LIPSS National Report

L PSI SLinking Institutional Policies

to Student SuccessInitial Results from a Five-State Pilot Study

http://coe.fsu.edu

http://www.tgslc.org/publicbenefit/

2 • Linking Institutional Policies to Student Success

Despite decades of reforms intended to improve student success, including hundreds of specific initiatives designed to facilitate student engagement during the first year of college, roughly one in four students who begins college at a four-year college or university does not return to that institution for a second year (ACT Inc., 2010). This troubling statistic has not changed dramatically for more than 20 years. Although various piecemeal

reform efforts have contributed to improved outcomes at countless institutions, such initiatives are often costly and typically serve only a small group of students who participate directly in a given program. As a result, college and university leaders still search for specific, campus-wide, and resource-efficient ways to improve student engagement and retention. However, with few exceptions, studies of institution-level differences speak broadly of organizational “environments” and “cultures” (for a review see Berger & Milem, 2000), concepts that are too abstract to provide practical guidance to administrators pursuing institution-level policies likely to improve student experiences and outcomes. Therefore, the Linking Institutional Policies to Student Success project seeks to identify specific institution-wide policies that might be leveraged to increase college student engagement – a key predictor of student grades and persistence that is especially beneficial to Hispanic, African American, and academically under-prepared students.

Campus LeadersIdentify policies that may be adapted

for use at your institution.

Students & ParentsRecognize ways your institution can

support first-year student success.

ResearchersDiscover opportunities to improve links between research and practice.

Linking Institutional Policies to Student Success (LIPSS) This project seeks to identify institution-wide policies that might be leveraged to increase college student engagement – a key predictor of student grades and persistence that is especially beneficial to Hispanic,

African American, and academically under-prepared students.

Initial Results from a Five-State Pilot Study • 3

ContentsIntroduction and Summary .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Guiding FrameworksFoundations of Excellence ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 6Student Success in College ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 8

Broad Efforts to Support Student SuccessInstitutional Intentionality ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 10Information Dissemination .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 11Demographic, Academic, and Attitudinal Diversity ..................................................................................................................................................... 12

Efforts Targeting Curricular Experiences Faculty Engagement ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14Course Offerings ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15

Efforts Targeting Co-Curricular ExperiencesCampus Involvement .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 16Residence Life ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 17Supportive Individuals ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 18

AppendicesA: Methodological Details ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 23B: Academic Affairs (CAO) Scale Descriptions .............................................................................................................................................................. 24C: Student Affairs (CSAO) Scale Descriptions ............................................................................................................................................................... 26D: Academic Affairs (CAO) Survey and Aggregated Results .......................................................................................................................................... 28E: Student Affairs (CSAO) Survey and Aggregated Results ........................................................................................................................................... 31F: References ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 35

Participating Institutions ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 38

Project Staff ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 39

Please Cite As:Cox, B. E., Reason, R. D., Tobolowksy, B. F., Underwood, R. B., Luczyk, S., Nix, S., Dean, J., & Wetherell, T. K. (2012). Linking institutional policies to student

success: Initial results from a five-state pilot study. Tallahassee: Florida State University’s Center for Higher Education Research, Teaching, and Innovation.


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

First-Year Orientation: Structure

Early Alert/Intervention Initiatives

First-Year Orientation: Family Involvement

First-Year Seminars

Assessment of Student Affairs Programs

Information Dissemination: Earliest Contact

First-Year Student Leadership Opportunities

Data-Driven Decision Making: Student Affairs

First-Year Course Evaluations

Information Dissemination: To High School Counselors

Information Dissemination: To Families

Student Affairs Service Availability

Recent Assessment Efforts: Learning

Attention to Advising

Funding for Professional Development

Recent Assessment Efforts: Persistence

Curricular Emphasis on Diversity

Programmatic Emphasis on Diversity

Continuous Improvement of First-Year Initiatives

Data-Driven Decision Making: Academic Affairs

Programmatic Emphasis on Socio-Political Issues

Student Affairs Programming Intentionality

Faculty Participation in First-Year Events

Information Dissemination: Frequency of Contact

Campus Community-Building Events

Opportunities for Integrative Learning Experiences

Encouragement of Student-Faculty Interaction

Faculty Involvement Considered in Personnel Decisions

Campus-Wide Administrative Coordination

Student Affairs Staffing Policies

Senior Faculty Teaching of First-Year Courses

Student Affairs Administrative Coordination

First-Year Orientation: Specific Student Populations

Residence Life Academic Integration

This report highlights findings from the 57 institutions across five states that participated in our 2011-12 pilot administration of two surveys designed to measure the extent to which institutions have adopted policies consistent with the available

literature on first-year student success. With these surveys, one each for Academic Affairs and Student Affairs policies, we created 34 a-priori scales reflecting related clusters/families of policies (e.g., Attention to Advising; Orientation Structure; Assessment Data Use). Each scale reflects the extent to which institutions have aligned their policies with the broad conclusions from the currently available research literature on first-year student success. A scale score of one indicates an institution’s complete adoption of all measured policies and a score of zero indicates that an institution has not adopted any of the measured policies related to a particular policy cluster. It may be most useful to think of the scale scores as approximations, where a score of 0.5 indicates that an institution has done approximately one half (50%) of what it could be doing to align its policies with the available research. Higher scores indicate more complete adoption of policies and practices aligned with the current literature on first-year student success.

Aggregated across all 57 participating institutions and across all 34 measured policy scales, institutions in the five-state LIPSS pilot study have done approximately one-half of what they could be doing to align their policies with the available research on first-year student success. This singular point of reference, although informative, masks considerable variability in the extent to which specific policies have been adopted. For example, all 57 participating institutions had some form of “early alert” system in place, most of which include systematic efforts to identify students experiencing both academic and personal difficulty. Likewise, every institution offers a formal orientation program for first-year students; the vast majority of schools require all of their first-year students to attend an orientation session. In contrast, few participating institutions provide differentiated orientation programs based on student characteristics (e.g., honors students, student-athletes, students with disabilities).

Notwithstanding these relatively clear findings related to early alert systems and new-student orientation, the results from this pilot study paint a complex picture of institutional policy alignment with available research on first-year student success.

Introduction and SummaryCoordination of the first year of college: Although many institutions

have developed division-wide or institution-wide mechanisms to coordinate the first-year experience, the composition and/or reporting lines of this coordinating structure (e.g., committee, office, individual) may not be maximizing the potential for high-level, cross-divisional collaboration.

Faculty engagement with first-year students: Although most schools offer first-year seminars and have early alert systems that promote course-related interaction between faculty members and students, policies supporting or encouraging student-faculty interaction outside of the classroom are less common. Policies requiring or systematically rewarding faculty members for such engagement are particularly uncommon.

Information dissemination: Institutions appear quick to share relevant information with key stakeholders (i.e., students, parents, guidance counselors), often front-loading information before students even attend their first class. But fewer than half of the surveyed institutions reiterate those early messages to students after classes have begun.

Assessment: Most participating institutions have engaged in formal and wide-spread data collection activities related to institutional research, program assessment, and course evaluations. Far less common, however, is the use of such data for instructional development, academic planning, and resource allocation.

When considered from a broad perspective (the scale scores), our data yield remarkably few differences between public and private schools or between states. Of the 34 policy scales, only five differed statistically across public/private control. Private institutions were more likely than public institutions to require new student orientation, require first-year seminars with academic content, offer first-year leadership opportunities, and hold community-building activities such as convocations, speaker series, or cultural events. Public institutions, on the other hand, were more likely to devote institutional resources to academic advising. When comparing results across the five states of the pilot study, we identified only two statistically-significant differences in the scales. Texas institutions shared information with parents less frequently than did schools in the other four states, while California schools were least likely to offer financial support for faculty/staff professional development related to students’ first year experience. Although intriguing, such policy differences typically defy easy explanation. Therefore, we hesitate to draw major conclusions from observed policy differences between public and private schools or between schools in different states. Though we disaggregate scale scores by source of control (public vs. private) and state, we report only the aggregated/overall results for individual survey items.

Throughout this report, the red side-

bars indicate how LIPSS results relate to elements of our

guiding frameworks.

The LIPSS project builds on

the intellectual foundation

established by the two references in the “Guiding

Framework” section of this report.


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%




First-Year Seminars































Summary Scales

Degree of Policy Alignment with Research Literature on First-Year Student Success:By Policy Clusters

It may be most useful to think of the scale scores as approximations, where a score of 0.5 indicates that an institution has done approximately one half (50%) of what it could be doing to align its policies with the available research. Higher scores indicate more complete adoption of policies and practices aligned with the current literature on first-year student success.

See Appendices B and C for detailed descriptions of the 34 scales referenced in this report.


Reproduced with permission from the

John N. Gardner Institute www.jngi.org

Foundational Dimensions statements constitute a model that provides institutions with a means to evaluate and improve the first year of college. As an evaluation tool, the model enables institutions both to confirm their strengths and to recognize the need for improvement. As an aspirational model, the Dimensions provide general guidelines for an intentional design of the first year. The Dimensions rest on four assumptions:

• The academic mission of an institution is preeminent;• The first college year is central to the achievement of an

institution’s mission and lays the foundation on which undergraduate education is built;

• Systematic evidence provides validation of the Dimensions;• Collectively, the Dimensions constitute an ideal for improving

not only the first college year, but also the entire undergraduate experience.

PhilosophyFoundations Institutions approach the first year in ways that are intentional and based on a philosophy/rationale of the first year that informs relevant institutional policies and practices. The philosophy/rationale is explicit, clear and easily understood, consistent with the institutional mission, widely disseminated, and, as appropriate, reflects a consensus of campus constituencies. The philosophy/rationale is also the basis for first-year organizational policies, practices, structures, leadership, department/unit philosophies, and resource allocation.

OrganizationFoundations Institutions create organizational structures and policies that provide a comprehensive, integrated, and coordinated approach to the first year. These structures and policies provide oversight and alignment of all first-year efforts. A coherent first-year experience is realized and maintained through effective partnerships among academic affairs, student affairs, and other administrative units and is enhanced by ongoing faculty and staff development activities and appropriate budgetary arrangements.

LearningFoundations Institutions deliver intentional curricular and co-curricular learning experiences that engage students in order to develop knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors consistent with the desired outcomes of higher education and the institution’s philosophy and mission. Whether in or out of the classroom, learning also promotes increased competence in critical thinking, ethical development, and the lifelong pursuit of knowledge.

