Creating the Path to Success in the Classroom

Teaching to Close the Graduation Gap for Minority, First-Generation, and Academically Unprepared Students

Kathleen F. Gabriel

• Publisher: Stylus Publishing
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781579225582
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education Teaching Methods

"This is a clear, engaging, and practical book that will be of use to anyone teaching in a university or community-college classroom."-- Reflective Teaching At a time when the numbers of underrepresented students – working adults, minority, first-generation, low-income, and international students – is increasing, this book, a companion to her earlier Teaching Underprepared Students, addresses that lack of specific guidance by providing faculty with additional evidence-based instructional practices geared toward reaching all the students in their classrooms, including those from groups that traditionally have been the least successful, while maintaining high standards and expectations.

1

RETENTION, PERSISTENCE, AND SUCCESS

Clarifying the Challenge

Education remains the key to both economic and political empowerment.

—Barbara Jordan (1936–1996)

Introduction

Every fall, with high hopes, millions of new students in the United States begin the daunting journey of attending college in pursuit of a college degree. However, only about half will achieve this mission. For more than 30 years, colleges and universities have struggled to improve their graduation rates while maintaining their academic standards. Yet, graduation rates have essentially remained stagnant (Habley, Bloom, & Robbins, 2012; Seidman, 2012; Tinto, 2012).

To make improvements for students, colleges and universities have examined and reformed various aspects of college life including housing, financial support, student affairs services, academic support, and advisory services (Seidman, 2012). However, the vital role that professors play in impacting graduation results often receives less attention. The fact is that students’ success and, ultimately, their graduation are directly tied to their academic records.

As professors, we can have a tremendous impact on students’ engagement, learning, and academic success. The purpose of this book is therefore to examine numerous ways we can create pathways for success in our classes and classrooms, especially for those who, traditionally, have had the lowest success rates in college: minority, first-generation (including low-income), and academically unprepared students. By examining our teaching methods and the impact we have on our students’ learning and involvement in our courses, we can actively participate in students’ academic performance in college, which is a major indicator of student success (Perna & Thomas, 2006).

The Impact of Education, Especially Higher Education

The importance of “getting an education” has been an integral part of our American heritage. Our second president, John Adams, wrote in 1785,

The Whole People must take upon themselvs [sic] the Education of the Whole People and be willing to bear the expenses of it. There should not be a district of one Mile Square without a school in it, not founded by a Charitable individual but maintained at the expense of the People themselvs [sic].

Thomas Jefferson also noted that people needed to be educated in order to have a democratic, self-governed society. In 1787, he advised, “Educate and inform the whole mass of the people . . . . They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.” While our forefathers lived at a time when higher education institutions were not available for most people other than the affluent, they supported and promoted the widespread availability of public education for elementary and secondary students.

By the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, high schools became a very important part of the educational landscape, and the number of young people attending colleges was growing. By this time, higher education opportunities were far greater in the United States than in any European country (Colby, Ehrlich, Beaumont, & Stephens, 2003). In keeping with what our founding fathers believed about the importance of education, President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1938) noted, “Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education.”

Recognizing education’s vital role in the preparation of citizens in a democratic society, Astin (1999a) clarifies that “our colleges and universities educate each new generation of leaders in government, business, science, law, medicine, the clergy, and other advanced professions, and train the personnel who will educate the entire citizenry at the precollegiate level” (p. 8). Therefore, what we do as professors in “educating” our students is of utmost importance not just for students’ personal welfare, but also for our democratic society.

The term professors does not refer to only those who teach at four-year colleges and universities. Community colleges are also educating students and offering job training to assist them in contributing to their communities. Higher education is fundamental for “providing effective learning experiences [that are] critical for both the students themselves and our society, which increasingly relies on every individual to participate productively in our economy, our democracy, and the global village” (McClenney, 2004, p. 3).

In today’s society, many believe that a college education is also necessary for a person “to be economically self-sufficient and deal effectively with the increasingly complex social, political, and cultural issues of the twenty-first century” (Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, & Hayek, 2007, p. 1). Kuh, Kinzie, and colleagues (2007) add, “Earning a baccalaureate degree is the most important rung in the economic ladder” (p. 1). Regarding future employment, according to the American Association of Community Colleges (2012), “by 2018, nearly two-thirds of all American jobs will require a post-secondary certificate or degree” (p. viii). In addition to fulfilling job requirements, having a degree significantly increases earning potential. The Social Security Administration’s (2015) Office of Retirement Policy reports that “men with bachelor’s degrees earn approximately $900,000 more in median lifetime earnings than high school graduates. Women with bachelor’s degrees earn $630,000 more.” Tinto (2012) points out that those who earn an associate’s degree from a two-year college will have a lifetime working income that is “about $354,000 more than people who only complete high school” (p. 1). Thus, there are many benefits from earning a college degree, and economic empowerment is only one of them (Lee, 1999).

