Developing and Sustaining Successful First-Year Programs

A Guide for Practitioners

Gerald M. Greenfield, Jennifer R. Keup, John N. Gardner

• Publisher: Jossey-Bass
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781118234495
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Higher Education

Developing and Sustaining Successful First -Year Programs

First-year programs and interventions have become critical launching pads for student success and retention in higher education. However, these programs often flounder not because of what they are trying to do, but because of the ways in which they are implemented.

Developing and Sustaining Successful First-Year Programs offers faculty, academic administrators, and student affairs professionals a comprehensive and practical resource that includes step-by-step guidance for developing new first-year programs and enhancing existing programs. The book explores the key elements that contribute to sustained student success and the programs that have the capacity to continue to meet student needs while making the most of scarce resources. The authors show how to create and sustain critical partnerships, put in place the needed organizational structures, and include strategies for developing effective assessments and evaluations.

Developing and Sustaining Successful First-Year Programs is filled with illustrative examples and profiles of successful programs from a range of institutions that vary in size, type, selectivity, and culture. Examples of common programs and interventions include summer bridge programs, student orientation, first-year seminars, learning communities, residential programs, developmental education, and many more.

Based in scholarly literature, theory, and practice, the book highlights the initiatives that facilitate the transition, learning, development, and success of new college students.

Chapter One

High-Impact Pedagogies

Supporting a high-quality undergraduate learning experience has long been a goal of colleges and universities. However, there has not always been agreement on the definition of quality in those discussions. Chickering and Gamson (1987) were among the first to help operationalize this concept with their Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education, guidelines for teaching, learning, and classroom practices:

• Encouraging contact between students and faculty
• Developing reciprocity and collaboration between students
• Promoting active learning within and outside the classroom
• Maintaining a timely feedback loop for evaluation processes
• Emphasizing time on task
• Communicating high expectations
• Respecting diverse talents and learning styles

These principles provided a framework for an effective teaching and learning experience and became the foundation for engaging pedagogies such as group learning strategies, integrated courses, team projects, peer review, team teaching, and the use of multiple instruction models in class (Erickson, Peters, & Strommer, 2006). They also paved the way for the use of new instructional tools, including portfolios, electronic communication, and online learning modules.

Swing (2002) added to this list of important teaching practices in his research on first-year seminars. Calling them “engaging pedagogies,” he empirically validated Chickering and Gamson's principles by identifying five teaching strategies that were highly correlated with students' satisfaction and achievement of learning outcomes in first-year seminars:

• Use of a variety of teaching methods
• Challenging assignments
• Productive use of class time
• Encouragement for students to speak in class and collaborate
• Meaningful discussion and homework

More recent research by Goodman, Baxter Magolda, Seifert, and King (2011) continued to advance this notion of high-impact teaching strategies. From their work, they conclude that “fostering student learning calls on faculty and student affairs educators to focus on the design of courses, programs, and services in ways that maximize challenge and high expectations, diversity experiences, and good teaching/high-quality interactions with educators” (p. 9). These researchers also provide specific examples of each of the areas that they identify as critical to student learning. For instance, they note that academic challenge and high expectations include rigorous in-class activities, assignments, and exams that require higher-order thinking, and helping students integrate knowledge across multiple sources. They identify diversity experiences as both informal interactions such as meaningful conversations with diverse individuals and formal incorporation of content in class lectures or attendance at events about cultural diversity. Good teaching and high-quality student interactions with educators may consist of faculty interaction outside the classroom, organized syllabi and class sessions, clear expectations for student learning and performance, prompt feedback, and the perception that faculty are genuinely interested in students and student learning.