FacultyFoundations Institutions make the first college year a high priority for the faculty. These institutions are characterized by a culture of faculty responsibility for the first year that is realized through high-quality instruction in first-year classes and substantial interaction between faculty and first-year students both inside and outside the classroom. This culture of responsibility is nurtured by chief academic officers, deans, and department chairs and supported by the institutions’ reward systems.

Guiding Framework:

Foundations Institutions are colleges and universities

that exemplify effectiveness in promoting first-year

student success.


TransitionsFoundations Institutions facilitate appropriate student transitions through policies and practices that are intentional and aligned with institutional mission. Beginning with recruitment and admissions and continuing through the first year, institutions communicate clear curricular and co-curricular expectations and provide appropriate support for educational success. They are forthright about their responsibilities to students as well as students’ responsibilities to themselves and the institution. They create and maintain curricular alignments with secondary schools and linkages with secondary school personnel, families, and other sources of support, as appropriate.

All StudentsFoundations Institutions serve all first-year students according to their varied needs. The process of anticipating, diagnosing, and addressing needs is ongoing and is subject to assessment and adjustment throughout the first year. Institutions provide services with respect for the students’ abilities, backgrounds, interests, and experiences. Institutions also ensure a campus environment that is inclusive and safe for all students.

DiversityFoundations Institutions ensure that all first-year students experience diverse ideas, worldviews, and cultures as a means of enhancing their learning and preparing them to become members of pluralistic communities. Whatever their demographic composition, institutions structure experiences in which students interact in an open and civil community with people from backgrounds and cultures different from their own, reflect on ideas and values different from those they currently hold, and explore their own cultures and the cultures of others.

The Foundational Dimensions were developed by John N. Gardner, Betsy O. Barefoot, Stephen W. Schwartz, Michael J. Siegel, and Randy L. Swing in collaboration with Robert D. Reason, Patrick T. Terenzini, Edward Zlotkowski, and 235 colleges and universities.

Foundations of ExcellenceRoles and Purposes

Foundations Institutions promote student understanding of the various roles and purposes of higher education, both for the individual and society. These roles and purposes include knowledge acquisition for personal growth, learning to prepare for future employment, learning to become engaged citizens, and learning to serve the public good. Institutions encourage first-year students to examine systematically their motivation and goals with regard to higher education in general and to their own college/university. Students are exposed to the value of general education as well as to the value of more focused, in-depth study of a field or fields of knowledge (i.e., the major).

ImprovementFoundations Institutions conduct assessment and maintain associations with other institutions and relevant professional organizations in order to achieve ongoing first-year improvement. This assessment is specific to the first year as a unit of analysis – a distinct time period and set of experiences, academic and otherwise, in the lives of students. It is also linked systemically to the institutions’ overall assessment. Assessment results are an integral part of institutional planning, resource allocation, decision-making, and ongoing improvement of programs and policies as they affect first-year students. As part of the enhancement process and as a way to achieve ongoing improvement, institutions are familiar with current practices at other institutions as well as with research and scholarship on the first college year.

The following campuses provided national leadership in the inaugural use of the Dimensions:

Augsburg College, Aurora University, CUNY – Brooklyn College, CUNY – Medgar Evers College, Chadron State College, Columbia College, Endicott College, Franklin Pierce College, Georgia Southwestern State University, Illinois State University, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, Indiana Wesleyan University, Kennesaw State University, Madonna University,Maryville College, Marywood University, Missouri Western State University, Nazareth College of Rochester, Plymouth State University, Saint Edward’s University, SUNY – Brockport, Texas A&M University – Corpus Christi, University of Charleston, and University of Wisconsin-Parkside.


Student Success in College: Creating Conditions that Matter identified principles guiding policies, programs, and practice at twenty high-performing institutions in the Documenting Effective Educational Practice project.

Living Mission and Lived Educational Philosophy• Some DEEP institutions have deviated little from their original mission,

whereas others adopted new or revised missions or expanded their educational purposes. Common to all is a focus on student success consistent with institutional values, traditions, and educational purposes.

• Institutional values really do guide actions at DEEP schools. Not everyone in the institution readily articulates these values using the same words, nor are they necessarily exhorted by all campus groups. However, key institutional leaders frequently remind people what their institution holds to be important.

• DEEP schools go to great lengths to make their missions, values, and aspirations transparent and understandable to their constituents.

• The larger DEEP universities rely on an operating philosophy that values students and their success in attempting to manage in educationally purposeful ways the challenges posed by their size, multiple educational purposes, and organizational complexity.

• DEEP colleges make space for those who have different aspirations and values and wish to express different views. Under the right conditions, public discussion of tensions and disagreements helps sharpen the institution’s focus.

• Though the missions, operating philosophies, and organizational and structural characteristics of DEEP schools vary, all have developed complementary policies and practices tailored to the school’s mission and students’ educational and social needs, interests, and abilities. An essential element of these policies and practices is their steadfast focus on student learning, a topic we address next.

Focusing on Student Learning• Student learning and personal development at DEEP schools is

a priority. Though this might seem to be a simplistic and hardly revolutionary statement, DEEP schools are special precisely because their commitment to this priority is authentic and they pursue it with a high degree of effectiveness.

• DEEP colleges recruit and retain faculty and staff who are committed to student learning and take the time and measures necessary to foster that learning. Faculty and staff members elsewhere surely work as hard as their counterparts at DEEP schools, but not always with the same intensity of focus on student learning and growth.

• Faculty and staff members at DEEP colleges make a lot of time for students. They recognize that there is no substitute for human contact, whether face-to-face or via e-mail.

• DEEP colleges recognize and accommodate, to the best of their ability, multiple styles of learning. Because many students prefer concrete, practical applications, DEEP colleges respond with active and collaborative learning approaches that provide opportunities for students to apply what they are learning to their lives outside the classroom.

• Faculty and administrators at DEEP colleges challenge students to raise their aspirations, and provide timely and apt feedback and support designed to meet their students’ needs.

• DEEP schools work with the students they have, in contrast to the all-too-common fixation on trying to recruit the best and the brightest. This is a very important message: institutions and students can succeed despite the odds. Powerful learning environments and significant learning outcomes can be achieved no matter what the institutions resources or students’ preparation.

Adapting Environments for Educational Advantage• Although geographic location and physical topography of a college

are fixed, DEEP schools do not apologize for where who, or what they are. Instead, they adapt their surrounding and campus environments in creative and educationally purposeful ways. In effect, they make wherever they are “a good place for a college!”

• DEEP schools connect to the local community in ways that benefit students, the institution, and the surrounding community. Such efforts take time, unwavering commitment, and goodwill to bring to fruition.

• DEEP schools are “place conscious.” They create learning environments from natural and constructed settings, and design curricular offerings and pedagogical approaches that induce people to form strong attachments to the “place.”

• DEEP schools harness the educational potential of their campus residence halls by matching the environment to the intellectual mission of the institution.

Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E.J.,

and Associates (2005). Student success in college:

Creating conditions that matter. Washington, DC:

Jossey-Bass.This material is reproduced

with permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

DEEP is the abbreviation for the Documenting Effective

Educational Practice project at the Center for

Postsecondary Research at Indiana University.

Guiding Framework:


Text reproduced from chapters 2-7 of Student Success in College.

• Buildings, classrooms, and other physical structures are adapted to “human scale.” Living units, classrooms, and meeting spaces are kept small to the extent possible.

• Interior and exterior spaces are adapted to reduce the psychological size of the campus and to encourage participation in campus life.

Innovating and Improving• DEEP schools are confident enough of what they are and of their values

and aspirations to question whether their performance matches their potential. Never quite satisfied with their level of performance, they continually revisit and rework policies and practices to improve.

• DEEP schools are inclined toward innovation. They are not afraid to experiment and invest in promising ideas, even though human and fiscal resources are stretched thin.

• Curricular innovation at many DEEP schools is driven by faculty members with a desire to provide a responsive, challenging undergraduate curriculum.

• Most DEEP schools systematically collect information about various aspects of student performance and use it to inform policy and decision making.

• Efforts to improve and innovate are grounded in DEEP institutions’ missions and values. They seek to be best at what they do with the students they have.

Creating Clear Pathways to Student Success• DEEP colleges clearly mark routes to student success. Some

guideposts, such as required first-year seminars, advising sessions, periodically updating programs of study, and capstone courses are tied directly to the academic program. Others take the form of convocations that celebrate educational attainment, passing along gowns that represent continuity of experience or walking through arches to heighten one’s commitment to graduating.

• Institutional publications accurately describe what students say they experience.

• Most DEEP schools do not prescribe overly restrictive pathways to success. At the same time, each institution is unmistakably intentional about telling students about the resources and service available to help them succeed. Some institutions are more intrusive than others in this regard; some require specific activities of some or all of their students, others have few, if any, such requirements.

• DEEP schools tailor their efforts to meet the needs of their students. Each institution sets standards according to what is reasonable for its students’ experiences and aspirations and provides the support - remedial, supplemental, or enrichment - students need to meet these standards.

Sharing Responsibility for Educational Quality• No single unit or office can, on its own, enhance the overall quality

of large numbers of students with widely differing needs and characteristics. The dedication and efforts of everyone on campus are needed.

• Leaders at DEEP schools clearly and consistently articulate core operating values and principles that flow from their schools missions and philosophy, select associates who are predisposed to make these principles their own, repeat them early and often, and – most important – use them consistently for key decisions as well as for guiding day-to-day activities.

• Senior administrators and faculty members “model the way.” Presidents, provosts, and student affairs staff teach occasionally, and speak regularly about institutional aspirations and learning-centered priorities.

• Supportive educators are virtually everywhere at a DEEP college - teaching faculty, residence life staff, groundskeepers, and presidents.

• DEEP schools, like other highly effective organizations, choose community members carefully. At the same time, they are committed to diversifying their membership to create a climate where people from different backgrounds can survive and thrive.

• The collaborative spirit and positive attitude that characterize DEEP campuses are evident in the quality of working relationships enjoyed by academic and student affairs which operate on many other campuses as functional silos, a situation that is all too common in higher education.

• Through a variety of mechanisms, DEEP campuses expect students to exercise considerable responsibility for their own affairs and hold them accountable for doing so.

• DEEP campuses benefit from large numbers of caring, supportive individuals who perform countless daily acts of kindness and thoughtfulness that make students feel wanted and important.

