 53

Financial Support ................................................................................................................................. 54

Summary of Support ............................................................................................................................ 56

Assessment and Feedback.......................................................................................................... 56

Assessment at Entry ............................................................................................................................. 57

Assessment in the Classroom ............................................................................................................... 61

Portfolio. .................................................................................................................................................. 62

Minute Paper. ........................................................................................................................................... 62

Misconception and Perception Check...................................................................................................... 62

Muddiest Point. ........................................................................................................................................ 63

Clicker Technology. ................................................................................................................................ 63

Collaborative Learning ............................................................................................................................ 63

Digital Technology. ................................................................................................................................. 64

Course Redesign ................................................................................................................................... 65

iv

Early Warning Systems ........................................................................................................................ 69

Perceptions of Assessment ................................................................................................................... 72

Summary of Assessment and Feedback ............................................................................................... 73

Common Themes ....................................................................................................................... 74

Implications for Practice ............................................................................................................ 75

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 76

References .................................................................................................................................. 78

Chapter II ...................................................................................................................................... 97

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 98

Selection of Benchmarking Institutions ................................................................................... 100

Identification of Criteria .......................................................................................................... 102

Institutional Profiles ................................................................................................................. 103

University of North Dakota ................................................................................................................ 103

University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill ....................................................................................... 106

University of Vermont ........................................................................................................................ 108

University of Utah .............................................................................................................................. 110

University of Pittsburgh ..................................................................................................................... 112

Academic Support Programs ................................................................................................... 115

University of North Dakota ................................................................................................................ 116

University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill ....................................................................................... 118

University of Vermont ........................................................................................................................ 121

University of Utah .............................................................................................................................. 123

University of Pittsburgh ..................................................................................................................... 126

Comparative Analysis .............................................................................................................. 129

Analysis of Institutions ....................................................................................................................... 129

Analysis of Programs amongst Institutions ........................................................................................ 129

Analysis of Programs within CAS Standards ..................................................................................... 132

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 133

Good Practice Implications ................................................................................................................ 133

v

References ................................................................................................................................ 136

Chapter III ................................................................................................................................... 143

Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 144

Problem Statement ............................................................................................................................. 144

Institutional Context ........................................................................................................................... 146

Target Audience ................................................................................................................................. 149

Needs Assessment .............................................................................................................................. 149

Educational Goals ............................................................................................................................... 151

Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................................ 152

Conditions for Student Success .......................................................................................................... 152

Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................................ 154

Developmental Theory ....................................................................................................................... 154

Kolb’s Learning Styles ....................................................................................................................... 155

Cognitive Scaffolding ......................................................................................................................... 158

Institutional Accountability ................................................................................................................ 159

Program Design ....................................................................................................................... 160

Assessment Plan ................................................................................................................................. 163

Program Plan ............................................................................................................................ 166

Program Delivery Logistics ..................................................................................................... 169

Budget ................................................................................................................................................ 170

Personnel ............................................................................................................................................ 171

Facilities and Marketing Needs .......................................................................................................... 174

Program Evaluation Plan ......................................................................................................... 174

Formative Evaluation ......................................................................................................................... 175

Summative Evaluation ....................................................................................................................... 176

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 177

Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 180

vi

List of Figures

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of Literature Review ................................................................. 3

Figure 2. University of North Dakota Organizational Chart ...................................................... 104

Figure 3. University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill Organizational Chart. ............................. 107

Figure 4. University of Vermont Organizational Chart. ............................................................. 109

Figure 5. University of Utah Organizational Chart. ................................................................... 111

Figure 6. University of Pittsburgh Organizational Chart. ........................................................... 113

Figure 7. University of Utah, Plan 2 Finish.. .............................................................................. 126

Figure 8. Kolb’s Cycle of Learning ............................................................................................ 156

Figure 9: Kolb’s Learning Styles Model .................................................................................... 157

Figure 10. Logic Model for OSSO at UND. ............................................................................... 163

vii

List of Tables

Table 1 ........................................................................................................................................ 101

Table 2 ........................................................................................................................................ 102

Table 3 ........................................................................................................................................ 116

Table 4 ........................................................................................................................................ 168

Table 5 ........................................................................................................................................ 170

viii

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to all of the faculty members that have helped me

get where I am today, specifically Dr. Margaret Healy for helping me take the leap of faith into

the higher education program, Drs. Daniel Rice and Deborah Worley for their never-ending

support and guidance throughout the duration of the program, and Drs. Casey Ozaki, Robert

Stupnisky, and Joshua Hunter for helping me to think of education at a broader and deeper level.

I would also like to thank all of my class members that I have been able to learn alongside

throughout my time within the graduate program. Their perspectives and opinions have

contributed to not only my profession development, but my personal development, as well, and

also helped to further enhance my learning by providing me a different way of looking at higher

education and the world.

Lastly, I would like to thank family and friends for their continued support throughout this

program, especially my parents for always being supportive of any adventure I take on and being

my personal cheerleaders, and my husband, Taylor, for being my editor and rock throughout this

entire process, I would have never gotten as far as I did without his unending love and support.

ix

Scholarly Project Reflection Essay

At the beginning of the summer 2015 semester, eight of my peers and myself began the

journey of expanding our knowledge regarding college students, their growth, development, and

what ultimately makes them successful throughout the duration of their undergraduate education.

The summer term consisted of reading Vincent Tinto’s book on Completing College: Rethinking

Institutional Action. The purpose of the reading was to formulate a baseline for our literature

review, and eventually our scholarly project. The reading also aided in further enhancing our

existing knowledge as well as challenging our past perceptions regarding college student success.

To begin writing the literature view on student success, our program development cohort

divided the writing responsibilities amongst the four conditions of student success: involvement,

expectations, support, and assessment and feedback based upon our areas of interest. Given my

current role as an academic advisor, I chose the section on support and how having proper

support mechanisms in place impacts college student success. I also chose this particular

condition as I knew I wanted to develop a program for students pursuing their degree solely

online at the University of North Dakota. By being paired with another classmate who also

selected the support condition we collaboratively research extant literature and determined the

types of support programs and services necessary for students to be successful and ultimately

persist to graduation.

Upon completion of the support section, our class collectively began to build our

literature review on college student success. Existing literature reinforced Tinto’s conditions of

student success by indicating that all students need to be actively involved and engaged

throughout their undergraduate education in order to be successful. Additionally, based on

current literature, our class, determined that instead of the conditions existing linearly to each

x

other, each condition was interdependent of one another. For instance, involvement must be

present across all conditions in order for students to be successful. Students should get involved

and be engaged with campus community members regarding expectations at the institutional and

classroom levels. To meet those expectations students should engage in proper support

mechanisms available to them, and lastly, institutions need to get involved by conducting proper

assessment tools as well as providing feedback to students to make informed and impactful

changes.

The results of the literature review research helped to further enhance my understanding

of the conditions of student success. For instance, the type of expectations that need to be

communicated amongst campus community members and students, as well as the key benefits of

involvement and assessment and feedback as it relates to student persistence and retention. The

review of current literature also helped us to identify gaps that may exist in the types of programs

and services particularly as it relates to online students and their success. There was a limited

amount of scholarly publications that analyzed the effectiveness of programs and services for

online students, which served as further justification for my program, an orientation for students

pursuing a degree solely online.

With the literature review aiding in the beginning stages of development of my program

plan, the benchmarking report helped to create a more in-depth understanding of the best

practices of learning assistance programs. I was paired with another peer whose program plan

aligned similar to mine and together we narrowed down four key peer institutions based on

national standards. We benchmarked the University of North Dakota, along with the four other

peer institutions on learning assistance programs, such as tutoring, supplemental instruction,

learning skills, and academic advising. The benchmarking report helped me to identify key areas

xi

where the University of North Dakota was proficient and deficient, particularly in relation to

online students. Currently the university does not offer any orientation programming for online

students, which could be correlated to the dismal retention rates of online students. Analyzing

other institutions that were excelling in the areas of learning assistance programs, especially

online orientation programs further enhanced my knowledge of the components necessary to

create an effective online learning environment and program.

The culmination of both the literature review and the benchmarking report led me to gain

a more comprehensive understanding of the complexities of developing an online orientation

program for online students at the University of North Dakota. The literature review provided an

insight into the importance of communicating expectations for online students, as well as having

the proper support systems in place for students to be successful. To persist and ultimately be

successful, students should be actively engaged and involved within the classroom environment.

Faculty members must assess the learning and engagement of their students through continuous

assessment measures to ensure students meet campus-wide expectations. The benchmarking

report led me to discover where the University of North Dakota was excelling and lacking which

aided in the creation of a program plan that could benefit not only online students but by helping

to increase the retention rates of online students. My personal experiences in working with online

students as an academic advisor drove me to create a program that could benefit these students

particularly in the areas of becoming familiar with campus resources, enhancing technology

literacy with online platforms and further expanding online students’ learning skills. It is my

hope that this program will be utilized in the future to further promote online learning and the

success of online students.

xii

It would not have been possible to create such a detailed and robust program plan without

the collaborative input and feedback of my peers and instructors. It was with their assistance that

I was able to take their suggestive feedback to design a holistic orientation for online students. I

look forward to continuing my role as an academic advisor in assisting these students with

adjusting to online courses and ultimately being successful in an online program.

1

Chapter I

A Literature Review of Student Success

Kayla Hotvedt, Laura Look, Madhavi Marasinghe, Chelsea Mellenthin, Amanda Minske, Daniel

Murray, Josh Parrill, Samantha Perrin, Lori Young

University of North Dakota

2

Introduction

American institutions of higher education are more accessible to people across the nation

than in past years. As Tinto indicates, “… as access has more than doubled from nearly 9 million

students in 1980 to almost 20 million in 2011, overall college completion rates have increased

only slightly, if at all” (2012, p. 2). It is the responsibility of each admitting institution to do what

it can to ensure student success in the form of retention and persistence leading to graduation.

For purposes of this literature review, student success will be defined in three ways as it relates

to retention, persistence, and degree completion.

Student retention is one measure of student success. It is defined by Tinto (2012) as “the

rate at which an institution retains and graduates students who first enter the institution as

freshmen at a given point in time” (p. 127). Institutions communicate the expectations each

student must complete in order to graduate. Institutions then provide support through a variety of

programming and services such as faculty and professional academic advising, opportunities for

involvement, and academic support services. The institution then performs assessments of these

programs and services to maintain accountability and effectiveness in promoting retention and,

ultimately, student success through graduation.

Student persistence is also discussed in Tinto’s (2012) description of student success,

where persistence is defined as “the rate at which students who begin higher education at a given

point in time continue in higher education and eventually complete their degree, regardless of

where they do so” (p. 127). A student must continue to enroll and complete coursework in order

to successfully persist towards graduation. To aid in this progress toward success, institutions

should set up programs and services to assist the student. Utilization of the programs and

services involves both in- and out- of classroom engagement. Through a holistic process,

3

involving self-efficacy, community involvement, and support services and staff, student success

can be achieved.

Utilizing the framework developed within Tinto’s (2012) book, Completing College:

Rethinking Institutional Action, this literature review discusses the four conditions that exist at

institutions of higher education to promote retention and to encourage persistence to graduation:

expectations, support, assessment and feedback, and involvement. These four conditions are not

linear in their relationship to one another. Rather, they are interdependent. For example,

involvement is present across all other conditions of student success. Institutional representatives

and students must communicate in- and out- of classroom expectations to each other about

involvement. When expectation dissonance exists, institutional support and involvement is vital.

To minimize dissonance, students should take advantage of the support functions offered by

institutions. Students should also provide feedback to the institutions regarding their wants and

needs. Institutional involvement in performing assessments and utilizing feedback is critical to

making adjustments to support functions and communicating new expectations to prospective

students. According to Tinto (2012), “the absence of one [condition] undermines the efficacy of

the others” (p. 8). Figure 1 shows the overarching relationships and interconnectedness of the

conditions and how the conditions work together.

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of Literature Review

4

It should be noted that there has been some debate about how to use the terms

involvement and engagement in conversations about student success. Throughout Tinto’s (2012)

book, Completing College: Rethinking Institutional Action, he appears to refer to involvement as

being related to social support, and engagement as being related to the academic activities.

Although it appears this way, Tinto says that engagement is obtained by being actively involved,

and also that involvement is often referred to as engagement.

The authors of this literature review use the terms involvement and engagement

interchangeably because of the various definitions of these terms. In doing so, this literature

review demonstrates the connections of the four conditions to one another, beginning with the

interconnected relationship of involvement (as an inclusive term) to expectations, support, and

assessment and feedback, specifically in determining how each condition plays a role in fostering

student success. Before these conditions can be elaborated upon, college student demographics

are explored. A conclusion with a summary of the findings from the literature follows discussion

of the four conditions of student success. In the conclusion, we address implications of

knowledge gained and present recommendations for student affairs professionals as well as for

faculty to promote student success.

Who are Today’s College Students?

In this section, authors of this literature review discuss college student demographics and

patterns of behavior that are relevant to the conversation on student success. To provide

important context, a snapshot of today's students must be established including an aggregate

description of demographics such as age, gender, traditional versus non-traditional student ratio,

race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, first-generation status, ability status, and whether a student

5

is an on campus or online student. Results of the 2011-12 National Postsecondary Student Aid

study (NPSAS), conducted by the U.S. Department of Education, and National Center for

Educational Statistics (NCES) were used to source information for this portion of the literature

review. Being informed about student characteristics enables institutions of higher education to

identify how to better serve all student populations in regards to programming and support

services needed to improve retention and students’ academic success.

Age and Gender

The average age of students within higher education in the United States is 26 years. The

average age for males was 26 and the average age for females was 27. Within higher education

in the United States (U.S.) there are more females (57%) than male students, who only make up

43% of the student population (NPSAS, 2012).

Traditional vs. Non-Traditional

Defining students within the context of traditional and non-traditional requires defining

not only the age of students but also the rate at which the student attends, the student’s marital

status, whether the student has dependents, and if they have served in the U.S. military earning

veteran status (Goncalves & Trunk, 2014; MacKinnon & Floyd, 2011). These populations of

students will be contextualized using the 2012 NPSAS data.

Age. A traditional aged student is defined by attending an institution of higher education

between the ages of 18-24 years old, which is about 60% of the nation’s higher education system.

The remaining 40% of non-traditional students range anywhere between 25-years of age and

older than 40 (NCES, 2012).

Rate of attendance. Approximately 50% of students attend their postsecondary school

full-time (traditional), which is defined by NCES as a student enrolled in twelve or more credit

6

hours of instruction. The remaining 50% of non-traditional students either are fully part-time,

defined as less than 12 credit hours (32%) or through the academic year, from the fall to spring

semester, attended a mix of full-time and part-time (18%) (NCES, 2012).

Marital status. Another example of a non-traditional student is the students' marital

status. Approximately 20% of the enrolled population identified as being married, or married, but

separated, whereas the remaining 80% of students were not married and therefore would be

defined as the majority of traditional students (NCES, 2012).

Dependents. Another defining factor of non-traditional versus traditional students is

whether or not a student has dependents. According to the NPSAS (2012) study, it was reported

that 27% of students had dependents while attending postsecondary education. The majority of

students (73%) reported no dependents and thus defines them as traditional students, or those

students without dependents.

Veterans. Although not reviewed within this literature, another underserved population

that is included within the term non-traditional are those students who have served in the U.S.

Military and have earned Veteran status, through their years of service in the military. Veterans

account for 4% of the enrolled student population (NCES, 2012). These students are a minority

on campus and should be considered when developing programs and services for

underrepresented students.

Race/Ethnicity

Students of a race/ethnicity other than White/Caucasian made up approximately 40% of

the student population within American institutions of higher education (NCES, 2012). The two

largest populations within this statistic are Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino

American students who each make up 16% of the minority groups on campus. Asian Americans

7

make up nearly 6% of students in higher education, whereas indigenous student populations such

as Native American, Alaskan Natives, Hawaiian Natives, Pacific Islanders make up less than 2%

of the total student population.

According to Fischer (2007), the enrollment numbers for minority students, particularly

African American, Black, and Hispanic students, has increased over the last thirty years and will

continue to do so. The number of Black students in college has risen more than 15% in the last

forty years; the percentage of Hispanic students has risen by 25%. Institutions need to focus on

the growth of minority student groups and involvement as well as becoming more culturally

competent. According to Cuyjet, Howard-Hamilton, and Cooper (2011) the largest minority

group will change by 2050 with Hispanic/Latino Americans making up 60% of the U.S.

population growth. With this changing demographic landscape institutions of higher education

must begin to plan for the evolving diversity of the future student body. Although students of

color are the minority today, the breakdown of diversity of students of the future by 2050 will be

very different (Cuyjet, Howard-Hamilton, & Cooper, 2011).

Socioeconomic Status

Low socioeconomic status is defined as those students who qualify for federal funding

through the Pell Grant program (NCES, 2012). The Pell grant has the lowest threshold based on

students’ measured available income through the parents' and students' federal income from the

prior year. Approximately 40% of students qualify for federal aid dollars through an established

financial need and are awarded the Pell grant. Tinto (2012) affirms that higher rates of student

success within lower socioeconomic groups is highly correlated to their financial aid award. By

financially supporting the student through funding like grants students are able to focus on their

academics and reduce their need for employment (Tinto, 2012).

8

First-Generation

Students defined as first-generation are those students who are the first in their family to

attend postsecondary education (NCES, 2012). For students enrolled in 2012, approximately

50% of parents had completed a postsecondary education either through vocational training, an

associate’s, bachelor’s, master’s, or doctoral degree. Another 15% reported having completed

some college but did not graduate. These family members who did not attend postsecondary

education and are relied upon for support, may lack the necessary tools to fully support their

students. First-generation students require thoughtful programming and support services for the

student to be successful and retained through graduation (Tinto 2012).

Online

It is important to be aware of not only rate of attendance (full-time/part-time) of students

within their postsecondary education, but also the mode in which they attend their institution. A

growing population of students at many institutions are attending virtually. Britto and Rush

(2013) indicated that the annual rate of online student enrollment has seen a growth rate of

"16.9%, 21.1%, and 10.1% for the fall semesters of 2008, 2009, and 2010, respectively" (p. 29).

In 2010, nearly 30% of all students enrolled at a higher education institution were taking at least

one course online, which is an increase of 10% from 2009. For the purpose of this literature

review, online students will be those classified as not attending any of their coursework on

campus, meaning that all coursework whether full-time or part-time is delivered and attended

online (virtually).

Summary of Today’s College Students

Students who are considered to be at-risk often include ethnic minorities, students of low

socioeconomic status, and students who have an academic disadvantage (i.e. non-traditional

9

students) (O'Keeffe, 2013). These groups of students often have multiple identities that put them

at a greater disadvantage for persistence. In many instances, first-generation students and part-

time students have multiple at-risk characteristics. Institutions of higher education must provide

programming and support services to enable student success for these at-risk students and all

students, if retention and graduation rates are to be maintained and/or increased (Tinto, 2012).

Involvement

Perhaps the most important factor in student retention and success is involvement, also

commonly referred to as engagement (Tinto, 2012). The National Survey of Student Engagement

(NSSE) (2015) defines engagement in two parts:

The first is the amount of time and effort students put into their studies and other

educationally purposeful activities. The second is how the institution deploys its

resources and organizes the curriculum and other learning opportunities to get students to

participate in activities that decades of research studies show are linked to student

learning. (para. 1)

Similarly, the definition of involvement, according to Astin (1999), “refers to the amount of

physical and psychological energy that the student devotes to the academic experience” (p. 518).

Involvement may include the amount of time and energy a student devotes to studying,

seeking outside assistance for coursework, living on campus, working on campus, or being

involved in a student organization. Astin’s theory of student involvement provides a framework

for the role of student involvement as outlined by Tinto (2012) which will be used throughout

this section. Tinto relies heavily on involvement as it relates to supporting academic success, so

for the purposes of this literature review, involvement is primarily discussed in this way. This

section begins by exploring the basis for promoting student involvement and how that is related

10

to student success. The section will continue by examining students' sense of belonging to an

institution; various forms of out-of-class engagement, including learning communities, service-

learning, and student organizations; and the role that faculty play in student involvement.

Promoting Involvement for Student Success

In the United States, attrition rates of first-year college students are estimated to be

between 30% and 50% (O’Keeffe, 2013). There are many factors that affect a student’s decision

to leave an institution, both academic and non-academic. One non-academic reason may be a

lack of involvement (Morrow & Ackerman, 2012). Rates of attrition in the United States

represent the highest of any industrialized country in the world (O’Keeffe, 2013).

Astin's (1999) theory of student involvement was designed through a two-part

longitudinal study of college dropouts. The study was conducted beginning in 1975 and again in

1980 with a larger, more intensive study that resulted in more than 80 involvement related

student outcomes. Astin’s second study focused on specific types of involvement including place

of residence, academic involvement, student-faculty interaction, athletic involvement, and

involvement in student government. Astin’s theory can be simplified to the idea that student

development and success is directly related to student involvement. The more students put in to

any activity, the more they will take away; student growth and development is directly

proportional to the quality and quantity of involvement that the students experience. Tinto (2012)

added that for certain student populations, especially those at community colleges who spend

less time on campus, involvement is unlikely to occur if it does not occur in the classroom. For

this reason, it is also important to consider involvement that is centered on classroom

experiences such as classroom learning techniques, faculty development, and student-faculty

interactions.

11

Hu and McCormick (2012) discussed effective student participation strategies, stating

"college outcomes depend largely on students' engagement in educationally purposeful

activities" (p. 739). Students need to see progress in a project and not feel it is just busy work.

Hu and McCormick also suggested that institutions utilize NSSE data to benchmark against peer

institutions to develop learning-centered activities for their students.

Sense of Belonging

Student engagement is critical for the overall success of students throughout their college

experience. Quaye and Harper (2015) defined student engagement as participation in

educationally effective practices, both in- and out- of the classroom that leads to an effective

outcome for the student. Students can be involved on campus and still not persist from year-to-

year or to graduation. An important factor linking involvement to student persistence is a sense

of belonging. In the past, sense of belonging was often lumped into a broader category of

research with institutional fit or commitment (Hausmann, Schofield, & Woods, 2007). However,

Morrow and Ackerman (2012) define sense of belonging as "the sense that members of a

community feel that they belong and that they matter to one another" (p. 484). Students who feel

they belong in an institution tend to persist within an institution more than students who feel that

they do not matter to others.

According to O'Keeffe (2013), certain groups of students may be at greater risk of

dropping out than others, often referred to as "at-risk" groups. These groups may include

students of ethnic or racial minorities, low socioeconomic status, or students who are on

academic probation. While sense of belonging is an important factor in retention of all students,

it is especially important for members of these at-risk groups. O'Keeffe referred to this greater

disadvantage as the disconnection of at-risk students. Disconnection can occur due to a number

12

of factors. The first that is common amongst at-risk students is family responsibilities. Students

of certain cultures and socioeconomic statuses may feel more pressure to play a greater role in

their family. This may include taking care of family members or working to earn money for the

family. In a study by Fischer (2007), these family obligations were found to contribute to

students’ decisions to leave college. Fischer found that creating formal social ties with others on

campus, such as joining an extracurricular activity or a connection with a professor, increased the

likelihood that a Black or Hispanic student would stay on campus.

At-risk students may also need to work long hours to earn the money to pay for their

education. Some of these students may attend school part-time which may lead to not seeing

themselves as students first. The evolution of online courses and advanced technology has

created a cheaper alternative to the typical residential college experience. This development in

course delivery and change to the educational landscape can lead to a greater disconnect between

students and the university due to the limited amount of time spent on campus (O'Keeffe, 2013).

O'Brien stated that disconnect is a result of "lack of personal feedback from academic staff as a

contributory factor towards the risk of withdrawal and lack of integration between students and

lecturers outside of the classroom, for example inaccessibility or unfriendliness of lecturers and

administrative staff" (as cited in O'Keeffe, 2013, p. 607). This statement supports the idea that

involvement, especially interaction with others, is an important factor in student persistence.

The Hausmann et al. (2007) study of 365 first-year college students found that sense of

belonging was greatly influenced by social interactions amongst peers, parental involvement, and

relationships with faculty within the first two weeks of the fall semester. According to O'Keeffe

(2013), a sense of connectedness may be established if a student can develop a relationship with

just one key person, whether that person is a peer, faculty member, or staff member. However,

13

when the students in the Hausmann et al. (2007) study were surveyed again at mid-year, social

factors played a lesser role in sense of belonging than did other factors such as academic

integration. In fact, by mid-year, parental support was actually associated with a decrease in

sense of belonging. Hausmann et al. found that students who are closely connected to their

parents could have a difficult time feeling the sense of belonging at college rather than at home,

and that students' sense of belonging decreased in general throughout the year citing that "as

students become more familiar with the challenging reality of being a college student, their

initial excitement may fade, resulting in a decline in sense of belonging, commitment, and

intentions to persist" (p. 833).

Underrepresented Student Populations

Rendon (1994) explained that students are comprised from a variety of diverse

backgrounds in terms of social, race/ethnicity, gender, disability, lifestyle, and sexual orientation.

Student engagement for all students and particularly for members of underrepresented student

populations is important in order for individuals to feel more connected to their institutions, both

in- and out- of the classroom. The level of engagement put forth by students increases their sense

of involvement and belonging. According to Quaye and Harper (2015), as the American higher

education system becomes more and more diverse, so do the needs of students, including the

needs for diverse involvement opportunities, activities that are culturally creative, and student

groups that are recognized and represented. From a historical perspective, it was easier for a

college campus to cater to a homogeneous student population: White, heterosexual, middle class

men. As the trends have changed, the efforts put forth by college campuses to create a more

inclusive environment have lagged behind the population shift and overall student trend.

14

Underrepresented student populations on college campuses have grown dramatically,

and all indications are that enrollment of students who identify as members of underrepresented

populations will continue to increase (Thayer, 2000). Engagement in student programming

promotes involvement, which enhances the likelihood of retention within the institution. This can

be especially true when looking at creating a sense of community for minority students. Thayer

indicated that students from first-generation, low income backgrounds, and minority populations

are less likely to enroll in postsecondary education than their White counterparts. Thayer also

stated that students are less likely to persist through and graduate. Looking to programs such as

"Student Support Services" to assist in increasing the retention and graduation rates will be

beneficial in retaining such students.

Higher education institutions have the opportunity to deliver programs and services that

are beneficial to students' wants, needs, and expectations. Fischer (2007) indicated that offering a

wide range of diverse student organizations and clubs, for example, where all students feel

welcome and represented is key to ensuring that an institution reaches their multicultural goals.

Bowman, Park, and Denson (2014) argued that student organizations geared specifically for

minorities does not foster the need for racial segregation or division, but instead encourage

examination of students’ growth and development from both personal and professional

perspectives.

Out-of-Class Engagement

Tinto (2010) showed that higher rates of out-of-classroom engagement for college

students leads to higher rates of student retention for institutions. Social and academic

engagement each play a critical role in student retention, especially within the first year. There

are numerous types of out-of-classroom engagement activities that students can choose to take

15

part in such as student government, honors societies, interest groups, and intramural sports. One

such student group that is often cited as one of the highest in student retention is membership in a

fraternity or sorority, due largely in part to how this activity creates a sense of community

(DeBard & Sacks, 2010; Long, 2012). Long (2012) examined the relationship between fraternity

or sorority involvement and grade point average (GPA) among 1,011 participants. Members who

were more involved in their chapter were more likely to be engaged in their academics, and

therefore had higher GPAs. Similarly, DeBard and Sacks (2010) found that students who joined

a fraternity or sorority within their first year were more likely to achieve better GPAs and to

persist to the next year.

As student demographics change, institutions must reexamine the types of involvement

offered to students. For example, in a study of involvement of commuter and residential students,

Alfano and Eduljee (2013) found that 66% of commuter students compared to 21% of residential

students did not participate in a campus sponsored activity or organization. For commuter

students, the traditional out-of-classroom activities, such as participating in programs sponsored

by student organizations, are not always the most feasible option due to the limited amount of

time spent on campus (Tinto, 2012). This is not to say that institutions should not support these

types of involvement, but rather that institutions must also support and enhance in-classroom

involvement opportunities.

Advances in technology have also created a new dynamic in student involvement.

Students are more connected than ever with their peers, families, and even with faculty and staff

through the use of e-mail, text messaging, and social media. Research on social media

networking sites has shown varying results, indicating that the way in which social media is

utilized may have different effects on student retention (Strayhorn, 2012). Strayhorn found that

16

first-year women engage in social media usage at higher rates than their male peers, and

residential students more than commuter students. When accounting for demographic differences,

Strayhorn found no statistically significant differences based on social media usage; however,

there did appear to be a connection between social media usage and lower rates of sense of

belonging. Students who spend more time on social media may experience feelings of isolation

and are trying to escape their reality (Strayhorn, 2012). Conversely, a study by Junco, Heibergert,

and Loken (2010) found that the use of Twitter to engage students further in academics had a

positive result, in that students who engaged in conversations with their peers on Twitter were

found to have a higher rate of in-class engagement overall. The results of these studies may

indicate that social media can play a positive or negative role in student involvement depending

on how and for what purpose it is utilized by the student and by the institution.

Learning communities. Learning communities are programs that incorporate academic

themes, development of a community, and learning from others (Brower & Inkelas, 2010). The

idea of a learning community is not new. Zhao and Kuh (2004) found that variations have been

in existence since the early 1920s, and were modernized in the 1980s to further enhance learning

communities’ aid in retention. Tinto (2012) stated that learning communities have a significant

contribution to students’ retention and success. The effectiveness of learning communities can be

seen within involvement, holistic learning, retention, and the overall success of students (Brower

& Inkelas, 2010). Learning communities offer opportunities for involvement or engagement and

can enhance a sense of support for students. Tying in different interests, classes, or living

situations can help to form relationships between students--a connection that will foster their

success in college. Brower and Inkelas go even further with the implications of their research,

17

indicating that learning communities can be utilized as a retention mechanism, which can help

aid in students’ overall progression towards graduation.

The basis of learning communities today is forming connections between students based

on a particular topic. Co-registration is the structure by which learning communities are built

(Tinto, 2012). Co-registration, or block scheduling, could exist in the form of students taking

multiple courses together with a common topic, participating in the same, smaller study groups

within large lecture courses, or linking two different subjects together. Co-registration requires

collaboration between faculty members among the different courses to ensure the success of a

learning community. Yet grouping students together does not ensure they will build a community.

As Tinto (2012) pointed out, “The aim is to construct an interdisciplinary learning environment

in which students are able to connect what they are learning in one course to what they are

learning in another” (p. 71). The success of this model is noted in Zhao and Kuh (2004) who

concluded that participation in learning communities, for students of any age, was positively

linked to high academic performance, interaction with faculty members and peers, and overall

increase in engagement in campus life.

Living-learning communities. A specific type of learning community is a living-learning

community. These communities are based primarily on where the members reside; for instance,

within a residence hall; students are not only living together, but are a part of their own

community (i.e., an honors floor within a residence hall), thus bridging the gap between

classroom instruction and living space. According to Grills, Fingerhut, Thadani, and Machon

(2012), it is critical to understand how what happens in the classroom can be tied into the type of

living environment, thus enhancing students' ties to campus. Tinto (2012) believed that the

effectiveness of a learning community is tied to how it is implemented and how it enhances

18

learning academically and social engagement. Grills et al. (2012) found academic success is

related and respectively connected to the development of meaningful relationships.

Higher education has changed over the years and will continue to grow; therefore, the

type of involvement that a campus offers to students now and in the future is critical to student

growth and success, and to the institution as a whole. Institutions today know that it is more than

just testing and reading, it is who the student meets when living in the residence halls, who they

meet at different campus events and activities and their ties to a club or organization on campus

(Zhao & Kuh, 2004).

Service-learning. Another form of involvement that links experiences within the

classroom to those outside of the classroom is service-learning. Service-learning, as defined by

Bringle and Hatcher (1996) is:

course-based, credit-bearing educational experience in which students (a) participate in

an organized service activity that meets identified community needs and (b) reflect on the

service activity in such a way as to gain further understanding of course content, a

broader appreciation of the discipline, and an enhanced sense of civic responsibility. (p.

