(Re)Emerging Areas of Focus for the Success of Twenty-first Century Learners Andrew K. Koch, Ph.D. Chief Operating Officer John N. Gardner Institute (JNGI) @DrewKochTweets Focusing on Student Success Conference | University of Minnesota | February 15, 2017
Who Is This Guy? (About the Presenter) ? jngi.org
About the Non-Profit Organization jngi.org
What’s Up with the Session Title? • (Re)Emerging Areas of Focus for the Success of Twenty-first Century Learners • The Equity Imperative jngi.org
What Will He Share? (About The Session) • Lessons from Current Work at the Gardner Institute on the Importance of: • Gateway Courses • Integrated High Impact Practices • Cost Benefits of Student Success Initiatives jngi.org
Issue & Lesson 1 – Gateway Courses jngi.org
The Issue Deplorable rates of failure in college “gateway courses” are limiting possibilities – especially for historically underrepresented and underserved students jngi.org
Defining our Terms – Gateway Courses • Foundation-Level • High-Risk • High-Enrollment • “Killer Courses” jngi.org
Let’s Look at Some Data jngi.org
The Data – U.S. History Survey Courses v 32 institutions v Average DFWI Rate = 25.5% v Range of 5.66% - 48.89% jngi.org
The Data – U.S. Survey Courses 10.00% 12.00% 14.00% 16.00% 18.00% 20.00% 22.00% 24.00% 26.00% 28.00% 30.00% 32.00% 34.00% 36.00% 38.00% 40.00% 42.00% 44.00% 46.00% 48.00% 50.00% 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% Institution 1 Institution 2 Institution 3 Institution 4 Institution 5 Institution 6 Institution 7 US History DFWI Rate by Institution Institution 8 Institution 9 Institution 10 Institution 11 Institution 12 DFWI Rate Institution 13 Institution 14 Institution 15 Institution 16 Institution 17 Institution 18 Average Institution 19 Institution 20 Institution 21 Institution 22 Institution 23 Institution 24 Institution 25 Institution 26 Institution 27 Institution 28 Institution 29 Institution 30 Institution 31 Institution 32
First-Year Students Are Most at Risk jngi.org
The Data – U.S. Survey Courses Average DFWI Rate by Classification 32.00% 29.01% 30.00% 28.00% 26.00% 24.00% 21.16% 22.00% 20.00% 18.00% 16.65% 16.00% 13.80% 14.00% 12.00% 10.00% 8.00% 6.00% 4.00% 2.00% 0.00% Freshmen DFWI Rate Sophomore DFWI Rate Junior DFWI Rate Senior DFWI Rate DFWI Rate Average
Gender, Income & First-Generation Status Matter jngi.org
The Data – U.S. Survey Courses (Gender) Average DFWI Rate by Gender 34.00% 31.26% 32.00% 30.00% 27.18% 28.00% 22.67% 26.00% 24.00% 22.00% 20.00% 18.00% 16.00% 14.00% 12.00% 10.00% 8.00% 6.00% 4.00% 2.00% 0.00% Male Female Unspecified DFWI Rate Average
The Data – U.S. Survey Courses (Income) Average DFWI Rate by Pell Eligibility 30.00% 28.49% 28.00% 26.00% 24.64% 24.00% 22.65% 22.00% 20.00% 18.00% 16.00% 14.00% 12.00% 10.00% 8.00% 6.00% 4.00% 2.00% 0.00% Pell Eligible Not Pell Eligible Unknown DFWI Rate Average
The Data – U.S. Survey Courses (First Generation) Average DFWI Rate by First Generation Status 34.00% 32.00% 30.50% 30.00% 28.00% 26.13% 26.00% 24.00% 22.41% 22.00% 20.00% 18.00% 16.00% 14.00% 12.00% 10.00% 8.00% 6.00% 4.00% 2.00% 0.00% First Generation Not FG Unknown DFWI Rate Average
Race Matters jngi.org
Column A. Column B. Column C. Course Subpopulation Subpopulation DFWI Rate U.S. History White 26.5% Female 30.2% Course Average 30.3% DFWI Rates & Demographic Male 30.8% Subpopulations Hispanic / Latino 35.3% First Generation 36.2% Pell 38.2% African American 49.0% Native American 49.6% jngi.org
Gateway Course Performance is a DIRECT Predictor of Retention jngi.org
Column A. Course Examples from Column B. Average Column C. DFWI Rate for Non-Retained Individual G2C Institutions DFWI Rate Eligible-to-Return Students* Principles of Accounting I 54.0% 81.6% Foundation for Physiology / 18.9% 55.0% Biology General Chemistry 36.3% 73.9% Lessons Writing and Rhetoric I 10.6% 25.8% Learned Survey of American History 26.8% 67.2% College Algebra 59.7% 73.5% Beginning Algebra 24.4% 65.1% Introduction to Psychology 28.1% 46.1% Mean of Average DFWI Rates 32.4% 61.0% for Examples jngi.org
Summary – Gateway Course Outcomes • Are Stumbling Blocks for All Students • Especially • First-Year • Low-Income • First-Generation • Males • Racial Minorities jngi.org
DISCUSSION 1. What Role Do You Play In These Outcomes? 2. What Can You Do to Alter Them? jngi.org