Student Success in College


Institutional Intentionalityaddition to campus-specific data (often provided by institutional research offices), decision-makers can draw from state-wide or national reports on, for example, student outcomes or faculty performance (Boyer & Ewell, 1988; Erwin, 1991; Ewell, 2002; Palomba & Banta, 1999; Peterson & Einarson, 2001; Terenzini, 1989, 2010).

Lastly, colleges and universities can use incentive structures to intentionally communicate to faculty and staff the institution’s commitment to first-year student success. Institutional incentives in higher education include hiring practices, promotion and tenure policies, and merit pay policies (Hearn, 2006; Kezar, 2003; Komives, 2003; Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, & Whitt, 2005, 2010). For example, formal incentives promoting faculty excellence in teaching communicate an institutional commitment to learning (Astin, 1991). Likewise, institutions that incentivize faculty and staff efforts to improve first-year students’ experiences and outcomes send signals – directly to faculty and staff, but also indirectly to students – that first-year student success is an institutional priority.

To some extent, questions of institutional intentionality permeate the entire LIPSS project and its surveys. Few, if any, of the policies and practices examined in this project are “naturally occurring” or happen “spontaneously” without active efforts by college or university employees. Nonetheless, in this section of the report we highlight twelve scales that reflect 1) institutional efforts to collaboratively coordinate a multi-faceted first-year experience for new students; 2) incentive structures promoting first-year student success; 3) support for faculty/staff development related to first-year students; and 4) the collection and use of assessment/evaluation data for courses, programs, and the whole of the first-year experience.

For the LIPSS project, the term “institutional intentionality” is used to describe the extent to which academic personnel consciously and purposefully adopt policies and practices aligned with student success. One facet of institutional intentionality

is the organizational structure. The organizational structure involves both the formal organization of colleges and universities as well as informal and/or cross-division efforts to coordinate student programs. Organizational structure and collaboration among divisions affect student outcomes by influencing institutional policy making, service delivery, and institutional priorities (Bourassa & Kruger, 2001; Braxton, 2003; Brown, 1989; Jackson, 1999; Kezar, 2001, 2003a, 2003b, 2006; Philpott & Strange, 2003).

Another form of institutional intentionality involves grounding organizational polices and practice in relevant theory. Grounding organizational policies and practice in theory is important because it provides a unifying foundation for coordinated action. Indeed, one of the goals of the LIPSS project is to assist higher education policy makers in the decision-making process by summarizing the latest research on effective institutional practice. Many families of theories (e.g., from economics, organizational behavior, cognitive science, and higher education) may be applied to real-world issues in higher education (Braxton, Hirschy, & McClendon, 2003; Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, & Hayek, 2006, 2011; Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, & Whitt, 2010; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005; Seidman, 2005; St. John & Asker, 2003; Tinto, 1999; Upcraft & Gardner, 1989).

A third facet of institutional intentionality involves data-driven decision-making. With this practice, policy-makers base their decisions, at least in part, upon evidence gathered through data collection and assessment efforts (Kowalsky & Lasley, 2008). In

Relationship to Foundations of Excellence®

Philosophy

Organization

Improvement

Relationship to Student Success in College

Living Mission and Lived Educational Philosophy

Innovating and Improving

Sharing Responsibility for Educational Quality

Higher scores indicate more complete adoption of

policies and practices aligned with the current literature on

first-year student success.

Overall Public Private CA FL IA PA TXCampus-Wide Administrative Coordination .37 .27 .41 .35 .40 .28 .42 .37Student Affairs Administrative Coordination .27 .23 .28 .27 .17 .26 .30 .27Student Affairs Programming Intentionality .46 .44 .50 .61 .35 .35 .54 .45Faculty Involvement Considered in Personnel Decisions .38 .26 .43 .50 .44 .30 .44 .26Funding for Professional Development .52 .48 .55 .24 .59 .47 .65 .48Continuous Improvement of First-Year Initiatives .50 .57 .50 .56 .48 .38 .52 .64First-Year Course Evaluations .60 .52 .64 .57 .56 .68 .63 .61Assessment of Student Affairs Programs .69 .75 .69 .72 .70 .65 .66 .79Recent Assessment Efforts: Learning .54 .36 .59 .39 .42 .52 .67 .52Recent Assessment Efforts: Persistence .52 .54 .51 .39 .50 .41 .57 .61Data-Driven Decision Making: Student Affairs .61 .58 .65 .70 .63 .63 .62 .59Data-Driven Decision Making: Academic Affairs .49 .42 .52 .60 .50 .51 .48 .50For more detailed findings, see CSAO #1, 2, 3, 21, 22, 25a-d, 26, and 27a-e and CAO #1, 2a-b, 4, 6a-c, 7a-c, 9a-b, 10a-c, 11a-b, 12a-c, and 13a-d.



Philosophy

Transitions

Roles and Purposes


Creating Clear Pathways to Student Success


Higher scores indicate more complete adoption of policies and practices aligned with the current literature on first-year student success.

Information DisseminationAlthough stakeholders of all types benefit from the receipt of

timely, accurate, and relevant information, incoming first-year students are particularly likely to benefit when information is “front-loaded.” Front-loading information involves sharing

information about the institution with prospective students, parents, and high school guidance counselors before students have chosen a college; sharing information with incoming students and their families during orientation; and sharing information about institutional policies and expectations in first-year seminars and traditional coursework after students have arrived on campus.

More generally, at least two principles underpin effective information dissemination from colleges and universities. First, it is important to share information early and often. Second, it is important to provide information to a variety of stakeholders – such as family members and high school guidance counselors – so that supportive individuals can reinforce the messages that students receive from college personnel (Kuh, 2001-2).

Institutions can benefit from effective information dissemination that takes place before students even enroll. Accurate pre-enrollment information about institutional policies and campus cultures can help prospective students decide whether they vwould be a good “fit” with the institution. As Bean (1990) pointed out:

one fairly constant finding is that students leave school because they do not fit in. They may not fit in socially or academically or religiously or economically or for some other reasons. They leave because the school is not a good match for their needs (p. 149).

Indeed, several researchers have found that students’ “fit” with the institution is critical to student persistence and success in college (Astin, 1993; Hossler, Kuh, & Olsen, 2001; Kuh, 2001-2; Tinto, 1993).

The need for timely, accurate, and personalized information continues after students enroll in college. Information provided to students early in their first year can help them transition to college life and assimilate into the academic culture of the institution (Gordon & Grites, 1984; Kuh, 2001-2). Front-loading information for first-year

students also allows these students to make well-informed plans about their entire college career, thereby maximizing their potential for long-term college success.

Information dissemination after students enroll can take place during orientation, in first-year seminars, and in traditional coursework [see report section on Course Offerings]. Singer (2003) found that the expectations of students who attended the University of Wisconsin orientation changed significantly as compared to those who did not attend orientation; the program was particularly influential for students of color.

Amid concerns about the potential for incoming students to experience “information overload,” institutions can highlight particularly important information by personalizing some materials for specific groups of students. An e-mail about future course offerings could be differentiated to highlight required courses for certain majors, for example. Such personalization seems especially important during the recruitment process, when students need detailed information about financial aid to understand both the costs and benefits of attending a particular institution (Hossler, Kuh, & Olsen, 2001).

Collectively, the literature reviewed here reinforces the commonsense notion that well-informed students are more likely to succeed than those who have a poor understanding of institutional offerings and expectations. The LIPSS surveys address the timing, frequency, and distribution of information from colleges to students. This report highlights seven scales measuring: 1) the earliest time that an institution sends information to (potential) students; 2) the frequency of such contact with students; 3) whether institutions send information directly to (potential) students’ families; 4) whether institutions send information directly to high school guidance counselors; 5) whether institutions offer orientation activities for students’ parents/families; 6) the extent to which institutions offer unique orientation sessions for specific student populations; and 7) the duration/structure of orientation activities.

Overall Public Private CA FL IA PA TXInformation Dissemination: Earliest Contact .67 .60 .69 .73 .62 .67 .67 .66Information Dissemination: Frequency of Contact .44 .38 .45 .50 .32 .46 .44 .46Information Dissemination: To Families .59 .54 .63 .56 .65 .62 .66 .45Information Dissemination: To High School Counselors .60 .70 .58 .65 .67 .69 .58 .50First-Year Orientation: Family Involvement .71 .69 .74 .81 .64 .75 .75 .64First-Year Orientation: Specific Student Populations .27 .20 .30 .26 .25 .22 .37 .15First-Year Orientation: Structure .91 .85 .93 .90 .86 .89 .96 .86For more detailed findings, see CSAO #12a-f, 13a-g, 14, 15a-d, 4a-b, 5a-k, and 6a-b.


Demographic, Academic, and Attitudinal Diversity

The variety of student organizations on college campuses is quite broad. Montelongo (2002) reports that “college student organizations tend to fall into the following categories: governing bodies, Greek letter social organizations, student government groups, academic clubs and professional societies, publication and media groups, service groups, intramural sports clubs, religious organizations, and special interest/cultural groups” (p. 50). These student organizations supplement the formal curriculum of a college or university. Furthermore, participation in these groups is related to a number of positive outcomes for students such as social integration, satisfaction with college, campus involvement, leadership skills, student engagement, learning, and psychosocial development (Anaya, 1996; Astin, 1993; Smith & Griffin, 1993).

Cultural or identity-based student organizations provide diverse populations of students with a sense of belonging and validation. Such groups promote identity development in students of color and racial understanding among all college students (Guiffrida, 2003; Harper & Quaye, 2007; Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, & Allen, 1999; Kuh & Love, 2000; Museus, 2008). However, the effects of cultural groups on student socialization appear to differ by group and institutional context. Allen, Epps, and Haniff (1991), for instance, found that African American students who participated in student organizations at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) had higher persistence rates than African American students who participated in student organizations at Predominantly White Institutions (PWIs). Further, the participation of Latina/o and Asian American students in cultural groups on campus may follow different patterns from African American students (Museus, 2008; Quintana, Vogel & Ybarra, 1991).

Although there exists some variability among student experiences with and benefits from encounters with difference, the available literature generally encourages institutional efforts to support diverse student groups. This LIPSS report highlights several forms of institutional support for student diversity: 1) staffing policies, including the extent to which student affairs offices attempt to hire staff with expertise/experience with distinct student populations; 2) the availability of orientation programs for specific student populations; 3) the availability various student services; 4) the prevalence of policies that encourage student encounters with difference through the formal curriculum and 5) co-curricular programming; and 6) the availability of events designed to improve campus unitiy and understanding.