112)

Service-learning students view problems and develop solutions for those problems, not

only in classrooms, but in real-life settings as well. Students who participate in service-learning

many times continue to donate their time. Eppler, Ironsmith, Dingle, and Errickson (2011)

showed that students who participated in service-learning were more likely to volunteer in their

current community nine years after college graduation. They evaluated a program where

freshmen college honors students tutored elementary students in reading and concluded that

service-learning appeared to help students gain a greater understanding of themselves while

19

helping them “adjust to college, adapt to social expectations, define career goals, and develop

their identity within the context of the larger community” (p. 111). Additionally, Eyler and Giles

(1999) identified that benefits of service learning included enhanced academic learning,

advances in moral reasoning, pro-social reasoning, and decision-making. Eyler and Giles also

found that service-learning allowed students to grow in appreciation for cultures other than their

own, increased self-efficacy, contributed with their ability to work well with others, increased

their leadership skills, along with many other perceived desirable qualities.

Implementing a service-learning program can pose many challenges. Jung (2011)

discussed some of the challenges regarding assessment in service-learning experiences, which

included determining how to assess learning and development of students, and creating courses

that are accepted as academically rigorous by the institution, while not being so time consuming

that students avoid service-learning courses. Bringle and Hatcher (1995) identified the reflective

component of service-learning. Reflective papers or essays are used to assess student learning.

Wilson (2011) created a rubric to evaluate reflection papers, looking for the development of

empathy. The researcher found a connection between service-learning and developing empathy

for those situations in which the students were involved. If faculty and departments are able to

balance all components of service-learning, including the assessment of those programs, student

growth occurs and, many times, students stay involved with service-learning and the educational

institution after course completion and graduation (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996; Eyler & Giles,

1999; Jung, 2011).

Pedagogies of Engagement

Students are generally less engaged in traditional lecture classes; instructors must use

various pedagogies of engagement that “require students to be actively engaged in learning with

20

other students in the classroom” (Tinto, 2012, p. 68). The most common of these pedagogies

include collaborative learning and problem-based learning. Bunce, Flens, and Neiles (2010)

found that students' engagement varies throughout the course of a lecture.

Tinto (2012) outlined a number of successful teaching strategies that aid students in their

learning. Cooperative or collaborative learning requires students to work together to accomplish

a given task. Similarly, problem-based learning helps students put theory to practice as they work

together applying knowledge to solve a particular problem. While these methods are most easily

employed in smaller classrooms, Tinto pointed out that there has been some success in larger

classes as well. Similarly, comparable to learning communities, larger classes may create smaller

learning groups for set groups of students to work together over time.

Active learning facilitated in the classroom is especially important for commuter students.

These students often spend very little time on campus, and if engagement does not occur in the

classroom, it is unlikely to happen at all. According to Powell and Lines (2010), students often

report that they can go through their entire undergraduate experience without really getting to

know any professor. The professor as sole facilitator of information does not allow for a

symbiotic learning experience or for students to learn from one another. Chickering (2000)

emphasized the importance of active learning within the classroom and the importance of

students learning from one another. He outlined seven activities to help develop community

within a single classroom including the instructor being cognizant of different learning styles,

maximizing the time spent in class, and encouraging interaction outside of the classroom. Each

of these activities allows students to create a community within their classroom and to take

responsibility for their own learning.

21

Promoting involvement and faculty development. According to Tinto (2012), “One of

the ironies of higher education is that most college faculty, unlike the faculty in elementary and

secondary school, have had no formal training to teach” (p.77). Faculty at the collegiate level are

not trained in teaching methods or pedagogies; rather, they are taught to be experts in their field.

Institutions recognize this gap in faculty development, and nearly every university has some

form of faculty development program (Tinto, 2012). Over the past two decades, higher education

has seen major reform, especially in terms of technological advancement. Just as faculty are

expected to stay current on issues in their field of expertise, faculty must continue to be educated

in these cultural changes in order to stay relevant in their classrooms and with their students

(McKee & Tew, 2013).

In addition to technological advances, the very purpose of higher education and the role

of institutions has shifted in recent decades. Historically, higher education was intended to

educate students on a wide-range of topics (McKee & Tew, 2013). Today, universities are much

more career-focused with highly specialized majors and programs to prepare students for their

particular, chosen career (McKee & Tew, 2013). McKee and Tew continue to explain other

differences in institutions including the move towards learning communities and the shift from

academia to preparing students for corporate America. The constant change in higher education

supports the need for faculty development programs within universities.

Along with the technological advancements has come the emergence of online courses

and even degree programs that can be completed entirely online. Herman (2012) stated that

faculty members continue to be frustrated by the lack of instruction available to them for online

instruction: "70% of faculty members describe their institution's support for online instruction as

average or below, and nearly 20% of all institutions do not offer any support to faculty teaching

22

online" (p. 88). Herman argues that if an institution wishes to increase the number of online

course offerings, they also must invest in faculty development. According to Tinto (2012),

faculty development is necessary in order to better equip faculty with the skills necessary to

create meaningful learning experiences and environments for students, which will lead to higher

rates of student retention.

Student-faculty interaction. Based on Chickering and Gamson (1987), Wolf-Wendel,

Ward, and Kinzie (2009) used NSSE’s definition of engagement, stated earlier in this literature

review. They also used NSSE data to demonstrate that high levels of engagement were

associated with purposeful student-faculty contact, and active and collaborative learning. Wolf-

Wendel et al. also found that engagement was associated with institutional environments that

students described as inclusive and affirming, where goals were established and conveyed to

students, and where goals were ambitious yet attainable.

In addition to individual students' learning within the classroom, the interactions between

students and faculty also play an important role in student retention. Studies have shown that

quality interactions between students and faculty have a significant impact on persistence after

the first year, efforts of students in college, and greater engagement overall (Micari & Pazos,

2012; Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005). Student-faculty relationships examined by Creasey, Jarvis,

and Gadke (2009) found that the relationships between instructor and student had similar

dimensions as other adult relationships. One finding was that if students that felt that they had

more immediate communication with their instructor, generally students reported more

connectedness with that instructor. Furthermore, Creasey et al. found that students who feel

connected are typically more successful, with higher GPAs.

23

Micari and Pazos (2012) observed a number of contributing factors that influenced

student-faculty relationships including “the student looking up to the professor, feeling

comfortable approaching the professor, and feeling that the professor respects the students” (p.

45). They found that within a single difficult college course, students who felt that they had a

positive relationship with their professor ended the class with a higher grade while also showing

a higher confidence in their ability to do well in the course. This idea is discussed further in the

Expectations section of self-efficacy.

Differences among students and instructors can impact the amount of student

involvement in the classroom. For example, perceived aggression in communications may cause

students to become less involved. Aggressive communication was defined as “an individual’s

use of physical or symbolic force to attack another person’s body, possessions, self-concept,

position, or a given communication topic, or behavior” (Meyers, Edwards, Wahl, & Martin, 2007,

p. 496). Myers et al. found that the perceived aggressiveness was not the leading reason for lack

of involvement--it was the reactions students received from their peers.

In addition to the perceived behavior of the instructor, Sidelinger and Booth-Butterfield

(2010) found that, the student-to-student connectedness influenced levels of student engagement

in the classroom. Students who had better connections to other students in the classroom were

more active participants in the classroom. Student interactions were not always positive; in some

instances, it was a detriment, and students faced disapproval if they did not conform to the

classroom norms.

One specific avenue of engagement between students and faculty is undergraduate

research. Webber, Nelson Laird, and BrckaLorenz (2013) found that undergraduate research

benefits both students and faculty. Students are given rewarding work while participating more

24

fully in the university experience. Students have shown gains in critical thinking skills, and

research may expose the student to a graduate school environment. Faculty also reported they

feel more supported by their departments if they receive funding for an undergraduate research

program (Webber et al., 2013).

Summary of Involvement

Involvement, both in and out of the classroom, is an important component for student

success. The form of involvement that is most beneficial to a student may be dependent on their

race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, first-generation status, and/or living circumstances. Out-of-

classroom engagement such as learning communities, service-learning, and membership in

student organizations can help students develop a sense of belonging to the campus. In-class

engagement is especially important for commuter students who might not otherwise get involved

in the campus life. Additionally, faculty development is a vital component in student

involvement as faculty must learn proper techniques to engage students both in- and out- of the

classroom. Involvement will be explored in each of the following sections as a vital component

for students’ overall success.

Expectations

According to Tinto (2012), the expectations students hold will have direct and indirect

effects on what students actually do to contribute to their own success. Collier and Morgan

(2008) stated, “students must master the ‘college student’ role in order to understand instructors’

expectations and apply their academic skills effectively to those expectations” (p. 425).

Therefore, it is important to observe the expectations that students have of their collegiate

experiences as well as the expectations that institutions have of those students with regards to

their performance, both socially and academically. Furthermore, when student expectations do

25

not align with institutional expectations, it can create dissonance. Existing literature identifies the

importance of communicating expectations in order to foster student success.

Student Expectations

According to Brower and Ketterhagen (2004), students enter college with expectations

about how to succeed, and in return, colleges structure their courses, policies, and resources to

have implications on how students should form their expectations. In the same study, Brower and

Ketterhagen stated that “students are most likely to persist in college when a match exists

between how they expect to succeed (i.e., where they put their attention and energy) and how the

institution expects them to succeed” (p. 96). This link in student expectations and their eventual

successes, is important to developing a comprehensive understanding of what students expect

and/or should expect out of the collegiate experience – both in- and out- of the classroom. Upon

entering the collegiate experience, and all throughout, students shape expectations about their

out-of-class environments. In Rapert, Smith, Velliquette, and Garretson’s (2004) determination

of whether students felt their collegiate experiences were successful, the students said that in-

and out- of class environments were crucial in determining the quality of their experiences.

Students view expectations for the classroom in regards to self-efficacy, effort, classroom

pedagogy, and technological expectations, while their out-of-class expectations consider

academic and social integration.

Classroom expectations. Students form expectations about the classroom experience

before they even step foot inside of one. Much of the current research on classroom expectations

focuses on the amount of self-efficacy students have and on the amount of effort it takes to

receive high grades.

26

Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy, as described by Chemers, Hu, and Garcia (2001), is “the

belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to produce given

attainments” (p. 55). According to Chemers et al., a meta-analysis of research has shown that

self-efficacy is positively related to academic performance and educational persistence. If

students form high expectations of the grades they wish to receive (given attainments) and have a

high belief in their abilities and skills to obtain those grades (self-efficacy), then high amounts of

success can be assumed to follow. In a study of 134 undergraduate students, it was found that

confidence in the classroom was the strongest predictor of success at the end of a course

(Nicholson, Putwain, Connors, & Hornby-Atkinson, 2013). This research shows that students,

across disciplines should have high expectations of themselves, and they should be confident that

they are able to meet those expectations.

Effort. It is important to understand the expectations students have of themselves. The

amount of self-efficacy a student has, is directly related to the amount of effort a student will

expend in the classroom (Chemers et al., 2001; Domina, Conley, & Farkas, 2011). Additionally,

it is also important to understand how much effort a student believes it takes to reach the

expectations they have for themselves. In a study of 287 college students, Lammers, Kiesler,

Curren, Cours, and Connett (2005) concluded that students “believed that more effort (e.g., study

time, frequency of meetings, and preparation for papers) is required to earn higher grades” (p.

213). Students' expectations of how much effort they will need to put into a course or program of

study, and how much self-efficacy they have, can serve as a link to how successful they will be

in their academic endeavors.

Classroom Pedagogy. Aside from having expectations on what they need to do, students

also form expectations about classroom pedagogies--online and distance education classrooms

27

included. Students enter a course with expectations about the pedagogies of that specific course;

those expectations should be stated by each party. Jackson, Helms, Jackson, and Gum (2011)

reported that “a lecture-dominated classroom, with multiple handouts, ample time for class

discussion, minimal outside assignments or group projects, and limited student presentations” (p.

299) are what students expect out of classroom pedagogies. It is important for both students and

professors to clearly state their expectations of each other, thus each party has a clear

understanding of what is expected of them throughout the course.

Faculty enter a course with their own set of expectations on how students will act

throughout their course. Collier and Morgan (2008) identified that faculty expectations typically

fall into three broad categories: workload and priorities, explicitness of expectations and

assignments, and communication and problem solving. In order to meet expectations about

workload, students need to make education a priority and recognize the amount of time school

work will require. The study conducted by Collier and Morgan found that faculty stated that

most of their expectations about assignments were expressed in the syllabus and were clearly

stated. However, faculty have noted that while they think their expectations are clearly laid out,

students repeatedly expressed concern over a lack of clear expectations. Finally, it was widely

noted that faculty expected excellent communication between them and students in order for

students to become successful. Faculty noticed that major problems occurred when students

failed to communicate when they encountered issues. Collier and Morgan stated, faculty

“expressed considerable frustration over the fact that their continued efforts to communicate their

expectations often failed to produce the desired results” (p. 434). Jackson, Helms, and Ahmadi

(2011), suggest faculty creating a “psychological contract where professors outline their

28

expectations at the beginning of class and allow students to voice their opinions for alternatives

and offer suggested changed in pedagogies for better understanding” (p. 403).

Providing students with realistic perceptions of a college classroom environment, and

therefore adjusting students' expectations, will likely increase student satisfaction, retention, and

matriculation (Jackson, et al., 2011; Smith & Wertlieb, 2005). Knowing students' expectations,

without letting them dictate classroom pedagogy, is a key component to student success in the

classroom. Jackson, et al. state, “If gaps between reality and expectations exist, it may be

necessary for… college professors, and others to change these perceptions to more closely mirror

reality” (p. 299).

Students form expectations about virtual classrooms similarly as they do about traditional

classrooms. According to Jackson, Helms, and Ahmadi (2011), “with the rise of virtual

universities the results seem to indicate that students still desire the face-to-face educational

transmission and interaction” (p. 404). The study concludes that students and professors should

enter into a dialogue at the beginning of the course about what they expect out of each other and

to clarify any discord that may occur.

Technological Expectations. Research on student expectations also focused on

technological expectations in terms of how material is presented. Jackson, et al. (2011), asked

undergraduate students what technology they expect to have in their ideal classroom.

Researchers found that “a desire for technology-enhanced pedagogies such as presentation

software, computer projects, simulations, and Internet usage” (p. 299) were all highly expected.

However, even though a strong desire for technology laced classes was evident, “the basic

picture still includes a strong desire for lecture, handouts, class discussion, group activities in

class, and video/DVD material” (p. 299). Students expect that even though the structure of the

29

classroom may remain unchanged from previous generations, technology advancements should

be integrated when appropriate. If institutions want students to be successful throughout their

experience, it would behoove institutions to ensure professors are adequately prepared to meet

student expectations in regards to the classroom experience and pedagogies.

Out-of-class expectations. Tinto (as cited in Karp & Bork, 2014) stated that student

assimilation can occur on two dimensions: academic integration, which occurs when students

connect in the classroom, and social integration, which occurs when students connect outside of

the classroom.

Social Integration. Woosley and Shepler (2011) showed that students are more

successful when their social expectations have been met; part of those expectations include

becoming socially integrated into the collegiate environment. However, some student

expectations may be hard for institutions to accommodate, specifically for commuter students.

While both residential and commuter students have the same expectations in regards to

becoming socially integrated, institutions may have a more difficult time helping commuter

students integrate due to challenges they face that their residential counterparts do not.

According to Karp and Bork (2014), commuter students "have particular challenges developing

and maintaining… connections, in part because their time on campus is limited” (p. 4). Along

with limited time on campus, commuter students also maintain stronger connections with

external communities such as off-campus jobs and family, more so than residential students

(Karp & Bork, 2014). For these students, institutions need to help shape their expectations as

they might be forming their expectations on information from unreliable sources. Karp and Bork

also mention that much of the information students use to form expectations comes from popular

and journalistic images, which might not apply to nonresidential students, in part because college

30

is defined “as a four-year, residential experience and rarely refers to other forms of

postsecondary education” (p. 7) in many popular television or journalist portrayals. This research

suggests that while nonresidential students come to college with expectations of what their social

experiences will be like, institutions may have to intervene and reshape their expectations if

nonresidential students are to be successful.

The idea that students come into college with expectations that may not be met is not

exclusive to nonresidential students. Stern (as cited in Krieg, 2013) mentions that countless

students have quixotically positive expectations of their social collegiate experiences. Krieg

(2013) also mentions “students who show higher discrepancies between expectations and actual

experiences may become disillusioned and more vulnerable to drop out” (p. 636). This implies

that students, before they come to campus, need to form more reasonable expectations of their

social integration to college if student success is desired. According to Smith and Wertlieb

(2005), many students are ill-prepared for the “responsibility of waking themselves up for classes,

getting along with roommates, making new friends, or confronting choices about drinking and

dating” (p. 154) due to the different expectations from high school to college. Kern, Fagley, and

Miller (as cited in Smith & Wertlieb) state that “failure to understand the different expectations

in the two settings can impact academic motivation and achievement” (p. 154). Reasonable

expectations for social integration may be taught through orientation programs as students enter

the institution. Orienting students to form reasonable expectations, especially about social

integration, may help close the dissonance between what they expect versus what they

experience. If realistic expectations are not formed, a high amount of dissonance may emerge,

which research above has stated can make students susceptible to failure.

31

Academic Integration. When students' expectations of academic rigor do not match their

actual experience, it is an indicator that more academic integration needs to occur to better close

the gap. According to Nicholson et al. (2013), students who enter “with an unrealistic

expectation that they will be provided with all the information they are required to learn, and do

not… have to engage” (p. 286) are more susceptible to withdrawing. One major contributing

factor to this problem occurs in the meticulousness of the high schools from which students

come. When students come from less academically rigorous high schools, “the academic

expectations inherent in baccalaureate programs can be somewhat overwhelming, resulting in

self-doubt” (Woosley & Shepler, 2011, p. 702). This self-doubt is detrimental to a students'

chance of success as Williams and Hellman (as cited in Woosley & Shepler, 2011) have found

that “students who have a higher self-worth may study despite distractions, focus on academics,

and complete class work on time (p. 703). Nicholson et al. (2013), have noted that “beliefs held

by students about their academic competence are considered particularly important by both

educationalists and psychologists, as impacting on a range of key outcomes related to student

learning and achievement” (p. 286).

Amongst student populations that have limited opportunities for social integration, (i.e.

nonresidential students), academic integration becomes much more important (Deli-Amen, 2011).

Deli-Amen found that faculty-student involvement outside of the classroom and in-classroom

interactions “were dominant mechanisms of socio-academic integration, which confirms and

extends Tinto's (1997) acknowledgement of the classroom as a site of integration” (p. 83).

Faculty become the main agents of executing academic integration, as the primary agent of

integration is in the classroom. Orientation programming, along with social integration, can play

a role in this process. Sample classes, faculty speeches, and realistic advice from orientation staff

32

can all help students integrate smoothly into the realm of academia and reduce dissonance. In

situations such as these, institutional expectations can help shape the expectations of the students

and enhance the chance for student success.

Institutional Expectations

Institutions play an important role in shaping student expectations. Tinto (2012) reiterated

that no one rises to low expectations. However, if students are unaware of institutional

expectations, they do not live up to them. Therefore, it is critical that each institution clearly

communicate high expectations to students through administrators, advisors, and classroom

faculty. This communication is especially important during the students’ first year of college and

helps to shape students’ expectations through collaboration with administration, in the classroom,

and through advising.

Shaping expectations through collaboration with administration. All administrative

leaders (from president/chancellor of a university to assistant director of a program) are critical

in shaping expectations of students, faculty and staff by encouraging collaboration. Reason, Cox,

Quaye, and Terenzini (2010) identified that there are departmental differences in culture which

influence faculty behavior and student outcomes. Top university officials must effectively

communicate the importance of creating collaboration and then fostering that collaboration

amongst everyone involved. McLeod and Young (2005) agreed, stating,

Students will thrive and flourish in academic environments where the commitment to

student success informs every major function of the institution, from instructors and

advisement to residence life and extracurricular activities. Institutional leaders must

communicate to all constituencies clearly and unequivocally the institutional commitment

to success. (p. 84)

33

A cohesive campus community that communicates and collaborates well with each other is a

sign of a healthy institution that fosters student success and development. Collaboration between

everyone in the campus community is particularly important during the students’ first year of

college, which lays the foundation for the rest of their academic careers. Reason, Terenzini, and

Domingo (2006) stressed the significance of students’ first year by distilling seven principles

called Foundational Dimensions® which underlie the structures, activities, and cultures of the

institutions that effectively promote the success and persistence of their first-year students. The

first dimension of Reason et al. stated that administration should “have organizational structures

and policies that provide a comprehensive, integrated, and coordinated approach to the first year"

(p. 151). These organizational structures and policies must continually emphasize that student

expectations need to be reiterated to students several times throughout the first year. Ward,

Trautvetter, and Braskamp (2005) also stressed that the institution should challenge and support

students in order to promote proper holistic development. Utilizing a collaborative approach to

shape expectations during students’ first year will affect student success each of the following

years after and is essential for future student success.

The second principle of the Foundational Dimensions® identified by Reason et al. (2006)

states that administration should "facilitate appropriate recruitment, admissions, and student

transitions through policies and practices that are intentional and aligned with the institutional

mission" (p. 151). A study by Cabrerea and La Nasa (2001) indicated the importance of

socioeconomic status during students' college search and selection process. Paulsen and St. John

(2002) reiterated the importance of socioeconomic status on a student’s subsequent decision to

persist to degree completion. These studies show that student success factors begin before

students begin their first year. University administrators need to be aware of their incoming

34

student profiles in order to provide adequate support. The next Foundational Dimensions®

identified by Reason et al. (2006) is, "serve all first-year students according to their varied needs"

(p. 151). Students have different needs based on their gender, race, socioeconomic status, and

ability level. Institutions must be aware of student differences and install various forms of

support to assist students. These support functions can reinforce expectations laid out by

administration. Once support forms are in place, administrators must inform students, faculty and

staff about the support and expect that students are referred to the correct support functions and

will use these support functions when needs arise. All of these practices comprise a coordinated

approach to the students first year which fosters student success and development.

Shaping classroom expectations. The classroom performs a central role in the student

learning process and, ultimately, in the students' decisions to persist to the next semester, to the

next year, and beyond. Reason, Cox, Quaye, and Terenzini (2010) state, "while individual

students control the amount of effort they commit to their courses, instructors control the

classroom conditions that facilitate educationally effective activities" (p. 395). Demaris and

Kritsonis (2008) assert that “the greater students are academically integrated in the life of the

institution, the greater the likelihood they will persist” (p. 4). In order to integrate students

academically, faculty need to communicate their classroom expectations. Chickering and

Gamson (1987) laid out seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education

emphasizing the importance of each instructor communicating high expectations: “expect more

and you will get more…. Expecting students to perform well becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy

when teachers and institutions hold high expectations of themselves and make extra efforts” (p.

4-5). Kuh (2003) also affirmed this idea:

35

Students typically don’t exceed their own expectations, particularly with regard to

academic work. But students will go beyond what they think they can do under certain

conditions, one of which is that their teachers expect, challenge and support them to do so.

Students read and write when we demand it. And in concert with other effective

practices…they learn more. (p. 28)

This research suggested that when students are challenged, they usually rise to the

occasion as long as the expectations of that challenge are clearly communicated and support is

provided. Pascarella, Seifert, and Whitt (2008) asserted the importance of clear communication

in regards to both classroom performance and initiatives to support student persistence.

Exposure to overall and clear instruction across the classes one takes in college appears to

enhance not only the development of general cognitive skills not directly linked to a

specific course but also the intention to enroll at a specific postsecondary institution. (p.

66).

In other words, clear communication of expectations to students throughout all their classes

increases the likelihood that they [students] will continue to persist within the institution.

In addition to effective communication, institutions must expect students to actively

engage in the classroom. Chickering and Gamson (1987) offered other principles of good

practice in undergraduate classrooms where faculty: encourage contact between students and

faculty, develop reciprocity and cooperation among students, use active learning techniques, give

prompt feedback, emphasize time on task, and respect diverse talents and ways of learning.

These actions emphasize effective educational practices and could be summarized as an

environment that expects active engagement within the classroom. Using principles of good

practice from Chickering and Gamson, Umbach and Wawrzynski (2005) explored the correlation

36

between five principles of good practice and student engagement and found that holding higher

expectations of students, including active and collaborative learning activities in the classroom,

and emphasizing higher-order cognitive activities all correlated with effective gains in learning.

When faculty combine these practices with effective communication, classroom engagement

creates an institutional environment which fosters student success.

Shaping expectations through advising. For many students, their first meaningful

academic interaction at college is their initial registration and introductory meeting with an

academic advisor. Based on the importance of the first year, this first interaction can be critical to

student success. According to Tinto (2012), students need a roadmap to guide them through the

requirements of their chosen field of study and to introduce them to the institutional resources

that are available during their pursuit of the degree. Heisserer and Parette (2002) added that

additional intrusive advising approaches will improve retention, enhance feelings of

belongingness within the institution, and greater connectedness with faculty and students

program of study. Academic advisors are a good resource to provide students with initial

guidance through intrusive advising to help students understand the institution's expectations in

order to maneuver through the roadmap both with an academic plan and information about

resources. In a study of 2,745 freshmen, Kot (2014) found that students using central academic

advising had improved their first-term GPA and second-term GPA over students who did not use

academic advising. Kot also found that students using central academic advising were more

likely to return to the institution as sophomores than students who did not use academic advising.

In a study of 22,305 students at seven universities and two community colleges, Smith and Allen

(2014) found that student scores on knowledge and attitudes consistent with continuing at their

institution and completing their educational program were significantly higher for students who

37

had met with an advisor in the formal advising system than for those who had not. Among

students who had contacted an advisor, scores were significantly higher for students who had

more contacts than for those with fewer encounters. On a smaller scale, Swecker, Fifolt, and

Searby (2013) found among 363 first-generation students at a southeastern four-year

comprehensive research university "that for every meeting with an advisor the odds of retention

increase by 13%" (p. 51). These results demonstrate that student expectations can be shaped by

academic advisers to help students better understand institutional expectations.

Expectations Dissonance

Students are at risk of leaving the institution when their expectations do not align with or

conform to institutional expectations. According to Braxton, Vesper, and Hossler (1995), a close

alignment between student expectations and institutional expectations influences each students’

desire to continue in the academic and social communities of the college and, generally, to

remain enrolled. However, student expectations and institutional expectations do not always

align. This is especially true for first-year students. Chapman (1981) illustrated that first-year

students’ expectations are generated by many influences, but initially, classroom faculty are not

one of them. Cabrera and La Nasa (2001) developed a more sophisticated college choice model

that emphasized the importance of family characteristics and involvement, which have a more

significant influence on incoming students’ expectations. Throughout the first year, if the

expectations do not align, students may choose to transfer or withdraw from college altogether.

Krieg (2013) pointed out that even top high school students may experience an unanticipated

struggle in competitive universities because “they are unfamiliar with the lack of structure and

amount of work required outside of the classroom. These students may experience academic

failure or disappointment for the first time in college” (p. 636). Karp and Bork (2014) stated,

38

“the mismatch between faculty expectations and student knowledge about those expectations

disadvantages students and may contribute to low student success rates" (p. 3), indicating that

even “college ready” students may not understand expectations because the institution does not

clearly communicate them to the students, nor do they help students understand how to meet

these expectations. These examples of expectations dissonance demonstrate the importance of

clear communication of expectations during the first year of college.

Clear communication is especially important to first-generation students. According to

Tinto (2012), first-generation students may lack knowledge and cultural capital that students

from college-educated families possess. They may not understand what is expected as they

initially enter college. Engle, Bermeo, and O’Brien (2006) also indicated that “first-generation

students tend to be less prepared academically for college than their peers” (p. 17). Engle et al.

indicated that first-generation students may require more remedial coursework and they may lack

time management skills, which leads to lower levels of academic performance and engagement

in social experiences associated with student success. Clear communication continues to be

imperative for first-generation students, but in many instances, other forms of support are

required as well for these students to persist. However, if first-generation students clearly

understand expectations, self-efficacy may begin to flourish for members of this population.

Vuong, Brown-Welty, and Tracz (2010) conducted a study of 1,291 sophomore students, and

found no differences in levels of self-efficacy between first-generation and second-and-beyond

generation sophomores. Therefore, once students understand institutional expectations during the

first year and meet those expectations, self-efficacy will continue to drive the student's success.

39

Summary of Expectations

Students enter college with a variety of expectations that they expect the university to

fulfill. At the same time, the institution has many expectations of the student. Through

administrative officials, classroom faculty, and academic advising, institutions attempt to shape

student expectations to align with the university. Despite the effort, expectations dissonance

between the student and the university lead to a need for additional support. Without proper

support systems, the difference in expectations could negatively affect students' decisions to

persist at their home institution or at any college or university.

Support

In addition to students needing to understand faculty and staff expectations, along with

understanding the expectations they hold for themselves during college, students must have

support to be successful (Tinto, 2012). Support can be offered in a variety of formats, most of

which fall into three main categories: academic support services, such as that from academic

advisors; social support, that can range from family, peers, faculty, and/or staff members; and

financial support, while not as imperative as academic and social support services, students still

need to feel the security of financial support to enable academic and social success (Chen &

DesJardins, 2010; DesJardins, Ahlburg, McCall, 2002). Bettinger, Boatman, and Long (2013)

state that:

Students who feel academically capable and connected to their institution are more likely

to stay enrolled. Such [program] services include peer mentoring, memory and

concentration skill building, early academic progress and warning monitoring, faculty

mentoring, freshmen seminar courses, group learning, proactive advising, time

management workshops and tutoring. (p. 103)

40

Without these various forms of support, students’ persistence to graduation could be inhibited

(Tinto, 2012). This section focuses on how Tinto's theme of support through academic services,

social support, and financial support provide a framework for student success.

Academic Services

It is critical to understand the population that institutions are serving when discussing

academic services needed for student success. Turner and Thompson (2014) found that

traditional students "required ongoing academic guidance, a collaborative and interactive

learning environment, and skill development training during the first year to create a seamless

social and academic transition into the college environment" (p. 103). Sloan (2013) believed

properly timed early interventions, in a safe neutral space, provides all students the "freedom to

explore different possibilities without pressure or judgment" (p. 36). This type of support

prevents students from dropping out or transferring from their initial institution thus increasing

retention rates. Turner and Thompson (2014) go on to indicate that "the institution could benefit

greatly from constructing aggressive academic advisement-support mechanisms or conducting an

extensive re-evaluation of already existing programs to create a balanced academic and social

experience" (p. 103). Institutions of higher education can obtain the information needed to

enhance support by providing assessment tools to determine gaps in the services and also provide

a background in services currently being offered. Toven-Lindsey, Levis-Fitzgerald, Barber, and

Hasson (2015) purport that through programing focused on an all-inclusive approach with an

emphasis on research opportunities, academics, providing a supportive environment through both

community engagement and counseling services can close the gap in success for underprepared

students. Through intentional and aggressive support programming via academic services,

student retention will increase while lowering the risks of attrition.

41

Academic advising. Academic advising is a key piece to students’ overall success and

persistence to graduation (Tinto, 2012). According to Kot (2014), practitioners and scholars alike

agree on the importance of academic advising in providing students with clear and consistent

information regarding academics, program and institutional requirements, assisting students in

navigating different majors, the types of careers in their field of study, and how to manage the

social environment of college. Advising can also vary by the individuals who provide the

advising service. For example, certain institutions have faculty advisors, housed within various

academic degree programs and departments, while other institutions have centralized advisement

centers available for students (Kot, 2014). Regardless of whether it is a faculty or professional

advisor providing the support, a review of existing literature found that the practice of advising

must be consistent for the academic success of students (Bettinger & Baker, 2014; Kot, 2014;

Kuh, Cruce, Shoup, Kinzie & Gonyea, 2008; Tinto, 2012; Turner & Thompson 2014).

Furthermore, Kuh et al. (2008) asserted that through consistent and effective educational

advising, students were more likely to be retained and were more likely to persist through their

academic careers to graduation. Bettinger and Baker (2014) found that students who were

intentionally guided and connected to tools for student success were more likely to persist, even

one year after the academic advisement had ended.