The Association of American Colleges and Universities (2007, 2011) has identified ten curricular and cocurricular structures that tend to draw on high-quality pedagogies and practices in pursuit of twenty-first century learning outcomes (Kuh, 2008). Defined as “teaching and learning practices that have been widely tested and have been shown to be beneficial for college students [toward] increase[d] rates of retention and student engagement” (Kuh, 2003, p. 9), research continues to show positive results associated with these educational experiences, programs, and approaches (Brownell & Swaner, 2010; Koch, Foote, Hinkle, Keup, & Pistilli, 2007; Troxel & Cutright, 2008):

• First-year seminars and experiences
• Common intellectual experiences
• Learning communities
• Writing-intensive courses
• Undergraduate research
• Collaborative assignments and projects
• Diversity and global learning
• Service-learning and community-based learning
• Internships
• Capstone courses and projects

The common characteristics of these high-impact practices overlap significantly with the models put forth by Chickering and Gamson (1987), Swing (2002), and Goodman et al. (2011) and include an investment of time and energy, interaction with faculty and peers, diversity experiences, frequent feedback, reflection, integrative learning, and high expectations (Kuh, 2008). When they are implemented effectively and organized in a timely and integrated fashion, students' experience with two or more of these high-impact practices becomes the benchmark for a quality undergraduate experience (Kuh, 2008). Seven of the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) high-impact practices are tightly connected to the instructional experience and classroom setting—first-year seminars, common intellectual experiences, learning communities, writing intensive courses, collaborative assignments and projects, service-learning and community-based learning, and diversity and global learning experiences—and thus may be construed as high-impact pedagogies (Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2007, 2011; Brownell & Swaner, 2010; Kuh, 2008).

Institutional strategies with respect to high-impact practices vary. For example, a campus may choose to focus its energies around one high-impact practice or pedagogy that serves as the anchor for their student experience, as is the case at Kapiolani Community College (KCC), a two-year institution in the University of Hawaii system that serves approximately ninety-three hundred undergraduates. KCC specifically identifies service-learning in the institutional mission statement and uses opportunities to pursue service-learning and community engagement as pathways through the university curriculum, the foundation of campus-community partnerships, and the framework for other integrated and applied learning strategies in the classroom and to facilitate faculty-student interaction. Similarly, the University of Maine, Farmington, a public liberal arts institution with approximately two thousand students, has a dedication to experiential education that features internships and service-learning initiatives prominently and is the foundation of the undergraduate experience for 70 percent of its students.

Conversely, a campus may connect many of these high-impact practices and pedagogies into a constellation of student success initiatives, as is typically the case for the host of institutions featured in the Documenting Effective Educational Practices study conducted by the Center for Postsecondary Research (Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt, & Associates, 2005) and that elect to participate each year in the Foundations of Excellence process sponsored by the John N. Gardner Institute for Excellence in Undergraduate Education (Barefoot et al., 2005).

Only one of these high-impact practices and pedagogies is, by definition, tied to the first year. However, since experiences in the first year often set the tone for students' entire undergraduate experience, it is important that colleges and universities expose new students to these practices and set high expectations for their learning experiences at the institution. Consequently, several of these high-impact practices are common components of an integrated, comprehensive, and intentional combination of academic and cocurricular initiatives that comprise a first-year-experience program and forge a successful pathway through the undergraduate years (Koch & Gardner, 2006; Barefoot et al., 2005). National research shows that institutions are using at least one, and often many, of these seven structures for high-impact pedagogies among first-year students, and a growing literature base provides evidence of their positive impact (Barefoot, Griffin, & Koch, 2012; Brownell & Swaner, 2010; Koch, Foote, Hinkle, Keup, & Pistilli, 2007; Leskes & Miller, 2009; National Survey of Student Engagement, 2007; Padgett & Keup, 2011; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Troxel & Cutright, 2008). Several of these practices and pedagogies represent the topic of chapters in this book.

Approaching the Work/Critical Partners

Throughout this book, we discuss the notion of response to student needs and consideration of institutional mission and culture as starting points for nearly all first-year student support initiatives. Not surprisingly, student needs are central to the development and implementation of high-impact pedagogies. In fact, they are paramount to creating a student-centered model of teaching and learning in which high-impact pedagogies can be effectively organized and supported.