Institutional policies supporting students from a wide range of backgrounds typically provide specialized services and recognition for groups of students who might otherwise be under-served in a college or university setting. This family of policies addresses

demographic diversity (e.g. students from different racial/ethnic groups, students of different sexes, students of different sexual orientations, students with disabilities, students of different socioeconomic statuses, first-generation students, international students, and athletes); diversity of academic status (e.g. adult learners, commuter students, transfer students, part-time students, provisional or developmental students, and honors students); and attitudinal diversity (e.g. students of different religious and political beliefs).

The rationale for these policies is two-fold. First, it is oftentimes important to address the specific needs of particular groups of students, the benefits of which include increasing the extent to which students feel safe, understood, and appreciated (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Second, research suggests that it is important to the broader educational mission of academic institutions for students to “encounter difference” (Reason, Cox, Lutovsky Quaye, & Terenzini, 2010, p. 391) both in and outside the classroom. These encounters with difference contribute to learning by creating the “cognitive dissonance” (Festinger,Riecken & Schater, 1957, p. 27) that is essential for students’ intellectual and psychosocial growth.

Such encounters may occur through interaction with faculty and staff as well as through interaction with fellow students. Hurtado (1999) found that faculty members of color were more likely to incorporate diverse themes in their teaching than their White counterparts. Furthermore, racial understanding increased when students talked to faculty of color outside of class and were guests in their homes. Similar findings support diversity in student affairs hiring practices (Komives, 2003; Manning & Coleman-Boatwright, 1991).

Though faculty and staff are important to the socialization of college students, much of the socialization that occurs in college takes place among peers (Astin, 1992; Feldman & Newcomb, 1969; Grayson, 1999). Indeed, Chickering (1969) noted that “a student’s most important teacher is another student” (p. 253). Some of the most important interactions college students have with their peers occur in student organizations.


All Students

Diversity

Roles and Purposes


Shared Responsibility for Educational Quality

Focusing on Student Learning

Adapting Environments for Educational Advantage


Demographic, Academic, and Attitudinal Diversity


Overall Public Private CA FL IA PA TXStudent Affairs Staffing Policies .35 .40 .35 .42 .40 .34 .38 .27First-Year Orientation: Specific Student Populations .27 .20 .30 .26 .25 .22 .37 .15Student Affairs Service Availability .55 .51 .58 .50 .46 .57 .62 .52Curricular Emphasis on Diversity .50 .46 .54 .54 .46 .59 .56 .41Programmatic Emphasis on Diversity .50 .51 .51 .66 .38 .46 .59 .38Campus Community-Building Events .43 .31 .49 .41 .40 .46 .48 .41For more detailed findings, see CSAO # 5a-k, 8, 9, 16a-m, 18b-f, 19a-k, 20c, 23a, and 24b-m, and CAO #22a-b, 23a-e, and 24a-c.


Faculty Engagementidentified quickly (e.g., within the first six weeks), support personnel may be able to intervene before a student’s difficulties become too much to overcome. At Hanover College, for example, the early-alert system mobilizes campus early alert partners to provide supports for the student. The early alert team has found that the program “not only helped administrators identify students’ problems before they escalate, but also allowed the college to collect data on what kind of students tend to leave, and why” (Wasley, 2007).

One of the faculty’s more traditional responsibilities is the design and delivery of the formal academic curriculum. However, first-year courses are increasingly being taught by graduate student teaching assistants or adjunct/conditional/part-time faculty members (Jaeger, 2008)– a practice that some scholars have argued is not beneficial for students (Bettinger & Long, 2004; Schmidt, 2010). Regardless of the status of the instructor, student evaluations of teaching, along with other forms of course and program assessment, provide “a way for faculty to learn about the efficacy of their practices” (Maki, 2004, p. 89) and for academic leaders to adjust course content or structures in ways that facilitate student success.

Collectively, the literature reviewed here confirms the critical importance of faculty engagement, including – and extending beyond – their traditional teaching roles. It also lends some support to institutional efforts to systematically review and improve the curricula. This report highlights eight scales that address several mechanisms for faculty engagement and instructional improvement: 1) faculty involvement with out-of-class activities for first-year students; 2) institutional or departmental initiatives designed to facilitate faculty-student interaction; 3) requirements for post-tenure faculty members’ teaching of first-year students; 4) early-alert systems; 5) teacher evaluation policies; 6) course- or program-level assessment related to retention and 7) learning; 8) use of assessment data for making curricular revisions; and 9) the manner in which faculty members’ involvement with first-year students affects personnel decisions.

Efforts to improve first-year student success often require direct action by an institution’s faculty. For example, students’ interactions with members of the instructional faculty often have immediate, tangible effects on student success (as occurs

when a student visits office hours to discuss a class paper). But faculty-student interaction, especially among first-year students, may also yield important long-term, indirect benefits to students (Milem & Berger, 1997). Documented benefits of faculty-student interaction include improved/increased student effort, satisfaction, cognitive development, and persistence (e.g., Astin, 1993; Endo & Harpel, 1982; Kuh & Hu, 2001; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1977, 2005). Likewise, Light (2001) concluded that “students who got the most out of college, who grow the most academically, and who are happiest organize their time to include activities with faculty members…focused around accomplishing substantive academic work” (Light, 2001, p. 10). Other studies have highlighted the value of informal or incidental contact between students and their instructors outside the classroom (Cox & Orehovec, 2007; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1980). Colleges and universities have long sought ways to increase both the quality and quantity of faculty-student interaction, both inside and outside of the classroom. Outside of the traditional undergraduate classroom, institutions have encouraged undergraduate participation in faculty research; some have even established “take-a-professor to lunch” programs or encouraged faculty service during student orientation or move-in day (Abel, Brice, & Cox, 2007). Research finds these types of interactions lead to greater learning, higher retention, and increased development of critical thinking, creativity, and problem solving skills (Council of Undergraduate Research, 2002).

At some institutions, faculty members are also seen as front-line personnel who are well positioned to identify and support students at risk for academic or personal difficulty. In what are often called “early alert” or “early warning” systems, instructional faculty are asked to make note of students demonstrating poor academic performance or troublesome behavior early in a term. When such students are


Faculty

Organization

Learning

Transitions

All Students

Improvement




Innovating and Improving

Sharing Responsbility for Educational Quality




Overall Public Private CA FL IA PA TXFaculty Participation in First-Year Events .45 .46 .46 .58 .47 .47 .39 .48Encouragement of Student-Faculty Interaction .38 .40 .37 .41 .31 .28 .42 .42Senior Faculty Teaching of First-Year Courses .34 .25 .39 .33 .22 .39 .36 .41Early Alert/Intervention Initiatives .91 .92 .92 .92 .94 .86 .95 .91First-Year Course Evaluations .60 .52 .64 .57 .56 .68 .63 .61Recent Assessment Efforts: Persistence .52 .54 .51 .39 .50 .41 .57 .61Recent Assessment Efforts: Learning .54 .36 .59 .39 .42 .52 .67 .52Data-Driven Decision Making: Academic Affairs .49 .42 .52 .60 .50 .51 .48 .50Faculty Involvement Considered in Personnel Decisions .38 .26 .43 .50 .44 .30 .44 .26For more detailed findings, see CAO # 5a-d, 6a-c, 8a-b, 9a-b, 10a, 12a-c, 13a-d, 19a-b, and 20b.


Course Offeringsincluding student focus groups, individual interviews, analyses of institutional data, and end-of-course evaluations. Research confirms the wide-ranging benefits of first-year seminars: increased student persistence (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005, Porter & Swing, 2006), more meaningful faculty interaction (Keup & Barefoot, 2005), higher GPAs (Jamelske, 2009), greater engagement in campus activities (Barefoot, Warnock, Dickinson, Richardson, & Robets, 1998), and greater satisfaction with college (Barefoot, 1993).

Like the seminars, curricular learning communities are designed, in part, to “help undergraduates put the pieces together and develop habits of mind that prepare them to make informed judgments in the conduct of personal, professional, and civic life” (AAC&U Integrative Learning Statement, n.p.). There are several types of these integrative learning structures. The most basic learning communities have students register for two or more linked classes (e.g., history and first-year seminar); more comprehensive living-learning communities place students not only into linked courses, but also into a shared residence hall/floor. Learning communities examined by Bueschel (2009) and Scrivener, Bloom, LeBlanc, Rouse, and Sommo (2008) improved students’ academic performances, their “affective outcomes” (e.g., academic self-confidence), and their connection to student peers, the faculty, and the institution (p. 7).

Such integrative learning can also be facilitated through service-learning courses that combine community service with academic coursework and student self-reflection (Ross & Boyle, 2007). Research suggests that service-learning projects provide benefits to participating students, faculty, and community (Judge, Pierce, Petersen, Bellar, Wamless, & Simon., 2011). Specifically, service-learning experiences lead to academic, career, and interpersonal gains for the student (Buch & Harden, 2011). They can also pave the way for more future service activities(Buch & Harden, 2011).

Curricular structures are referenced in both the Student Affairs and Academic Affairs versions of the LIPSS surveys. In this report, we highlight four scales relating to: 1) the availability and structure of first-year seminars; 2) curricular options/requirements emphasizing or reflecting various forms of diversity; 3) opportunities for integrative learning experiences, including service-learning courses, common reading programs, and curricular learning communities; and 4) the integration of academics into residence life.

Many of the mechanisms used by colleges and universities to advance student learning are implemented through the formal curriculum. Whether in addition to or integrated with traditional coursework, some institutions have embedded

into their curricula diversity-related courses, first-year seminars, learning communities, and service-learning opportunities.

Many institutions have begun asking students to take coursework emphasizing diversity as a part of their general education requirements. In 2000, the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) discovered that over half (54%) of the 543 institutions participating in its study had implemented some type of diversity course requirement, typically requiring students to take one (58%) or two (42%) such courses.

The popularity of these diversity course requirements likely reflects findings from a line of literature suggesting that students benefit from exposure to and discussion of diversity (Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002). Nelson Laird (2005) notes “experiences with diversity are important influences on the development of student learning and democratic outcomes, including students’ intellectual engagement and motivation as well as citizenship engagement” (p. 366). Further, he found a direct effect between diversity courses and “students’ self-confidence, social agency, and disposition to think critically” (p. 383). In addition, Chang (2002) found that participating in these courses led to a reduction in the prejudiced views of all students. A study by Bowman (2009) also found that students benefit from diversity coursework, but noted that White students and those from low and middle class backgrounds saw the greatest cognitive growth from taking this type of course.