In a study of freshmen students who utilized a centralized advisement center, Kot (2014)

found that students who visited the center had a higher GPA (31.5 percentage points) compared

to students who did not. The services provided by the centralized advisement consisted of

offering assistance in registering for courses, evaluating transfer work, explaining academic

policies and procedures, navigating various campus resources, and providing support in major

choice and academic difficulties. Kot also found that students who visited a centralized

42

advisement center were 28% less likely to not register for the second-year as compared to

students who did not visit an advisement center. These results suggest that students who utilize

academic advising services are significantly more likely to persist from one semester to the

next. It is important to note that the study did not indicate if the centralized advisement center

was inclusive of all academic majors. Kot did, however, indicate that for the purposes of the

study sample, the only advising service available to the participants was through the advisement

center. Students who did not utilize the advisement center did not have access to any other type

of academic advising services. Therefore, centralized advising has shown to be a key impact in

student success as are interactions with faculty (Allen & Smith, 2008; Williamson, Goosen, &

Gonzalez Jr., 2014).

Allen and Smith (2008) found that the interactions students have with faculty were

positively correlated with persistence to graduation and degree attainment. According to

Williamson et al., (2014), "one of the most important components of establishing a strong

institutional commitment begins in the classroom with faculty" (p. 20). Students who met with

their faculty advisors, at least one time throughout the semester, had a letter grade of A, B, or C

with a success rate of at least 70% as compared to 30% of students who did not meet with a

faculty advisor, which led to higher GPAs (Williamson et al., 2014). Williamson et al. also found

that students who met with their faculty advisors at least twice per semester persisted at a rate of

85%, which was 32 percentage points higher than students who did not attend an advising

session. Faculty serving as advisors bring their knowledge and expertise to the discipline for

which they are advising students, and they can foster important relationships necessary for

students to ultimately persist to graduation (Allen & Smith, 2008).

43

Students who enroll in online education programs require the same support, knowledge,

and assessment and feedback in their learning environments as on-campus students (Britto &

Rush, 2013). Learning environments, regardless of the medium, should encompass both

challenge and support; an uneven balance of support or expectations can lead to “maladaptive

coping strategies such as ignoring the challenge or escaping it by leaving college” (Tinto, 2012,

p. 24). The annual rate of online student enrollment has seen a growth rate over the past eight

years (Britto & Rush, 2013). In 2010, nearly 30% of all students enrolled at a higher education

institution were taking at least one course online, which is an increase of 10% from 2009 (Britto

& Rush, 2013). In the same study, Britto and Rush found that by offering advising seven days

per week and extending hours into the evening, both online education students as well as on-

campus students were requesting to meet with an online advisor. Thus, institutions must have the

capability to accommodate online students through online academic support services.

Scholars suggest that regardless of the type of advisors – faculty or professional advisor –

students’ chances of success and ultimately persisting to graduation significantly increases when

they establish and maintain relationships that support them academically (Allen & Smith, 2008;

Britto & Rush, 2013; Kot, 2014; Williamson et al., 2014). To improve student success further,

faculty and professional advisors must work collaboratively to provide the support needed for

student persistence. Institutions need to develop new ways to accommodate the ever evolving

student population, as students require a blended integration of effective communication tools

and technology in- and out- of the classroom (Turner & Thompson, 2014; Britto & Rush,

2013). These types of current communication and technologies include: online video

conferencing software (i.e. Skype, or other web chatting software), after-hours online chat

44

services for registration support, or through learning instructions such as Blackboard or flipped-

learning classrooms.

Advising methods. Numerous advising styles were discovered, from Hochanadel and

Finamore's (2015) research on developing grit, to Bettinger and Baker’s (2014) and McClellan’s

(2013) work on coaching methods. Advisors need to be well versed in the different

methodologies available to them, as students bring different combinations of needs when seeking

advisement. According to Hochanadel and Finamore (2015), by developing an environment

where grit is nurtured through students overcoming challenges and obstacles, grit can aid in the

overall retention and success of these students. Similarly, Bettinger and Baker's (2014) coaching

methods suggest that utilizing coaching strategies can have a positive impact on retention and

graduation rates and, therefore, student success. McClellan (2013) defines coaching as an

advising method grounded within a theoretical context drawn mostly from psychological and

sociological methodologies. McClellan continues by stating that advising through coaching is

designed to build relationships with the students through one-on-one interactions. During these

interactions the advisor assesses the needs of the student, reports out what they are seeing and

allows for the student to provide feedback. The feedback is followed-up by both the student and

advisor engaging in goal-oriented planning to address concerns or build strengths. The advisor

and student continue their engagement with strategies for implementation and later follow-up is

conducted to evaluate the success or need for continued coaching sessions.

Higher education has come to a time of online education programming; with this online

platform comes new issues that are associated with retention and student success. According to

Gravel (2012) “the dropout rate among online students is significantly higher than that of

traditional on-campus students” (p. 63). Britto and Rush (2013) suggest that much of this has to

45

do with students enrolled in online courses being non-traditional and/or from a lower

socioeconomic status than their counterparts who take courses in face-to-face learning

environments. The dropout rate may be due to the amount of out-of-class responsibilities of non-

traditional students and the taxation of time available to successfully complete coursework

requirements. Gravel (2012) continues by suggesting that for support of both online and on-

campus students, utilizing a developmental advising methodology can be effective when the

advisor takes on the role of teacher or guide in the journey to retain and graduate

students. According to McClellan (2013), by adopting an advising-as-teaching approach, the

focus is on promoting the developmental growth and learning of students' skills in self-

authorship, accountability, and decision-making skills – all with a focus on student success.

These varying methods are a part of a tool kit for working with different students with

different needs. For example, Museus and Ravello (2010) found that academic advisors are most

effective when utilizing a more proactive approach, specifically when connecting students to

resources. Varney (2013) explained that utilizing a proactive advising approach (formally known

as intrusive advising) involves deliberate interactions with students through advising, that

develops into a caring connection which leads to improved academic motivation and persistence.

Each available method is tailored to the individual student and what will aid in students

persisting to graduation and ultimately becoming employed (Shaffer & Zalewski, 2011).

Furthermore, many of these advising styles aid in soft skill development that will not only help

students now, but later during their careers as well (Burke, Shanahan & Herlambang, 2013).

Grites (2013) believed that with a foundation in developmental academic advising, practitioners

approach advising holistically to help students make the most of their educational experiences

and beyond in fostering success of students’ academic, personal and career goals. When utilized

46

appropriately advisors use their own expertise to draw out students’ own talents and goals,

through the connection of resources and student engagement to maximize students’

developmental growth, allowing for a successful and rewarding college experience (Grites,

2013).

Programs. Students choose to dropout of higher education for a number of reasons; 15-

20% is due to academic failure (Lichtenstein, 2005). Some of the more common reasons students

choose to dropout include: difficulties in making the transition from high school to college,

feelings of isolation, and external obligations (Lichtenstein, 2005). While institutions cannot

accommodate for all aspects of students’ lives, many institutions have implemented a variety of

programs to support students through the transitional period, such as academic skill building and

fostering relationships with faculty, staff, and peers (Keup, 2006; Lichtenstein, 2005). These

programs are offered in a variety of formats, such as tutoring, first-year seminar courses, and

supplemental instruction courses. It is important to note that when designing and implementing

these types of support programs, the administrators within the institution should provide a high

level of engagement, empower in-class participation, and "enhance students' feelings of

satisfaction with academic experiences, particularly those related to classroom instruction and

relevancy of the coursework" (Keup, 2006, p. 43). Keup found in her study of over 19,000 first-

year students that if the institution did not provide engaging and academically supportive

programs such as tutoring, first-year seminar, and supplemental instruction courses that students

were more likely to skip class and less likely to persist to graduation.

Tutoring. Tutoring is one of many tools used to support underprepared students admitted

to institutions of higher education and aids students in meeting the academic rigor of the

curriculum (Bettinger, et al, 2013). According to Bettinger, et al. (2013) the main obstacle of

47

student success and completion within higher education is a lack of readiness for college-level

coursework. Rheinheimer, Grace-Odeley, Francois, and Kusorgbor (2010) concluded that using

tutoring as a support strategy for at-risk students "demonstrates that tutoring significantly

improves students' academic performance and retention" (p. 28). Rheinheimer et al. continue by

indicating that tutoring may have a positive impact on a students' academic persistence to

graduation and go further to say that students who utilize tutoring services are further promoting

their academic success.

Bettinger’s et al. (2013) research found that through the encouragement of academic

advisors and others from campus, students increasingly utilized tutoring and other campus

services, and were more likely to reach out for help if needed. Through this increased usage of

services, including tutoring, the results indicated a reduction in the likelihood of students

dropping a course, and achieving higher scores on final exams (Bettinger et al., 2013). When a

student is struggling with course rigor or under preparedness for course requirements, tutoring

has shown through the literature to be an excellent tool for advisors and faculty alike to

recommend for helping students achieve academic success.

Supplemental instruction. Supplemental instruction is predominantly supported through

the addition of study groups that are directly correlated with specific courses. "The academic

support they [students] receive in a supplemental study group enables them to immediately apply

that support to the task required by the course to which the group is connected” (Tinto, 2012, p.

36). Other forms of supplemental instruction include remedial courses, sometimes referred as

gateway to college courses. These courses are offered to students who have shown under

preparedness through assessments such as, low ACT test scores, or other basic skill assessment

tools utilized for courses requiring a certain level of knowledge (Bettinger, et al., 2013).

48

Bettinger et al. found that nearly four-fifths of all higher education institutions nationwide make

use of pre-requisites in college courses. Remediation of the English language arts is arguably the

most critical supplemental instruction made available as reading and writing skills are central to

many subjects. According to research conducted on third-year college students, Allen, Robbins,

Casillas, and Oh (2008) found that "programs that improve academic performance (i.e. tutoring,

supplemental instruction) will have the greatest impact on dropout likelihood” for third-year

college students (p. 662). Students, who are not academically prepared for college, experience

feelings of social isolation or lack motivation to persist academically. These students would be

good candidates for interventions like supplemental instruction to provide tools for academic

success and needed social support from peers (Allen et al., 2008).

Supplemental instruction courses for those who may be underprepared for college, paired

with an introduction to a college life course are retained at a higher rate, compared to students

who do not pair the supplemental instruction course with the introductory course (Allen & Lester

Jr., 2012). Students who enrolled in both an introduction to college life course paired with a

remedial math course were retained at a rate of 20 percentage points higher than students who

only took the math remedial courses (Allen & Lester Jr., 2012). These results suggest that when

students have knowledge of various support services, as learned in an introductory course, paired

with supplemental instruction, they are more likely to have a successful transition to college and

a positive collegiate experience.

First-year seminars. First-year seminars (FYS) are designed to facilitate the transition to

college, and to enhance students' academic and social skills through instructional coursework.

Such instructional coursework could include lessons on time management and effective study

skills, institutional history and traditions and, an overall introduction on how to effectively

49

navigate the institution. The format, duration and target audiences for FYS courses depend on the

needs of the institution (Barton & Donahue, 2009; Cornell & Mosley, 2006; Schrader & Brown,

2008). Schrader and Brown (2008) studied the transition of incoming freshmen students who

voluntarily participated in a FYS and students who did not participate. They found significant

differences between the FYS participant group and the comparison group in the knowledge of

resources (i.e. academic planning/advising services, library resources, writing centers, etc.); FYS

participants also had a more positive attitude towards interactions with faculty members and

peers (Schrader & Brown, 2008).

Research has consistently shown that students who are enrolled in a FYS feel more

supported academically and socially and have an easier time transitioning to college (Barton &

Donahue, 2009; Cornell & Mosley, 2006; Schrader & Brown, 2008). For Barton and Donahue

(2009), students who completed a FYS course felt more engaged with activities in- and out- of

the classroom, and students reported that they met with faculty members more frequently (two or

more times per semester, as cited above from Williamson, et al., 2014). Students also indicated

they felt the FYS course assisted in their transition to college, with developing skills such as,

speaking and writing clearly, being able to effectively learn on their own, making connections

across disciplines and working effectively with others (Barton & Donahue, 2009). Cornell and

Mosley (2006) found that students who were enrolled in a FYS at a community college

“developed strong relationships with each other, they persevered to the end of the semester

because of their commitment to other group members and because of the friendships they

developed" (p. 25). In this study, students who enrolled in a FYS course were retained at a higher

rate than students who were not enrolled in a FYS course. Nearly 90% of the students enrolled in

the FYS experience persisted to the next semester, and nearly 85% enrolled for the following fall

50

semester as compared to 43% of non-FYS participants (Cornell & Mosley, 2006). The results of

these studies suggest that students who choose to participate in a FYS are more likely to persist

to graduation, as they have a better knowledge of resources, build and maintain connections with

faculty members and peers, and are more academically and socially integrated within the

institution.

Social Support

Much like academic support, social support is critical to students when making

transitions and adjustments into college (Tinto, 2012). Social support has been shown to

contribute to student success when utilized in support programming (i.e. mentoring programs,

living-learning communities and out-of-class influences). This type of support programming aids

in students making a successful transition to college, building relationships with their peers, as

well as faculty and staff members, and out-of-class influences such as receiving support from

their family members and friends (Friedman & Alexander, 2007; Hu & Ma, 2010; Inkelas, Vogt,

Longerbeam, Owen & Johnson, 2006; Litchenstein, 2005; Storm & Savage, 2014). Social

support programs that successfully embed academic support programming such as academic

advising, and other services and activities enrich the student experience, thus increasing the

overall effectiveness of programming (Tinto, 2012).

Mentoring. Mentoring programs “adds an extra layer of support and guidance, as well

as membership in a community of students who are on a similar journey” (Tinto, 2012, p. 50).

Scholars indicate that mentoring, has an overall positive influence on students’ GPAs and their

decision to persist throughout college (Crisp, 2010; Hu & Ma, 2010). According to Crisp’s

(2010) study "college students perceive mentoring as several types of support: (a) psychological

and emotional support, (b) degree and career support, (c) academic/subject knowledge support,

51

and (d) the presence of a role model" (p. 42). In a study conducted by Crisp (2010) of 320

community college students, she found significant differences between males and females when

it came to their perception of the type of mentoring they received. Crisp went on to find that

females perceived higher rates of psychological, degree, academic and role model support as

compared to their male counterparts. There were also significant differences between full-time

and part-time students. Part-time students indicated they received higher levels of mentoring,

however, full-time students were more socially integrated than their part-time peers. It was also

found that part-time students were more committed to their institution, but did not have the same

drive to persist and enroll for the following semester as their full-time peers. Full-time students

were more likely to persist, even though, interestingly, part-time students indicated they received

higher amount of mentoring.

Hu and Ma (2010) found in a study of 335 four-year institutions, that students

participating in a mentorship program were more likely to persist to graduation if they had a

mentor they felt they could turn to for support and encouragement. In fact, students who

indicated feeling as though they could seek out their mentor for support and encouragement

considered that to be one of the most important factors in the mentoring relationship. Hu and Ma

went on to state that the extent to which students turn to their mentors for support may indicate a

higher quality relationship between the mentor and mentee, which suggests higher levels of

motivation, initiative and ultimately persistence. Therefore, regardless of the type of mentoring

received, mentoring positively impacts a students' social and academic integration within the

institution.

Living-learning communities. According to Litchtenstein's (2005) historical evaluation,

living-learning communities have become a staple for higher education institutions. Living-

52

learning communities were designed based on the premise of student success increasing, through

support within a community of learning (Litchenstein, 2005). According to Inkelas, et al

(2006):

Students in living-learning programs are significantly more likely than students in

traditional residence halls to: (a) be more involved with campus activities and interact

with instructors and peers; (b) show greater gains in or higher levels of intellectual

development; (c) use campus resources and seek assistance from peers, faculty, and staff;

(d) experience a smoother transition to college; and (e) report their residence hall

communities to be academically and socially supportive. (p. 41)

Lichtenstein (2005) found that students who had faculty members that fostered a sense of

community and academic expectations had more unified academic and social experiences.

Students who had faculty members that did not foster a sense of collaboration and community,

within the living-learning communities, consistently felt less satisfied (Lichtenstein, 2005). In

fact, “social engagement was a crucial factor in the equation for student success, and the lack of

student community had a strong negative effect on overall student satisfaction” (Lichtenstein,

2005, p. 350). The results of Friedman and Alexander (2007) study conducted on students

participating in living-learning communities mirrored the results found by Litchtenstein.

Friedman and Alexander (2007) found that students who participated in a living-learning

community obtained significantly higher grade point averages and were more likely to perform

at a higher rate as compared to their nonparticipating counterparts. Living-learning communities

foster student success by academically and socially engaging them both in- and out- of the

classroom. Furthermore, students involved with living-learning communities are more likely to

53

persist from one semester to the next (Friedman & Alexander, 2007; Inkelas et al., 2006;

Lichtenstein, 2005).

Out-of-class influences. While students attend an institution of higher education, they

may be more apt to be influenced by their peers, faculty, or job experience. However, up to the

time of making their decision of where to attend college, students are more likely to be

influenced by parental expectations and their peers (Strom & Savage, 2014). In a study

conducted by Carduner, Padak, and Reynolds (2011), participants looked to many outside

sources such as, peers, residence hall staff, and employers for major and career advice. In fact,

students were most influenced in their choice of major and/or career by the experiences they had

while job shadowing, interning or through coursework where the curriculum surrounded an area

of interest (Carduner et al., 2011). Strom and Savage (2014) found "that initial support from

family and friends not only impacts students' goal to graduate as they enter college, but family

support in particular continues to impact that goal throughout the first year of college" (p. 544).

Friedlander, Reid, Shupak, and Cribbie (2007) found that when students perceived they

had high family social support, their GPAs stabilized across semesters. Moreover, when students

perceived they had a strong level of family social support even when their family's economic

support was low or moderate, it did not negatively impact their GPA (Friedlander et al., 2007).

Therefore, students whose families offer consistent support throughout their years of college see

that this factor can have a major impact on their GPA and overall goal of graduation (Friedlander

et al., 2007; Strom & Savage, 2004). However, if the family is not supportive and is unable to

provide adequate financial support chances of persistence to graduation may decrease, which is

why federal, and state and local aid assistance are critical to student success.

54

Financial Support

Financial support, in combination with academic and social support, plays a role in

students’ decisions to persist to graduation. The tuition and fee cost of attending a 4-year public

institution of higher education between 2005 and 2015 has increased approximately 35% (The

College Board, 2015). Given these increasing costs, many students choose to fund their

education through working part-time in on- or off-campus positions, by receiving grants and/or

scholarships, or borrowing aid through the use of loans. While it is essential for students to have

access to financial resources, borrowing aid can have major implications on students’ financial

well-being post-graduation. Therefore, it is imperative that students have a basic understanding

of what borrowing aid entails (Eitel & Martin, 2009; Hornak, Farrell, & Jackson, 2010; Tierney

& Venegas, 2009). Financial literacy is defined as having knowledge about budgeting and future

financial planning, as well as having an in-depth understanding of financial obligations, interest

rates, and how to pay for expenses (Eitel & Martin, 2009). Students’ need for financial support is

essential as, Sloan (2013) indicates that finances are one of the top reasons students choose to

withdraw from an institution or to transfer to another institution.

Research indicates that institutions that make the commitment to support their students

through state and institutional-based aid are able to retain students; many persist to graduation

(Park, Denson, & Johnson, 2014; Chen & DesJardins, 2010; Chen & St. John, 2011). “Higher

tuition without increased grant aid is associated with higher dropout rates” (Chen & St. John,

2011, p. 654). Chen and St. John found a positive correlation between persistence rates and the

amount of non-need based state aid, in that a 1% increase in state aid correlated with a 2% rise in

rates of persistence to graduation. These results suggest that for students to persist to graduation

55

thus increasing the institutions retention rates; states and institutions should provide access to

funding in the form of grants and scholarships for their students.

Federal financial aid support (i.e. loans, Pell grants, and Federal Work Study) can also

increase persistence rates, especially amongst minority populations (Chen & DesJardins, 2010).

Within Chen and DesJardins (2010) study, minority students were less likely to drop out if they

receive a higher amount of federal Pell grants as compared to their White counterparts. Chen and

DesJardins also reported that a higher increase in Pell grants reduced the dropout rate gap

between minority students and White students. Ishitani (2006) found that financial aid in the

form of grants and work-study were positively correlated with student retention rates. Students

who received grants were 37% less likely to depart from the institution compared to students

who received no aid. Likewise, students who received work-study were 41% less likely to depart

from the institution in comparison to students who received no aid. Furthermore, students who

maintained their work-study position into their second year of college had a higher rate of

persistence (43%) through that second year. Therefore, work-study positions can aid in student’s

ability to afford college, as well as gaining necessary skill sets and engaging in meaningful

relationships with the campus community.

According to Tinto (2012), financial aid has an indirect effect on student engagement

levels, which may "help explain why many work-study programs appears to enhance student

engagement" (p. 30). Students have the opportunity with the work-study program to not only

help pay their way through college, but given that many part-time positions are available on

campus, students have the opportunity to connect with their peers and other staff and faculty

members. DesJardins et al. (2002) found that some types of aid (i.e. federal and private education

loans) do not directly influence graduation rates, with the exception of work-study programs.

56

Findings in DesJardins et al. (2002) research found that work study positions had a positive

impact on graduation rates, however, Tinto emphasizes that an overreliance on the financial

support of work-study can decrease retention. Although work-study can help students pay their

way through college and develop soft skills, spending too much time working takes away from

studies which can have an overall negative effect on students' academic success (Hornak, et al.,

2010, Tinto, 2012). Therefore, it is imperative for institutions to provide various forms of

financial support through funding and programs, as well as increasing students’ financial literacy

through education services on the importance of responsibility borrowing and paying back

financial aid (Eitel & Martin, 2009).

Summary of Support

To foster student success, students and faculty must have a clear, and mutual

understanding of each other's role in setting expectations. In order for those expectations to be

met, students must have the support academically, socially, and financially both in- and out- of

the classroom to ultimately persist to graduation. Students are more likely to be successful when

they have set expectations, and the support to meet those expectations.

Assessment and Feedback

Along with involvement, expectations, and support, assessment and feedback are critical

components of student success (Tinto, 2012). Higher education administrators seek to determine

what students know before entering college and how well students are learning in college via a

variety of assessment methods. Students are assessed at various stages of their secondary and

post-secondary educational careers to measure their aptitude in basic foundational courses such

as math, reading, and writing. While most educational institutions utilize standardized tests such

as the ACT or SAT to assess students’ subject matter aptitude for college, a standardized test to

57

assess students’ knowledge on what it takes to succeed in college is not conducted at any stage in

students’ lives. While in college, instructors assess students by conducting quizzes, tests, reports,

and others to measure how well students are learning the material taught in class. Along with

gauging students’ academic performance by use of grades and quizzes, early warning systems

are increasingly becoming popular at institutions to alert faculty and support services staff of the

need to increase involvement and interaction with students. Through the feedback received from

students and faculty about learning outcomes, institutions are redefining pedagogy to better serve

the students’ needs and wants. Feedback, therefore, provides opportunities to improve the

services provided by the institution.

Assessment at Entry

Assessment at entry are conducted by the institutions to gauge the college readiness of

their incoming students. These assessments come in various forms. While some institutions use

standard tests such as Accuplacer produced by College Board and ASSET and COMPASS

produced by the American College Testing Program, others may create their own test to

determine specific skills and behavior of the incoming class (Tinto, 2012). This section discusses

various methods of assessing college readiness, the implications of the assessments, and the

limitations of the assessments.

Historically, college readiness has been defined in terms of academic knowledge in

reading, writing, and math (Conley & French, 2014). The basic knowledge of the subject matter,

however, is not sufficient for students to succeed in college. Study skills, the ability to get along

with others, willingness to spend extra time on complex tasks, being engaged, and being

involved in extracurricular activities enriches students’ experiences, thus increasing persistence

rates and bolstering feelings of belongingness (Conley & French, 2014; McCarthy & Kuh, 2006).

58

While high school experiences including academic performances are significant predictors of

college grades and how students perform overall (Brown, 2012), student ownership in learning is

another key factor beyond content knowledge that contributes to student success (Conley &

French, 2014). Jackson and Kurlaender (2014) theorize that college readiness is more than a

short term requirement of developmental education and that academic preparation is the most

important factor in student success. Jackson and Kurlaender (2014) go on to point out that even

though there is an identified need for college graduates in the workforce, many students entering

college are unprepared for college-level work.

In addition to standard aptitude tests such as the ACT and the SAT along with high

school cumulative GPA, there are many other national surveys used to assess college readiness

(Oswald, Schmitt, Kim, Ramsay, & Gillespie, 2004). For example, the High School Survey of

Student Engagement (HSSSE) can be used to collect data about high school students’ attitudes

and activities towards engagement. However, no tests or surveys can measure college readiness

conducted on its own. While aptitude tests measure the academic knowledge of students,

national surveys measure the skills that are necessary to succeed in college (Gaertner &

McClarty, 2015; McCarthy & Kuh, 2006). Instead of relying on a single tool, Maruyama (2012)

suggests using multiple assessment tools including assessments created by individual institutions

to measure specific student population college readiness. Similarly, Oswald et al. (2004) reason

that creating a situational judgment inventory to measure students’ non-cognitive attributes to

predict college performance can provide additional validity when used along with standardized

tests. Based on the literature reviewed on how to measure readiness, it is apparent that there is no

single tool available to predict college readiness.

59

According to the Statistics in Brief published in 2013 by the U.S. Department of

Education, National Center for Education Statistics, in 2007-2008 academic year, 20.4% of first-

year undergraduate students in public and private institutions self-reported as taking remedial

courses. This is a slight increase from 19.3% reported in 2003-2004 academic year. High rates of

college remediation are an indication that students are not college ready. Students needing

remediation classes lack the basic skills in reading, writing, and basic math, to persist in college.

Remediation is costly for the institution as well as student (Jackson & Kurlaender, 2014). While

successful completion of remediation courses increases the persistence rate, failure of

remediation courses increases the dropout rate (Hooker, 2011). According to Jackson and

Kurlaender (2014), the intensity of academic rigor in high school curriculum better predicts

college degree completion than test scores and rank in the class. Jackson and Kurlaender (2014)

argue that students who take rigorous classes are better prepared with study habits, motivation,

stronger work ethic, and support. Rigorous classes, such as advanced placement courses, better

prepare students for college level work, and in most cases, teachers who are more skilled with

additional credentials are chosen to teach these classes.

New students entering college for the first time need guidance and support before they

step into college (Tinto, 2012). Some colleges offer summer programs, commonly known as

Summer Bridge programs, during the summer months before the new students start their first

semester in college (Lonn, Aguilar & Teasley, 2015). These programs are primarily geared

towards preparing students academically for college-level work, but the indirect benefits of these

programs are substantial. For example, Summer Bridge programs that have a residential

component have been shown as the most important and positive predictor of persistence for all

students (Lonn et al., 2015). Involving students at the very beginning of their college life

60

provides the opportunities for students to form valuable friendships, increases feelings of

security and confidence, and feelings of belongingness at the institutions (Lonn, et al., 2015).

These programs also provide the vehicle for institutions to communicate the expectations of

college students and how they differ from expectations of the high school (McCarthy & Kuh,

2006). Early engagement and involvement positively contribute to persistence and retention

(Lonn et al., 2015).

Another method in identifying at-risk students is to conduct surveys during student

orientation sessions. These surveys help identify the pre-college enrollment characteristics of

students at risk facilitating intervention at a very early stage to avoid attrition (Brown, 2012).

Along with the national surveys, institutional surveys can also be useful in identifying attributes

or skills that students should have in order to be successful in a particular program at the

institution (Brown, 2012). For example, the College Student Inventory (CSI) is an early

intervention tool that is administered to new students. When combined with freshmen seminar

courses geared towards providing students information on available campus services, the dual

approach to assessment at entry has shown positive outcomes with increased levels student

engagement that supports persistence (Vander, 2011).

Recognizing that late-stage feedback may be too late to correct behavior in students,

some middle schools have introduced programs as early as 8th grade. The National Education

Longitudinal Study is geared towards K-12 students; participants are surveyed on educational

inputs, contexts, and outcomes. The results are used to understand college readiness as a

complete set of independent attitudes and behavior, and not just cognitive abilities (Gaertner &

McClarty, 2015). Similarly, some high schools assess their students before they begin taking

college entrance examinations such as the ACT and the SAT. The Early Assessment Program

61

introduced in California in 2004 assesses 11th grade students and provides feedback on their

college readiness. This early detection provides the opportunity for teachers and parents to help

their students during the 12th grade to become college ready (Jackson & Kurlaender, 2014).

According to an HSSSE survey conducted in 2005, more than 90% of the high school students

indicated that they plan to attend college. However, only half of the students surveyed indicated

they felt ready for college. Even though these students have good grades, the amount of time

spent on studying was much less than what it would take to get a similar grade in college

(McCarthy & Kuh, 2006).

Assessing college readiness using any or all of the instruments does not predict the

likelihood of student success (Tinto, 2012). The research has shown that students who have a

higher aptitude along with other behavioral skills including student engagement and involvement

have a higher likelihood of succeeding in college. Through early assessment, high schools and

institutions can communicate the expectations of a college student and provide necessary support

to involve and engage the student in laying the foundation for student success.

Assessment in the Classroom

Assessing student academic performance is one of the most important tasks of an

educator (Craddock & Mathias, 2009). It has, however, been viewed as an afterthought, and

usually tagged on after the program and curriculum have been built (Offerdahl & Tomanek,

2011). Historically, student learning outcomes have been assessed mainly through exams and

quizzes (Craddock & Mathias, 2009). With increased pressure from stakeholders for

accountability, institutions assess their students early and continuously to ensure that students are

learning (Mansson, 2013). Instead of overly relying on mid-term or final exams, instructors can

use a variety of classroom assessment techniques to provide instant and direct feedback to

62

students (Craddock & Mathias, 2009; Mansson, 2013). Portfolios, minute papers, misconception

and perception checks, muddiest points, and clickers are some examples of popular classroom

assessment techniques that are being used across disciplines (Kirk, 1997; Lantz, 2010; Mansson,

2013). These forms of active learning engage students during class so they actively participate

and contribute to their learning through information gathering, thinking, and problem solving

(Michael, 2006).

Portfolio. One of the earliest methods of assessing student learning outcomes, and still in

use, is the use of portfolios (Kirk, 1997). Students are required to create portfolios of what they

have learned over several class periods. This method holds students accountable for collecting

and summarizing what they have learned in class and putting that into practice (Kirk, 1997).

Portfolios require extensive planning and commitment from the instructor as well as from the

student. In addition to promoting student responsibility, creating portfolios encourages the

students to self-reflect and document achievements and learning outcomes, positively

contributing to levels of self-confidence and self-efficacy (Kirk, 1997).

Minute Paper. The minute paper is used as a checkpoint at the end of the class to see

how well students are able to distinguish the major points of the lecture from minor details. The

students need to recall and evaluate what was taught during the lecture and provide notes to the

instructor to assess their understanding of the material (Mansson, 2013). This method provides

the feedback needed for the instructor to plan the next lesson based on the students’

understanding of material. Depending on the level of understanding, the instructor may spend

some time going over the previous lecture to ensure the students have met the learning outcome.

Misconception and Perception Check. The misconceptions and perception check

requires the instructor to evaluate the perceptions of students on the lecture or unit. The check is

63

conducted prior to teaching the lesson (Mansson, 2013). This method may require students to

read the material before coming to class and answer a set of questions about the readings. Based

on their responses, the instructor may spend some time during the class to explain the

misconceptions and bring all students to a level playing field.

Muddiest Point. The muddiest point is determined by getting student feedback on the

least clear point that was made in class. The feedback is assessed towards the end of the class.

This method is similar to the minute paper but focuses on what was not clear and addresses the

content during the same class session. This method is time-efficient and allows the instructor to

go over the material before the end of the class (Mansson, 2013).

Clicker Technology. Clicker technology, a more recent form of gathering immediate

responses, incorporates the use of a device that allows students to anonymously answer questions

in-class. The responses provide immediate feedback to the instructor on the screen as a

histogram or other format. This instant feedback provides the instructor valuable information on

whether the student has grasped the material taught in class. Clickers are used in a variety of

disciplines and in different classroom environments from large lecture bowls to small group

discussion courses (Lantz, 2010). With the increased use of mobile devices in the classroom by

students, instructors can use the technology in conjunction with smart devices that are capable of

providing instant feedback (Stowell, 2015).