Student-centered learning is consistent with the overall shift in higher education from an emphasis on teaching content, which places the professor at the center of the learning experience, to a focus on student learning, which elevates the student to a position of responsibility and prominence in the educational process (Barr & Tagg, 1995). As such, student-centered learning “is an approach to focusing on the needs of the student rather than needs of others involved in the process, such as teachers and administrators…[and] places their needs and learning outcomes at the forefront of the resources offered and the course material presented” (Keup & Petschauer, 2011, p. 16). While it may appear simple, the culture of higher education has not always fostered an environment where the student is at the center of the learning experience. Even at smaller institutions or at campuses committed to teaching over research as the focus of the faculty, the classroom often still emphasizes the sage-on-the-stage model. The consideration and adoption of high-impact pedagogies are often catalysts for a change in institutional culture rather than a reflection of the status quo.

Whenever one is adopting student support strategies that represent a potential departure from current culture and practice, as may be the case with high-impact pedagogies, it is important to fully assess both the barriers and points of momentum for the change. The most cited argument against effective implementation of high-impact pedagogies relates to physical and environmental structures such as an institutional focus on graduate education and research at large research-focused institutions, a preponderance of large classes for undergraduates in general and especially for first-year students, an overreliance on lecturing as the delivery method for introductory and gateway course material, decentralized administration and programming, and institutional or disciplinary rewards structures for faculty that deemphasize teaching (Pascarella, Cruce, Wolniak, & Blaich, 2004). Since professors are often primary agents in the development and delivery of high-impact pedagogies, issues such as unionized faculty and a high number of part-time instructors will also have relevance to the consideration and implementation of these practices. Despite these challenges, and even because of them, it is prudent to engage leadership from the faculty senate, centers for teaching excellence, campuswide committees on teaching and learning, and faculty and staff from academic departments as partners in the effort to create a student-centered learning environment and promote the use of high-impact pedagogies. It is imperative to the institutionalization and sustainability of the effort to forge early collaborations with faculty and staff from areas of the campus that have been historically resistant to the effort, have a high attrition and failure rate among first-year students, and house common gateway courses for lower-division students.

Although the challenges to effectively implementing high-impact pedagogies are significant, they are not insurmountable and may be effectively addressed with the assistance of various resources on campus and trends in higher education. First, over the past few decades, first-year seminars, learning communities, and service-learning have gained a foothold in American higher education and a significant presence on many colleges and universities across the country. These programs are themselves high-impact practices and a hotbed of activity with respect to engaging pedagogies and faculty development strategies. Thus, there are likely initiatives already in place on campuses that are engaging high-impact pedagogies and providing training on these strategies. The directors of these programs are critical partners in the wide-scale consideration and adoption of high-impact pedagogies and can offer leadership in the administration, application, and assessment of these pedagogical principles.

Second, advancements in technology and the dawn of peer education provide low-cost tools to help create new learning environments that may be more appropriate to certain students' learning needs as well as to mediate the negative impact of large classes on pedagogy. Since the basic tenets of high-impact pedagogies are highly transferable (Brownell & Swaner, 2010), it is possible to creatively construct online learning modules and peer-led instruction models that incorporate and complement high-impact pedagogies. As such, university technology offices and peer-led student support services such as supplemental instruction, tutoring, and peer advising are likely to provide valuable partnerships for high-impact pedagogies.

Third, many accreditation processes have turned their focus to student learning, development, and success, particularly in the first year of college. Given the connection of high-impact pedagogies to student gains in these areas, there may already be a built-in need that has been established on the institutional level. Colleagues from the offices of institutional research, student assessment, and program review, as well as members of accreditation committees, may be able to help highlight the value of high-impact practices to the campus community.

Finally, there continues to be significant investment—institutional, regional, and national—in professional development options in the area of high-impact pedagogies. Leadership from campus-based centers for teaching excellence and for teaching and learning, institutional colleagues who oversee new faculty orientation and faculty development efforts, and interinstitutional partners forged by connections at national conferences are other key collaborators in any effort to incorporate high-impact practices. Numerous professional networks provide resources, research, training, and support in these various high-impact pedagogies, including the National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition, the Washington Center for Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Education, and Campus Compact, as well as the work of AAC&U, which draws these bodies of work together. Several professional associations within the disciplines also provide resources and recognition for teaching and learning and the high-impact pedagogies associated with those efforts.