Another popular first-year curricular initiative is the first-year seminar. Results from a triennial survey conducted by the National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition since 1988 suggest that institutions establish such courses with the intent of “developing academic skills” and “providing an orientation to various campus resources and services” (Tobolowsky & associates, 2008, p. 84; Tobolowsky, Mamrick, & Cox, 2005, p. 81). In addition, institutions report students’ persistence to the sophomore year, satisfaction with faculty, and satisfaction with the institution as “the top three outcomes” associated with first-year seminars (NRC Executive Summary, 2009). Significantly, these seminars have been subject to regular institutional assessment, using varied methods


Learning

Faculty

Transitions

All Students

Diversity

Roles and Purposes







Overall Public Private CA FL IA PA TXFirst-Year Seminars .69 .57 .76 .67 .55 .80 .77 .69Curricular Emphasis on Diversity .50 .46 .54 .54 .46 .59 .56 .41Opportunities for Integrative Learning Experiences .41 .40 .43 .49 .41 .49 .40 .38Residence Life Academic Integration .21 .20 .22 .33 .32 .20 .20 .12For more detailed findings, see CSAO #7b-h, 10, and 11c-f and CAO #14, 15, 16, 17, 18a-b, 20a, 20c, 21a-b, 22a-b, and 23a-e.


Campus InvolvementEven when we narrow our consideration of engagement to out-of-

classroom activities (e.g. leadership activities, student organizational involvement, and community service), the research suggests that these efforts can be educationally powerful (Kuh et al., 2005; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Participation in leadership development workshops, involvement in student organization leadership, and engagement in community service have been linked to growth in self-efficacy (Dugan, Garland, Jacoby, & Gasiorski, 2008) and socially responsible leadership behaviors (Dugan & Komives, 2010). Dugan and Komives (2010) found that the meaningful peer interaction that came with involvement in student organizational leadership was one of the primary educational influences of such activities. Such peer interactions, especially when they involve substantive student engagement with varied people and ideas [see report sections on Course Offerings and Demographic, Academic, and Attitudinal Diversity], become particularly powerful when they complement in-class activities and content (Kuh, 2008; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).

In this section of the report, we present results reflecting institutional policies and structures that likely facilitate student engagement beyond the classroom. Two LIPSS scales include indicators of institutions’ recognition of official student groups: 1) the diversity programming and policies scale, which includes the extent to which cultural/identity student groups are recognized as official organizations; and 2) the socio-political programming and policies scale, which includes whether the institution recognizes socio-political student groups. Institutional efforts to improve student involvement in campus activities are also included in scales reflecting: 3) first-year leadership opportunities, like those available through student government; 4) integration of academic and “real-world” activities, through activities like service-learning courses or common reading programs; and 5) community-building activities like convocation.

Institutions of higher education, through their efforts to encourage students to engage in educationally purposeful co-curricular activities, can positively influence student learning outcomes (Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt, & Associates, 2005). Pascarella and Terenzini

(2005) concluded that: the impact of college is largely determined by individual effort and involvement in the academic, interpersonal, and extracurricular offerings on a campus. . . . This is not to say that an individual campus’s ethos, policies, and programs are unimportant. Quite the contrary. But . . . it is important to focus on the way in which an institution can shape its academic, interpersonal, and extracurricular offerings to encourage student engagement (p. 602).

Terenzini and Reason (2007, 2012) and Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) argue that traditional markers of institutional quality (e.g., selectivity) are not reliable indicators of students’ outcomes as are measures of students’ engagement with educationally-purposeful activities.

Engagement takes many forms, although it may be best understood as the amount of effort, both physical and psychological, a student exerts related to educational activities (Astin, 1993; Kuh et al., 2005; Terenzini & Reason, 2007). Understood as such, engagement is related to both Astin’s (1993) concept of “involvement” and Tinto’s (1993) concept of “integration.” Engagement in academic activities, assessed through such crude measures as number of credit hours taken or hours spent in Supplemental Instruction or other tutoring activities, directly and positively relate to students’ development of cognitive skills and academic content knowledge (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). More recently, research has demonstrated positive relationships between student learning outcomes and both service learning and experiential education activities (Kuh, 2008). These two pedagogical approaches, both of which attempt to couple in-class learning with “real world” problem solving, act to increase the effort students put forth and, thus, improve student learning.


All Students

Diversity

Roles and Purposes







Overall Public Private CA FL IA PA TXProgrammatic Emphasis on Diversity .50 .51 .51 .66 .38 .46 .59 .38Programmatic Emphasis on Socio-Political Issues .46 .45 .48 .55 .43 .37 .53 .40First-Year Student Leadership Opportunities .61 .35 .73 .67 .38 .61 .69 .68Opportunities for Integrative Learning Experiences .41 .40 .43 .49 .41 .49 .40 .38Campus Community-Building Events .43 .31 .49 .41 .40 .46 .48 .41For more detailed findings, see CSAO #17, 18a-f, 19a-m, 20a-c, 20f-h, 23a, and CAO #20a, 20c, 21a-b, and 24a-c.


Residence Lifeand NSLLP-related studies have concluded that the emphasis of the programmatic efforts of the community tended to make a difference in students’ experiences and outcomes.

Residence halls often are designed to include spaces meant for studying, academic support services, and even classrooms (Zeller, 2005). The intentional integration of academic services within student living spaces is not new, but likely gained momentum after a call for “seamless learning environments” in 1996 (ACPA, 1996, p. 120). Creating intentionally educational residence hall environments that integrate academic and student life have associated costs (Schuh, 1999), primarily in the form of extra staffing and facilities renovations. Regardless of the educational programming focus of residence halls, staffing and facilities comprise the largest expenditures related to on-campus housing (Schuh, 2004). Nonetheless, the benefits to student learning of such resource investments seems clear from the research.

Although it makes intuitive sense that staffing patterns affect the quality of student learning in residence halls, little research exists to substantiate this belief. Generally, residence halls are staffed by both professional staff members (often a single “hall director” or “residence director”) and several para-professional staff members (generally, one undergraduate resident assistant (RA) per floor). The most educationally effective ratio of staff to students has not been fully established, although one staff member to approximately 50 residents appears to be a common ratio. Similarly, no evidence suggests that specific educational and/or professional training for staff members is specifically related to student learning. Nonetheless, conventional practice suggests that professional staff members have at least a bachelor’s degree or, preferably, a master’s degree in Student Affairs or related field.

Thus, decades of research, as well as current practice, demonstrate that students’ on-campus residential experiences can contribute to positive student outcomes. The LIPSS surveys address policies and practices related to residential life in several ways, four of which are highlighted in this report: 1) staffing policies, including degree requirements for residence hall directors; 2) the extent to which academic activities are integrated into residence life; 3) diversity programming, including whether housing assignments are structured to facilitate cross-difference interaction among students; and 4) activities designed to facilitate students’ academic engagement, including the availability of living-learning communities.

The general benefits to college students of living on campus in residence halls are well documented (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005), to the point that little research is being undertaken currently that examines these

relationships. Still, there is little reason to question our current understanding. Living in on-campus housing has been positively linked to retention-to-graduation, satisfaction with the college experience, and grade point average (Astin, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Students receive many of the positive benefits of on-campus living through greater psychological connections with the community, increased levels of engagement with curricular and co-curricular activities, and improved knowledge of and access to support services (Pascarella &Terenzini, 2005; Pascarella, Terenzini, & Blimling, 1994). This is particularly true for traditionally under-represented, under-served, and first-generation students (Inkelas, Daver, Vogt, & Brown Leonard, 2007; Jehangir, Williams, & Pete, 2011; Johnson, Soldner, Brown Leonard, Alvarez, & Inkelas, 2007).

More recent research has explored the effects of specific, learning-focused interventions on college students’ outcomes. The National Study of Living-Learning Programs (NSLLP) collected data from more than 20,000 undergraduate students in more than 600 living-learning programs on over 50 college and university campuses. Inkelas and her colleagues defined living-learning programs as those “in which undergraduate students live together in a discrete portion of a residence hall (or the entire hall) and participate in academic and/or extra-curricular programing designed especially for them” (NSLLP, 2007, p. I-2). Inkelas and Weisman (2003) found that students in living-learning communities reported smoother transitions into their first-year of college, greater academic challenge, and more learning from diverse peers than did students not living in such communities. Although students in living-learning communities reported stronger outcomes than students outside of those communities, the focus of a particular learning community also shaped students’ outcomes, with academically-focused living-learning communities tending to have the greatest impact on academic outcomes (NSLLP, 2007).

Similar in design to living-learning communities, Freshman Interest Groups (FIGs) – in which students are grouped based on similar academic and/or co-curricular interests – have been linked to several positive outcomes (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Pike, 2002). Pike (2002), for example, linked participation in a diversity-related FIG to increased openness to diversity among students. Both the Pike (2002)


Organization

Faculty

All Students

Learning

Diversity






Overall Public Private CA FL IA PA TXStudent Affairs Staffing Policies .35 .40 .35 .42 .40 .34 .38 .27Residence Life Academic Integration .21 .20 .22 .33 .32 .20 .20 .12Programmatic Emphasis on Diversity .50 .51 .51 .66 .38 .46 .59 .38Opportunities for Integrative Learning Experiences .41 .40 .43 .49 .41 .49 .40 .38For more detailed findings, see CSAO #7b-h, 8, 9, 10, 11c-f, 18b-f, 19a-k, 20c, 23a, and 24b-m and CAO# 20a, 20c, and 21a-b.


Supportive IndividualsAlthough the college experience can be difficult, college

students are not alone in their journey. “How-to” books related to navigating the college experience abound (e.g., Leibow, 2010; Light, 2004; Shepard, 2011). More importantly,

and more proximal, to supporting students in their educational journey are the numerous individuals in their lives. Many students come from supportive home communities, with family members supporting their educational endeavors. But colleges and universities also employ a wide range of individuals whose jobs include supporting students both personally and academically. Faculty members, student affairs professionals, and para-professional peers are all expected to facilitate students’ learning and development. Existing research suggests that supportive individuals, whether family and friends or those hired by the institution, are essential to student success (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005).