Collaborative Learning. In addition to learning the class material, there are other skills

that students acquire while in college. The classroom experiences of students have been found to

have positive outcomes in different ways including cognitive development and knowledge gain.

For example, interactions in the classroom contribute to acquiring interpersonal skills and better

understanding of the subject matter (Cabrera et al., 2002). The student-centered learning

64

environment provides the opportunity for students to learn from one another, to collaborate, and

to influence what is being taught (Michael, 2006). These are life skills being taught indirectly

while learning the subject matter. Since individuals tend to learn more while engaged in

conversations, many institutions look for collaborative teaching methods, commonly labeled as

peer learning, cooperative learning, problem-based learning and others (Cabrera et al., 2002;

Mansson, 2013). When considering Native American students, collaborative learning methods

are well suited for their culture of teaching and learning from each other (Hooker, 2011). When

using collaborative teaching methods, the role of the faculty member is more of a facilitator

encouraging students to participate during class (Cabrera et al., 2002). In a study conducted by

Cockrell, Caplow, and Donaldson (2000), a collaborative learning environment was singled out

as the most promising learning environment for its quality of effort students spend in learning.

Pardede and Lyonos’s (2012) research on redesigning a course to include a collaborative

learning environment with peer evaluation is an example of how institutions are looking to

improve their teaching methods to encourage active learning. The method of teaching may differ

from discipline to discipline but the focus is on student engagement and involvement in class.

While a collaborative learning environment may not be the best learning environment for all

students, the institution needs to continually assess student learning outcomes as well as

cognitive development to create an environment conducive to maximize student experiences in

college.

Digital Technology. With digital technology tools such as the use of learning

management systems and digital text books increasingly supplementing teaching methods, the

usage data from these systems can be analyzed to assess and predict learning outcomes. For

example, digital textbooks can be analyzed to see how often students utilize the textbook

65

including highlighting and time spent reading. Research conducted by Junco and Clem (2015) on

this subject indicated that students in the top 10th percentile in the number of highlights

performed considerably better than those in the 90th percentile. Similarly, Fritz's (2011) study on

University of Maryland’s “Check My Activity” tool analyzes the usage of the learning

management system with grades. The study indicated that the students earning a final grade of D

or F used the learning management system 39% less than those receiving a passing grade. Even

though both of these methods do not provide immediate feedback, the tools can be used more

frequently to identify students who need intervention.

Course Redesign

When instructors feel that a course needs to be updated or improved, they will go through

a course redesign process. There are a variety of reasons for, and outcomes of, redesigning a

course and many course redesign models for an instructor to follow. Some of the reasons for

redesigning a course, recommendations for doing so, and the outcomes achieved are discussed in

this section.

Courses may be redesigned as a result of research on learning environments or emerging

pedagogies, such as the case study by Aitken (2005) where a large lecture course was redesigned

due to recent studies indicating that large format lectures do not provide the best learning

experience for students. Some courses may be redesigned because of previous assessments, such

as the case study by Amaral, Shank, Shibley, and Shibley (2013) which looked at a course

redesign performed because of historically lower GPAs and completion rates for students in

Chemistry. Others yet are redesigned based on student feedback, like the course redesign studied

by Nomme and Birol (2014) which used surveys and student feedback throughout the entire

redesign process.

66

Most courses fall into one of four categories: traditional, web-enhanced, hybrid, and

online (Amaral, Shank, Shibley, & Shibley, 2013). Traditional courses include any face-to-face

learning environments that use little or no technology integration. Web-enhanced courses usually

include less face-to-face lecture time and require the student to do more work outside the

classroom. Hybrid courses combine traditional face-to-face courses with elements of online

instruction. Hybrid courses can also be referred to as blended or mixed-mode courses (O’Byrne

& Pytash, 2015). The fourth type is online courses, which do not meet face-to-face and are

conducted purely online through various technologies (Amaral et al., 2013). Online courses can

be either synchronous or asynchronous. Synchronous courses require that the instructor and the

students be online at the same time to participate in live discussions, lectures or other activities,

similar to those that take place in a traditional face-to-face classroom. Asynchronous courses

allow the students to work on their own schedule. The instructors provide the required materials,

readings, lectures, and other learning activities to be viewed at any time.

Tam (2014) states that course design is shifting away from the traditional teacher-

centered approach to a more student-centered or outcomes-based approach. Regardless of the

method used to teach the course, the emphasis is more on what the student should be able to do

at the end of the course which is one reason instructors may redesign their courses. Another

reason may be to move from one teaching method to another such as moving away from a purely

lecture format. Many studies have looked at ways to move away from large lecture courses and

the effect on student learning (Aitken, 2005; Amaral et al., 2013; Ferreri & O’Connor, 2013;

Nomme & Birol, 2014). An instructor may also focus on one specific learning goal of the course

such as integrating active-learning components or increasing students’ critical thinking and

decision making skills (Ferreri & O’Connor, 2013; Nomme & Birol, 2014). Other goals of a

67

redesign may include focusing on content, method, or assessment (Owen, 2015; Pardede &

Lyons, 2012).

To complete a course redesign, Stanton and Bradley (2013) recommend that an instructor

follow six steps starting with course assessment and ending with the course redesign. These steps

include 1) using assessment results to identify issues and successes, 2) analyze the issues found

in the first step, 3) brainstorm ideas to address the issues, 4) select the solution to implement, 5)

redesign the course and 6) re-assess the redesigned course.

When redesigning a course, there are many general recommendations of what to include

in the redesigned course. Stage and Kinzie (2009) recommended six general practices to promote

student learning. These practices include 1) social learning experiences, 2) varying instructional

modes, 3) varying student performance expectations, 4) providing choices, 5) sociocultural

situations and methods, and 6) course projects situated in diverse communities. While they did

not expect all six of these to be integrated into every course, they recommended that an instructor

aim to include at least a couple of these practices. Aitken (2005) recommended that courses be

redesigned to include 1) active learning experiences, 2) assessing learning frequently, 3)

meaningful and frequent feedback, and 4) relating course content to the students’ personal

experiences. Vaughan (2010) recommended including 1) active and collaborative learning, 2)

student interaction with faculty, 3) level of academic challenge, 4) enriching educational

experiences, and 5) a supportive campus environment. Pardede and Lyons (2012) stated that

there must be teaching and learning activities to facilitate student learning and assessment tasks

to give students the opportunity to show what they have learned. There is an extensive amount of

overlap between these recommendations. According to this selection of research, emphasis

68

should be placed on active learning, student-faculty interactions, assessment and feedback, and

the impact of the learning experience.

The results of course redesign vary greatly. Vaughan (2010) found that after a course

redesign, faculty members perceived an increased level of student engagement. Amaral et al.

(2013) studied a redesigned Chemistry course that incorporated more group work, a stronger

emphasis on online components through a learning management system, and in-class

assessments. This redesign resulted in higher GPAs, a 4-7% increase in retention rates, increased

enrollment, and a decrease in the number of course retakes for the course compared to years

prior to the redesign. In Ferreri and O’Connor’s (2013) study, students indicated an improvement

in their verbal communication skills, teamwork skills, problems solving skills and understanding

of diverse culture. Courses that moved away from a purely lecture course to include more out-of-

class readings and in-class discussions and group work found that while the redesign caused an

increase in stress levels and decreased interest in the subject, the faculty also noticed an increase

in energy and attention levels (Nomme & Birol, 2014). Owen (2015) found that the integration

of student choice increased motivation and meaningful experiences.

Course redesign can occur as a result of prior assessments, changing methods and/or

technology. No matter the reason for the course redesign, there are many recommendations for

how to design a course including various methods and practices. The most recommended

practices to include in a course redesign relate to active learning experiences, student and faculty

interactions including feedback, and students’ expectations. It is clear that a well-designed course

can increase student achievement in a variety of ways from grades to critical thinking skills to

increased motivation.

69

Early Warning Systems

Many institutions implement early warning or early alert systems. According to Beck and

Davidson (2001), an early warning system is a tool used to identify students who are most likely

to fail academically or to face problems while adjusting to the collegiate environment. Davidson,

Beck and Milligan (2009) gave a more specific definition to include that the system will be able

to find students having troubles prior to them failing a course or leaving the university. Most

struggling or underachieving undergraduate students go unnoticed by university officials and the

interventions that do happen, happen too late (Beck & Davidson, 2001).

The systems being developed use academic analytics to find at-risk students in a variety

of ways. The term academic analytics is becoming more popular and was defined by Goldstein

and Katz (2005) as a term to “describe the intersection of technology, information, management

culture, and the application of information to manage the academic enterprise” (p. 2). In terms of

early warning systems, academic analytics generally use demographic and performance data to

predict and find at-risk students (Fritz, 2011). Davidson et al. (2009) state that many different

characteristics can affect retention rates including type of institution, institution size, type of

degree, residency, and percentage of students in certain groups such as minority, socioeconomic

status, or first-generation.

According to Arnolds (2010), two main challenges are presented when using an early

warning system. The first challenge is collecting and organizing data from multiple systems.

After the data is brought together, the second challenge is how to analyze and use the data.

Instructors and administrators will all use the data in various manners and there are no one-size

fits all approaches to academic analytics and early warning systems (Arnolds, 2010). Early

warning systems use data collected from various sources across the institution. The three types of

70

data sources used in the early warning systems that will be discussed in this section include:

learning management systems (LMS) or content management systems (CMS), student

information systems (SIS), and surveys.

Learning management systems are tools such as Blackboard, Moodle, or Desire2Learn

that are used to conduct online courses and to supplement more traditional courses. Using these

systems, faculty are able to track user data such as number of logins, length of sessions, number

of pages viewed, and the number of discussion posts and views. All of these are used to assess

student involvement in the course. Macfadyen and Dawson (2010) found that logins alone are a

strong predictor of student success. Looking closer at the activity levels, number of pages viewed,

number of discussion posts read and posted, mail messages sent, and assessments completed are

all significant predictors of final grades (Macfadyen & Dawson, 2010; Morris, Finnegan, & Wu,

2005). Active participation by students is important to succeed. Faculty must find ways to

engage students to initiate this participation. Some schools have also implemented visual

dashboards within the LMS to help both the students as well as faculty to assess student

performance (Fritz, 2011; Macfadyen & Dawson, 2010). The first year of Fritz’s study (2011)

showed only about a 30% usage of their dashboard tool. After some marketing and education

initiatives, Fritz (2011) found an increase from 13 users per day to 109 users per day. There was

also a change in the way the students were using the tool. The average time spent in the system

went from 21 seconds and 1.5 pages to 1 minute 15 seconds and 3.4 pages and 81% of the visits

were from repeat visitors.

A “student information system is a core system of any university and provides an

impressive array of function” (Mukerjee, 2012, p. 51). Student information systems can hold

information about courses, scheduling information, billing and fee management, graduation

71

information, final examination data, student progression and completion data and operational and

management reporting. The system may also feed data into other various specialty systems the

university utilizes. A student information system can be used to track data such as student

demographics, course enrollments, grades, and attendance, as many schools ask the faculty to

track and submit absenteeism reports (Hudson, 2006; Khoury, Jenab, Staub, & Rajai, 2012).

These data points along with grade reports can be very helpful in targeting at-risk students.

Just as surveys such as HSSSE can be used to assess student readiness, surveys can also

help assess undergraduates in a range of areas; there is no single type of survey used at all

institutions. One institution's Survey of Academic Orientations (Beck & Davidson, 2001) asked

questions relating to structure dependence, creative expression, reading for pleasure, academic

efficacy, academic apathy, and mistrust of instructors. Davidson, Beck, and Milligan's (2009)

College Persistence Questionnaire included questions relating to academic performance,

institutional commitments, degree commitments, academic and social integration, support

services satisfaction, finances, social support, and personality and psychological adjustment. The

type of survey used and the questions asked will vary by school. Beck and Davidson (2001) state

that in order to be a practical utility, survey scores must collect data that are not redundant with

data already collected by other various information systems maintained by the institution.

As mentioned earlier, some schools will use this data to create a visual dashboard for

multiple parties to allow individuals to interpret their information and take action (Fritz, 2011;

Macfadyen & Dawson, 2010). Other schools have a variety of interventions that can happen

depending on the type of alert. These can include a visual indicator on the SIS or LMS home

screen, email messages and reminders, text messages, referral to academic resources such as

advisors and research centers, or face-to-face meetings with instructors (Arnolds, 2010). Other

72

early warning system platforms will directly send messages to specific individuals or offices on

campus versus students and then these individuals or offices will reach out to the student to assist

them directly (Hudson, 2006).

The successes of early warning systems affect student retention and enrollment

management the most (Goldstein & Katz, 2005). Some implications for retention include

initiating and enhancing contact between student, advisor, and instructor; enhancing current

retention activities; making returning to the classroom easier for the student; and affecting

pass/fail rates (Hudson, 2006). Arnolds (2010) found that while the same number of students

were withdrawing, they were doing so earlier as to not affect their academic record, and those

who persisted sought help 30% more of the time after receiving messaging from the early alert

system. The student successes at the larger level include improved decision making and higher

rates of meeting strategic goals (Goldstein & Katz, 2005).

Early warning systems can have positive effects on an institution's retention and

graduation rates and should be developed specific to the institution. It can be time and resource

intensive to collect the data and analyze it to find the triggers for a specific institution's student

body; once the triggers are identified though, the results are a great resource to multiple parties

on campus from administration to instructors and staff to students.

Perceptions of Assessment

Assessment is an important part of the learning process and it means different things to

different populations. Fletcher et al. (2012) studied the perceptions of faculty and students

regarding assessment. They found that while students saw assessment as a tool for accountability,

faculty saw assessment as a method for improving student learning and teaching practices.

Rucker and Thomson (2003) stated that:

73

When professors give an assignment or a task, they are agreeing to be held accountable

for providing critical feedback to their students. This accountability puts pressure on

professors to provide students with the necessary feedback to help them improve their

task performances. (p. 403)

Hernandez (2012) found that both students and faculty agree the most important purposes of

assessment are to provide feedback on progress, meet learning outcomes, and motivate students

to study. In looking at feedback for students, Rucker and Thomson (2003) found that students

benefitted more from critical feedback given soon after the task. The feedback should be

presented in a clear manner while also being sensitive to students’ learning styles. Hernandez

(2012) found three main factors leading to student dissatisfaction with feedback including not

receiving enough feedback, receiving feedback that does not give them advice on how to

improve and receiving feedback too late. It seems that the most important factors of feedback are

the source, mode, content, and occasion (Rucker & Thomson, 2003).

Students have a generally positive response to the feedback given through an early alert

or warning system. Hudson (2006) found there was a positive response from students and that

they were surprised that someone was paying attention and took the time to contact them.

Arnolds (2010) found that students appreciated the email warnings they received as well as the

visual signals available to them. In the same study, faculty reported that they were able to

provide more action-oriented feedback to students and felt that students were more proactive

with the early warning system in place.

Summary of Assessment and Feedback

Assessment is an important activity in higher education and is utilized for various reasons

at many different levels. Fletcher, Meyer, Anderson, Johnson and Rees (2012) said “assessment

74

in higher education serves multiple purposes such as providing information about student

learning, student progress, teaching quality, and program and institutional accountability” (p.

119). Assessments are used to inform program selection decisions, determine student progression,

measure student learning and provide information to the instructors on the effectiveness of their

teaching (Fletcher et al., 2012). Assessment begins before students enter college and continues

throughout the duration of their collegiate careers. The importance of assessment continues to

grow and institutions are continually developing new methods of assessment. While there is no

one tool or methodology at any stage that can predict or guarantee student success, institutions

can continue to use assessments to ensure that students are receiving the support necessary to

promote success.

Common Themes

A common theme across the literature is that institutions and students must have an

understanding of the expectations they hold for each other. Students' expectations and

institutional expectations may not necessarily align, academically and/or socially. Consistent

communication of expectations at all institutional levels is a key ingredient to student success.

When institutions consistently communicate high expectations, students rise to the occasion.

Institutions must also seek to understand student expectations. In order to aid in the students'

success, institutions must deliver a support system in- and out- of the classroom. Students who

seek guidance and support from faculty and professional staff members, along with being

involved in study groups and other school activities, have shown increased levels of self-efficacy

and a sense of belonging. This combination leads to student persistence and ultimately academic

success.

75

College students who are engaged and involved both in- and out- of classroom take

advantage of institutional support systems, have peer networks, and report higher success rates

than students who were disengaged from high school and college environments. The type of

activity in which students become involved is somewhat dependent on innate and situational

characteristics of the students. It is the responsibility of the institution to understand the specific

needs of its student populations and to provide opportunities for students to be engaged and to be

a part of the community, ultimately increasing feelings of belongingness.

Implications for Practice

Student affairs professionals play a key role in providing support to students and faculty.

Due to the changing nature of college student populations, student affairs professionals need to

continuously engage in understanding the needs and wants of students. Programs and services

must be created to support student needs and to ensure that students are aware of the services that

are available to involve them in various activities in the community. Moreover, collaboration

across all institutional levels should occur so that communication to students remains consistent

and intentional. In addition, assessment of students’ performance as well as support programs

and services should be utilized in a timely manner for early interventions and advising,

structured and informal, to occur.

Communication in various forms is used to convey involvement opportunities,

institutional expectations, available support and services, and how feedback from assessments

will be used within the institution. The use of technology, while not without its limitations, can

provide enhanced opportunities for institutions to effectively communicate along with offering

more technologically advanced programming and services both in- and out- of the classroom. It

is beneficial for faculty to utilize technology within the classroom to enrich student engagement

76

and collaboration. Additionally, it is important for institutions to provide an integrated

technology platform of programming and services for the continually evolving online student

population. The adaptation of online services can also provide an opportunity for on-campus

students to utilize this platform as an alternative method to gaining necessary support.

Institutions need to recognize that the use of technology can also inhibit students' sense of

belongingness, and be aware of how this can affect students' ability to succeed. Furthermore,

faculty and staff need to stay abreast on the most effective technological tools available to them

and utilize that knowledge both in- and out- of class to enhance student persistence and success.

While faculty and staff training is not addressed at length in this literature review,

training for these members should be recognized as an important component of the students'

overall retention and ultimately persistence to graduation. Not all faculty and staff have formal

training to support students in their academic success; therefore, the institution should provide

these opportunities in the form of professional development.

Conclusion

The purpose of this literature review is to demonstrate the connections of involvement to

expectations, support, and assessment and feedback in how they contribute to student success.

Student success can be measured based on the student outcomes of retention and persistence,

graduation, academic achievement, advancement and holistic development. Even though student

success is generally measured while the student is in college, the journey begins well before then.

Throughout this journey, involvement and engagement of students, along with a strong support

structure, play a critical role in student success.

Findings in the literature review indicate that the responsibility of student success does

not belong only to the student or to student affairs professionals. It is the responsibility of the

77

entire institution to provide an environment for students to succeed, not only academically, but as

a global citizen. Student affairs professionals can lead this effort by engaging and involving

students, faculty, staff, and the community to create an environment that maximizes the

resources and services provided by the institution and community.

78

References

Aitken, N. D. (2005). The large lecture course redesign project: Pedagogical goals and

assessment results. College Teaching Methods & Styles Journal, 1(2), 61-68.

Alfano, H. J., & Eduljee, N. B. (2013). Differences in work, levels of involvement, and academic

performance between residential and commuter students. College Student Journal, 47(2),

334-342.

Allen, I. H., Lester Jr., S. M., (2012). The impact of college survival skills courses and a success

coach on retention and academic performance. Journal of Career and Technical

Education, 27(1), 8-14.

Allen, J., Robbins, S. B., Casillas, A., & Oh, I. (2008). Third-year college retention and

transfer: Effects of academic performance, motivation, and social connectedness.

Research In Higher Education, 49(7), 647-664

Allen, J. A., & Smith, C. L. (2008). Faculty and student perspectives on advising: Implications

for student dissatisfaction. Journal of College Student Development, 49(6), 609-624.

doi:10.1353/csd.0.0042

Amaral, K., Shank, J., Shibley, I., & Shibley, L. (2013). Web-enhanced general chemistry

increases student completion rates, success, and satisfaction. Journal of Chemical

Education, 90(3), 296-302.

Arnolds, K. (2010). Signals: Applying academic analytics. Educause Quarterly, 33(1). Retrieved

from http://er.educause.edu/articles/2010/3/signals-applying-academic-analytics

Astin, A. W. (1999). Student Involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.

Journal of College Student Development, 40(5), 518-529.

79

Barton, A., & Donahue, C. (2009). Multiple Assessments of a first-year seminar pilot. General

Education, 58(4), 259-278.

Beck, H., & Davidson, W. (2001). Establishing an early warning system: Predicting low grades

in college students from survey of academic orientations scores. Research in Higher

Education, 42(6), 709-723. doi:10.1023/A:1012253527960

Bettinger, E. P., Boatman, A., & Long, B. T. (2013). Student supports: Developmental education

and other academic programs. Future Of Children, 23(1), 93-115.

Bettinger, E. P., & Baker, R. B. (2014). The effects of student coaching: An evaluation of a

randomized experiment in student advising. Educational Evaluation And Policy Analysis,

36(1), 3-19.

Bowman, N. A., Park, J. J., & Denson, N. (2015). Student involvement in ethnic student

organizations: Examining civic outcomes 6 years after graduation. Research in Higher

Education, 56, 127-145. doi:10.007/s1162-014-93563-8

Braxton, J. M., Vesper, N., & Hossler, D. (1995). Expectations for college and student

persistence. Research in higher education, 36(5), 595-611.

Bringle, R., & Hatcher J. (1995). A service learning curriculum for faculty. The Michigan

Journal of Community Service Learning. 2(1), 112-122.

Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1996). Implementing service learning in higher education. The

Journal of Higher Education, 67(2), 221-239.

Britto, M., Rush, S. (2013). Developing and implementing comprehensive support services for

online students. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 17(1), 29-42.

Brown, J. (2012). Developing a freshman orientation survey to improve student retention within

a college. College Student Journal, 46(4), 834-852.

80

Brower, A. M., & Inkelas, K. K. (2010). Living-learning programs: one high-impact educational

practice we now know a lot about. Liberal Education, 96(2), 36-43.

Brower, A. M., & Ketterhagen, A. (2004). Is there an inherent mismatch between how black and

white students expect to succeed in college and what their colleges expect from them?

Journal of Social Issues, 60(1), 95-116.

Bunce, D. M., Flens, E. A., & Neiles, K. Y. (2010). How long can students pay attention in

class? A study of student attention decline using clickers. Journal of Chemical Education,

87(12), 1438-1443. doi:10.1021/ed100409p

Burke, A., Shanahan, C., & Herlambang, E. (2013). An exploratory study comparing goal-

oriented mental imagery with daily to-do lists: Supporting college student success.

Current Psychology, 33(1), 20-34. doi:10.1007/s12144-013-9193-2

Cabrera, A. F., & La Nasa, S. M. (2001). On the path to college: Three critical tasks facing

America's disadvantaged. Research in Higher Education, 42(2), 119-149.

Cabrera, A., Nora, A., Crissman, J., Terenzini, P., Bernal, E., & Pascarella, E. (2002).

Collaborative learning: Its impact on college students’ development and diversity.

Journal of College Student Development, 43(1), 20-34.

Carduner, J., Padak, G. M., Reynolds, J. (2011). Exploratory honors students: Academic major

and career decision making. NACADA Journal, 31(1). 14-28. doi:10.12930/027-9517-

31.1.14

Chapman, D. W. (1981). A model of student college choice. The Journal of Higher Education,

490-505.

Chemers, M. M., Hu, L. T., & Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first year college

student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 55-64.

81

Chen, R., DesJardins, S. L. (2010). Investigating the impact of financial aid on student dropout

risks: Racial and ethnic differences. The Journal of Higher Education, 81(2), 179-208.

Chen, R., & St. John, E. P. (2011) State financial policies and college student persistence: a

national study. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(5), 629-660.

Chickering, A. W. (2000). Creating community within individual courses. New Directions for

Higher Education, 109, 23-32.

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate

education. AAHE bulletin, 3, 3-7.

Cockrell, K. S., Caplow, J. A., & Donaldson, J. F. (2000). A context for learning: Collaborative

groups in the problem-based learning environment. Review of Higher Education, 23(3),

347-364.

The College Board. (2015). Trends in college pricing: 2015. Washington DC: The College

Entrance Examination Board.

Collier, P. J., & Morgan, D. L. (2008). “Is that paper really due today?”: Differences in first-

generation and traditional college students’ understandings of faculty expectations.

Higher Education, 55(4), 425-446. doi:10.1007/s10734-007-9065-5

Conley, D., & French, E. (2014). Student ownership of learning as a key component of college

readiness. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(8), 1018-1034.

doi:10.1177/0002764213515232

Cornell, R., & Mosley, M. (2006). Intertwining college with real life: The community college

first-year experience. Peer Review, 8(3), 23-35.

Craddock, D., & Mathias, H. (2009). Assessment options in higher education. Assessment &

Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(2), 127-140. doi:10.1080/02602930801956026

82

Creasey, G., Jarvis, P., & Gadke, D. (2009). Student attachment stances, instructor immediacy,

and student–instructor relationships as predictors of achievement expectancies in college

students. Journal of College Student Development, 50(4), 353-372.

doi:10.1353/csd.0.0082

Crisp, G. (2010). The impact of mentoring on the success of community college students. The

Review of Higher Education, 34(1), 39-60. doi:10.1353/rhe.2010.0003

Cuyjet, M.J., Howard-Hamilton, M.F., & Cooper, D.L. (Eds.). (2011). Multiculturalism on

Campus: Theory, models, and practices for understanding diversity and creating

inclusion. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing LLC.

Davidson, W. B., Beck, H. P., & Milligan, M. (2009). The college persistence questionnaire:

Development and validation of an instrument that predicts student attrition. Journal of

College Student Development, 50(4), 373-390.

DeBard, R., & Sacks, C. (2010, June). Fraternity/sorority membership: Good news about first-

year impact. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority

Advisors, 5(1), 12-23.

DesJardins, S. L., Ahlburg, D. A., & McCall, B. P. (2002). A temporal investigation of factors

relate to timely degree completion. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(5), 555-581.

Deli-Amen, R. (2011). Socio-academic integrative moments: Rethinking academic and social

integration among two-year college students in career-related programs. The Journal of

Higher Education, 82(1), 54-91.

Demaris, M. C., & Kritsonis, W. A. (2008). The classroom: Exploring its effects on student

persistence and satisfaction. Online Submission, 2(1), 2-9.

83

Domnia, T., Conley, A., & Farkas, G. (2011). The link between educational expectations and

effort in the college-for-all era. American Sociological Association, 84(2), 93-112.

Eitel, S. J., & Martin, J. (2009). First-generation female college students’ financial literacy: Real

and perceived barriers to degree completion. College Student Journal, 43(2), 616-630.

Engle, J., Bermeo, A., & O'Brien, C. (2006, December). Straight from the source: What works

for first-generation college students. Washington, DC: Pell Institute for the Study of

Opportunity in Higher Education.

Eppler, M. A., Ironsmith, M., Dingle, S. H., & Errickson, M. A. (2011). Benefits of service-

learning for freshmen college students and elementary school children. Journal of the

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(4), 102-115.

Eyler, J., & Giles, D. (1999). Where's the learning in service-learning. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Ferreri, S., & O’Connor, S. (2013). Redesign of a large lecture course into a small-group

learning course (instructional design and assessment). American Journal of

Pharmaceutical Education, 75(10). doi:10.5688/ajpe7510206

Fischer, M. J. (2007). Settling into campus life: Differences by race/ethnicity in college

involvement and outcomes. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(2), 125-161.

Fletcher, R. B., Meyer, L. H., Anderson, H., Johnston, P., & Rees, M. (2012). Faculty and

students conceptions of assessment in higher education. Higher Education: The

International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, 64(1), 119-133.

doi:10.1007/s10734-011-9484-1

84

Friedlander, L. J., Reid, G. J., Shupak, N., & Cribbie, R. (2007). Social support, self-esteem, and

stress as predictors of adjustment to university among first-year undergraduates. Journal

of College Student Development, 48(3), 259-274. doi:10.1353/csd.2007.0024

Friedman, D. B., & Alexander, J. S. (2007). Investigating a first-year seminar as an anchor

course in learning communities. Journal of The First-Year Experience & Students in

Transition, 19(1), 63-74.

Fritz, J. (2011). Classroom walls that talk: Using online course activity data of successful

students to raise self-awareness of underperforming peers. Internet and Higher Education,

14(2), 89-97. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.07.007

Gaertner, M., & McClarty, K. (2015). Performance, perseverance, and the full picture of college

readiness. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 34(2), 20-33.

doi:10.1111/emip.12066

Goldstein, P., & Katz, R. (2005). Academic analytics: The uses of management information and

technology in higher education. Washington, DC: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied

Research.

Goncalves, S.A., & Trunk, D. (2014). Obstacles to success for the nontraditional student in

higher education. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, Winter 19(4), 164-172.

Gravel, C.A. (2012). Student-advisor interaction in undergraduate online degree programs: A

factor in student retention. NACADA Journal, 32(2), 56-67.

Grills, C. N., Fingerhut, A. W., Thadani, V., & Machon, R. A. (2012). Residential learning

communities centered within a discipline: The psychology early awareness program. New

Directions For Teaching And Learning, (132), 43-55.

85

Grites, T.J. (2013). Developmental academic advising. In J.K. Drake, P. Jordan, M.A. Miller

(Eds.), Academic advising approaches: Strategies that teach students to make the most of

college (pp. 45-59). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hausmann, L. R., Schofield, J., & Woods, R. L. (2007). Sense of belonging as a predictor of

intentions to persist among African American and white first-year college students.

Research in Higher Education, 48(7), 803-839. doi:10.1007/s11162-007-9052-9

Heisserer, D. L., & Parette, P. (2002). Advising at-risk students in college and university settings.

College Student Journal, 36(1), 69-74.

Herman, J. H. (2012). Faculty development programs: The frequency and variety of professional

development programs available to online instructors. Journal of Asynchronous Learning

Networks, 16(5), 87-106.

Hernandez, R. (2012). Does continuous assessment in higher education support student learning?

Higher Education, 64(4), 489-502. doi:10.1007/s10734-012-9506-7

Hochanadel, A., & Finamore, D. (2015). Fixed and growth mindset in education and how grit

helps students persist in the face of adversity. Journal of International Education

Research, 11(1), 47-50.

Hooker, D. (2011). Small peer-led collaborative learning groups in developmental math classes

at a tribal community college. Multicultural Perspectives, 13(4), 220-226.

doi:10.1080/15210960.2011.616841

Hornak, A. M., Farrell, P. L., & Jackson, N. J. (2010). Making it (or not) on a dime in college:

Implications for practice. Journal of College Student Development, 51(5), 481-495. doi:

10.1353/csd.2010.0003.

86

Hu, S., & Ma, Y. (2010). Mentoring and student persistence in college: A study of the

Washington State achievers program. Innovative Higher Education, 35(5), 329-341.

Hu, S., & McCormick, A. C. (2012). An engagement-based student typology and its relationship

to college outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 53, 738-754.

doi:10.1007/s11162012-9254-7

Hudson, W.S. (2006). Can an early alert excessive absenteeism warning system be effective in

retaining freshman students? Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory &

Practice, 7(3-4), 217-226. doi:10.2190/8TDY-798N-1ACK-9733

Inkelas, K. K., Vogt, K. E., Longerbeam, S. D., Owen, J. E., & Johnson, D. R. (2006).

Measuring outcomes of living-learning programs: Examining college environments and

student learning and development. The Journal of General Education, 55(1), 40-76.

doi:10.1353/jge.2006.0017.

Ishitani, T. T. (2006). Studying attrition and degree completion behavior among first-generation

college students in the United States. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 861-885.

Jackson, J., & Kurlaender, M. (2014). College readiness and college completion at broad access

four-year institutions. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(8), 947-971.

doi:10.1177/0002764213515229

Jackson, M. J., Helms, M. M., & Ahmadi, M. (2011). Quality as a gap analysis of college

students' expectations. Quality Assurance in Education, 19(4), 392-412.