Organization/Implementation Process

High-impact pedagogies span different academic areas of the campus, often engage student support units, and may leverage student affairs partnerships, which also imbues them with incredible potential to cross historic boundaries in higher education and break down organizational silos. Therefore, it is important to gain high-level support for these initiatives early in the process. Whether it is selected as the focus of an accreditation process, is a grassroots effort by the faculty and staff, or represents a campuswide initiative to improve student learning, performance, and retention, the effort toward implementing high-impact practices is most effective and has the greatest impact with support from the institution's senior leadership: the president, chancellor, provost, vice president of academic affairs, or assistant or associate provosts. Buy-in generated at the level of deans will create even more of an impetus toward change. As such, a first step is to engage support, in the form of buy-in and financial resources from institutional leadership.

A valuable resource toward generating and maintaining such support is to conduct an institutional audit of current high-impact practices and pedagogies. As we already noted, there are often pockets of student-centered teaching and high-impact pedagogies on campus that can provide momentum and leadership toward more widespread adoption. Common areas for these activities are first-year-experience programs, university colleges, centers for teaching excellence, and academic departments. The high-impact pedagogies used in these programs can then be examined for scalability across new areas on campus or serve as a template for other efforts.

The creation of a task force or steering committee is advisable to oversee the implementation of high-impact pedagogies. The critical partners mentioned in the previous section and the faculty and staff overseeing areas that currently use high-impact pedagogies are a logical fit for membership in this group. Although these early adopters and supporters are natural leaders of the effort, it is also advisable to include partners from areas of campus that have faced structural or cultural barriers to the incorporation of high-impact pedagogies. By including some objectors in the effort, it is possible to gather information about challenges, address concerns, and begin to create new advocates for the effort. Furthermore, while pedagogy may feel as if it is solely an academic domain, the cocurriculum is a significant learning space as well. Therefore, student affairs colleagues represent a pool of knowledgeable partners who often oversee support programs and structures that are instrumental to the success of high-impact pedagogies and should be represented on any committee related to their implementation and organization. This committee may choose to work as a whole or divide the expertise of the group into subcommittees related to different high-impact pedagogies or different aspects of implementation (e.g., administration and logistics, campus communication, assessment). Regardless of the approach that is selected, the committee should commit to regular meetings and electronic communication between meetings to facilitate momentum around the effort toward widespread adoption of high-impact pedagogies.

Once members of the committee have been selected and a communication and meeting strategy identified, the first task of the group should be to determine the desired outcomes of the effort to advance high-impact pedagogies. As part of this effort, it is essential to develop common definitions for the high-impact practices themselves and student-level and program-level performance metrics. As referenced in the summary of literature and program descriptions contained in this chapter, there are many high-impact practices and pedagogies and each of them represent a highly-flexible structure. So it is important to operationalize what is meant by the umbrella term, what will count as a high-impact experience, and how the effectiveness of these strategies will be gauged. Once these definitional issues have been clarified, the committee can turn its attention to the identification of a reasonable time line, leaders and support personnel, appropriate resources, and assessment strategies for implementation and scalability of high-impact pedagogies for first-year students.

Leadership Roles/Communication

Leadership for the implementation of high-impact practices is likely to be a shared endeavor, and much of it will come from the collective energy of the members of the task force or steering committee. However, as with many other student success efforts, collective ownership and shared leadership is not always an efficient and sustainable model. Therefore, institutions should identify an individual to lead the development, implementation, ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Series Page
• Sponsor
• Preface
• The Authors
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction: Where Have We Been, and Where Are We Going?
• Chapter One: High-Impact Pedagogies
• Chapter Two: Summer Bridge Programs
• Chapter Three: New Student Orientation
• Chapter Four: Advising
• Chapter Five: First-Year Seminars
• Chapter Six: Learning Communities
• Chapter Seven: Residential Learning Programs
• Chapter Eight: Developmental Education
• Chapter Nine: Early Alert Warning Systems
• Chapter Ten: Probation Initiatives
• Chapter Eleven: Peer Leadership
• Chapter Twelve: Second-Year Transitions
• Conclusion: Lessons Learned
• References
• Index