Decades of studies examine the nature, quality, and frequency of faculty-student contact and their educational consequences for students. Jacob (1957), in one of the earliest studies, found that “normal and frequent [interactions between students and faculty members]…out of the class” had “peculiar potency” (p. 8) on specific student outcomes. Faculty-student interactions are particularly powerful because these interactions encourage students to engage in educationally valuable activities (Kuh & Hu, 2001) and result in higher levels of social integration and adjustment (Schwitzer, Griffin, Ancis, & Thomas, 1999), processes that increase the likelihood of student success. Further, high quality faculty-student interactions have been linked directly to such positive student outcomes as higher grade-point average (Anaya & Cole, 2001), increased persistence (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1977), self-reports of learning (Lundberg & Schreiner, 2004), and plans for graduate study (Hathaway, Nagda, & Gregerman, 2002).

The outcomes associated with faculty-student contact vary depending on the type of interaction. Substantive interactions between faculty and students have a greater impact on knowledge acquisition and skill development, for example, than do more casual, less-focused contacts (see, for example, Kuh & Hu, 2001). Studies of students’ development of higher-order cognitive skills also suggest that the purpose and quality of faculty-student interactions may be more important than their frequency. The effects of such contact appear to be greatest when the interactions focus on student development issues or reinforce the academic ethos of the campus (e.g., Astin, 1993; Ishiyama, 2002). Institutional policies and reward structures that support high-quality faculty-student interaction inside and outside the classroom provide potentially powerful levers for encouraging educationally powerful interactions.

Faculty members, of course, are not the only supportive individuals available to students on college campuses. Student affairs professional and paraprofessional staff members – including upper-division students hired as residence assistance (RAs) or peer mentors – provide out-of-classroom support for students on a variety of issues. A primary reason for the powerful effects of on-campus living on student learning outcomes is related to students’ access to supportive professional and paraprofessional staff members (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005) [see report section on Residence Life]. Interactions with other on-campus support professionals, particularly academic advisors (Habley, 1993), has been linked to improved student outcomes as well. Similarly, recent research (Castonguay, 2011) has begun to link access to and interactions with mental health counselors to improved student outcomes such as integration and academic performance.

Students making their initial transition to college are particularly likely to need high levels of support. Many campuses have made efforts to coordinate the support provided to first-year students through specifically designated offices and individuals. New student orientation offices, first-year experience offices, and first-year seminars (along with the supportive professional staff and faculty associated with these services) are essential to easing the transitions to a new college or university. New student orientation programs are particularly helpful in facilitating connections between new students and in helping students make successful academic and social adjustments to college (Pascarella, Terenzini, & Wolfle, 1986) [see report section on Information Dissemination]. Participation in first-year seminars has been shown to improve the educational experiences and outcomes of students during the first year (Hendel, 2006-7), specifically increasing the first-to-second year persistence and first-year grade point average of students (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005 ) [see report section on Demographic, Academic, and Attitudinal Diversity].

Institutions can facilitate supportive interactions between first-year students and college personnel through a variety of mechanisms. In many respects, the programs and policies discussed elsewhere in this report (e.g., residence life, information dissemination, and course structures) serve as mechanisms through which supportive interactions take place. Therefore, in this section we highlight five scales addressing faculty-student interaction, academic advising, and direct student-support services: 1) faculty involvement in new-student orientation and other programs for first-year students; 2) faculty professional development activities emphasizing first-year student needs and interests; 3) programs specifically designed to encourage faculty-student interaction outside of the classroom; 4) training, evaluation, and recognition programs for academic advisors; and 5) direct student support services, including career planning, peer mentoring, personal counseling, and child care services.


Organization

All Students

Faculty

Transitions






Supportive Individuals

Overall Public Private CA FL IA PA TXFaculty Participation in First-Year Events .45 .46 .46 .58 .47 .47 .39 .48Funding for Professional Development .52 .48 .55 .24 .59 .47 .65 .48Encouragement of Student-Faculty Interaction .38 .40 .37 .41 .31 .28 .42 .42Attention to Advising .53 .68 .48 .42 .65 .52 .53 .53Student Affairs Service Availability .55 .51 .58 .50 .46 .57 .62 .52For more detailed findings, see CSAO #16a-m and CAO #3a-c, 4, 5c-d, 7a-c, 19a-b, and 20b.


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Academic Affairs Policies Student Affairs Policies Overall Policy Alignment

ACADEMIC AND STUDENT AFFAIRS POLICIES AT THE 57 LIPSS PILOT INSTITUTIONS:DEGREE OF ALIGNMENT WITH RESEARCH LITERATURE ON FIRST-YEAR STUDENT SUCCESS

Linking Institutional Policies to Student Success: Initial Results from a Five-State Pilot Study


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Academic Affairs Policies Student Affairs Policies Overall Policy Alignment

ACADEMIC AND STUDENT AFFAIRS POLICIES AT THE 57 LIPSS PILOT INSTITUTIONS:DEGREE OF ALIGNMENT WITH RESEARCH LITERATURE ON FIRST-YEAR STUDENT SUCCESS

Linking Institutional Policies to Student Success: Initial Results from a Five-State Pilot Study


AppendicesA: Methodological Details ................................................................................................23B: Academic Affairs (CAO) Scale Descriptions .................................................................... 24C: Student Affairs (CSAO) Scale Descriptions .................................................................... 26D: Academic Affairs (CAO) Survey and Aggregated Results ................................................ 28E: Student Affairs (CSAO) Survey and Aggregated Results ................................................. 31F: References ...................................................................................................................35


MethodsIn January, 2012, LIPSS project staff contacted administrators at

108 institutions from five states (Florida, Texas, California, Iowa, and Pennsylvania), all those that had signed up to participate in the 2012 administration of the National Survey of Student Engagement. By the end of February, 57 institutions had committed to participate in the LIPSS pilot administration. Survey distribution began in mid-March. Unless otherwise requested by our campus liaison, LIPSS project staff sent printed copies of the Survey of Academic Policies, Programs, and Practices (the CAO survey) to the Chief Academic Officer (typically the Provost); the Survey of Student Affairs Policies, Programs, and Practices (the CSAO survey) was likewise distributed to the Chief Student Affairs Officer (typically the V.P. for Student Affairs or Dean of Students). Follow-up distributions for non-responders were sent electronically via email and PDF file. Because the surveys addressed a wide range of topics, survey completion often involved multiple individuals, sometimes from throughout an institution. By late summer, we received completed versions of both surveys from each of the 57 participating institutions. The two administrator surveys are available on our website and are included as appendices to this report.

With these surveys we created 34 a-priori scales reflecting related clusters/families of policies (e.g., Attention to Advising; Orientation Structure; Assessment Data Use). Each scale reflects the extent to which institutions have aligned their policies with the broad conclusions from the currently available research literature on first-year student success. A scale score of one indicates an institution’s complete adoption of all measured policies and a score of zero indicates that an institution has not adopted any of the measured policies related to a particular policy cluster. It may be most useful to think of the scale scores as approximations, where a score of 0.5 indicates that an institution has done approximately one-half (50%) of what it could be doing to align its policies with the available research.

LimitationsFirst, the results reported throughout this document reflect data

collected from 57 institutions across five states. These states and institutions were not selected at random and cannot be said to be formally representative of any specific population of institutions. Generalizations to other institutions based on the evidence reported here should be made with caution.

Second, the survey instruments on which this report rests are similar, though not identical, to those used by administrators at 45 institutions during a previous study. Both instruments have also undergone review by both researchers and administrators and, thus, have some claim to content validity. Nonetheless, the surveys and resultant scales may well omit, or only partially reflect, some important programs, practices, or policies.

Third, the data for this study come from a single, cross-sectional survey of administrative policies. Because institutional policies are always subject to formal change and divergent interpretations, the results presented here offer a time- and context-specific snapshot of an oft-changing policy environment.

Finally, this report is intended to be descriptive rather than normative and, thus, no efforts have been made to adjust for differences within or between sectors for such factors as institutional complexity, wealth, or quality (by whatever measure).

Appendix AMethodological Details


Appendix B Academic Affairs (CAO) Scale Descriptions

Scale Name ContentQuestion

Number(s)

Max. Item-Point

Values

Max. Possible

Scale Points


mechanism for campus-wide coordination and reporting line

1 3

132a 5

2b 5


training advisors 3a 2

6evaluating advisors 3b 2

rewarding advisors 3c 2


identifying academic problems

8a 24

identifying mental health issues

8b 2


teaching first-year seminars

5a 24

teaching other first-year courses

5b 2


faculty participation in first-year orientation

5c 2

4faculty participation in other first-year activities

5d 2


Number(s)

Max. Item-Point

Values

Max. Possible

Scale Points


consideration of faculty involvement in the first-year experience for hiring

6a 2

6

consideration of faculty involvement in the first-year experience for promotions & tenure

6b 2

consideration of faculty involvement in the first-year experience for merit salary increases

6c 2


use of evaluations for first-year courses and teachers

9a 3

9discussing evaluations with instructors

9b 3

assessing effectiveness of first-year courses

10a 3


faculty orientation covers the first-year experience

4 3

12sending faculty/staff to first-year conferences and workshops

7a-c 9


assessing first-year programs

10b 3

8assessing first-year services

10c 3

using consultants 11a 1

benchmarking programs/services

11b 1



Number(s)

Max. Item-Point

Values

Max. Possible

Scale Points


assessing classroom experiences

12Aa 1

3assessing curriculum 12Ab 1

assessing out-of-class experiences

12Ac 1


assessing classroom experiences

12Ba 1

3assessing curriculum 12Bb 1

assessing out-of-class experiences

12Bc 1


using data for course development/design

13a 2

8

using data for academic department/program evaluation

13b 2

using data for academic department/program planning

13c 2

using data for resource allocation

13d 2

First-Year Seminars

type 14 2

15

optional/required 15 3

duration 16 3

credit(s) 17 3

size cap (Y/N) 18a 1

cap size 18b 3


Number(s)

Max. Item-Point

Values

Max. Possible

Scale Points


encouraging interactions - unit specific

19b 3

9encouraging interactions - campus-wide

19a 3

mentoring programs 20b 3


learning communities 20a 3

12

service-learning courses 20c 3

common reading programs

21a 3

applied/experiential learning

21b 3


required diversity course (Y/N)

22a 1

17

meet required diversity course before sopho-more status (Y/N)

22b 1

racial/ethnic studies 23a 3

women’s studies 23b 3

religious studies 23c 3

lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, and questioning

23d 3

foreign language/cul-ture

23e 3


convocation 24a 3

9speaker series events 24b 3

ethnic or cultural events 24c 3

Appendix B (cont.) Academic Affairs (CAO) Scale Descriptions



Number(s)