Jackson, M. J., Helms, M. M., Jackson, W. T., & Gum, J. R. (2011). Student expectations of

technology-enhanced pedagogy: A ten-year comparison. Journal of Education for

Business, 86(5), 294-301.

87

Junco, R., & Clem, C. (2015). Predicting course outcomes with digital textbook usage data. The

Internet and Higher Education, 27, 54-63. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.06.001

Junco, R., Heibergert, G., & Loken, E. (2010). The effect of Twitter on college student

engagement and grades. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 119-132.

Jung, J. (2011). Assessing learning from a student community engagement project. Education +

Training, 53(2-3), 155-165.

Karp, M. M., & Bork, R. H. (2014). “They never told me what to expect, so I didn’t know what

to do”: Defining and clarifying the role of a community college student. Teachers

College Record, 116(5).

Keup, J. R. (2006). Promoting new-student success: Assessing academic development and

achievement among first-year students. New Directions for Student Services, 114, 27-46.

Khoury, S., Jenab, K., Staub, D., & Rajai, M. (2012). Using database technology to improve

STEM student retention: A total quality management approach to early alert and

intervention. Management Science Letters, 2(2), 647-654.

Kirk, M. (1997). Using portfolios to enhance student learning & assessment. Journal of Physical

Education, 68(7), 29-33. doi:10.1080/07303084.1997.10604980

Kot, F. C. (2014). The impact of centralized advising on first-year academic performance and

second-year enrollment behavior. Research in higher education, 55(6), 527-563.

Krieg, D. (2013). High expectations for higher education? Perceptions of college and

experiences of stress prior to and through the college career. College Student Journal,

47(4), 635-643.

Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we're learning about student engagement from NSSE: Benchmarks for

effective educational practices. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 35(2), 24-32.

88

Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T. M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. M. (2008). Unmasking the effects

of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. The Journal of

Higher Education, 79(5), 540-563. doi:10.1353/jhe.0.0019.

Lammers, H. B., Kiesler, T., Curren, M. T., Cours, D., & Connett, B. (2005). How hard do I

have to work? Student and faculty expectations regarding university work. Journal of

Education for Business, 80(4), 210-213.

Lantz, M. (2010). The use of ‘clickers’ in the classroom: Teaching innovation or merely an

amusing novelty? Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 556-551.

doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.02.014

Litchtenstein, M. (2005). The importance of classroom environments in the assessment of

learning community outcomes. Journal of College Student Development, 46(4), 341-356.

doi:10.1353/csd.2005.0038

Long, L. D. (2012). A multivariate analysis of the relationship between undergraduate

fraternity/sorority involvement and academic performance. Oracle: The Research

Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 7(2). 37-48.

Lonn, S., Aguilar, S., & Teasley, S. (2015). Investigating student motivation in the context of a

learning analytics intervention during a summer bridge program. Computers in Human

Behavior, 47, 90-97. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.013

Macfadyen, L. P., & Dawson, S. (2010). Mining LMS data to develop an "early warning system"

for educators: A proof of concept. Computers & Education, 54(2), 588-599.

doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.008

MacKinnon, F.J.D., & Floyd, R.D. (2011). Nontraditional college students. In Cuyjet, M.J.,

Howard-Hamilton, M.F., & Cooper, D.L. (Eds.), Multiculturalism on campus: Theory,

89

models, and practices for understanding diversity and creating inclusion (pp. 327-346).

Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.

Mansson, D. H. (2013). Assessing student learning in intercultural communication:

Implementation of three classroom assessment techniques. College Student

Journal, 47(2), 343-351.

Maruyama, G. (2012). Assessing college readiness: Should we be satisfied with ACT or other

threshold scores? Educational Researcher, 41(7), 252-261.

doi:10.3102/0013189X12455095

McCarthy, M., & Kuh, G. (2006). Are students ready for college? What student engagement data

say. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(9), 664-669.

McClellan, J. (2013). Advising as coaching. In J.K. Drake, P. Jordan, M.A. Miller (Eds),

Academic advising approaches: Strategies that teach students to make the most of

college (pp. 159-175). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

McKee, C. W., & Tew, W. M. (2013). Setting the stage for teaching and learning in American

higher education: Making the case for faculty development. New Directions for Teaching

and Learning, 133, 3-14. doi:10.1002/tl.20041

McLeod, W. B., & Young, J. M. (2005). A chancellor's vision: Establishing an institutional

culture of student success. New Directions for Institutional Research, 125, 73-85.

Micari, M., & Pazos, P. (2012). Connecting to the professor: Impact of student-faculty

relationship in a highly challenging course. College Teaching, 60, 41-47.

doi:10.1080/87567555.2011.627576

Michael, J. (2006). Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology

Education, 30(4), 159-167.

90

Millican, J. & Bourner, T. (2011). Student-community engagement and the changing role and

context of higher education. Education + training, 53(2-3), 89-99.

Morris, L. V., Finnegan, C., & Wu, S. (2005). Tracking student behavior, persistence, and

achievement in online courses. Internet and Higher Education, 8(3), 221-231.

doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2005.06.009

Morrow, J. A., & Ackermann, M. E. (2012, September). Intention to persist and retention of

first-year students: The importance of motivation and sense of belonging. College Student

Journal, 46(3), 483-491.

Muckerjee, S. (2012). Student information systems – implementation challenges and the road

ahead. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 34(1), 51-60.

doi:10.1080/1360080X.2012.642332

Museus, S. D., & Ravello, J. N. (2010). Characteristics of academic advising that contribute to

racial and ethnic minority student success at predominantly white institutions. NACADA

Journal, 30(1), 47-58. doi:10.12930/0271-9517-30.1.47

Myers, S. A., Edwards, C., Wahl, S. T. & Martin, M. M. (2007). The relationship between

perceived instructor aggressive communication and college student involvement.

Communication Education, 56(4), 498-508. doi:10.1080/03634520701466398

National Center for Education Statistics (2012). Quick Stats. Retrieved from: http://nced.ed.gov

National Survey of Student Engagement (2015, October 8). About NSSE. Retrieved from:

http://nsse.indiana.edu/html/about.cfm

Nicholson, L., Putwain, D., Connors, L., & Hornby-Atkinson, P. (2013). The key to successful

achievement as an undergraduate student: confidence and realistic expectations? Studies

in Higher Education, 38(2), 285-298.

91

Nomme, K., & Birol, G. (2014). Course redesign: An evidence-based approach. Canadian

Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5(1). doi:10.5206/cjsotl-

rcacea.2014.1.2

O’Byrne, W., & Pytash, K. (2015). Hybrid and blended learning. Journal of Adolescent and

Adult Literacy, 59(2), 137-140. doi:10.1002/jaal.463

Offerdahl, E. G., & Tomanek, D. (2011). Changes in instructors' assessment thinking related to

experimentation with new strategies. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,

36(7), 781-795. doi:10.1080/02602938.2010.488794

O'Keeffe, P. (2013, December). A sense of belonging: Improving student retention. College

Student Journal, 47(4), 605-613.

Oswald, F., Schmitt, N., Kim, B., Ramsay, L., & Gillespie, M. (2004). Developing a biodata

measure and situational judgment inventory as predictors of college student performance.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 187-207. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.187

Owen, P. M. (2015). Maximizing student motivation: A course redesign. Procedia - Social and

Behavioral Sciences, 186, 656-659. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.097

Pardede, E., & Lyons, J. (2012). Redesigning the assessment of an entrepreneurship course in an

information technology degree program: Embedding assessment for learning practices.

IEEE Transactions on Education, 55(4), 566-572. doi:10.1109/TE.2012.2199757

Park, J. J., Denson, N., & Johnson, M. (2014). Examining a financial climate of support: How

institutional-level financial aid relates to teamwork, leadership, and critical thinking.

Journal of College Student Development, 55(8), 779-794. doi:10.1353/csd.2014.0086

Pascarella, E. T., Seifert, T. A., & Whitt, E. J. (2008). Effective instruction and college student

persistence: Some new evidence. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 115, 55-70.

92

Paulsen, M. B., & St John, E. P. (2002). Social class and college costs: Examining the financial

nexus between college choice and persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(2),

189-236.

Powell, J. D., & Lines, J. I. (2010, June). Make learning personal: Recommendations for

classroom practice. About Campus, 15(2), 19-25.

Quaye, S. J., & Harper, S. R. (2015). Student Engagement in Higher Education (2nd ed.). New

York, NY: Routledge.

Rapert, M. I., Smith, S., Velliquette, A., & Garretson, J. A. (2004). The meaning of quality:

Expectations of students in pursuit of an MBA. Journal of Education for Business, 80(1),

17-24.

Reason, R. D., Cox, B. E., Quaye, B. R. L., & Terenzini, P. T. (2010). Faculty and institutional

factors that promote student encounters with difference in first-year courses. The Review

of Higher Education, 33(3), 391-414. doi:10.1353/rhe.0.0137

Reason, R., Terenzini, P., & Domingo, R. (2006). First things first: Developing competence in

the first year of college. Research in Higher Education 47(2), 149-176.

doi:10.1007/s11162-005-8884-4

Rendon, L. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Towards a new model of learning and

student development. Innovative Higher Education, 19(1), 33-51.

Rheinheimer, D. C., Grace-Odeleye, B., Francois, G. E., & Kusorgbor, C. (2010). Tutoring: A

support strategy for at-risk students. Learning Assistance Review, 15(1), 23-34.

Rucker, M. L., & Thompson, S. (2003). Assessing student learning outcomes: An investigation

of the relationship among feedback measures. College Student Journal, 37(3), 400-405.

93

Schrader, P. G., & Brown, S. W. (2008). Evaluating the first year experience: Students'

knowledge, attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(2), 310-343.

Shaffer, L. S., & Zalewski, J. M. (2011). “It’s what I have always wanted to do.” Advising the

foreclosure student. NACADA Journal, 31(2), 62-77.

Sidelinger, R. J. & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2010). Co-constructing student involvement: An

examination of teacher confirmation and student-to-student connectedness in the college

classroom. Communication Education, 59(2) 165-184. doi:10.1080/03634620913390867

Sloan, C. (2013). Teenagers in the ivory tower: Engaging and retaining traditional college

students. Change, 45(2), 35-39. doi:10.1080/00091383.2013.764263

Smith, C. L., & Allen, J. M. (2014). Does contact with advisors predict judgments and attitudes

consistent with student success? A multi-institutional study. NACADA Journal, 34(1).

Smith, J. S., & Wertlieb, E. C. (2005). Do first-year college students' expectations align with

their first-year experiences? Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 42(2),

299-320.

Sparks, D., & Malkus, N. (2013). First-year undergraduate remedial course taking: 1999-2000,

2003-2004, 2007-2008. Statistics in Brief. Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2013/2013013.pdf.

Stage, F. K., & Kinzie, J. (2009). Reform in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and

mathematics: The classroom context. Journal of General Education, 58(2), 85-105.

doi:10.1353/jge.0.0038

Stanton, K. C., & Bradley, T. H. (2013). From course assessment to redesign: A hybrid-vehicle

course as a case illustration. European Journal of Engineering Education, 38(6), 687-699.

doi:10.1080/03043797.2013.826181

94

Stowell, J. (2015). Use of clickers vs. mobile devices for classroom polling. Computers &

Education, 82, 329-334. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.008

Strayhorn, T. (2012). Exploring the impact of Facebook and Myspace use of first-year students’

sense of belonging and persistence decisions. Journal of College Student Development,

53(6), 783-796. doi:10.1353/csd.2012.0078

Strom, R. E., & Savage, M. W. (2014). Assessing the relationships between perceived support

from close others, goal commitment, and persistence decisions at the college level.

Journal of College Student Development, 55(6), 531-547.

Swecker, H. K., Fifolt, M., & Searby, L. (2013). Academic advising and first-generation college

students: A quantitative study on student retention. NACADA Journal, 33(1).

Tam, M. (2014). Outcomes-based approach to quality assessment and curriculum improvement

in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 22(2), 158-168. doi:10.1108/QAE-

09-2011-0059

Thayer, P. (2000, May). Retention of students from first-generation and low-income

backgrounds. Opportunity Outlook, 2-8.

Tierney, W. G., & Venegas, K. M. (2009) Finding money on the table: Information, financial aid,

and access to college. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(4), 363-388.

Tinto, V. (2012). Completing college: Rethinking institutional action. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Toven-Lindsey, B., Levis-Fitzgerald, M., Barber, P. H., & Hasson, T. (2015). Increasing

persistence in undergraduate science majors: A model for institutional support of

underrepresented students. CBE - Life Sciences Education, 14(2), 1-12.

95

Turner, P., & Thompson, E. (2014). College retention initiatives meeting the needs of millennial

freshman students. College Student Journal, 48(1), 94-104.

Umbach, P. D., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in

student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 153-

184.http://nced.ed.gov/

Vander, B. (2011). Assessment matters: Early intervention: Using assessment to reduce student

attrition. About Campus, 16(1), 24-26. doi:10.1002/abc.20051

Varney, J. (2013). Proactive advising. In J.K. Drake, P. Jordan, M.A. Miller (Eds.), Academic

advising approaches: Strategies that teach students to make the most of college (pp. 159-

175). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Vaughan, N. (2010). A blended community of inquiry approach: Linking student engagement

and course redesign. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 60-65.

doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.007

Vuong, M., Brown-Welty, S., & Tracz, S. (2010). The effects of self-efficacy on academic

success of first-generation college sophomore students. Journal of College Student

Development, 51(1), 50-64.

Ward, K., Trautvetter, L., & Braskamp, L. (2005). Putting students first: Creating a climate of

support and challenge. Journal of College and Character, 6(8), 1-9. doi: 10.2202/1940-

1639.1492

Webber, K. L., Nelson Laird, T. F., & BrckaLorenz, A. M. (2013). Student and faculty member

engagement in undergraduate research. Research in Higher Education, 54, 227-249.

doi:10.1007/s11162-012-9280-5

96

Williamson, L. V., Goosen, R. A., & Gonzalez Jr., G. F. (2014). Faculty advising to support

student learning. Journal Of Developmental Education, 38(1), 20-24.

Wilson, J. C. (2011). Service-learning and the development of empathy in US college students.

Education + Training, 53(2-3), 207–217. doi:10.1108/00400911111115735

Wolf-Wendel, L., Ward, K., & Kinzie, J. (2009). A tangled web of terms: The overlap and

unique contribution of involvement, engagement, and integration to understanding

college student success. Journal of College Student Development, 50(4), 407-428.

doi:10.1353/csd.0.0077

Woosley, S. A., & Shepler, D. K. (2011). Understanding the early integration experiences of

first-generation college students. College Student Journal, 45(4), 700-715.

Zhao, C., & Kuh, G. D. (2004). Adding value: Learning communities and student engagement.

Research in Higher Education, 45(2), 115-138.

97

Chapter II

Learning Assistance Programs Benchmarking Report

Madhavi Marasinghe and Chelsea Mellenthin

University of North Dakota

98

Introduction

Benchmarking is the process of measuring the practices of a program against the industry

best standard. In higher education environments, decision makers consider the best standards to

create or improve existing programs to better align with the mission and vision of individual

institutions. In general, higher education institutions select other institutions similar in size,

location, level of research activity, mission and vision, and other criteria based on the Carnegie

Classifications. These institutions, known as peer institutions, are published by Carnegie

Classifications for institutions to compare their performance against other peer institutions

(University of North Dakota, "Peer Institutions", n.d.).

In addition to comparing the practices and standards to peer institutions, it is good

practice to look at best practices and standards published by professional associations such as the

Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS), the National Association

of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO), and others. The membership of these

councils is comprised of leaders from various institutions who meet to discuss and create best

practice standards and tools to be utilized by higher education administrators who are assessing

institutional effectiveness and student outcomes. By utilizing established standards and

comparing their performance with peer institutions, institutions are able to evaluate the

shortcomings of its programs. This evaluation can help to enhance the programs and services

provided to students, and ultimately improve the overall student experience.

With increased public scrutiny of the value of a college degree, higher education

institutions continuously evaluate their programs and how they serve their students. Academic

support programs are an area of particular interest for institutional evaluation. Academic support

programs include services offered to students outside of the classroom to help with

99

comprehension, learning goals, and enhancing study skills. The focus is on academic instruction

and tutoring. Added benefits of such programs are to provide a learning space for students to

think critically and collaboratively. With graduation and retention rates at bleak levels across the

nation’s public universities (Tinto, 2004), more and more institutions are reviewing their current

practices of academic support programs. The academic support programs at each institution may

differ depending on the mission and vision of the institution. For example, an institution focused

on increasing retention and graduation rates of students, may provide tutoring and supplemental

instruction programs for challenging courses where students may have a higher rate of low

grades and drops, withdrawals, or failure (DWF). An institution with a strong online and distance

student population looks to increase awareness of support programs and resources available for

students who are unable to physically be on campus every day.

The purpose of this benchmarking report is to define and determine the values and

characteristics as well as the best practices of successful student academic programs by

analyzing peer institutions of the University of North Dakota (UND). The 2009 CAS

Professional Standards for Higher Education, commonly referred to as "CAS Standards" (7th ed.),

developed by the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education, will be

utilized for the purposes of this benchmarking report. The CAS standards provide fourteen

criteria, outlining specific domains and dimensions of academic support programs to help

professionals implement comprehensive academic support programs at their institutions. Each

point has clearly defined goals specific to the criteria, keeping the overall theme of student

success at the center. Using the criteria as a set of guideline, institutions are able to design

programs to best complement the goals of the institutions to support specific student populations

and their needs.

100

The mission of the Learning Assistance Programs (LAP), as stated in the CAS Standards,

is “to provide students with resources and opportunities to improve their ability to learn and to

achieve academic success” (p. 286). As LAP standards are directly related to the academic

success, this benchmarking report will utilize four of the overall fourteen criteria indicated in the

LAP standards: Mission, Program, Equity and Access, and Financial Resources. The standards

require the mission of the program to be aligned with overall institutional goals and with student

learning as the central focus. The goal of the program criterion is to provide a curriculum that

promotes student learning and development as holistic and purposeful. The equity and access

criterion focuses on creating an environment that is fair, equitable, and non-discriminatory in

accordance with institutional, state, and federal policies. The criterion recognizes the needs of

distance learning students and addresses how to provide support accordingly. The financial

resources criterion requires that institutions have adequate funding to accomplish the mission and

goal of the program. It requires identifying funding sources, staff and student salaries, job

functions, assessments and evaluations. These four criteria will be applied at the University of

North Dakota and at four peer institutions to benchmark their academic support programs.

Additionally, while CAS defines academic success programs as LAPs, for the purposes of this

benchmarking report these programs will be referred to as academic support programs.

Selection of Benchmarking Institutions

There are 15 peer institutions designated as UND’s peer institutions, based on

enrollment size, institutional mission, and programs offered, program specialties, and Carnegie

Classification (University of North Dakota, "Peer Institutions", 2006). The list of criteria for

benchmarking include institutions that have similar student population, peer based learning

centers, institutional support for academic support programs, and an established mission for the

101

support program. Since more than four institutions meet all of the above the criteria, retention

and graduation rates were used to further filter the institutions to identify aspirational peer

institutions. Table 1 shows the fall to fall retention rates of all enrolled students and the six-year

graduation rates of the chosen institutions. The chosen institutions, University of North Carolina

at Chapel Hill (UNC), University of Vermont (UVM), University of Utah (UT), and University

of Pittsburgh (PITT) had retention rates of 97%, 87%, 89%, and 93% respectively compared to

UND’s 80% retention rate (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). These four institutions along

with UND will be analyzed on their institutional mission and context, student profile, and

academic support programs offered.

Table 1

Summary of Institutional Selection based upon Peer Institution Retention and Graduation Rates

Institutions Retention

(Fall to Fall)

Graduation

(150% - 6 year)

University of North

Carolina – Chapel Hill

(UNC)

97% 90%

University of Vermont

(UVM)

87% 76%

University of Utah (UT) 89% 62%

University of Pittsburgh

(PITT)

93% 82%

University of North Dakota

(UND)

80% 64%

Retention and Graduation Rates (U.S. Department of Education “Institute of Education Sciences,

National Center for Education Statistics”, 2014).

102

Identification of Criteria

The CAS Standards encompasses fourteen parts of academic support programs that

enhance student learning and ultimately achieving academic success. The guidelines and

standards for academic support programs are 1) mission; 2) program; 3) leadership; 4) human

resources; 5) ethics; 6) legal responsibilities; 7) equity and access; 8) diversity; 9) organization

and management; 10) campus and external relations; 11) financial resources; 12) technology; 13)

facilities and equipment; and 14) assessment and evaluation. The four standards being utilized in

this benchmarking report are: mission, program, equity and access, and financial resources (See

Table 2). The peer institutions analyzed in this report each had their mission clearly defined on

their websites along with a description of each of the support programs that they offer. These

institutions also provided the academic support services free of charge to students. The majority

of the funding and resources for the academic support programs are provided by the institutions’

division of student affairs or equivalent.

Table 2

Summary of Best Practice Programs based on Selection Criteria

Institutions Criterion 1:

Mission

Criterion 2:

Program

Criterion 3:

Equity and

Access

Criterion 4:

Financial

Resources

UNC X X X X

UVM X X X X

UT X X X

PITT X X X X

UND X X

103

Institutional Profiles

University of North Dakota

The University of North Dakota (UND) is located in Grand Forks, North Dakota, a

college town of approximately 56,000 people. The city of Grand Forks borders Minnesota, with

the Red River dividing the city with East Grand Forks, Minnesota. The two cities are often

referred to as the Great Grand Forks area, with an urban city feeling situated in a heavy farming

county. The majority of the population in Grand Forks identifies as White at 90%, whereas 2%

identify as Black/African American, 3% identify as American Indian/Alaska Native, 2% identify

as Asian, and 3% identify as being of two or more races/ethnicities (United States Census Bureau,

"Grand Forks, ND", 2010).

Institutional context. UND was founded in 1883, six years before North Dakota became

a state (University of North Dakota, "Heritage and Legacy", n.d.). Unlike many of the other

institutions of the time, UND did not begin as an agricultural school or a teachers college, rather

it was organized as a college of arts and sciences with a normal school educating future teachers

(University of North Dakota, "Heritage and Legacy, n.d.). The university is the state's oldest and

largest institution, serving as the state's flagship and research institution. With over 225 fields of

study including bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral, and medical degrees and over 3,000 course

offerings, the university serves approximately 15,000 students. The university is one of 47

institutions nationwide that offers both an accredited law and medical school (University of

North Dakota, "About UND", n.d.). Currently, UND is undergoing a Presidential search process

for the institutions 12th president. The university is presently led by interim President Ed Shaffer

104

and a cabinet of six Vice Presidents (See Figure 2).

Figure 2. University of North Dakota Organizational Chart (North Dakota University System,

"Organizational Chart", n.d.)

Institutional mission. The mission of UND is as follows:

The University of North Dakota, as a member of the North Dakota University System,

serves the state, the country, and the world community through teaching, research,

creative activities, and service. State-assisted, the University's work depends also on

federal, private, and corporate sources. With other research universities, the University

shares a distinctive responsibility for the discovery, development, preservation, and

dissemination of knowledge. Through its sponsorship and encouragement of basic and

applied research, scholarship, and creative endeavor, the University contributes to the

public well-being. The University maintains its original mission in liberal arts, business,

education, law, medicine, engineering and mines; and has also developed special

missions in nursing, fine arts, aerospace, energy, human resources, and international

studies. It provides a wide range of challenging academic programs for undergraduate,

105

professional and graduate students through the doctoral level. The University encourages

students to make informed choices, to communicate effectively, to be intellectually

curious and creative, to commit themselves to lifelong learning and the service of others,

and to share responsibility both for their own communities and for the world. The

University promotes cultural diversity among its students, staff and faculty. In addition to

its on-campus instructional and research programs, the University of North Dakota

separately and cooperatively provides extensive continuing education and public service

programs for all areas of the state and region (University of North Dakota, "Mission

Statement", n.d.).

Student profile. Of the 14,591 students currently attending UND, approximately 47%

identify as female, and approximately 53% identify as male. The majority of the student body

population identify as White or Caucasian at approximately 79%; whereas only 21% identify as a

non-Caucasian race/ethnicity. The highest minority population on campus identifies as

Hispanic/Latino at 3%, 2% identify as Black/African American, 2% as American Indian/Alaska

Native, 1% identify as Asian, less than 1% identify as Hawaiian Native/Pacific Islander, and

approximately 3% identify as being two or more races/ethnicities (University of North Dakota,

"Student Body Race/Ethnicity", n.d.). Approximately 7% of students identified as non-resident

aliens, and 3% of students chose not to report their race/ethnic background. A majority of the

students reside from North Dakota at a rate of 37%, 34% reside from Minnesota, 22% of students

reside from other states, and 5% reside from other countries (University of North Dakota,

"Student Profile Geographic Location", n.d.).

106

University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill

The University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill (UNC) is located in Chapel Hill, North

Carolina. The Board of Trustees for the institution designated a committee specifically to build a

college town around the university (University of North Carolina "Visit Chapel Hill, n.d.). The

resident population of Chapel Hill is approximately 59,000 people. The majority of the

population identifies as White or Caucasian at 73%, while 12% identify as Asian, 10% identify

as Black/African American, 6% identify as Hispanic/Latino, less than 1% identify as American

Indian/Alaska Native, and 3% identify as being from two or more race/ethnic backgrounds

(United States Census Bureau, "Chapel Hill, NC", 2010).

Institutional context. UNC is the oldest institution within higher education. The

university was chartered in 1789 and opened its doors for students for the first time in 1785,

therefore known as the nation's first public university (University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill

"About UNC", n.d.). UNC is known for their innovation in teaching, research, and public service

(University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill, "About UNC", n.d.). The institution serves over

29,000 undergraduates, graduates, and professional students, offering 78 bachelor’s, 112

master’s, 68 doctoral, and seven professional degrees throughout 14 schools and the College of

Arts and Sciences (University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill "About UNC", n.d.). Margaret

Spelling was inducted as the President of the 17-campus UNC system as of March 1, 2016. Carol

Folt, the Chancellor for the Chapel Hill campus, oversees eight Vice President cabinet members

(See Figure 3).

107

Figure 3. University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill Organizational Chart (University of North

Carolina - Chapel Hill, "Organizational Chart", 2015).

Institution mission. The mission of UNC - Chapel Hill is as follows:

Our mission is to serve as a center for research, scholarship, and creativity and to teach a

diverse community of undergraduate, graduate, and professional students to become the

next generation of leaders. Through the efforts of our exceptional faculty and staff, and

with generous support from North Carolina’s citizens, we invest our knowledge and

resources to enhance access to learning and to foster the success and prosperity of each

rising generation. We also extend knowledge-based services and other resources of the

University to the citizens of North Carolina and their institutions to enhance the quality of

life for all people in the State (University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill, "Mission",

2014).

Student profile. UNC serves over 29,000 students, of which approximately 18,000 are

undergraduate students. Of the 29,000 students 57% identify as female, and 43% identify as male

(University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill "Enrollment and Student Characteristics", n.d.). A

108

majority of the students on campus identify as White or Caucasian at 71%, whereas 29% identify

as being from a race/ethnic background other than Caucasian. Of the students who identify as

non-Caucasian, 15% identify as Asian, 10% identify as Black/African American, 7% identify as

Hispanic/Latino, 2% identify as American Indian/Alaska Native, and less than 1% identify as

Hawaiian Native/Pacific Islander. Approximately 4% did not disclose their race/ethnic

background. (University of North Carolina, "Enrollment and Student Characteristics", n.d.).

Approximately 73% of the student body resides from within the state of North Carolina, whereas

the remaining 27% resides from other states outside of North Carolina (University of North

Carolina - Chapel Hill, "Enrollment and Student Characteristics", n.d.).

University of Vermont

The University of Vermont (UVM) is located in a modern urban area in Burlington,

Vermont. Burlington was named America's best college town (University of Vermont,

"Burlington, VT", n.d.). Burlington is well-known for its arts, music and entertainment

atmosphere, as well as being a centralized hub for entrepreneurship and innovation (University

of Vermont, "Burlington, VT", n.d.). The residential population for Burlington, Vermont is

approximately 42,000. The majority of the population identifies as White/Caucasian at 89%, 4%

identify as Black/African American, less than 1% identify as American Indian/Alaska Native,

4% identify as Asian, 3% identify as Hispanic/Latino, and 3% identify as two or more

races/ethnicities (United States Census Bureau, "Burlington, VT, 2010).

Institutional context. UVM is the fifth oldest institution, and was founded in 1791.

UVM began as a private institution, but received funding from the Morrill Land-Grant College

Act, and therefore became a public land grant institution, while still holding the traditions of a

private college atmosphere (University of Vermont, "History and Traditions, n.d.). UVM is home

109

to approximately 9,000 undergraduate students, 1,300 graduate students, and 450 professional

students and offers over 100 majors in seven undergraduate schools and colleges; 50 master’s

degree programs, 24 doctoral programs and one medical doctor program (University of Vermont,

"UVM Facts", n.d.). UVM is led by President Thomas Sullivan who oversees nine Vice

President cabinet members (See Figure 4).

Figure 4. University of Vermont Organizational Chart (University of Vermont, "Organizational

Chart", n.d.).

Institution mission. The mission of UVM is as follows:

To create, evaluate, share, and apply knowledge and to prepare students to be accountable

leaders who will bring to their work dedication to the global community, a grasp of

complexity, effective problem-solving and communication skills, and an enduring

commitment to learning and ethical conduct (University of Vermont, "Our Vision,

Mission, and Strategy", n.d.).

Student profile. UVM serves over 11,000 undergraduate, graduate and medical students

alike. Of the 11,000 students, 44% identify as male and, 56% identify as female. The majority of

the student population identifies as White or Caucasian at 80%, whereas the other 20% identify

as non-Caucasian race/ethnicity. Of the overall 20% who identify as non-Caucasian, 4% identify

110

as Hispanic/Latino, 1% identify as Black/African American, 3% identify as Asian, less than a

half of a percent identify as American Indian/Alaska Native, and 4% chose not to identify.

(University of Vermont, "Student Body Diversity", 2014). Only 31% of students reside from

Vermont at UVM, whereas the other 69% reside from out-of-state (University of Vermont,

"Official UVM Census Enrollment Reports", 2015).

University of Utah

The University of Utah is located in Salt Lake City, Utah, with a residential population of

over 190,000 people. Salt Lake City is located in an urban setting with an emphasis on museums,

the arts, gardens, concert venues and places an even larger emphasis on outdoor recreation, such

as skiing and hiking (University of Utah, "Things to Do in Utah", n.d.). The majority of the

residential population identifies as White or Caucasian at 75%, whereas the other 25% identify

as non-Caucasian. Of the 25% who identify as non-Caucasian, 3% identify as Black/African

American, 1% identify as American Indian or Alaska Native, 4% identify as Asian, 2% identify

as Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 22% identify as Hispanic/Latino, and 4% identify as two or

more races/ethnicities (United States Census Bureau, "Salt Lake City, UT, 2010).

Institutional context. UTs campus is spread across 150,000 acres just outside of Salt

Lake City. The campus fosters a diverse set of experiences from their theaters and museums to

their research and medical facilities (University of Utah, "Find Your Experience", n.d.). It is the

state's oldest and largest institution, as well as the state's flagship institution. The university

serves just over 31,000 students spread across 17 colleges (University of Utah, "Colleges,

Departments, and Programs", n.d.) The University of Utah offers bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral-

research, and doctoral-professional degrees across 100 academic majors (University of Utah,

"Fast Facts Book", n.d.). It is the primarily deliverer of trained professionals in medicine,

111

pharmacy, law and engineering (University of Utah, "2014 Data Book", 2014). The university is

led by President David Pershing, who oversees nine Vice President cabinet members (See Figure

5).

Figure 5. University of Utah Organizational Chart (University of Utah, "Presidential

Organizational Chart", 2014).