Every year, more and more students are enrolling in four-year colleges and universities, and the student population is more diverse than ever before in terms of socioeconomic backgrounds and ethnicities (Habley et al., 2012; National Center for Education Statistics, 2012b; Seidman, 2005a). This is also true for community colleges. “In 2000, about 5.5 million degree-seeking students attended two-year colleges. In the 2010–2011 school year, that number jumped to more than 8 million” (Koebler, 2012, p. 1). Despite recognizing the need for and importance of higher education for economic, political, and social reasons, too many of those who enroll in a college do not obtain a certificate or degree, or even complete more than a semester or two of college courses. Seidman (2012) notes, “Even though access to higher education is becoming universally available, many students who start in a higher education program drop out prior to completing a degree or achieving their individual academic and/or social goals” (p. 3).

These early exits come with “financial consequences . . . both for the student and for the college” (Seidman, 2012, p. 2). For many students, college loans are still looming, not to mention costs spent on tuition, books, housing, and so forth. Seidman (2012) found that for colleges the lost tuition revenue and monies spent on auxiliary services is also substantial. Beyond the monetary consequences that colleges, students, and their families might face when a student leaves, drops out, or is dismissed (flunks out), “on a broader societal level . . . we all have an interest promoting student success” (Gabriel, 2016, p. 178). Having an educated citizenship is vital to our democracy, our economy, and our culture.

Graduation Rates and Gaps Revealed

Across the nation, college graduation rates were not reported in a standardized way until 1990 when Congress passed Public Law (P.L.) 101-542, commonly known as the Student Right-to-Know Act. This law created a standardized way for colleges and universities to report their graduation rates and mandates that all institutions eligible for Title IV funding “calculate completion or graduation rates of certificate- or degree-seeking, full-time students entering that institution” (National Center for Education Statistics, 2012a). The federal formula is based on the number of full-time freshman students who ultimately graduated from the institution where they initially enrolled within six years of initial enrollment. Now, even though there are critics of this basic formula, it does provide a consistent and standardized mechanism to compare graduation rates at different colleges and universities.

After P.L. 101-542 came into effect and graduation data were made public, early reports revealed that “at the typical institution, less than 40 percent of students earn their four-year degree in four years. Extending the time frame to six years brings the average institutional graduation rate up to roughly 57 percent” (Carey, 2008, p. 2). In the 1990s, for many educators and parents, this information was alarming. Yet, since that time, the overall graduation rates have stayed more or less the same. Hess, Schneider, Carey, and Kelly (2009) point out that the latest statistics reveal “on average, four-year colleges graduate fewer than 60 percent of their freshmen within six years. At many institutions, graduation rates are far worse” (p. 3). Specifically, in 2009,

The University of Louisville . . . has a 44 percent six-year graduation rate. At the University of Memphis, the rate is 34 percent. The University of Alaska, Fairbanks, graduates only 25 percent of students within six years. Graduation rates below 50, 40, and even 30 percent are distressingly easy to find, even when the measure is the percentage of students graduating within six years. (Hess et al., 2009, p. 8)

As for community colleges, graduation rates are even lower. For 2-year public institutions, only 25% of those entering school “in 1995–96 with a goal of earning a degree or certificate had obtained . . . [a degree or a certificate] at that institution by 2001, six years later” (McClenney, 2004, p. 5). Overall, whether examining 2- or 4-year colleges, the number of students starting college has increased but the percentage of those being able to stay, persist, and graduate has “remained relatively constant over the past five decades” (Habley et al., 2012, p. 6).

The Right-to-Know data reports have also exposed the “graduation gap” among different ethnic and socioeconomic status (SES) groups. Throughout the country, “low-income students and students of color . . . complete college at especially low rates” (Offenstein, Moore, & Shulock, 2010, p. 1). When investigating the educational pipeline for low-income, African American, Latino, and Native American students, the “bad news” is that enrollment and persistence for these students and for students with disabilities “continues to lag behind [that of] White and Asian students” (Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, & Hayek, 2006, p. 1). For example, after 6 years, the graduation rates of the freshman cohort of 1995–2007 at 4-year Title IV institutions were as follows: 35.6% for American Indian/Alaska Native students, 38.5% for Black (non-Hispanic) students, and 43.5% for Hispanic students. However, the White (non-Hispanic) students had a much higher rate, 57.3%, and the rate for Asian/Pacific Islander students was even higher, 63% (Seidman, 2005b, p. 30).

The “gap” is similar when examining two-year community colleges. Opp (2002) found that “Hispanics, American Indians, Blacks, and Asian Americans were underrepresented in their Associate degree completion rates in comparison to their enrollment in the two-year college sector” (p. 148). In addition, Gabriel (2016) states, “Many did not even get close to earning a degree” (p. 177). Furthermore, according to the American Association of Community Colleges (2012), “For Hispanic, Black, Native American, and low-income students . . . nearly half of all community college students entering in the fall term drop out before the second fall term begins” (p. 9).