Max. Item-Point

Values

Max. Possible

Scale Points


coordination of student affairs activities

1 3

8faculty/academic affairs representative on committee

2 2

responsibility for orientation

3 3


resident assistants : students ratio

8 4

15degree requirement for hall director

9 5

recruiting staff with particular experiences

24b-m 12/2=6


how early information provided to students

12a-f 21 21


how often institutions attempted to provide information to students

12a-f 21 21


type of information provided

13a-g 2125

number of parent contacts

14 4


type of information provided

15a-d 8 8

Appendix C Student Affairs (CSAO) Scale Descriptions


Number(s)

Max. Item-Point

Values

Max. Possible

Scale Points


assessing effects on outcomes

25a-d 1216

variety of methods used

26 4


impact of findings 27a-e 15 15


length of orientation 4a 47

orientation required 4b 3


orientation for specific groups

5a-k 33 33


length of parent orientation

6a 3

7percentage of students with a family member attending

6b 4


first-year leadership programs and first-year student government

17 2 2


academic programs and structures

7b-h 7

17faculty involvement 11c-f 10

substance-free residence hall

10 1


types of services 16a-m 37 37


Appendix C (cont.) Student Affairs (CSAO) Scale Descriptions


Number(s)

Max. Item-Point

Values

Max. Possible

Scale Points


programming policy 18b-f 10

26group recognition 19a-k 11

programming efforts 20c 3

heterogeneity in residence halls

23a 2


programming policy 18a 2

19group recognition 19l-m 2

programming efforts 20a-b,f-h 15


programming model 21 36

programming theme 22 3


Please answer each question as it applies to your institution at the start of the 2011-12 academic year.

- 1 -

SURVEY OF ACADEMIC POLICIES, PROGRAMS, AND PRACTICES For each question below, simply check or darken the bubble next to the most appropriate answer. 1. Where in your institution does primary responsibility lie for a campus-wide, coordinated approach to the first

year, including alignment of all first-year efforts through partnerships among academic affairs, student affairs, and other administrative units? 29.8% We have no such mechanism for campus-wide coordination of the first year. (skip to question 3) 10.5% A standing, campus-wide coordinating committee. 36.8% A specific office or individual (e.g., Dean/Director of the First Year Experience). 22.8% Both a campus-wide committee and a specific office/individual.

2. a. IF you have a campus-wide coordinating committee, to whom does the committee chair report? (Please

check ONE) 1.8% President 3.5% Chief student affairs officer 21.1% Chief academic officer 0% Another student affairs officer 10.5% Another academic officer 63.2% Missing

b. IF you have a specific office or individual, to whom does that office/individual report? (Please check ONE) 1.8% President 10.5% Chief student affairs officer 33.3% Chief academic officer 1.8% Another student affairs officer 14.0% Another academic officer 38.6% Missing

3. With respect to academic advisors of first-year students, does your institution:

No Yes, informally

Yes, systematically

a. Provide training and support for advisors? 3.5% 33.3% 63.2% b. Evaluate advisors' performance? 36.8% 28.1% 35.1% c. Reward advisors' performance? 59.6% 22.8% 17.5% 4. In your new faculty orientation efforts, how much time is dedicated to first-year students’ experiences, related programs, and/or services?

29.8% No time 64.9% 2 hours or less 3.5% Half-a-day 1.8% A full day or more

5. Does your institution take a position regarding:

We take no position

Yes, we encourage it

Yes, we require it

a. Senior faculty (associate/full professors) teaching first-year seminars? 40.4% 52.6% 7.0%

b. Senior faculty (associate/full professors) teaching other first- year courses? 36.8% 57.9% 5.3%

c. Faculty participation in first-year student orientation activities 17.5% 71.9% 10.5% d. Faculty participation in other events for first-year students

(e.g., parents’ and family weekend, class trips)? 17.5% 78.9% 3.5%

Appendix DAcademic Affairs (CAO)

Survey & Aggregated ResultsOverall Public Private CA FL IA PA TX


.37 .27 .41 .35 .40 .28 .42 .37

Attention to Advising .53 .68 .48 .42 .65 .52 .53 .53Early Alert/Intervention Initiatives

.91 .92 .92 .92 .94 .86 .95 .91


.34 .25 .39 .33 .22 .39 .36 .41


.45 .46 .46 .58 .47 .47 .39 .48


.38 .26 .43 .50 .44 .30 .44 .26

First-Year Course Evaluations .60 .52 .64 .57 .56 .68 .63 .61Funding for Professional Development

.52 .48 .55 .24 .59 .47 .65 .48


.50 .57 .50 .56 .48 .38 .52 .64


.54 .36 .59 .39 .42 .52 .67 .52


.52 .54 .51 .39 .50 .41 .57 .61


.49 .42 .52 .60 .50 .51 .48 .50

First-Year Seminars .69 .57 .76 .67 .55 .80 .77 .69Encouragement of Student-Faculty Interaction

.38 .40 .37 .41 .31 .28 .42 .42


.41 .40 .43 .49 .41 .49 .40 .38


.50 .46 .54 .54 .46 .59 .56 .41


.43 .31 .49 .41 .40 .46 .48 .41



- 2 -

6. Is consideration given to faculty members’ involvement with first-year students (e.g., teaching, advising, informal interactions) when the following decisions are made:

No Yes, informally

Yes, systematically

a. Hiring 45.6% 35.1% 19.3% b. Promotion & tenure reviews or decisions 29.8% 45.6% 24.6% c. Salary merit increases 56.1% 29.8% 14.0%

7. Does your institution send faculty and staff members to participate in activities relating specifically to first-year students such as:

No Yes, at

traveler’s expense

Yes, with partial funding

Yes, with full

funding

a. State or regional conferences or workshops 33.3% 0% 7.0% 59.6% b. National conferences or workshops 24.6% 0% 10.5% 64.9% c. Visits to other campuses to learn about their first-year

courses, programs, or activities 50.9% 0% 5.3% 43.9%

8. Does your institution have an organizational mechanism for: No Yes,

informally Yes,

systematically

a. An “early alert system” to identify students in academic difficulty 1.8% 8.8% 89.5% b. Early identification of first-year students having personal difficulty 3.5% 17.5% 78.9%

9. For those courses typically taken by first-year students, does your institution facilitate:

No Yes, but always

optional

Yes, required for some courses

Yes, required for all

courses a. Student evaluations of instruction 1.8% 5.3% 19.3% 73.7% b. Conferences/discussions of the results held with

faculty members for the purpose of professional development

35.1% 35.1% 15.8% 14.0%

10. Beyond student ratings of instruction, does your institution assess the effectiveness of:

No Yes, but always

optional

Yes, required for some


a. Courses for first-year students 26.3% 12.3% 31.6% 29.8% b. Programs for first-year students 19.3% 17.5% 29.8% 33.3% c. Services for first-year students 19.3% 21.1% 38.6% 21.1% 11. Does your institution: Yes No a. Retain consultants on the first year of college 77.2% 22.8% b. Benchmark your first-year seminars, programs, or services against those of other

institutions 61.4% 38.6%


- 3 -

12. In the past three years, has your institution assessed whether any of the following affect first-year student learning and/or persistence into the second year?

Learning Persistence

No Yes No Yes

a. Classroom experiences (e.g., pedagogies, assignments) 43.9% 56.1% 50.9% 49.1% b. Curriculum (e.g., major, course-taking patterns, Gen. Ed. reqs.) 42.1% 57.9% 42.1% 57.9% c. Out-of-class experiences 52.6% 47.4% 50.9% 49.1%

13. Does your institution use first-year assessment information for:

No Yes, informally

Yes, systematically

a. Course development or redesign 19.3% 50.9% 29.8% b. Academic department/program evaluation 35.1% 36.8% 28.1% c. Academic department/program planning or development 26.3% 47.4% 26.3% d. Resource allocation 29.8% 52.6% 17.5% 14. Which ONE of the following formats best describes most of the first-year seminars offered at your institution?

8.8% We don’t currently offer first-year seminars (skip to question 19) 5.3% Basic study skills seminar (tends to focus on basic skills such as reading, writing, or math) 36.8% Extended orientation seminar (students learn about such things as campus resources, time

management, study skills, and career planning) 0% Pre-Professional seminar (generally taught to prepare students for the demands of a major for a profession

such as medicine, law, engineering, nursing, or business) 49.1% Seminar with academic content (content tends to be specific to a discipline or inter-disciplinary)

15. Are your first-year seminars:

12.3% Optional for all first-year students 14.0% Required for some first-year students 64.9% Required for all first-year students 8.8% Missing 16. What is the duration of the seminars? 8.8% Less than one term 71.9% One term 10.5% More than one term 8.8% Missing 17. How many credits do the seminars carry? 15.8% None 33.3% One Semester credit / 1-2 Quarter credits 7.0% Two Semester credits / 3 Quarter credits 43.9% Three or more Semester credits / 4 or more Quarter credits



- 4 -

18. Does your institution have a cap on the size of first-year seminar sections? 17.5% No 82.5% Yes If yes, what is that cap? _____ 19. Does your institution have programs specifically designed to encourage out-of-class interaction between faculty and first-year students?

No Yes, but always

optional

Yes, required for some faculty

Yes, required for all faculty

a. Campus-wide program(s) 22.8% 54.4% 17.5% 5.3% b. Unit-specific program(s) 29.8% 45.6% 19.3% 5.3%

20. Does your institution offer the following for first- year students?

No Yes, but always

optional

Yes, required for some first-year

students

Yes, required for all first-

year students a. Living/Learning communities 38.6% 40.4% 8.8% 12.3% b. Mentoring programs 24.6% 33.3% 24.6% 17.5% c. Service-learning courses (a course in which

service is a required and integral part) 22.8% 47.4% 17.5% 12.3%

21. Does your institution provide first-year students?

No Yes, but always

optional


students


year students a. Common reading programs 49.1% 1.8% 19.3% 29.8% b. Applied or experiential learning activities 15.8% 38.6% 26.3% 19.3%

22. a. Does your institution have a course requirement designed to introduce students to “diversity” in areas such

as gender, race, ethnicity, culture, or religion?

54.4% No 45.6% Yes

b. IF yes, must students meet that requirement before reaching sophomore class status?