Institution mission. The mission of the University of Utah is as follows:

The mission of the University of Utah is to serve the people of Utah and the world

through the discovery, creation and application of knowledge; through the dissemination

of knowledge by teaching, publication, artistic presentation and technology transfer; and

through community engagement. As a preeminent research and teaching university with

national and global reach, the University cultivates an academic environment in which

the highest standards of intellectual integrity and scholarship are practiced. Students at

112

the University learn from and collaborate with faculty who are at the forefront of their

disciplines. The University faculty and staff are committed to helping students excel. We

zealously preserve academic freedom, promote diversity and equal opportunity, and

respect individual beliefs. We advance rigorous interdisciplinary inquiry, international

involvement, and social responsibility (University of Utah, "University Mission

Statement", 2011).

Student profile. The university serves approximately 31,515 students, of which 23,907

are undergraduate students. Of the total student population 45% identify as female, while 55%

identify as male. Approximately 68% of the student body population identifies as White or

Caucasian, whereas 32% identifies as non-Caucasian. Of the 32% who identify as a

race/ethnicity other than Caucasian, 9% identify as Hispanic, 1% identify as Black/African

American, less than 1% identify as American Indian/Alaska Native, 5% identify as Asian, less

than 1% identify as Hawaiian Native/Pacific Islander, and 3% identify as being from two or

more racial/ethnic backgrounds. Approximately 2% chose not to identify. A majority of the

student population resides from the state of Utah at 77%, whereas 23% are from out-of-state

(University of Utah, "Common Data Set", 2015).

University of Pittsburgh

The University of Pittsburgh (PITT) is located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania an urban, but

yet vintage city. Pittsburgh has been named as one of the top cities to live, with a residential

population of over 305,000 (University of Pittsburgh, "Cool Pittsburgh", 2015). The city places

an emphasis on outdoor activities, its sports teams and safe accessibility to transportation from

anywhere in the city (University of Pittsburgh, "Cool Pittsburgh", 2015). The majority of the

population identifies as White or Caucasian at 66%, whereas 26% identify as Black/African

113

American, less than one half a percent identify as American Indian/Alaska Native, 4% identify as

Asian, 2% identify as Hispanic/Latino, and 3% identify as being from two or more racial/ethnic

backgrounds (United States Census Bureau, "Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania", 2010).

Institutional context. Founded in 1787, PITT is among one of the oldest institutions in

higher education evolving from a small log cabin on the frontier to a world-renowned research

institution (University of Pittsburgh, "About", n.d.). Much like the other institutions analyzed in

this report, PITT offers both a law and medical school. PITT offers bachelor’s, master’s, and

doctoral degree programs, as well as a number of certificates in over 450 distinct degree

programs. The institution serves approximately 28,000 students at the undergraduate and

graduate levels (University of Pittsburgh, "2016 Fact Book", n.d.). The university is led by

Chancellor Patrick Gallagher, who oversees nine Vice Chancellor cabinet members (See Figure 6).

Figure 6. University of Pittsburgh Organizational Chart (University of Pittsburgh, "2015 Fact Book",

2015).

114

Institutional mission. The mission of the university is as follows:

The University's mission is to: provide high-quality undergraduate programs in the arts

and sciences and professional fields, with emphasis upon those of special benefit to the

citizens of Pennsylvania; offer superior graduate programs in the arts and sciences and

the professions that respond to the needs of Pennsylvania, as well as to the broader needs

of the nation and the world; engage in research, artistic, and scholarly activities that

advance learning through the extension of the frontiers of knowledge and creative

endeavor; cooperate with industrial and governmental institutions to transfer knowledge

in science, technology, and health care; offer continuing education programs adapted to

the personal enrichment, professional upgrading, and career advancement interests and

needs of adult Pennsylvanians; and make available to local communities and public

agencies the expertise of the University in ways that are consistent with the primary

teaching and research functions and contribute to social, intellectual, and economic

development in the Commonwealth, the nation, and the world. The trustees, faculty, staff,

students, and administration of the University are dedicated to accomplishing this mission,

to which they pledge their individual and collective efforts, determined that the

University shall continue to be counted among the prominent institutions of higher

education throughout the world. (University of Pittsburgh, "Fact Book 2005 Mission

Statement", 2005).

Student profile. PITT serves over 28,000 undergraduate and graduate students, with

48% identifying as male, and 52% identifying as female. The majority of the student population

identifies as White or Caucasian at 69%, whereas 31% student body identifies as being from one

or more race/ethnic background(s) other than Caucasian. The largest non-Caucasian population

115

identifies as Asian at 6%, 5% identify as Black/African American, 3% identify as

Hispanic/Latino, less than 1% identify as American Indian/Alaska Native and Hawaiian

Native/Pacific Islander, 2% identify as two or more race/ethnic backgrounds, and 4% chose not

to identify (University of Pittsburgh, "2016 Fact Book", 2015). The majority of the student body

resides from within the state of Pennsylvania at 64%, whereas the other 36% resides from out-of-

state. (University of Pittsburgh, "2016 Fact Book", 2015).

Academic Support Programs

According to the CAS Standards (2009), the primary mission of academic support

programs is to “provide students with resources and opportunities to improve their ability to

learn and to achieve academic success” (p. 286). All five institutions benchmarked have multiple

academic support programs geared towards improving student learning. These programs varied

from individual tutoring services to collaborative learning environments.

While tutoring, learning skills, and academic advising are general services provided by

most institutions, Supplemental instruction is an academic support model developed by

University of Missouri-Kansas City in 1973. The program uses peer-assisted study sessions to

supplement traditionally difficult courses such as physics, mathematics, biology, and chemistry.

These group sessions are geared towards equipping students with learning strategies while

strengthening student confidence and promoting student success. For the purposes of this

benchmarking report, the programs outlined in Table 3 were selected based upon commonalities

across academic support programs offered by each peer institution.

116

Table 3

Peer Institution Academic Support Programs

UND UNC UVM UT PITT

Tutoring X X X X X

Learning skills X X X X X

Supplemental

Instruction

X X X

Academic advising X X X X X

University of North Dakota

Tutoring. The University of North Dakota offers a number of tutoring resources that are

available to both on-campus and online students. On-campus there are several locations students

can visit to receive tutoring assistance, such as the Student Success Center, American Indian

Student Services, the Writing Center, and the Math Learning Center. The Student Success Center

offers a drop-in tutoring schedule, where students can stop by during designated hours to receive

assistance with courses such as math, biology, foreign languages (i.e. Spanish, Latin, French,

Norwegian, German, and Chinese), chemistry, and the social sciences (i.e. psychology and

sociology). The level of academic rigor of the courses offered by the Student Success Center

range from introductory level courses, such as Introduction to Sociology and Introduction to

Psychology, to more advanced courses, such as Organic Chemistry and Physiology (University

of North Dakota, “Student Success Center”, 2016). American Indian Student Services offers

academic support for a variety of courses. Appointments are not necessary for students to attend

tutoring sessions, and all tutors can assist students with homework, studying for exams, papers,

and help with understanding the online learning platform, Blackboard, email and other campus

117

platforms (University of North Dakota, “American Indian Student Services”, 2015). The Writing

Center and the Math Center allow students to make appointments if they are in need of assistance

with writing papers, or understanding mathematical concepts. Each center allows students to

meet one-on-one with a tutor (University of North Dakota, “Tutoring”, n.d.). Through

Blackboard, both online and on-campus students have access to tutors 24-hours per day and 7

days a week in the academic areas of math, Spanish, hard sciences (i.e., biology, chemistry), and

English courses. Programs such as SmartThinking and Atomic Learning allow students the

opportunity to login and connect with a tutor regardless of day or time, which offers convenience,

especially for students at a distance or within another time zone (University of North Dakota,

“Blackboard Services”, n.d.).

Learning Skills. In addition to offering tutoring support, UND also offers success

courses for students who are declared nursing and aviation majors as well as for students who

have not yet declared a major. These success courses are designed to promote an ease of

transition as well as academic success during the students’ first year of college (University of

North Dakota, “Success Courses”, n.d.). Additionally, throughout the academic year, the Student

Success Center offers the Staying on Track program, which provides short sessions on a variety

of topics ranging from successful study skills, how to read a college textbook, how to get

connected with others, and how to take notes (University of North Dakota, “Staying on Track”,

n.d.). These sessions are offered to students at all academic levels and are designed to help them

navigate their collegiate experience. Unfortunately, while these sessions as well as the success

courses are only offered in person, the Student Success Center ensures that all students, whether

online or those on-campus unable to attend, have access to the sessions by posting videos of the

presentations (University of North Dakota, “Staying on Track”, n.d.).

118

Supplemental Instruction. Supplemental instruction is an academic support program

that utilizes peer-assisted group study sessions. These sessions are generally offered for courses

that have a higher drop, withdrawal, or failure rates (DFW). The attendance of the student is

voluntary. Sessions are led by undergraduate students who have previously completed the course

having earned a B grade or higher for the course. A thorough review of the UND website was

conducted and it was revealed that UND does not offer Supplemental instruction for students,

which can serve as justification as to why it is necessary for UND to implement such a program.

Academic Advising. Academic advising is provided to undeclared students through the

Student Success Center, whereas all declared majors are assigned to an academic advisor within

their academic department (University of North Dakota, “Academic Advising”, n.d.). Academic

advisors within the Student Success Center serve all new freshmen, transfer, non-traditional, or

re-entry students, and any current student who has not yet declared a major (University of North

Dakota, “Academic Advising”, n.d.). Current declared students meet with either professional

academic advisors, or faculty advisors within their declared academic departments. Advisors

provide a range of services, such as assisting students with major requirements, helping them to

select courses, setting up their academic schedule, as well as providing additional information on

campus resources, and career development (University of North Dakota, “Director’s Welcome”,

n.d.; University of North Dakota, “Academic Advising”, n.d.; University of North Dakota, “Arts

& Sciences Dean’s Office", n.d.).

University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill

Tutoring. The University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill offers drop-in tutoring through

the Learning Center for all students. UNC also offers tutoring during the summer session, but by

appointment only. It is emphasized on their website that all peer tutors are at the top of their class

119

and receive extensive training throughout the academic year by the Learning Center (University

of North Carolina, “Spring 2016 Drop-in Tutoring”, n.d.). Students can receive tutoring in a

variety of courses, such as, economics, biology, chemistry, languages, history and business

(University of North Carolina, “Spring 2016 Drop-in Tutoring”, n.d.). The level of difficulty for

each of the courses ranges from basic introductory courses to advanced courses. In addition to

the Learning Center’s tutors, UNC also offers tutors housed within specific academic

departments (i.e. biology, physics, math, chemistry, and Spanish) (University of North Carolina,

“More Tutoring Options”, n.d.). The Writing Center at UNC offers academic support to all

members of the UNC campus community. Staff can assist students with topics such as thesis

statement writing, writing anxiety, proofreading and editing documents, introductions and

conclusions, among others (University of North Carolina, “Resources for Students”, n.d.). The

University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill has a webpage specifically for students who are

completing their education online at a distance, emphasizing the types of academic support

resources available to them, such as the Math Help Center, the Learning Center, which offers

help with improving study and reading skills, and the Writing Center (University of North

Carolina, “Resources for Students”, n.d.).

Learning Skills. Academic success coaches are available within the Learning Center, to

meet with students to discuss their study skills, note-taking abilities, time management, and

reading at a collegiate level. In addition to academic support, the academic success coaches also

assist students with school-life balance, goal setting, and being accountable for the goals students

have set for themselves (University of North Carolina, “Work with Academic Coaches”, n.d).

Meeting one-on-one with an academic success coach helps students to be academically

successful by learning important skills such as note-taking and study skills. Students can also

120

gain an understanding of the skills required for an overall healthy life balance (University of

North Carolina, “Academic Coaches”, n.d.). Help with reading skills is also offered through The

Learning Center. Students attend mini sessions and workshops throughout the academic year

about how to effectively and efficiently read college-level textbooks, journals, as well as

increasing reading comprehension (University of North Carolina, “Take Charge of your

Reading”, n.d.).

Supplemental Instruction. The Supplemental Instruction (SI) program at UNC provides

free academic support for students in a group setting. The SI program at UNC emphasizes that it

offers supplemental instruction for high-risk courses, and not necessarily students who are at

high-risk of failing (University of North Carolina, “Guided Study Groups: The Supplemental

Instruction Program”, n.d.). The primary target group for this program is students enrolled in

introductory biology and physics courses. Students meet with a student leader, three times per

week, for 50-minute sessions. The format facilitates peer learning in a smaller group setting

instead of in a large lecture-style classroom (University of North Carolina, “Guided Study

Groups: The Supplemental Instruction Program”, n.d.).

Academic Advising. Academic advisors at UNC focus on guiding students from

orientation through graduation within the General College and the College of Arts and Sciences

(University of North Carolina, “About”, n.d.). Advisors work with students in both on-campus

and online formats to create meaningful experiences both in- and out- of the classroom

throughout their academic careers to ensure that they are successful. Students can work with

advisors to craft academic plans based on their skills, abilities, interests and long-term career

goals (University of North Carolina, “About”, n.d.). The mission amongst the academic advisors

is to support a “diverse population of undergraduates through an ongoing developmental journey

121

that empowers them to take responsibility for their education while becoming globally aware,

ethical leaders” (University of North Carolina, “About” n.d., para. 2). The goals of the advising

staff are to communicate and educate the mission, curriculum and academic policies, build

supportive relationships, encourage self-exploration and developmental growth, and support

students’ academic plans crafted upon their developmental abilities, interests, and ultimate career

goals for all undergraduate students (University of North Carolina, “About”, n.d.).

University of Vermont

Tutoring. The University of Vermont offers specific subject tutoring free of charge to all

students taking on-campus and/or online courses. Subject tutoring is offered in two formats: one-

on-one tutoring or group tutoring (University of Vermont, “Subject Area Tutoring”, n.d.). All

tutors are UVM students and have completed the subject coursework for which they are tutoring,

earned a high letter grade, obtained recommendations from their faculty members, and

completed a mandatory training prior to beginning tutoring (University of Vermont, “Subject

Area Tutoring", n.d.). All students needing assistance can schedule an appointment with a tutor

through an online scheduling system (University of Vermont, “How to Schedule an

Appointment”, n.d.). Tutoring sessions are typically an hour long in length, and tutors are

expected to work no more than ten hours per week (University of Vermont, “Subject Area Tutor”,

n.d.). The majority of the subjects offered at the tutoring center are lower-level courses, in

subject areas such as, anatomy and physiology, biology, business administration, computer

science, philosophy, mathematics, physics, and psychology (University of Vermont, “List of

High-Demand Courses”, n.d.). Students also have the benefit of receiving additional academic

support in the subject areas of mathematics, computer science and physics through those

respective departments. In addition to student tutoring, UVM’s Writing Center offers students

122

support in developing their writing ideas, getting organized, strengthening their arguments, and

proofreading and editing (University of Vermont, “Writing Center”, n.d.).

Learning Skills. The Learning Skills program at UVM utilizes undergraduate students as

tutors to share their knowledge and experiences regarding effective learning for academic

success (University of Vermont, “Learning Skills Program: Study Smarter, not harder”, n.d.).

Learning skills programs are conducted in either a group session or a one-on-one tutoring format.

Sessions incorporate topics such as: motivation, time management, effective reading skills, note

taking, study groups, and learning technology platforms (University of Vermont, “Learning

Skills Program” Study Smarter, not harder”, n.d.). Students are able to work with the learning

skills program tutors at any point during their academic careers, whether it is a first-year student

transitioning to college, or a student with senior status.

Supplemental Instruction. Supplemental Instruction is a widely implemented program

at UVM. Supplemental Instruction leaders must have successfully completed the course they are

leading and complete rigorous training to become group leaders (University of Vermont,

“Supplemental Instruction”, n.d.). Leaders also attend the lectures with students receiving the

supplemental instruction, prepare two, one-hour long sessions each week, and host two office

hours each week (University of Vermont, “Supplemental Instruction”, n.d.). Supplemental

Instruction sessions incorporate review sessions of the lecture content, different study techniques,

skills and tactics relevant to the course, and allow students the opportunities to practice the

course material, ask questions of the Supplemental Instruction leader, and actively engage with

peers (University of Vermont, “Supplemental Instruction”, n.d.). All Supplemental Instruction

sessions are free of charge to students. Additionally, the sessions are voluntary to students, and

123

each session encompasses different topics each week, thus students are encouraged to come as

often as they can (University of Vermont, “Supplemental Instruction”, n.d.).

Academic Advising. Academic advisors are comprised of professional staff or faculty

members within their respective school or colleges at UVM, such as the Rubenstein School of

Environment and Natural Resources, the College of Arts and Sciences, Agriculture and Life

Science, Business Administration, Education and Social Services, Engineering and Mathematical

Sciences, Nursing and Health Sciences, Honors College, and Continuing Education (University

of Vermont, “Academic Advising Resources by College/School”, n.d.). Academic advisors assist

students with mapping and meeting their educational goals as well as their career goals

(University of Vermont, “What is Academic Advising”, n.d.). Rather than advisors telling

students what courses to take, advisors guide and encourage students to utilize campus resources

to ensure they [students] obtain academic success (University of Vermont, “What is Academic

Advising”, n.d.). Academic advisors help students stay on track to graduation and offer advice

about which courses to take and how those courses fulfill academic requirements (University of

Vermont, “What is Academic Advising”, n.d.). Advisors also pay close attention to students’

grade point averages and academic performance and refer students to appropriate campus

resources. Lastly, advisors play an active role in listening and being respectful to their students’

decisions regarding academic success, as it is emphasized that students are the ones ultimately

responsible for their academic success and career plans post-graduation (University of Vermont,

“What is Academic Advising”, n.d.).

University of Utah

Tutoring. University of Utah students have access to tutoring services either on an

individual basis or as part of a group tutoring session. All currently enrolled students are charged

124

a fee of $7 per hour for an individual tutoring session, and a fee of $4 per hour for a group

tutoring session (University of Utah, “ASUU Tutoring Center”, n.d.). The availability of tutoring

appointments varies depending on the tutor the student selects, some tutors are available during

evening hours while others are available on weekends (University of Utah, “ASUU Tutoring

Center”, n.d.). Students can receive assistance in a wide variety of subjects such as biology,

chemistry, writing, Spanish, French, accounting, computer science, statistics, and history. The

majority of the courses are between the academic levels of 100-200, while a few courses are

amongst the academic levels of 300-400 (University of Utah, “In Demand Courses”, n.d.). Two

campus locations also offer free drop-in tutoring for currently enrolled students (University of

Utah, “ASUU Tutoring Center”, n.d.). Tutoring assistance is also available for online students

through an online portal titled eTutoring (University of Utah, “Current Student Resources”, n.d.).

Learning Skills. The university offers two types of academic support programs for

students; academic strategies for college success and learning strategies. The academic strategies

for college success are free seminars offered to all students on topics such as procrastination,

study skills, and test anxiety. These seminars are designed to promote academic success for all

students (University of Utah, “Learning Success Center”, n.d.). Learning strategies seminars are

available to any student group or offices on campus and can be presented on any of the following

topics: time management and study skills, test taking strategies, memory, critical thinking,

reading and note-taking skills, and assessing different types of learning styles (University of

Utah, “Learning Success Center”, n.d.). Seminars are offered either in group settings or

individuals can request a one-on-one session (University of Utah, “Learning Success Center”,

n.d.).

125

Supplemental Instruction. Through the office of Learning Success Center,

Supplemental Instruction courses are offered for selected courses on campus (University of Utah,

“Supplemental Instruction”, n.d.). Supplemental Instruction sessions are open to any students in

the selected course and are led by undergraduates who have already taken and successfully

completed the course, and are trained to be Supplemental Instruction leaders (University of Utah,

“Supplemental Instruction”, n.d.). The Learning Student Success office emphasizes that the main

goal of the Supplemental Instruction program is to improve students’ understanding of course

content, thus improving their overall course grade (University of Utah, “Supplemental

Instruction”, n.d.). Additionally, Supplemental Instruction leaders help students to improve their

study skills and offer group based sessions, so students can be engaged with and feel connected

to their peers (University of Utah, “Supplemental Instruction”, n.d.). Supplemental Instruction

sessions are offered for the following courses: accounting, biology, chemistry, history, math,

physics and psychology (University of Utah, “Supplemental Instruction”, n.d.).

Academic Advising. The institution offers a centralized advising hub where all students,

new incoming freshman and transfer, undeclared, and declared majors can meet with an advisor

to discuss a variety of academic related issues to ensure students are successful (University of

Utah, “University College”, n.d.). Students who are first-year, second-year, undeclared at 60

credits, graduating seniors, transfer students and students with a low GPA are required to meet

with an academic advisor (University of Utah, “University College”, n.d.). The advisors within

the advisement center can help students in exploring different majors offered across the

institution, academic planning, understanding academic requirements, and planning for

graduation (University of Utah, “University College”, n.d.). Additionally, the institution offers a

robust Plan 2 Finish initiative where students can enter a site to begin their academic plan (See

126

Figure 7). The purpose of the initiative is to retain and successfully graduate all currently

enrolled students in four years. Students can click on the interlocking circles to explore new

student experiences at the university, academic support services, advising and mentoring,

flexible scheduling, and financial incentives for more details on how to successfully complete

their degree in four years (University of Utah, “Plan 2 Finish”, n.d.).

Figure 7. University of Utah, Plan 2 Finish. (University of Utah, “Plan 2 Finish”, n.d.).

University of Pittsburgh

Tutoring. Peer tutoring is offered through the Academic Resource Center, which is

housed within the Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences. Other tutoring services are offered

throughout the campus and are housed within their respective departments (i.e. chemistry, math,

or business), but the Academic Resource Center houses the majority of the services. Students are

able to receive up to two free hours of tutoring sessions for each course that the Academic

Resources Center supports (University of Pittsburgh, “Peer Tutoring”, n.d.). Students can receive

127

assistance in studying for exams, and gaining a more comprehensive understanding of the

material (University of Pittsburgh, “Peer Tutoring”, n.d.). All tutors attend ongoing training to

ensure that they are up to date with the most effective tutoring strategies and practices

(University of Pittsburgh, “Peer Tutoring”, n.d). Students can either schedule an appointment

with a tutor or use satellite tutoring services that are available during evening hours to best

accommodate on-campus and online students' busy schedules (University of Pittsburgh, “Peer

Tutoring”, n.d.). A majority of the subjects offered during tutoring sessions are hard science

courses such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, physics and statistics (University of Pittsburgh,

“Peer Tutoring”, n.d.). Additionally, PITT also offers a math assistance center where students are

able to stop in to receive tutoring services from basic introductory math to more advanced math

courses. Also offered through the Academic Resource Center is an oral communications lab and

writing center. The oral communications lab offers individual or small group sessions for

students who need assistance with public speaking or oral communication. Students taking any

course across any discipline may stop by at any stage in their speaking project development for a

free consultation (University of Pittsburgh, “Peer Tutoring”, n.d.). The writing center is free to

all students, faculty, and staff across campus to improve and enhance one’s writing (University

of Pittsburgh, “Peer Tutoring”, n.d.).

Learning Skills. The Academic Resource Center offers a robust schedule for any

students wanting to receive more information on time management, study skills, test preparation,

learning styles, goal setting, stress management, etc. (University of Pittsburgh, “Study Skills

Workshops and Consultations”, n.d.). Students are able to register for any one of these

workshops and receive the tools necessary to succeed both in- and out- of the classroom. In

addition to their workshops, the Academic Resource Center also offers individual consultations

128

for students to develop effective and efficient academic studying skill and strategies (University

of Pittsburgh, “Study Skills Workshops and Consultations”, n.d.). Academic consultations offers

individual sessions on reading skills, time management, test preparation, effective study habits,

and planning for midterms and finals to best equip students with the knowledge and tools to

succeed academically. (University of Pittsburgh, “Study Skills Workshops and Consultations”,

n.d.)

Supplemental Instruction. Through a comprehensive search of University of

Pittsburgh’s main campus website, it has been found that the institution does not provide a

Supplemental Instruction program for its students. However, two of the University of

Pittsburgh’s regional campuses (Johnstown and Titusville) offer supplemental instruction to all

students. Given that the University of Pittsburgh main campus was used for the purposes of this

report, the Supplemental Instruction programs at the regional campuses were not investigated

further.

Academic Advising. PITT houses academic advisors within their respective schools and

college such as the College of Business Administration, School of Arts and Sciences, and the

School of Education. Academic advisors range from faculty advisors within the School of

Education to professional advisors within the School of Arts and Sciences and College of

Business Administration (University of Pittsburgh, “Welcome to the Advising Center", n.d.;

University of Pittsburgh, “Student Advising”, n.d.; University of Pittsburgh, “Academic

Advising”, n.d.). The institutions advisors assist students with academic planning,

recommending courses, and helping students determine what courses fulfill academic

requirements (University of Pittsburgh, “Welcome to the Advising Center, n.d.; University of

Pittsburgh, “Student Advising”, n.d.; University of Pittsburgh, “Academic Advising”, n.d.). The

129

School of Arts and Sciences and the College of Business Administration emphasize that advisors

are there to assist them not only with their academics but career planning goals, as well

(University of Pittsburgh, “Welcome to the Advising Center” n.d.; University of Pittsburgh,

“Student Advising”, n.d.). Additionally, the School of Arts and Sciences advises new, incoming

freshmen and transfer students to the School of Arts and Sciences by assisting them through the

transfer course evaluation process, assisting students with orientation, how to be successful

academically and aides in the transition process to the institution (University of Pittsburgh,

“Welcome to the Advising Center”, n.d.).

Comparative Analysis

Analysis of Institutions

Since the institutions selected for the purposes of this report were peer institutions of

UND, each has a number of factors in common with the other. With the exception of UVM

campus, UND, PITT, UT, and UNC all offer medical doctor degrees. All of the institutions offer

bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral level degrees in varying disciplines. UVM and UND are fairly

comparable with regards to student body populations, whereas PITT, UT, and UNC have

significantly higher enrollment rates of 20,000 or higher. UND is the only institution that is

located in a rural setting, whereas the rest of the institutions are located in or close to a large

urban city. The majority of the student body population identifies as White or Caucasian, and

UND, UT, PITT, and UNC all have comparable minority populations, whereas UVM has one of

the lowest minority population rates.

Analysis of Programs amongst Institutions

Tutoring. While one-on-one subject area tutoring ranging from basic introductory

courses to more advanced academic level courses were offered by all five institutions, UND and

130

UNC did not have formal group tutoring services. UND and UNC offered drop-in tutoring

services, UT offered free drop-in tutoring at only two campus locations, whereas at PITT and

UVM, students were required to schedule an appointment with a tutor through an online

scheduling platform. UND, UNC, UT, and PITT all offer tutoring services for students taking

online courses through satellite or online portals, such as eTutoring and Blackboard. With the

exception of UT, which charges students a fee for some tutoring services, all tutoring services at

UND, UNC, UVM, and PITT are offered free of charge for students. All institutions require their

tutors to have successfully completed the course, for which they are tutoring, however, UND is

the only institution that does not mention whether or not tutors are required to go through

extensive and ongoing training. UNC, UVM, UT, and PITT all require that students continuously

attend tutoring training throughout the academic year to keep abreast on best tutoring strategies

and practices.

Learning Skills. In order to succeed in college, students need to develop skills to become

effective and efficient learners. All five of the institutions offer comparable content and topics

with regards to learning skills (e.g. note-taking, studying for exams, effective reading skills, time

management), but in different formats. UND offers introduction to university life courses for

students interested in learning more about how to effectively navigate and transition to college.

UND, UNC, UT, and PITT offer short seminars by professional campus staff or academic

success coaches on learning skills throughout the academic year to students interested in

becoming more knowledgeable in reading skills, time management, study skills, procrastination,

healthy school-life balance, and learning style inventories. UVM utilizes undergraduate students

instead of professional staff, to share knowledge and experiences with students seeking out help

131

with learning skills. All learning skills are offered to all currently enrolled students, across all

five of the institutions, for free.

Supplemental Instruction. Except at UND and PITT, Supplemental Instruction

programs were offered by all other institutions benchmarked to an extent. While UNC offered

Supplemental Instruction programs only for introductory biology and physics courses, UT

offered Supplemental Instruction sessions for chemistry, psychology, and history in addition to

biology and physics. UVM offered Supplemental Instruction sessions in biology, chemistry, and

macroeconomics. The goals and format of the Supplemental Instruction program across UNC,

UT, and UVM are the same: a small group discussion format allowing for increased engagement,

assistance with the target course, and to help students have a more thorough understanding of the

course content. All supplemental instruction leaders are required to attend a rigorous training

session prior to leading study sessions, and UVM required that supplemental instruction leaders

attend lectures with the students seeking out supplemental instruction. All supplemental

instruction sessions are offered free of charge to students.

Academic Advising. The National Association of Academic Advisors (NACADA)

defines academic advising as a developmental process that assists students in clarifying their

career/life goals and defining their educational goals to help them achieve those lifetime goals

(National Association of Academic Advisors, "Definitions of Academic Advising", n.d.). While

all five institutions offered academic advising, UVM was the only institution whose academic

advisor population was comprised of faculty advisors. The rest UNC, UT, and PITT have

professional advisors on staff to assist students. UVM and PITT houses their academic advisors

within the respective colleges and schools, whereas UNC and UT offer a centralized advising

hub for all students of any major. UND is unique in that undeclared students are advised by

132

professional academic advisors within the Student Success Center, and declared students are

advised by either professional academic advisors or faculty advisors within their respective

colleges and departments. All five institutions emphasize that they assist students at every stage

in students’ academic career from course planning, course registration, assisting with

understanding major/program requirements, and career development. UT was the only institution

who made mention of a special initiative, Plan 2 Finish, which focuses on retaining and

graduating students within four years.

Analysis of Programs within CAS Standards

In accordance with the CAS standards (7th ed.) for academic support programs state that

the primary mission for such programs must be student centered, help students to achieve their

highest learning potential, and assist them in developing a positive attitude and have self-

confidence in their ability to learn. With the exception of UND, each of the other institutions

investigated in this benchmarking report encompasses a mission statement to reflect the CAS

standards for academic support programs.

The CAS standards indicate the academic support programs within institutions should

promote programs that enhance the student's learning and developmental processes. According

to the CAS Standards "programs must be: integrated into the life of the institution, intentional

and coherent, reflective of developmental and demographic profiles of the student population,

responsive to the needs of individuals, diverse and special populations, and relevant

constituencies" (pp. 286-287). Recognizing that all students learn differently, CAS standards also

indicate that academic support programs must be offered in a variety of formats such as group

and individual tutoring, cooperative learning, peer led assistance and accelerated learning. Each

of the five institutions evaluated in this benchmarking report offers a diverse amount of academic

133

support program formats, which suggests the institution recognizes and understands the needs of

their students.

All academic support programs must be provided for any student without regard to

discrimination. Furthermore, all students must have access to academic support programs

regardless of whether the student is an on-campus or an online distance education student. PITT,

UT, UVM, and UNC provide substantial resources for both on-campus and distance students by

providing links for students to make the distinction of whether they are on-campus or online. In

contrast, UND did not have the same list of resources, nor was there any indication on UND's

academic support services website providing distinct links for resources for on-campus or online

students. (University of North Dakota, "Online/Extended Learning", n.d.).

Lastly, academic support programs must have a sound funding source in order to

accomplish their mission and goals. Given that UND does not have a mission nor goals listed for

their academic support programs, it is unclear as to how their funding sources are utilized. It is

clear that UVM, UPITT, UNC, and UT received adequate support in funding their academic

support programs, as their mission and goals for their programs are clearly defined on their

websites.

Conclusion

Good Practice Implications

Four aspiring peer institutions, UNC, PITT, UVM, and UT, were benchmarked to

evaluate academic support programs. In an effort to identify the best practices at each of the

institutions, four of the fourteen CAS standards defined for Learning Assistance Programs were

used. The four standards used were Mission, Program, Equity and Access, and Financial

Resources. While the mission and the program define the goals and how the program is going to

134

accomplish the goals, equity and access ensures that the program is available for all students

devoid of discrimination due to cultural, physical, economical, gender, or any other bases. The

financial resource aspect ensures that the institution has funding identified and a structure in

place to continuously provide the programs and services.