Lesson / Issue # 2 – High Impact Practices jngi.org
Origins of High Impact Practices (HIPs) jngi.org
jngi.org
Some Educational Activities are Unusually Effective “High-impact practices” provide substantial educational benefits to students [ High-Impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access To Them, and Why They Matter (2008) AAC&U; Kuh & O’Donnell, 2013 ]
Balkanization vs. Intentional Integration jngi.org
Vertical Integration What students learn in one lesson, experience or course prepares them for the Senior-Year next lesson, experience or course. Experience Educational experiences are purposefully Junior Year / Major structured and logically sequenced so that students gain the knowledge and skills to progressively prepare them for more Second Year challenging, higher-level work. (Sophomore) First-Year Experience (First Year of College) jngi.org
Some Conceptual Frameworks for Alignment • Foundations of Excellence (FoE) § Guiding Question § Aspirational standards – FoE Dimensions § Horizontal & vertical alignment across the new student experience • Gateways to Completion (G2C) Guiding Question § Aspirational standards – G2C Principles § § Horizontal & vertical alignment in gateway courses & curriculum jngi.org
Criteria for “Excellence” • Intentional – Evidence of an intentional, comprehensive approach • Scale – Broad impact on significant numbers of students • Sustained & Supported – Strong administrative support for and durability over time • Inclusive / Broad Engagement – Involvement of a wide range of constituent groups • Advancing Equity and Inclusion jngi.org
Outcomes Correlated with Intentional Integration from FoE & G2C • Improvements in • Persistence • Completion • Grades • “Resilience” • Return on Investment • Use of Resources jngi.org
Aligning High Impact Practices Is Hard Work . . . jngi.org
Impact of HIPs is Greatest for Historically Underserved Students
Impact of Participation in HIPs on % of Senior NSSE Respondents Graduating on Time by Racial & Ethnic Background HIP participation benefits Latina/o students more; Latina/o respondents Graduating “on time” Increases as HIP Participation increases, Rising from 38% to 73%
HIPs: Differences by Race-Ethnicity • 52% Internships overall • Yet only 42% of African American students did an Internship Source: “Assessment of High-Impact Practices: Using Findings to Drive Change in the Compass Project,” by A.Finley, Spring 2011,, Peer Review.
More Difference… HIPs & First Generation Status Non FG First Gen 60% Service-Learning 62% 30% Research with faculty 21% 52% Capstone 42% 58% Internships 45% Data source: NSSE 2016 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Widely Available? Accessible?
HIP Effectiveness Research Led to Prescription: All Students Do 2… one early, one later
HIPs: What We Know for Sure • HIP participation positively related to several educational outcomes • Salutary effect for historically underserved students • Multiple HIPs overall positive – including reflective & integrative learning • Desired by employers • Enjoyable to students & faculty HIPS • HIP participation growing (HIPs on NSSE show modest increases, more multiples)
HIP Concerns: Equity & Quality • Equity concerns: • accessibility • negative experiences for students of color • effect on faculty • Quality concerns: • curricular coherence • connections to co-curriculum • must be done well • little assessment of quality alignment with future of degree
Critiques of Negative Impact for Students of Color? Critical Race Theory (Patton, Harper & Harris, 2015): Are HIPs appealing to underrepresented students? • HIPs may create opportunities for impactful, but negative • experiences for students of color by exposing students to micro- aggressions & other racist behaviors in an intensive, academic experience Are there HIPs that bolster students of • color belongingness that aren’t captured in current HIP definitions?
Connecting HIPs in Co-Curriculum? • HIPs demand student time & effort in and out of class • Ensure all educators guide students to practices • Collaborate to deliver effective HIPs
HIP Effect on Faculty? • Implies other pedagogies are “low-impact”? • HIPs on top of teaching load? • Administrative curricular change? • Expensive, siphon $ from research?
Recommend
More recommend