College professors, administrators, and researchers have also identified another category of students who have struggled in college. This group is often referred to as those who are academically unprepared or underprepared.¹ (This category can include students from other identified subgroups including minority, nonminority, and high to low income.) The retention and success “often translates into students failing to meet the academic challenges of adjusting to college life, especially those encountered during their freshman year. The adjustment is particularly difficult for underprepared freshmen—those who require remedial classes” (Grunder & Hellmich, 1996, p. 21). Engstrom (2008) also notes that the urban two- and four-year colleges that “serve large numbers of working-class and underrepresented students” (p. 6) have the greatest challenge of providing academic support for these students. “In those institutions, it is estimated that approximately 45 percent of beginning students participate in some form of academic support or basic skills courses” (Engstrom, 2008, p. 6). When studying the impact of students taking remedial classes, Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt, and Associates (2005) found that “seventy percent of students who took at least one remedial reading course in college do not obtain a degree or certificate within eight years of enrollment” (p. 1). Thus, not only do many colleges have low graduation rates overall, but there are also significant disparities in retention and graduation rates among different groups, including ethnic and SES groups, within numerous colleges.

Institutional Response and Increased Expectations

The focus on retention and graduation rates did not come about just from the Right-to-Know law. From the 1960s to 1980s, college and university campuses were increasingly interested in student retention as an early sign and predictor of eventual graduation (Berger, Ramírez, & Lyons, 2012). Intervention programs, retention specialists, and tutoring centers were created in hopes of decreasing academic dismissals and student dropout or withdrawal numbers, especially during the 1980s and 1990s. Within the last 30 years “the number of retention interventions has expanded dramatically” (Habley et al., 2012, p. 214). Nevertheless, “substantial gains in student retention have been hard to come by . . . . The national rate of student persistence and graduation has shown disappointingly little change” (Tinto, 2006–2007, p. 2).² When examining the data from 1983 to 2011, Habley and colleagues (2012) also found graduation rates basically “stagnant” (p. 230). Thus, improving these rates remains on the forefront of institutional challenges (Braxton, 2006; Tinto, 2006–2007).

Part of the recent focus has come from the fact that retention and graduation rates are now part of how colleges and universities are judged, ranked, and even evaluated. Furthermore, “retention is used as a key indicator of institutional effectiveness” (Seidman, 2012, p. 28). Many state legislatures now have regulations that “use some measure of institutional retention and/or graduation rates in their accountability programs for state sponsored or supported institutions . . . . Even the Federal government is considering using institutional retention rates in a national system of higher educational accountability” (Tinto, 2006–2007, p. 5). The state of Florida provides an example where “accountability measures mandate, among other things, specific information about enrollment, persistence, and completion of degree programs. The state’s newly implemented performance-based budgeting measures also appropriate monetary rewards to community colleges largely based on student degree completions” (Grunder & Hellmich, 1996, p. 28). Overall, because the data are accessible to students, parents, and the general public, the response has been strong. “Increasing student retention matters more now than ever” (Tinto, 2006–2007, p. 5).

Hess and colleagues (2009) point out that one easy way “to pad graduation rates is to drop standards and hand a diploma to every student who walks through the door” (p. 4). They (along with others) are also quick to indicate that this is a tactic that no college should take. Lowering standards is not a valid or sound option. Another approach that would most likely guarantee higher graduation rates is for institutions to be very selective and limitative in their admission process. After all, most universities that have highly selective admissions (e.g., Harvard, Yale, Stanford) have much higher than average graduation rates (Hess et al., 2009). However, these colleges and universities also offer limited access and have much less socioeconomic and ethnic diversity than other types of institutions (Tinto, 2006–2007).

Most other colleges and universities have a broader admission policy and believe that it is imperative for institutions of higher education to be accessible. First-generation students, low-income students, and those who are unprepared must have a chance to earn degrees or certificates because “promoting the cause of equity and maximizing the development of talent are fundamental purposes for all higher education institutions” (Astin, 1984, 1993, as cited in Opp, 2002, p. 161). Furthermore, having a diverse student population “is imperative to cultivate multiple perspectives and aid individuals’ growth” (Lee, 1999, p. 10).

In today’s society, some ask, “Must everyone go to college?” As a public middle and high school educator for 17 of my 35-plus years in teaching, my answer is, “Of course not.” Some people simply have no desire to go to college, and some do not want to put in the time or incur the expense. Others find caree...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half-title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Foreword
• 1 Retention, Persistence, and Success: Clarifying the Challenge
• 2 Class Climate: Widening the Circle for a Diverse Student Body
• 3 The First Month of the Semester: Engage, Connect, and Commit
• 4 Motivation and Attitudes: Impact of Mindsets and Mental Toughness Attributes
• 5 Interactive Lectures: Using Meaningful Educational Activities
• 6 Reading Assignments and Class Discussions: Stimulate Deeper Learning
• 7 Writing Assignments: Promote Critical Thinking and Writing
• 8 Resilience, Habits, and Persistence: Hold Fast and See It Through
• Epilogue: Final Thoughts
• Appendix A: Readings for Expanding Cultural Competence
• Appendix B: Organizing Student Interaction With Multiple Small-Group Configurations
• Appendix C: Quote of the Week: Examples From Diverse People for Supporting Growth Mindsets and Mental Toughness Attributes
• Appendix D: Note-Taking Tips for Students and a Few Tips for Professors
• Appendix E: A Strategy for Building Vocabulary
• References
• About the Author
• Index
• Also available from Stylus
• Backcover