By analyzing the academic support programs offered at each of the institutions, it was

discovered that each institution applied the best practices to some extent. For example, while the

Supplemental Instruction program in all four benchmarked institutions met all four standards, the

tutoring program at the institutions were different. At UT, the tutoring program is supported by

student leaders on campus, requiring students to pay a small fee for tutoring services. This

practice may discourage students who are economically challenged to ask for help when needed.

During the analysis, how institutions communicate their support programs to the students

came to the forefront. Even though each institution had a dedicated website for academic support

programs, the site included only those programs supported by the specific department. Thus, if a

particular academic program is supported by another department, that information would not be

included in the other department’s web site. For example, at UNC, The Center for Student

Success and Academic Counseling (CSSAC) website defines the mission and programs offered.

However, even though UNC offers programs and resources for online students and has a

Supplemental Instruction program, this information is not included in the CSSAC website. Not

having a complete picture of what academic support services are offered by the institution could

hinder the student’s ability to take advantage of the full spectrum of services to succeed in

college.

As the mission of every higher education institution includes some aspect of student

success, it is the responsibility of the institution to provide a support structure for the student to

135

succeed not only academically, but as an individual who is able to contribute positively to

society. As institutions continually try to increase their graduation and retention rates, academic

support programs play a key role in creating an environment for students to succeed. Using the

CAS Professional Standards for Higher Education and the best practices as a framework for

developing learning assistance programs, institutions can create better programs and services to

support students to succeed in college.

136

References

Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. (2009). CAS professional

standards for higher education (7th ed.). Washington, DC: Dean, Laura A

National Association of Academic Advisors (n.d.) Definitions of Academic Advising. Retrieved

from https://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse/View-Articles/Definitions-

of-academic-advising.aspx

North Dakota University System. (n.d.). UND Organizational Chart. Retrieved from

https://ndu.hc.sabacloud.com/OPE/m/Chart/NS/ChartNS.aspx

Tinto, V. (2004). Student retention and graduation: Facing the truth, living with the

consequences. Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education. Retrieved

from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED519709.pdf

United States Census Bureau. (2010). State and county quick facts: Burlington, Vermont.

Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/50000.html

United States Census Bureau. (2010). State and county quick facts: Chapel Hill, NC. Retrieved

from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/37/3711800.html

United States Census Bureau. (2010). State and county quick facts: Grand Forks, ND. Retrieved

from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/38/3832060.html.

United States Census Bureau. (2010). State and county quick facts: Pittsburgh, PA. Retrieved

from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/42/4261000.html

United States Census Bureau. (2010). State and county quick facts: Salt Lake City, UT. Retrieved

from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/49/4967000.html

United States Department of Education. (2014). Institute of Education Sciences, National Center

for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/

137

University of North Carolina. (n.d.). About. Retrieved from http://advising.unc.edu/about-us/

University of North Carolina. (n.d.). About UNC. Retrieved from http://www.unc.edu/about/

University of North Carolina. (n.d.). Enrollment and Student Characteristics. Retrieved from

http://oira.unc.edu/facts-and-figures/student-data/enrollment-and-student-characteristics/

University of North Carolina (n.d.). Guided Study Groups: The Supplemental Instruction

Program. Retrieved from http://cssac.unc.edu/programs/learning-

center/services/services/SI

University of North Carolina. (n.d.). Mission. Retrieved from http://www.unc.edu/about/mission/

University of North Carolina. (n.d.). More Tutoring Options. Retrieved from

http://learningcenter.unc.edu/find-a-tutor/

University of North Carolina. (n.d.). Organizational Chart. Retrieved from

http://chancellor.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Org-Chart-Office-of-the-

Chancellor_August-2015.pdf

University of North Carolina (n.d.). Resources for Students. Retrieved from

http://fridaycenter.unc.edu/creditprograms/parttimeclassroomstudies/resources/#writing

University of North Carolina. (n.d.). Spring 2016 Drop-in Tutoring. Retrieved from

http://learningcenter.unc.edu/find-a-tutor/peer-tutoring-services/

University of North Carolina. (n.d.). Take Charge of your Reading. Retrieved from

http://learningcenter.unc.edu/reading-skills/

University of North Carolina. (n.d.). Visit Chapel Hill. Retrieved from

http://www.visitchapelhill.org/regions-towns/chapel-hill/

University of North Carolina. (n.d.). Work with Academic Coaches. Retrieved from

http://learningcenter.unc.edu/work-with-academic-coaches/

138

University of North Dakota. (2006). Peer Institutions. Retrieved from

http://und.edu/research/institutional-research/decision-support/peer-institutions.cfm.

University of North Dakota (2015). American Indian Student Services. Retrieved from

http://und.edu/student-life/american-indian-student-services/_files/docs/2015-spring-

tutor-schedule.pdf

University of North Dakota. (2016). Student Success Center. Retrieved from

http://und.edu/student-affairs/student-services/academic-support/drop-in-tutor.cfm

University of North Dakota. (n.d.). About UND. Retrieved from http://und.edu/discover/about-

und.cfm.

University of North Dakota. (n.d.). Academic Advising. Retrieved from http://und.edu/student-

affairs/student-services/advising/index.cfm

University of North Dakota (n.d.). Academic Advising. Retrieved from

http://business.und.edu/current-students/academic-advising/index.cfm

University of North Dakota. (n.d.). Arts and Sciences Deans Office Staff. Retrieved from

http://arts-sciences.und.edu/_about/college-office.cfm

University of North Dakota. (n.d.). Blackboard Services. Retrieved from

https://online.und.edu/webapps/portal/execute/tabs/tabAction?tab_tab_group_id=_16_1

University of North Dakota. (n.d.). Heritage and legacy. Retrieved from

http://und.edu/discover/heritage-legacy.cfm

University of North Dakota. (n.d.). Mission Statement. Retrieved from

http://und.edu/discover/mission-statement.cfm

University of North Dakota. (n.d.). Staying on Track. Retrieved from http://und.edu/student-

affairs/student-services/academic-support/staying-on-track.cfm

139

University of North Dakota. (n.d.). Student Body Profile. Retrieved from

http://und.edu/discover/student-profile/index.cfm.

University of North Dakota. (n.d.). Success Courses. Retrieved from http://und.edu/student-

affairs/student-services/academic-support/courses.cfm

University of North Dakota. (n.d.). Tutoring. Retrieved from http://und.edu/student-

affairs/student-services/academic-support/tutoring.cfm

University of Pittsburgh. (2005). Fact Book 2005 Mission Statement. Retrieved from

http://www.ir.pitt.edu/factbook/fbweb05/general/MISSION.PDF

University of Pittsburgh. (2015). 2015 Fact Book. Retrieved from

http://www.ir.pitt.edu/factbook/documents/FactBook2015-1.pdf

University of Pittsburgh. (2015). Cool Pittsburgh. Retrieved from http://www.coolpgh.pitt.edu/

University of Pittsburgh. (n.d.). 2016 Fact Book. Retrieved from

http://www.ir.pitt.edu/factbook/documents/FactBook2016.pdf

University of Pittsburgh. (n.d.). About. Retrieved from http://www.pitt.edu/about

University of Pittsburgh. (n.d.). Academic Advising. Retrieved from

http://www.education.pitt.edu/CurrentStudents/StudentServices/AcademicAdvising.aspx

University of Pittsburgh. (n.d.). Peer Tutoring. Retrieved from

http://www.asundergrad.pitt.edu/arc/peer-tutoring

University of Pittsburgh. (n.d.). Study Skills Workshops and Consultations. Retrieved from

http://www.asundergrad.pitt.edu/arc/study-skills-workshops-and-consultations

University of Pittsburgh. (n.d.). Student Advising. Retrieved from

http://www.cba.pitt.edu/academics/advising, Student Advising

140

University of Pittsburgh. (n.d.). Welcome to the Advising Center. Retrieved from

http://www.asundergrad.pitt.edu/advising-center

University of Utah. (2011). University Mission Statement. Retrieved from

http://president.utah.edu/news-events/university-mission-statement/

University of Utah. (2014). 2014 Data Book. Retrieved from http://higheredutah.org/wp-

content/uploads/2014/06/USHE-Data-Book-2014.pdf

University of Utah. (2014). Presidential Organizational Chart. Retrieved from

http://admin1.utah.edu/office_of_the_president/presidential-organizational-chart

University of Utah. (2015). Common Data Set. Retrieved from

http://www.obia.utah.edu/ia/cds/2014-2015/CDS_2014-2015.pdf#page=3

University of Utah. (n.d). ASUU Tutoring Center. Retrieved from http://tutoringcenter.utah.edu/

University of Utah. (n.d.). Colleges, Departments, and Programs. Retrieved from

http://www.utah.edu/academics/colleges.php

University of Utah. (n.d.). Current Student Resources Retrieved from

https://online.utah.edu/current-student-resources/

University of Utah. (n.d.). Fast Facts Book. Retrieved from

http://www.obia.utah.edu/fastFacts.pdf

University of Utah. (n.d.). Find Your Experience. Retrieved from http://experience.utah.edu/

University of Utah (n.d.). In Demand Courses. Retrieved from http://tutoringcenter.utah.edu/in-

demand-courses.php

University of Utah (n.d.). Learning Success Center. Retrieved from

http://learningcenter.utah.edu/

141

University of Utah. (n.d.). Supplemental Instruction. Retrieved from

http://learningcenter.utah.edu/supplemental/index.php

University of Utah. (n.d.). Things to Do in Utah. Retrieved from www.utah.com/saltlake/

University of Vermont. (2014). Student Body Diversity. Retrieved from

http://www.uvm.edu/~oir/consumer/divecomp.pdf

University of Vermont. (2015). Official UVM Census Enrollment Reports. Retrieved from

http://www.uvm.edu/~oir/Page=Census_Enroll_Repts.html

University of Vermont. (n.d.). Academic Advising Resources by College/School. Retrieved from

http://www.uvm.edu/provost/advising/

University of Vermont. (n.d.). Burlington, VT. Retrieved from

http://www.uvm.edu/about_uvm/burlington_vt

University of Vermont. (n.d.). History and Traditions. Retrieved from

http://www.uvm.edu/history_and_traditions

University of Vermont. (n.d.). How to Schedule an Appointment. Retrieved from

http://www.uvm.edu/learnco/?&Page=learn-more-online-tutoring.html

University of Vermont. (n.d.). Learning Skills Program: Study Smarter, not harder. Retrieved

from http://www.uvm.edu/learnco/?Page=coopprogs/ls.html

University of Vermont. (n.d.). List of High-Demand Courses. Retrieved from

http://www.uvm.edu/learnco/?Page=coopprogs/hidemand.html

University of Vermont. (n.d.). Organizational Chart. Retrieved from

http://www.uvm.edu/~oir/org

University of Vermont. (n.d.). Our Vision, Mission, and Strategy. Retrieved from

http://www.uvm.edu/provost/strategicinitiatives/

142

University of Vermont. (n.d.). Subject Area Tutoring. Retrieved from

http://www.uvm.edu/learnco/?Page=coopprogs/sat.html

University of Vermont. (n.d.). UVM Facts. Retrieved from

http://www.uvm.edu/about_uvm/uvm_facts

University of Vermont (n.d.). What is Academic Advising. Retrieved from

http://www.uvm.edu/provost/advising/?Page=advising.html

University of Vermont. (n.d.). Writing Center. Retrieved from

http://www.uvm.edu/wid/writingcenter/

143

Chapter III

Online Student Success Orientation

Chelsea Mellenthin

University of North Dakota

144

Introduction

Online education continues to see increases in enrollment each academic year, with

nearly 64% of colleges and universities offering online degree programs (Britt, 2015). Nearly 6.7

million students took at least one online course in the fall of 2011 as compared to 6.1 million in

the fall of 2010, an increase of 9.3%, and 1.6 million in the fall of 2002 (Allen & Seaman, 2013).

Historically, online education and distance education were defined as two separate educational

practices. From a historical perspective students taking distance education courses

communicated with the campus and faculty members by means of mail correspondence, radio, or

television (Larreamendy-Joerns & Leinhardt, 2006). Online education, on the other hand, is

defined as over 80% of the course content being delivered within an online platform, and

typically, there are no to very few face-to-face meetings (Allen & Seaman, 2011). However, with

the increasing and prevalent use of technology, online education and distance education are

considered to be interchangeable (Larreamendy-Joerns & Leinhardt, 2006). For the purposes of

this program plan, the two terms, distance education and online education, will be used

interchangeably.

Problem Statement

As growth and access to higher education continues to soar, persistence and retention

rates become important issues within institutions of higher education. One way to counteract low

persistence and retention rates is to offer orientation programs for students (Rovai, 2003).

Orientation programs are embedded into institutions to better assist students with the following:

a) the transition from high school to college; b) to introduce and orient students with the

collegiate environment and campus culture as well as campus services and resources; and c)

integrate students to the academic and intellectual community of students, faculty and staff

145

(Rovai, 2003). Typically, orientation programs serve the traditional population of undergraduate

students, which are students who enter college immediately out of high school, and are between

the ages of 18-24. However, oftentimes online education students are nontraditional students and

are completing their coursework at a distance, therefore the standard orientation model cannot

and does not apply (Noel Levitz, 2011; Rovai, 2003). In 2011, the Noel Levitz report on the

Priorities for Online Learners survey indicated that nearly 78% of students enrolled in an online

learning program were between the ages of 25-54, thus identifying them as nontraditional

students (Noel Levitz, 2011). Nontraditional students are commonly associated with living off-

campus, being connected with social groups unrelated to the collegiate environment, not being

involved in organizations on campus, having dependents and working 30 or more hours per week

(Crawley and LeGore, 2009; Noel Levitz, 2011; Rovai, 2003).

Currently, at the University of North Dakota (UND), there is a strong emphasis on

orienting new, incoming freshmen to campus, who intend to take traditional on-campus, face-to-

face courses. However, no such orientation exists for students who intend to take courses solely

online and therefore putting these students at an immediate disadvantage as compared to on-

campus students. Online distance education students are oftentimes unaware of the services and

programs available to them due to the lack of an online orientation program, which can

ultimately jeopardize their persistence, as well as risk the institutions online retention rates. The

retention rates of students taking online education courses at UND are mediocre at best as

compared to on-campus students. UND Predictive Analytics Data indicates that UND retains

approximately 25% of all fully online degree seeking students, and benchmarks at 37%

(University of North Dakota, Predictive Analytics Data, 2015).

146

Given the dismal retention rates of online students at the University of North Dakota, the

purpose of the online orientation program outlined below is to increase the persistence and

retention rates of undergraduate, degree-seeking students enrolled in an online degree program

within the College of Arts and Sciences. The Online Student Success Orientation (OSSO) will

introduce students to UND, orient them with online learning expectations, the types of academic

resources available, technology platforms utilized by the institution and to increase

connectedness amongst campus community members (i.e., faculty, staff and peers) through a two

credit, eight-week, online orientation course.

Institutional Context

The University of North Dakota is a four-year public research institution, located in

Grand Forks, North Dakota. The university is the state's oldest and largest institution, serving as

the state's flagship and research institution. The mission of the institution is to serve the state, the

country, and the world community within the areas of teaching, research, creative activities and

service (University of North Dakota, “Mission Statement”, n.d.). The University maintains its

original dedication to the liberal arts, business, education, law, medicine, engineering and mines,

and has also developed a special dedication to the fields of nursing, aerospace, fine arts, energy,

human resources, and international studies (University of North Dakota, “Mission Statement”,

n.d.). The institution provides an expansive range of academically challenging programs for

students at the undergraduate through the doctoral level (University of North Dakota, “Mission

Statement”, n.d.). In addition to the mission, the institution also has five strategic priorities to

help shape the future of UND. The five priorities are as follows: enrich the student experience,

encourage gathering, facilitate collaboration, expand UND’s presence, and enhance the quality of

147

life (University of North Dakota, “Exceptional UND”, n.d.). Each one of these key priorities are

emphasized throughout areas of teaching, research and service.

The University is led by interim President Ed Schafer who oversees a cabinet of nine

Vice Presidents (University of North Dakota, “Administration”, n.d.). The division of Academic

Affairs is overseen by Provost Thomas DiLorenzo, and the Student Affairs division is overseen

by Dr. Lori Reesor (University of North Dakota, “Administration”, n.d.). Orientation programs at

UND are currently housed within the office of the Student Success Center, which is overseen by

the division of Student Affairs. To implement a successful orientation program there should be a

strong collaborative focus between both the divisions of academic and student affairs.

The university offers over 225 fields of study including bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral,

and medical degrees and over 3,000 course offerings. Of the 225 degrees offered, 13 degrees are

offered solely online. The degrees are as follows: communication, chemical engineering, civil

engineering, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, petroleum engineering, general

studies, medical laboratory science, accelerated nursing program, registered nursing to Bachelor

of Science in nursing, psychology, social science, and social work (University of North Dakota,

“Online and Distance Degrees and Certificates”, n.d.).

The University of North Dakota serves approximately 15,000 students, of which 52.7%

are identify as male, and 47.3% identify as female (University of North Dakota, “Student Body

Profile”, 2016). Of the approximately 15,000 students, about 69% reported being between the

ages of 18-24, whereas the remaining 31% reported being of the ages of 25 or older (University

of North Dakota, “Student Body Profile”, 2016). The majority of the student body population

identifies as White or Caucasian at approximately 79%; whereas only 21% identify as a non-

Caucasian race/ethnicity. The highest minority population on campus identifies as

148

Hispanic/Latino at 3%, 2% identify as Black/African American, 2% as American Indian/Alaska

Native, 1% identify as Asian, less than 1% identify as Hawaiian Native/Pacific Islander, and

approximately 3% identify as being of two or more races/ethnicities (University of North Dakota,

"Student Body Profile", 2016). Approximately 7% of students identified as non-resident aliens,

and 3% of students chose not to report their racial/ethnic background.

According to UND’s Office of Institutional Research for the spring 2016 semester fourth

week data, there are approximately 2,048 students enrolled in online distance education

programs. Nearly 57% of online students identify as male, whereas 43% identify as female.

Approximately 20% of the total online student population (911 students) indicated full-time

status (12 or more credit hours per semester), and nearly 80% of students are enrolled as part-

time student status (less than 12 credit hours). The largest enrollment population are freshmen

and senior status levels at 635 and 1,061 respectively. The majority of the students enrolled in

online education programs identify as Caucasian or White at 71%, whereas the remaining 29%

identify as non-Caucasian/White ethnicity. Of the 29% that identify as non-Caucasian, less than

1% identify as American Indian, 3% identify as Asian, 5% identify as Black, less than 1%

identify as Hawaiian, 6% identify as Hispanic, and 3% identify as being of two or more races.

Nearly 6% identify as non-residential alien, and approximately 5% did not specify their

racial/ethnic background (University of North Dakota, “Dashboard”, 2016). Institutional data

reports that students from all 50 United States and nearly 30 different countries are represented

within online education programs (University of North Dakota, “Dashboard”, 2016). Based on

fall 2015 data, the average age of students is 29.87 years of age, with the highest percentage

being between the ages of 22-34 (University of North Dakota, “Student Profile of Undergraduate

Distance-Only”, 2015). As of the fall 2015 semester approximately 12.5% of students were new

149

transfer students, 1.1% were new freshmen, and 66.8% were returning students to the university

(University of North Dakota, “Student Profile of Undergraduate Distance-Only”, 2015).

Target Audience

Undergraduate students who have indicated that they are taking solely online courses and

are enrolled within one or more of the following degree programs within the College of Arts and

Sciences: communication, psychology, social science, or general studies will be required to

complete the 8-week orientation program. Online students can be from very diverse backgrounds,

as some students may be first-year students wanting to complete their degree from home, others

may be transfer students who want the flexibility of an online education, and yet others may be

studying from another country. The orientation program is intended to serve students regardless

of their diverse backgrounds and to ensure they are ready to learn in an online environment, have

a basic understanding of the programs and services available to them, as well as helping them to

build and maintain connections with campus community members. Based on data from the fall

2015 semester, 268 students are enrolled as part of a degree-seeking online program within the

College of Arts and Sciences. The highest enrollment program areas are psychology (105

students), followed by communication/journalism (66 students), and social sciences (29 students)

(University of North Dakota, “Student Profile of Undergraduate Distance-Only”, 2015).

Needs Assessment

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funded a Predictive Analytics Reporting (PAR)

system for institutions to be able to identify factors related to student success (University of

North Dakota, “University Senate Meeting”, 2015). The intention of the system is to provide

institutions with descriptive, inferential, and predictive analyses to generate benchmarking, and

to connect at-risk students with proper support interventions (University of North Dakota,

150

“University Senate Meeting”, 2015). PAR data can inform institutions of risk factors relating to

students not being retained from one semester to the next, not achieving a passing grade in an

obstacle course, as well as determining retention and academic performances based on student

demographics (University of North Dakota, “University Senate Meeting”, 2015).

The University of North Dakota is utilizing PAR data to determine the successfulness of

its students, specifically students enrolled in online degree seeking programs and risk factors

associated with lower retention and persistence rates. Top risk factors have been identified as,

students who take all of their courses online, have an age greater than 24-years of age, start UND

outside of the fall semester, withdrawal from 6 or more credits in a term, unable to obtain at least

a 2.0 grade point average in a minimum of 6 credits in a specified term, and not being able to

complete 50% of attempted credits (University of North Dakota, “University Senate Meeting”,

2015). As of the spring 2015 semester, the retention rates for students taking online courses was

approximately 25%, and UND online benchmarks are set at 37% (University of North Dakota,

“Predictive Analytics Data”, 2015).

Based on PAR data, students who are enrolled in solely online courses face greater risk

than students enrolled traditional face-to-face lecture courses. Moreover, given that there are

currently no programs in place to orient online education students to the institution these students

at a significant disadvantage from the beginning. Given these risks factors for online programs

and the fact that no orientation exists for online students, it is imperative for online education

students to be oriented to campus by becoming familiar with the support programs and online

technology platforms as well as feeling a sense of belongingness to the institution, all of which

could potentially help to increase persistence and retention rates.

151

OSSO is limited to students who have indicated they are seeking a degree solely online

within the College of Arts and Sciences, specifically students who are pursuing an online degree

in psychology, communication, social sciences, or general studies. The orientation course

excludes any students taking a hybrid approach of both on-campus and an online course(s), as

many of these students may have already received an orientation to campus. Other individuals

excluded from taking the online orientation are students who hold non-degree seeking status.

Oftentimes, non-degree seeking students have already obtained a degree and are working

towards fulfilling pre-requisite requirements for a different degree program, or are taking an

online course for professional growth and development, and typically do not intend on receiving

a degree from the institution.

Educational Goals

The purpose of the OSSO is to orient online students to the institution. There are three

main goals for the students taking the online orientation course. These goals are as follows:

Create an awareness of online resources across campus available to online students,

Have a better understanding of technology literacy, and

Further promote and enhance learning skills

These goals will help new online education students better adjust to the online platforms that are

utilized at UND as well as inform them of how to be successful in online platforms. Moreover,

the program will help to enhance an understanding of their own learning capabilities in an online

format as well as gain awareness of the types of campus resources available to aid them in being

successful both academically and socially throughout the duration of their academic careers.

152

Conceptual Framework

Conditions for Student Success

Vincent Tinto’s book Completing College: Rethinking Institutional Action provides the

framework for OSSO, and the overall conditions for success for any student within a higher

educational setting. Institutions must recognize that upon acceptance, the institution has an

obligation to help students be retained until graduation (Tinto, 2012). Tinto recognizes that there

are four conditions that promote student success, involvement, expectations, support, and

assessment and feedback. Interwoven throughout the collegiate experience these four conditions

can help enhance student success, and ultimately enhance retention and graduation rates.

Involvement. Students must be actively involved with their campus to be successful and

retained from one semester to the next. It is argued that involvement, also known as engagement,

is one of the most important conditions of student success. The more a student is engaged, both

in- and out- of the classroom, academically and socially, with peers, faculty and staff, the greater

their chances of success. Out-of-classroom activities, can help to increase students’ sense of

belongingness to an institution by being socially engaged with campus members. In-class

engagement is especially beneficial for students who are unable to get involved with the more

traditional methods of campus involvement (i.e. living-learning communities, Greek life, student

government, etc.). The type of involvement, however, most beneficial for students is largely

dependent upon various demographical factors, such as race/ethnicity, traditional versus

nontraditional, socioeconomic status, first-generational student, or living circumstance (on- or

off-campus).

Expectations. Students enter higher education with a multitude of expectations that they

expect the institution to fulfill. Institutions also have certain expectations they hold of their

153

students. Institutions must create clear lines of communication with its students regarding these

expectations, and students must also communicate the expectations they hold of their institution

to avoid expectation dissonance. Together, open lines of communication can help promote and

enhance student success and retention.

Support. In order for students, especially those who may be underprepared, to achieve

the high level of expectations institutions hold of them, they must have proper support programs

and services. Students must have suitable academic support, such as that from academic advisors

to help students understand institutional expectations, program requirements, academic resources

available (i.e., tutoring), how to navigate campus majors, as well as careers available within their

[students] field of study. Students also need social support from peers, family members, and

faculty and staff to be successful in- and outside of the classroom. Additionally, many students

may rely on the means of financial support to fund their way through higher education. If any of

these support programs and services are not in place, or are lacking, it may impede students’

ability to persist to graduation.

Assessment and feedback. Assessment within higher education is utilized to make

informed decisions regarding students’ academic progress and to determine learning within

courses, as well as to inform instructors and faculty members on the effectiveness of their

teaching methods. Assessment allows key members, such as students, to provide necessary

feedback in order to make improvements or adjustments to better promote student success.

In summation, students are more likely to succeed in collegiate environments that

actively involve and engage students both in- and out- of the classroom environment; establish

consistent, clear, and high expectations; make available proper support services and programs,

154

both academically and socially; and continuously assess and provide feedback regarding

programs and services.

For the purposes of OSSO, student success in an online environment is defined as

persisting from one semester to the next, and ultimately to graduation. Students in online

environments must have an understanding of institutional expectations for online courses and the

proper support mechanisms in place to meet those expectations. Additionally, students should be

not only be actively engaged within their online environments, but also know how to interact

with others (i.e., peers and instructors) in order to be successful. To further promote and enhance

online student success, instructors must continuously assess their online teaching environments

and alter their teaching methods as necessary based on that assessment and any feedback

received. Instructors should also provide feedback on students’ performance within their courses

so students are able to alter their behavior thus enhancing their understanding of classroom

expectations.

Theoretical Framework

Developmental Theory

Given the diverse nature of students in an online setting it is imperative to utilize a

developmental theory when designing an effective program for student success. Developmental

theories can serve as a guide to understand the needs of students as well as what students should

be gaining from their environment. For the purposes of the online orientation course, Kolb’s

theory of experiential learning can provide useful insight to students’ learning styles, and help

educators understand how to effectively respond to students’ learning style needs. Understanding

Kolb’s theory can allow educators the opportunity to provide the appropriate challenge and

support in the classroom environment (Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton & Renn, 2010).

155

In addition to Kolb’s theory, cognitive scaffolding is also an important component to

students’ success in an online environment. Cognitive scaffolding was developed out of

Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory and zone of proximal development (Stavredes & Herder, 2015).

Cognitive scaffolding can aid students’ development by understanding what they can accomplish

on their own and what they can accomplish with the assistance of an instructor or an individual

with more advanced knowledge and skills (Stavredes & Herder, 2015).

Kolb’s Learning Styles

Kolb defined learning as “the process whereby knowledge is created through the

transformation of experience” (as cited in Evans, et al., 2010 p. 138). Kolb identified a four-cycle

learning style process, which consisted of concrete experience (CE), a feeling element; reflective

observation (RO), a watching element; abstract conceptualization (AC), a thinking element; and

active experimentation (AE); a doing element (see Figure 8). Each learning style builds upon the

previous one. For example, students utilize their own learning experiences (CE) to form their

own perceptions from multiple perspectives and reflect on those perceptions (RO). Students then

utilize the knowledge gained in the reflection stage to form their own ideas, and theories (AC),

and thus in forming their own ideas and theories, students can make informed decisions and

adapt their behaviors (AE). Kolb also recognized effective learning requires abilities that are

polar opposite. For instance, CE and AC is how an individual inputs and processes information.

AE and RO, on the other hand, is how one makes meaning of information (Evans, et al., 2010).

Learners then must choose which learning abilities (CE or AC, AE or RO) they will use in each

learning situation.

156

Figure 8. Kolb’s Cycle of Learning

Based on the preference an individual has for one of the polar opposites, four discrete

learning processes transpire (Evans, et al., 2010). According to Kolb, as cited in Evans et al.

(2010) learning processes can be defined as “a habitual way of responding to a learning

environment” (p. 139). Detailed descriptions of each of the four learning processes are as

follows: converging students (AC and AE) are more inclined to being good problem solvers and

decision makers, and would be required to complete assignments that require technical tasks and

problems over assignments that require social or interpersonal work, such as group work.

Diverging students (CE and RO), are the opposite of convergers in that they tend to be more

imaginative and aware of their surrounding environments. Divergers can see circumstances from

many different perspectives and can come up with multiple alternatives and implications.

Divergers prefer assignments that are geared more towards working with others and are feeling

oriented, such as case study assignments. Assimilators (AC and RO) excel at assignments that

157

involve logical thinking through the process of inductive reasoning and have the ability to create

ideas by integrating contrasting concepts. Assimilators, much like convergers prefer individual

tasks over teamwork tasks. Lastly, accommodators (CE and AE) immerse themselves in doing,

they create a plan, complete tasks and are open to the idea of sharing new experiences.

Accommodators prefer to work with others, and take a trial-and-error approach to solving

problems (See Figure 9).

Figure 9: Kolb’s Learning Styles Model

Institutions must be accommodating to students and their different learning styles if they

are to be accessible all students with diverse learning backgrounds. In understanding that

students have varying learning styles, efforts should be made upon designing and implementing

new programs to accommodate students’ diverse learning styles and to ensure the programs are

158

successful. Furthermore, institutions should also have support mechanisms in place when

students learning styles are being challenged by their current learning environment. For instance,

an individual who values concrete experiences may need additional support when completing

assignments that require creating and integrating ideas to form a new idea and vice versa. Lastly,

it is imperative to integrate Kolb’s theory when implementing new programs, such as orientation

programs, as it enables institutions to have a structured framework within which programming

can be tailored.

Cognitive Scaffolding

In addition to Kolb’s theory, cognitive scaffolding is also an important theoretical

framework to utilize when implementing new programs. Cognitive scaffolding is a framework to

help educators understand students’ social and cultural context as it relates to development.

Vygotsky studied the zone in which development occurred and labeled it as the zone of proximal

development. As cited in Stavredes and Herder (2015), Vygotsky defined this zone as “the

distance between actual developmental level as determined by independent problem-solving and

the level of potential development through problem-solving under adult guidance or in

collaboration with more capable peers” (p. 262). Cognitive scaffolding, then, is supporting

learners within this zone. The zone in which students are able to successfully accomplish a task

on their own, and what they can accomplish with an individual who has further advanced

knowledge and skills. With enough challenge and support through cognitive scaffolding over

time students should become self-regulated learners in that they can motivate themselves to get

started on a task, plan out their goals for accomplishing the task, assess their progress made and

adjust as needed, and locate and utilize necessary support resources. Cognitive scaffolding can

assist institutions with programming efforts, such as orientation programs, in that goals and

159

lessons can be slowly introduced to online students which will expand their proximal zone of

development. As online students advance to higher levels of learning and further expand their

proximal zone of development they can become self-motivated learners and ultimately more

successful in an online environment.

Institutional Accountability

Online education is not going away any time soon, and will continue to grow as access to

higher education continues to increase. According to Crawley and LeGore (2009) in the 2006

National Survey of Student Engagement of approximately 4,000 online learners, nearly half were

enrolled part-time, half worked more than 30 hours per week, and nearly 70% indicated that they

cared for dependents. Many online students are unaware of institutional requirements, what types

of support services are available to them as online students, and how to succeed in an online

environment. Furthermore, on-campus support services are only available during typical work

day hours (Monday through Friday 8:00am-5pm), which is also when many online students are

working. Therefore, the institution should be aware of the needs of its online student population

and determine how they can best serve the needs of those students to increase retention and

graduation rates.

The university has an accountability to serve its students in multiple formats, whether

online or on-campus, especially given that the university is currently not meeting its own

retention benchmark for online courses. Presently the retention rate for students who are

pursuing a degree fully online at UND is 25%, whereas the institution benchmarks at 37%.

OSSO can help the institution achieve its benchmark levels and potentially beyond, by helping to

orient students to campus and online formats, thus promoting student success and persistence.

160

Moreover, lower retention rates ultimately equate to lower graduation rates, which has a

negative impact on both the institution and its students, in terms of recruiting students to campus

and online programs, and graduating with copious amounts of debt while being unable to earn a

degree. UND currently does not track graduation rates of online education students nor does the

institution distinguish the graduation rates for students solely seeking an online degree as

compared to on-campus students. Rather, online students are included in the institutions overall

graduation rates, which for 2009 the 4-year graduation rate was 24%, the 5-year graduation rate

was 47%, and the 6-year graduation rate was 53%, respectively (University of North Dakota,

“Graduation Rates”, n.d.).

Program Design

The Online Student Success Orientation will consist of an 8-week orientation course

offered for all online students who intend to seek their degree solely online through the College

of Arts and Sciences. The course will take place during the first eight weeks of the fall and

spring semesters, and will be offered each semester as a required course for all newly declared

communication, psychology, social science and general studies majors. A hold will be placed on

online education students’ accounts so that they are unable to register for the next semester until

they have successfully completed the online orientation. Given that the course will always be

offered during the first eight weeks of the designated semesters, and registration typically begins

around the twelfth week of the semester, the online orientation coordinator will be able to

confirm through Blackboard that all students have complete the course and remove the hold.

The 8-week course is designed to orient online students to campus by helping them to

gain familiarity with campus resources, technology literacy, and further enhance their learning

skills in order to succeed in an online environment. The course will focus on the holistic

161

development of knowledge based skills and resources to enhance student success in online

courses utilizing the three theories as the framework: 1) Tinto’s Conditions for Student Success,

2) Kolb’s Theory of Experiential Learning, and 3) cognitive scaffolding. Collectively, these

theories will help students gain a deeper understanding of their baseline knowledge and skills,

and to further promote an enhanced understanding of the expectations for online learning, the

types of support resources available, and how to be actively involved and engaged in an online

environment.

The logic model will guide the development and implementation of the program. The

model outlines several goals that can be obtained throughout the program, specifically short-,

medium-, and long-term goals. The short-term goals are designed to be met shortly after

admission to the institution. The medium-term goals are set to be met throughout the duration of

the online orientation, and the long-term goals are categorized as online students graduating from

college and beyond graduation.

The short-term outcomes begin once the student has been accepted to UND and prepares

to enter the online environment. Students will develop an understanding of their Internet speeds

and determine what speeds would allow them to most efficiently complete the online modules

and other online coursework. Students will then complete a short online quiz to assess their

understanding of what it takes to succeed in an online environment, as well as understand the

difficulties that can arise when taking an online course. A self-motivation assessment will allow

students the opportunity to gauge if they are a self-starter and self-motivated enough to persist

throughout the duration of an online course(s).

The medium outcomes will allow students to demonstrate their understanding of campus

resources available to them as well as initiating outreach to various campus resources via email

162

or other modes of communication. Students will be required to establish connections and

relationships with their peers and other campus community members through online discussion

boards and blogs. In addition to demonstrating an understanding of campus resources and

socially engaging with the campus community, students will be able to identify realistic

expectations to successfully complete an online course while balancing other commitments by

enhancing their current learning skills, in the areas of time management, self-motivation, and

online engagement.

The long-term outcomes are designed to focus on the online students’ life after

graduation. After successful completion of the short- and medium-term outcomes, students

should be able to successfully graduate from the university, and move forward in a career path,

or further advancing their education by applying to graduate or professional schools. Students

should be able to apply the skills they have gained throughout the orientation program coupled

with their education to become engaged as productive and civic citizens within a diverse, global

community.

The logic model consists of inputs, which contains the resources the institution puts in,

such as the staffing, monetary resources, online operating systems, and collaboration across

various academic and support departments. The outputs are then created based on the inputs.

The outputs are divided into two sections, activities and participation. Students will be required

to complete several modules throughout the 8-week course, and each one of those activities

incorporates participation and engagement with peers and campus community members in the

online environment. Both the inputs and outputs create the outcomes and impacts of the program,

identified as the short-, medium- and long-term goals. Figure 10 summarizes the logic model

specifically as it relates to the online orientation program.

163

Figure 10. Logic Model for OSSO at UND.

Assessment Plan

In order to determine if the program’s outcomes have been met, the outcomes must be

assessed. The learning outcomes for OSSO are as follows: to help prepare students to enter an

online environment and how to succeed in that online environment, have students engage

socially with campus community members, identify campus based resources available to online

students, demonstrate an understanding of online campus platforms and further enhance existing

learning skills (Appendix A).

The first learning outcome will be assessed within the first few weeks of the program.

Students will be asked to complete a short survey assessing their comfort level with online

Inputs Outputs Outcomes – Impact

Activities Participation Short Medium Long

Staff

Resources

Blackboard

Finances

Collaboration

with

departments

across campus

OSSO:

Online

orientation

modules

Completion

of the 8-

week

course

within the

online

platform

Preparing to

enter the online

environment

Succeeding in

an online course

utilizing

technology

Identifying

campus resources

as an online

student

Demonstrating an

understanding of

online campus

platforms

Socially engage

with campus

community

members, such as

faculty, staff, and

other peers.

Further enhance

learning skills

Graduate

Continue in

career path

and/or

additional

education

164

courses (Appendix B). Additionally, students will be asked to test their current Internet speeds.

Testing Internet speeds is a service most Internet providers offer and this type of assessment will

allow students to determine if their speeds meet the minimum requirements to be efficient and

effective within an online environment. The last assessment component of the first learning

outcome will have students to develop a more in-depth understanding on whether or not they are

self-motivated. Students will be asked to complete a self-assessment to help them determine

where their strengths and weakness are in relation to being a self-starter (Appendix C).

After determining if students are prepared and ready to succeed in an online environment,

the next level of learning outcomes encompasses the following: students are able to identify

campus resources to help them succeed both academically and socially, are able to demonstrate

that they have an understanding of online campus platforms, such as Blackboard, Starfish,

Campus Connection and email, and to socially engage with campus community members. To

assess students’ ability to identify campus resources, students will need to identify two to three

academic resources available to them as online students. Students will then be asked to submit a

discussion board on the types of resources that they located and how those resources can assist

them in the future. Utilizing the discussion board will allow other students within the orientation

course to see what resources other peers have identified and will also provide the opportunity for

students to engage socially with their peers and the coordinator of the course.

In order to demonstrate their knowledge of the various online platforms all UND students

are asked to utilize, online students will need to first verify that they have completed the online

Blackboard tutorial offered through Atomic Learning. Students will provide the certificate of

completion to confirm they have successfully completed the tutorial. Completing this particular

tutorial will help students to gain a more in-depth knowledge base of Blackboard and the various

165

functions that can be utilized within Blackboard. Also offered in Blackboard is UND’s new

online scheduling operating system, which allows students to schedule an appointment with their

faculty or academic advisor. Students’ proficiency in using Starfish will be assessed when they

successfully make an appointment with their faculty or academic advisor to discuss course

registration for the following semester. In scheduling an appointment with their advisors students

will need to provide documentation of what was discussed during their appointment. This

documentation can come in the form of an email or by scanning and emailing the notes they took

throughout the duration of the appointment. This assessment point can also demonstrate that

students have initiated contact with a campus community member. After meeting with their

advisors, students will demonstrate their command of utilizing Campus Connection by

successfully registering for courses for the following term.

To assess students’ knowledge regarding academic resources available to them, students

will need to identify two or three academic resources. These resources can include online

tutoring sessions, such as Smart Thinking or Atomic Learning offered through Blackboard, or

the Writing Center on campus. Students will demonstrate that they have identified these

academic resources by completing assignments and providing the specific pathways they utilized

to obtain the information (Appendix D). In assessing students’ ability to identify two services

offered within Career Services, students will be required to list what two services they have

identified and make an appointment with Career Services to find out more about one of those

two services. After the completion of the appointment students will complete a short journal

entry detailing their experience.

The final learning outcome of enhanced learning skills will be assessed by students

completing an initial blog of the time commitment they think taking a full credit load, or part-

166

time credit load will require of them at the beginning of the semester. Students will continue to

blog, recording a log of the actual hours they spend on studying for exams/quizzes, time spent on

completing assignments and projects, and any other time spent as it relates to their academic

career. Students will also be asked to blog about other time commitments they have, thus to

determine the number of hours they are able to dedicate to each commitment. Lastly, students

will be assessed by engaging in a discussion board with their peers on their personal experiences

with time management and share any helpful hints they may have with regards to good time

management skills. Throughout the discussion boards and other various forms of outreach

students are being assessed on their ability to engage socially with their peers and other campus

community members.

To conclude the online orientation course, an evaluation must be completed to ensure that

students have an enhanced awareness of campus resources, can engage socially with other

campus members, and can effectively navigate through UND’s online platforms. The final

course evaluation will ask students to put together a campus resource document for students who

are pursuing their degree solely online (Appendix E). Students will also receive a follow-up

survey asking their perceptions of online courses through UND, and whether or not the

orientation helped to ease their transition to UND and to the online environment (Appendix F).

Program Plan

OSSO is a required course for all new incoming online students that are pursuing their

degree solely online through the College of Arts Sciences. It will be offered every fall and spring

semesters to ensure that all online education students have the opportunity to take the course.

Students will be required to complete several activities, assignments, discussion board posts, and

167

journals to enhance their success in an online environment as well as a final project to evaluate

their overall knowledge gained throughout the duration of the orientation.

It is imperative for the online orientation to be as interactive and engaging as possible,

therefore students will be asked to complete several discussion boards throughout the duration of

the orientation. These discussion boards are designed to help online education students feel a

connection with their peers, whom may also be in other courses with them throughout their time

at UND. The discussion boards can also help enhance students’ communication and

interpersonal skills by allowing them the opportunity to openly express their opinions and

perspectives in a judgement free environment. By completing the discussion boards, students

will have the opportunity to actively engage in the course, gain an enhanced understanding of the

learning lesson, as well as have the ability to learn something new from their peers, which is

imperative to growing and developing as an individual (Appendix G).

The text for the course, while primarily written for educators, was selected to provide

students with a common read and to also give students a more in-depth understanding of

complexities of planning and teaching in an online environment as well as to think critically

about how they can apply the text to their current online learning environment. In

correspondence with the text, students will be asked to complete several journals throughout the

course relating back to the course text, and how the course text and course content has enhanced

their online learning experience. The journal prompts will remain consistent throughout the

duration of the course, but students will be required to reflect on new material learned thus far in

the semester. They will be unable to submit the same journal response from previous weeks.

In addition to the discussion boards, common read, and the journals, students will also be

asked to complete several assignments throughout the duration of the course. The assignments,

168

which will come in the form of surveys, quizzes, and activities are designed to help students

prepare to enter an online environment, determine their study skills/habits, self-motivation, and

increase awareness of several campus based offices that offer services to online students. The

assignments will help students to identify key areas of support, and to increase awareness and

outreach of these support services and offices.

Lastly, students in the course will be asked to complete a final project to determine their

overall learning and understanding of the course content. The final project will consist of

students putting together a robust resource guide for online education students. Students will be

asked to reflect upon their learning in the course to create a resource manual that they believe

will be useful for other online education students at UND. Table 4 indicates a detailed outline of

the course learning lessons, topics, readings and items due.

Table 4

Online Student Success Orientation Weekly Schedule

Lesson Topic Readings Items due:

0 Are you ready for online

learning?

Excellent Online

Teaching Chapters 1-2

Assignment #1- Preparing

for online learning

assessment, Blackboard’s

tutorial and checking your

Internet speeds

1 Welcome to UND and

Introductions

Excellent Online

Teaching Chapters 3-4

Discussion board #1 -

Introduction post

Journal #1

2 Managing your time

successfully in an online

course

Excellent Online

Teaching Chapters 6-7

Assignment #2 - Begin a

blog on your study habits

3 Self-motivation and

online success

Excellent Online

Teaching Chapters 8-9

Assignment #3 - Self-

motivation assessment

Discussion Board #2

Journal #2

169

4 Identifying academic

resources

Excellent Online

Teaching Chapters 10-

11

Assignment #4 – Identify 2-

3 academic resources

offered for online students

Discussion board #3

5 Identifying the “next

step in life” services

with Career Services

Excellent Online

Teaching Chapter 13-

15

Assignment #6 – locate

Career Services website

and identify two services

offered to online students.

Schedule an appointment

with Career Services to

find out more about those

resources

Discussion board #4

6 Seeking out other

support offices

Excellent Online

Teaching Chapter 16

Assignment #7 – Schedule

an appointment with your

advisor in Starfish and

successfully register for

courses in Campus

Connection

Journal #4

7 You are ready to be a

successful online

student

End of semester survey

Final project

Program Delivery Logistics

The College of Arts and Sciences will need to reallocate funding to support the new

position being created, as well as support appropriate facilities for the individual overseeing the

orientation program. Given that the program is only being offered for students within the College

of Arts and Sciences it is deemed most appropriate that the individual overseeing the orientation

program will be housed within that particular college. Since there are currently no other

orientation programs being offered for online students, resources will need to be allocated to

support OSSO.

170

Budget

Additional funds are needed to support the new position of the Online Orientation

Coordinator, the GSA or GTA student, and facility space and office supplies. With the position

being housed within the College of Arts and Sciences, facility space will need to be allotted for

the coordinator and the graduate assistant. This is this most ideal situation in that the coordinator

can have access to other key personnel within the College to serve as additional support and

resources, if necessary.

The initial startup cost would be $30,000. This amount will allow for facility space to be

renovated and can be used to recruit for the new position being created if an internal search is

unsuccessful. The projected annual budget would be $80,000. The university will not need to

purchase an additional software program, as OSSO will be conducted within an existing

technology platform that the university has already purchased, Blackboard. These funds will be

utilized to maintain the office space allocated, continual funding for the salaries, office supplies,

and any technology maintenance. The overall budget for the initial startup of the program would

be $110,000. For the breakdown in costs see Table 5.

Table 5

Annual Budget

Online Orientation Program Annual Budget (12 months)

Salary Benefits Total

Salaries

Online Orientation Coordinator $33,000 $15,000 $48,000

Part-time GSA/GTA $8000 $8000

$56,000

Space and Utilities Month Annual

Office Space Rent $200 $2,500

171

Utilities $600 $7,300

$9,800

Operating Budget Annual

Office Supplies $3,500

Computers & Accessories $4,000

Copier/Printers $2,000

$9,500

Communications Annual

Telephone/fax $350

Postage $350

Internet/other technology $3,000

$4,700

Total Annual Budget: $80,000

*Initial startup cost would be $30,000, bringing the total first year budget to $110,000

Personnel

A new full-time position of, an Online Orientation Coordinator, will be created within the

College of Arts and Sciences for an individual to oversee the orientation course, and to plan and

implement future orientation based activities or course curriculum changes for online students. A

Graduate Service Assistant (GSA) or a Graduate Teaching Assistant (GTA) within the

departments of Higher Education, Counseling, Psychology, Communication, or any other related

programs dedicated to assisting students will be accessible to the staff member, to help with

planning and implementation of the orientation program, as well as assist in course management

(i.e. grading) throughout the duration of their assistantship.

172

The staff member considered for the position should have the following minimum

qualifications: Bachelor’s degree, preference will be given to Counseling, Psychology, Sociology,

Communication, or other related majors; sufficient knowledge base in technology programs such

as Blackboard for monitoring the course, Campus Connection for reporting final grades, email

platforms and Microsoft Office Suite programs; prior knowledge of orientation programs,

specifically for online students, or an understanding of online degree programs; excellent

interpersonal/oral/written communication skills with diverse populations; customer service

oriented; having strong attention to detail and organization/prioritization ability; and working

independently, as well as part of a team. Prior experience in student services is a must. Preferred

qualifications include: Master’s degree, prior experience in serving online student populations,

and of program design and implementation.

The position of the Online Orientation Coordinator will be required to oversee the online

orientation program, as well as design and implement any new programs for online students as

needed. The coordinator of the program will have the following job responsibilities:

Build and maintain relationships with online students and direct them to the

appropriate resources as necessary

Build and maintain relationships with various departments across campus,

particularly those departments that indicate they offer programs and services for

online students

Determine what other offices or departments on campus could help to serve the

needs of online students

Collect, analyze, and evaluate all assessment data to ensure student learning,

growth and development

173

Tailor and re-structure/re-format the course as necessary depending on the

summative and formative feedback, and all surveys from students

Keep updated and accurate information of all students who have taken the online

orientation course and track those students throughout the duration of their

academic career at UND and beyond.

The orientation coordinator and the GSA or GTA will closely work together to best

determine the needs of the online students completing the orientation program. Given the amount

of online students, one staffing position may not be enough as online education courses continue

to expand, however, implementing the program and ensuring its success is a step in the right

direction to better serve the needs of online students.

The individual who is hired for the position will be required to complete the university’s

general orientation training program, especially if a candidate is not hired internally. Upon

completion of the university’s orientation program, if required, the staff member will meet with

the various offices across campus to gain a more in-depth understanding of how they serve and

meet the needs of online education students. Training will continuously be an integral part of this

position, in that the staff member must attend professional development sessions offered at the

institutional level. In addition to professional development sessions offered across campus, the

staff member will also be required to attend any national professional development conferences,

or seminars to further promote and enhance their development of effective online orientation

programs and services.

174

Facilities and Marketing Needs

OSSO will be taking place solely in an online environment, however, physical space is

required to implement and successfully manage the program. The coordinator will need an office

space that is conducive to serving the needs of online students. This space would need to include

technological software such as, Skype and lecture recording software. Additionally, it is

imperative for the space to be as free from distractions as possible to ensure quality and clarity of

recorded lectures and any other personal conversations the coordinator may have with the online

students.

To successfully market the program, brochures and information in online students’

admissions packets will be sent notifying them of the required orientation course. Since it is

required program, students will be informed that a hold will be placed on their account and they

will be unable to register for any courses until they have successfully registered for the online

orientation. Additional information will be posted to the online and distance education website,

informing students that they must register for the course if they are new to UND’s online

environment. As soon as students have enrolled they will receive information regarding the

course via the online Blackboard website. The online orientation course will continue to remain

on students Blackboard site throughout their education at UND, so that students can continuously

refer back to the course for resources or additional information.

Program Evaluation Plan

In order to determine a program’s effectiveness, it must be evaluated throughout the

duration of the program as well as at the completion of the program. Data will be collected by

the online orientation coordinator throughout several points during the semester, as well as at the

end of the program, one semester following student completion of the program, and one year

175

after completion of the program. Data will be continuously collected and analyzed through

online student retention rates to evaluate the program’s success each year it is in effect at UND.

As a result of online students completing this orientation course, it is anticipated that the

retention rates for online students will ultimately increase over time from the current 25% to the

institutional benchmarked retention rate of 37% or higher. It is also hoped that the institution will

see an increase in the overall graduation rates for online students, but it is understood that this

also means the institution must begin tracking online students. To determine the program’s

effectiveness, both a summative and formative evaluation of the program will be conducted.

Formative Evaluation

It is imperative for a formative evaluation to be conducted within the first couple of years

of the program to determine what program is doing well as well as evaluate areas of

improvement. There are several measures throughout the duration of the program, specifically

with the pre-assessment exercise and journaling exercises, that are imbedded within the

orientation course to formatively evaluate the program. The pre-assessment exercise will help to

establish a baseline for the program by evaluating students’ online learning readiness. This

baseline will provide the online orientation coordinator with the data necessary to determine if

students have prior exposure to an online learning environment and the tools necessary to be

effective online learners.

In addition to the pre-assessment exercise, an additional measurement of journaling

exercises will be conducted to determine if the program is helping to enhance students’

knowledge base of online learning, and if the content and activities required are relevant and

useful to online students. Students will be asked to respond to the following journaling questions:

What did you learn this week?

176

How can you apply that knowledge to your future career as an online student at UND?

What was a key piece of information that stood out to you?

Are there any points that you do not find particularly relevant to this online orientation or

to your online success at UND, and why?

Responses to the questions will allow the orientation coordinator to immediately

collect, analyze and assess feedback given by the students. This feedback can be utilized to

determine any gaps within the program and to ensure the gaps are filled. Collection of

formative evaluation data also helps to enhance the orientation program’s effectiveness in

that the coordinator can continuously monitor the online environment and make any

necessary updates to operating systems, information, resources, etc.

Summative Evaluation

The other way to assess a program’s effectiveness is by conducting a summative

evaluation. This type of evaluation is conducted at the end of the program to determine its

success and if the program is meeting the goals it intended to meet. The following questions

should be asked one year following implementation of the program, and on an annual basis

thereafter:

Have retention rates for online students increased?

Are online students graduating after having taken the orientation course?

To answer these questions institutional offices, such as the Registrar’s Office and the Office of

Institutional Research in conjunction with the online orientation coordinator will need to begin

collecting data on online students. The coordinator will need to closely track and monitor all

online students who have completed the orientation course until graduation and compare

persistence, retention and graduation reports with the respective offices. If the retention and

177

graduation rates surpass the current retention rates of online students, it could be determined that

the online orientation course is effective in aiding in online students’ success and graduation

from the university.

Conclusion

Online education degrees will continue to expand as access to higher education continues

to increase, institutions of higher education should ensure that their online students are successful

and persist from one semester to the next, and ultimately persist graduation. OSSO will allow

students to gain a more in-depth understanding of the resources available to them, how to be

successful in an online environment and feel a connection to campus, thus promoting their

success and persistence from one semester to the next, and to the final end goal of graduation.

The intention of OSSO is to not only assist online students and their success, but to create a

campus-wide awareness of UND’s online student population and facilitate their success

throughout campus.

178

References

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in

the United States. Sloan Consortium: USA.

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2011). Going the distance: Online education in the United States,

2011. Sloan Consortium: USA.

Britt, M. (2015). How to better engage online students with online strategies. College Student

Journal, 49(3), 399-404.

Crawley, A. & LeGore, C. (2009). Supporting online students. In G. McClellan, & J. Stringer

(Eds.), The handbook of student affairs administration (pp. 309-331). San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., and Renn, K. A. (2010). Student

development in college: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 137-152). San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Larreamendy-Jorens, J., & Leinhardt, G. (2006). Going the distance with online education.

Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 567-605.

Noel Levitz (2011). Priorities Survey for Online Learners. Retrieved from www.noellevtiz.com.

Rovai, A. P. (2003). In search of higher persistence rates in distance education online programs.

The Internet and Higher Education, 6(1), 1-16.

Stavredes, T. M., & Herder, T. M. (2015). Engaging students in an online environment. In S.

Quaye, & S. Harper (Eds.), Student Engagement in Higher Education (pp. 257-269). New

York: Taylor & Francis.

Tinto, V. (2012). Completing college: Rethinking institutional action. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

179

University of North Dakota. (2015). Predictive Analytics Data. Retrieved from

http://und.edu/academics/extended-learning/on-site-events/_files/docs/state-of-online-

2015-handout.pdf.

University of North Dakota. (2016). 2016 Dashboard Enrollment Data. Retrieved from

https://dashboards.und.edu/idashboards/.

University of North Dakota (2015). Student Profile of Undergraduate Distance-Only Students.

Retrieved from http://und.edu/research/institutional-

research/_files/docs/dashboards/undergraduate-distance.pdf

University of North Dakota. (2016). Student body profile. Retrieved from

http://und.edu/discover/student-profile/index.cfm.

University of North Dakota. (n.d.). Administration. Retrieved from

http://und.edu/discover/leadership.cfm

University of North Dakota. (n.d.). Exceptional UND. Retrieved from

http://und.edu/provost/exceptional-und/index.cfm.

University of North Dakota. (n.d.). Graduation rates. Retrieved from

http://und.edu/academics/registrar/graduation-rates.cfm

University of North Dakota. (n.d.). Mission statement. Retrieved from

http://und.edu/discover/mission-statement.cfm.

University of North Dakota. (n.d.). Online and Distance Degrees and Certificates. Retrieved

from http://und.edu/academics/extended-learning/online-distance/degrees/.

180

Appendix A

Learning Outcomes per Module

Module Module Name Activity Learning Outcome Evaluation

0 Are you ready

for online

learning?

Assignment #1 Preparing

for online learning

assessment and checking

your internet speeds

Prepare to enter into

an online

environment

Pre-assessment

readiness quiz

1

Welcome to

UND and

Introductions

Discussion board #1 –

Introduction post

Journal #1

Socially engaging

with campus

community members

Demonstrate

understanding of

online learning

platforms

Discussion

boards

Journal

2

Managing

your time

successfully

in an online

course

Assignment #2 - Begin a

blog on your study habits

How to succeed in

an online

environment

Demonstrate

understanding of

online learning

platforms

Assignment

3

Self-

motivation

and online

success

Assignment #3 - Self-

motivation assessment

Discussion Board #2

Journal #2

How to succeed in

an online

environment

Socially engaging

with campus

community members

Further enhance

learning skills

Assignment

Discussion

board

Journal

4

Identifying

academic

resources

Assignment #4 – Identify 2-

3 academic resources

offered for online students

Discussion board #3

Identifying campus

resources

Socially engaging

with campus

community members

181

Module Module Name Activity Learning Outcome Evaluation

5 Identifying

the “next step

in life”

services with

Career

Services

Assignment #6 – locate

Career Services website and

identify two services offered

to online students. Schedule

an appointment with Career

Services to find out more

about those resources

Discussion board #4

Journal #3

Identifying campus

resources

Socially engaging

with campus

community members

Demonstrate

understanding of

online learning

platforms

Assignment

Discussion

board

Journal

6

Seeking out

other support

offices

Assignment #7 – Schedule

an appointment with your

advisor in Starfish and

successfully register for

courses in Campus

Connection

Identifying campus

resources

Demonstrate

understanding of

online learning

platforms

Further enhance

learning skills

Assignment

7

You are ready

to be a

successful

online student

End of semester survey

Final project

Journal #4

Demonstrate

understanding of

online learning

platforms

Further enhance

learning skills

Survey

Journal

Final project

182

Appendix B

Online readiness survey

Please answer the following questions to determine if you are ready to learn in an online

environment:

QUESTIONS Agree Somewhat

Agree

Disagree

1. I am good at setting goals and deadlines for myself.

3. I finish the projects I start.

4. I do not quit just because things get difficult.

5. I can keep myself on track and on time.

6. I can learn from things I hear, like lectures, audio

recordings, or podcasts.

7. I have to read something to learn it best.

8. I have developed good ways to solve problems I run into.

9. I learn best when I figure things out for myself.

10. I like to learn in a group, but I can learn on my own as

well.

11. I am willing to send e-mail to or have discussions with

people I might never see.

12. I usually study in a place where I can read and work on

assignments without distractions.

13. I can ignore distractions around me when I study.

14. I am willing to spend 10-20 hours each week on an

online course.

15. I keep a record of what my assignments are and when

they are due.

16. I plan my work in advance so that I can turn in my

assignments on time.

17. When I study, people around me will help me work and

not try to distract me.

18. I am willing to use e-mail and other online tools to ask

my classmates and instructors questions.

19. I am fairly good at using the computer.

20. I am comfortable surfing the Internet.

21. I am comfortable conducting searches, setting

bookmarks, and downloading files.

22. I am comfortable installing software and changing

configuration settings on my computer.

23. I know someone who can help me if I have computer

problems.

183

24. My computer runs reliably on Windows XP/ 7 or on

Mac OS 10.6 or higher.

25. I have a printer.

26. I am connected to the Internet with a fairly fast, reliable

connection such as DSL or cable modem.

27. I have virus protection software running on my

computer.

28. I have headphones or speakers and a microphone to use

if a class has a videoconference.

29. My browser will play several common multimedia

(video and audio) formats.

This online survey was adapted from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s

Online Readiness Survey http://www.unc.edu/tlim/ser/. If this program is implemented then

proper steps will be taken to ensure UNC- Chapel Hill receives credit for online survey.

184

Appendix C

Self-motivation assessment

The intention of the self-motivation assessment is to determine students’ baseline in their ability

to self-start and to stay motivated. By completing the below assessment students will have an

enhance understanding of their motivation levels. Students will be able to interpret their results

based on key areas of self-motivation, self-confidence and efficacy, positive thinking about the

present and positive thinking about the future, and the focus and determination to reach goals.

Below is a link to the self-motivation assessment, which has been adapted from Mind Tools –

Essential skills for an excellent career:

https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_57.htm

185

Appendix D

Journal Prompts

It is expected that you will submit a new response for each new journal based on content that you

have learned thus far in the course. The intention of the journals is for you to reflect on your

online learning experience, course content, and the course text.

Please answer the following journal prompts:

What did you learn this week?

How does what you’ve learned so far through the readings and course content help your

online learning experience?

How can you apply that knowledge to your future career as an online student at UND?

What was a key piece of information that stood out to you?

Are there any points that you do not find particularly relevant to this online orientation or

to your online success at UND, and why?

186

Appendix E

Final evaluation project

Students will be asked to complete a final project to evaluate the courses overall effectiveness,

details are listed below:

Utilizing the knowledge you have learned throughout this course, in lectures, the readings,

activities, and the journals as well as your experiences in an online environment throughout the

duration of your time at UND thus far, create a robust resource brochure for online students.

Your resource should include the following points, the questions below the required points are

guiding questions meant to help you with the level of detail in information:

Admissions process

o When should students apply

o What does one need to send in order to get admitted in a timely fashion

o Other tips

Working with an academic advisor

o How to determine who is one’s assigned academic advisor

o How to make an appointment with an academic advisor

o Items to be prepared to talk about with one’s academic advisor

o Other tips

Registering for classes

o Where to find the appointment date and time

o How to determine what courses to register for

o How to successfully enroll in courses

o Other tips when enrolling

How to locate academic resources

o Where to find academic resources

o What websites are useful

o Other tips

Other support offices on campus that work with distance/online education students

o Names and website links of other support offices

o What do these offices offer to online students and how can they help

How to get connected with peers and other campus community members

o What is the best way to get connected with others

o Other tips

How to get engaged in an online course

o Best advice for getting engage in an online course

o How to get and stay engage throughout an online course

Be sure that you are thorough and as detailed as possible in the information presented in your

brochure. It is highly recommended to make your brochure visually appealing, using pictures,

screen shots, and/or infographics. A prospective or new online student should be able to clearly

187

tell what UND has to offer to online students. The style, format and layout of your brochure is at

your discretion.

188

Appendix F

End of semester survey

Feedback and assessment are important aspects in course redesign and restructuring. By

completing the below survey you will receive 10 extra credit points to be added to your final

grade.

You are not required to fill out this survey, nor are you required to fill out the entire

survey.

The feedback you provide will be anonymous. Your feedback is very much appreciated.

Please answer the below responses as you feel comfortable:

1. Did you find the activities you were asked to complete helpful with regards to online

learning environments?

2. What about the activities/assignments did you like?

3. What about the activities/assignments did you not like?

4. What was your favorite part of the course?

5. What is one thing you would improve regarding the course?

6. What is one thing you would remove entirely from the course?

7. Do you feel you receive timely feedback on all assignments?

8. What was one take away you had from the course?

9. On a scale of one to five how would you rate the overall teaching quality?

10. Is there any additional feedback you’d like to share with me? Please do so in the space

below.

189

Appendix G

Discussion board prompts and schedule

Please complete the following prompts to the best of your ability. To prompt engaging

discussion all students are required to complete at least two follow-up comments on their

classmates’ discussion board posts. Students will not gain full points for the discussion board

unless they make an initial post, and at least two follow-up postings. Below is a weekly schedule

of the discussion boards and prompts.

Week Discussion Board Prompt

Week 1 – Discussion board #1 Please introduce yourself. Please list your

name, where you are from, your academic

major, what your plans are upon graduation,

and anything else you’d like to share with

your peers.

Week 3 – Discussion board #2 What are some ways you get motivated?

Week 4 – Discussion board #3 What services did you identify and how can

they assist you?

Week 6 – Discussion board #4 What services did you identify and do you

believe this can be helpful towards for your

future?