96.5% No 3.5% Yes 23. What is the highest curricular level at which opportunities

are available for students to study each of the following topics:

None Course(s) Minor / Certificate

Major field

a. Racial / Ethnic studies 8.8% 56.1% 19.3% 15.8% b. Women’s studies 14.0% 42.1% 28.1% 15.8% c. Religious studies 15.8% 19.3% 5.3% 59.6% d. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender studies 45.6% 42.1% 7.0% 5.3% e. Foreign languages / cultures 5.3% 15.8% 14.0% 64.9%


- 5 -

24. Does your institution offer the following campus-wide events for first-year students?

No Yes, but always

optional


students


year students a. Convocation 24.6% 26.3% 3.5% 45.6% b. Speaker series events 21.1% 54.4% 12.3% 12.3% c. Ethnic or cultural events 15.8% 70.2% 10.5% 3.5%

25. How frequently does your institution offer the following events:

We don’t offer these

events Annually Each

Term Monthly Weekly

a. Convocation 21.1% 61.4% 8.8% 1.8% 7.0% b. Speaker series events 8.8% 8.8% 33.3% 31.6% 17.5% c. Ethnic or cultural events 7.0% 8.8% 40.4% 29.8% 14.0% 26. Does your institution offer preparatory or developmental courses in:

No Yes, but not for credit

Yes, for credit

a. Math 29.8% 26.3% 43.9% b. Writing 31.6% 19.3% 49.1% c. Reading 59.6% 10.5% 29.8% d. Basic study skills (e.g., note-taking, time management, active listening) 42.1% 29.8% 28.1% e. English as a Second Language (ESL) 59.6% 21.1% 19.3%

Thank you very much for your assistance. Please return this survey to:

Dr. Bradley Cox

Linking Institutional Policies to Student Success The Florida State University

1114 W. Call Street, Mailcode 4452 Tallahassee, FL 32306 [email protected]



- 1 -

SURVEY OF STUDENT AFFAIRS POLICIES, PROGRAMS, AND PRACTICES

For each question below, simply check or darken the bubble next to the most appropriate answer. 1. Within the Student Affairs division is there a person or standing committee with primary responsibility for

coordinating all or most Student Affairs programs and activities for first-year students?

40.4% No, we have no such person or coordinating body within Student Affairs. (skip to question 3) 12.3% Yes, we have a standing Student Affairs division-wide coordinating committee. 31.6% Yes, we have an office or an individual. 15.8% Yes, we have both a division-wide committee and an office/individual.

2. IF you have a division-wide standing committee, is there faculty/Academic Affairs staff representation on it? 64.9% We have no such division-wide committee. 0% Faculty/Academic Affairs staff are not represented. 14.0% Faculty/Academic Affairs staff attend when a relevant topic or issue is being discussed. 21.1% Faculty/Academic Affairs staff are members of the committee. 3. Where does the primary operational responsibility lie for campus-wide New Student Orientation? (Please check ALL that apply.)

Selected NOT

selected

0% 100% We do not have a formal New Student Orientation (skip to question 7) 3.5% 96.5% Operational responsibility is decentralized

21.1% 78.9% A Student Affairs division-wide coordinating committee 70.2% 29.8% An office or an individual 19.3% 80.7% Other (Please specify)

________________________________________________________

4 a. For first-year students matriculating in the fall term, how long is the formal New Student Orientation program? (Please check ONE.)

1.8% Half-day or less 3.5% More than half-day to a full day 26.3% 1 to 2 days 68.4% More than 2 days

b. Is that orientation:

12.3% Always optional 0% Required for some first-year students 87.7% Required for all first-year students

Appendix EStudent Affairs (CSAO)

Survey & Aggregated ResultsOverall Public Private CA FL IA PA TX


.27 .23 .28 .27 .17 .26 .30 .27


.35 .40 .35 .42 .40 .34 .38 .27


.67 .60 .69 .73 .62 .67 .67 .66


.44 .38 .45 .50 .32 .46 .44 .46


.59 .54 .63 .56 .65 .62 .66 .45


.60 .70 .58 .65 .67 .69 .58 .50


.69 .75 .69 .72 .70 .65 .66 .79


.61 .58 .65 .70 .63 .63 .62 .59


.91 .85 .93 .90 .86 .89 .96 .86


.27 .20 .30 .26 .25 .22 .37 .15


.71 .69 .74 .81 .64 .75 .75 .64


.61 .35 .73 .67 .38 .61 .69 .68


.21 .20 .22 .33 .32 .20 .20 .12


.55 .51 .58 .50 .46 .57 .62 .52


.50 .51 .51 .66 .38 .46 .59 .38


.46 .45 .48 .55 .43 .37 .53 .40


.46 .44 .50 .61 .35 .35 .54 .45



- 2 -

5. Does your institution provide an orientation specifically for the following first-year student groups:

No Yes, but always

optional

Yes, required for some


a. Commuter students 56.1% 15.8% 0% 28.1% b. First-year transfer students 24.6% 36.8% 0% 38.6% c. Developmental or provisional students 73.7% 3.5% 1.8% 21.1% d. Students of color 78.9% 7.0% 1.8% 12.3% e. First-generation students 73.7% 12.3% 1.8% 12.3% f. Students with disabilities 75.4% 12.3% 0% 12.3% g. International students 22.8% 12.3% 3.5% 61.4% h. Honors students 77.2% 3.5% 0% 19.3% i. Intercollegiate athletes 70.2% 1.8% 0% 28.1% j. Part-time students 87.7% 7.0% 0% 5.3% k. Adult or returning students 78.9% 14.0% 1.8% 5.3% 6. a. How long is your institution’s formal orientation specifically for parents or family? 5.3% We have no such orientation 12.3% 2 hours or less 49.1% Half-day to full-day 33.3% More than 1 full day b. Approximately what percentage of first-year students have at least one family member attend parent/family

orientation? 8.8% Not applicable 10.5% 0% - 25% 7.0% 26% - 50% 35.1% 51% - 75% 38.6% 76% - 100%

7. Does your institution make available to first-year students any of the following academic programs/services in residential facilities? (Please check ALL that apply.)

Selected NOT

selected

15.8% 84.2% No undergraduate residential facilities (skip to Question 10) 26.3% 73.7% Two or more courses in which a cohort of students living in the same residential facility enroll 14.0% 86.0% Academic credit-bearing courses in residential facilities 26.3% 73.7% Academic interest housing by floor 14.0% 86.0% Academic interest housing by building 14.0% 86.0% Foreign language/international housing 26.3% 73.7% Tutoring/academic advising in residential facilities 36.8% 63.2% Living/Learning Communities

8. In residence halls where some or all residents are first-year students, what is the approximate ratio of paraprofessional resident assistants (RAs) to residential undergraduate students? (Please check only ONE.)

10.5% One RA for no more than 15 students 54.4% One RA per 16-30 students 33.3% One RA per 31-50 students 1.8% One RA for more than 50 students


- 3 -

9. What are the minimum requirements for live-in, residence hall directors? (Please check only ONE.)

19.3% We have no live-in, residence hall directors in residential facilities 7.0% No degree required 35.1% Bachelor’s degree required 10.5% Bachelor’s degree required, with enrollment in a graduate program 12.3% Master’s degree required 15.8% Master’s degree in Student Affairs or a related field required

10. Does your institution offer first-year student housing in which residents subscribe to a “substance-free” code?

56.1% No 43.9% Yes

11. Describe the level of formal faculty involvement in residential facilities that house first-year students. (Please check ALL that apply.)

Selected NOT

selected

5.3% 94.7% Our institution does not have residential facilities 24.6% 75.4% Faculty are not involved in residential facilities 63.2% 36.8% Faculty make presentations in residential facilities 10.5% 89.5% Some faculty offices are located in residential facilities 15.8% 84.2% Some first-year classes are taught by faculty in residential facilities 5.3% 94.7% Faculty member(s), with specific educational responsibilities for residents, live in residential

facilities

12. Excluding websites, when does your institution provide first-year students with information on: (Please check ALL that apply.)

Not formally provided

During the application process

After admission, but before classes

begin After classes begin

Selected NOT selected Selected NOT

selected Selected NOT selected Selected NOT

selected a. The institution’s mission

statement 21.1% 78.9% 63.2% 36.8% 42.1% 57.9% 22.8% 77.2% b. Policies regarding academic

integrity 1.8% 98.2% 8.8% 91.2% 77.2% 22.8% 40.4% 59.6% c. Expectations regarding

academic effort 5.3% 94.7% 29.8% 70.2% 71.9% 28.1% 31.6% 68.4% d. Their likely performance

and/or persistence, given their secondary school GPA and/or admissions test scores

54.4% 45.6% 15.8% 84.2% 22.8% 77.2% 12.3% 87.7%

d. Social behavior codes and standards 0% 100% 21.1% 78.9% 89.5% 10.5% 40.4% 59.6%

e. Information on academic support services for students with special learning needs

0% 100% 49.1% 50.9% 86.0% 14.0% 35.1% 64.9%

f. Information on whom to contact with questions or concerns regarding academic matters

3.5% 96.5% 42.1% 57.9% 78.9% 21.1% 43.9% 56.1%



- 4 -

13. Does your institution provide parents/family the following information before the start of the academic year:

No, not provided

Yes, provided

on request

Yes, provided to

some

Yes, provided to

all a. The institution’s mission statement 19.3% 17.5% 22.8% 40.4% b. Policies regarding academic integrity 14.0% 24.6% 28.1% 33.3% c. Expectations regarding academic effort 14.0% 19.3% 33.3% 33.3% d. Information on the likely performance and/or

persistence of students with a given secondary school GPA and/or admissions test scores

61.4% 12.3% 14.0% 12.3%

e. Social behavior codes and standards 8.8% 15.8% 31.6% 43.9% f. Information on academic support services for students

with special learning needs 0% 21.1% 29.8% 49.1%

g. Information on whom to contact with questions or concerns regarding students’ academic matters 5.3% 14.0% 31.6% 49.1%

14. Excluding financial solicitations, approximately how many times during the year does your institution have

formal contact with all parents/families of first-year students (e.g., invitations to parents’/family orientation, newsletters/listserv, invitations to join parent/family organizations)

8.8% We do not initiate such contacts 29.8% 1-2 times per year 28.1% 3-4 times per year 26.3% 5-6 times per year 7.0% 7 or more times per year

15. Does your institution provide high school guidance counselors the following information:

No Yes,

provided on request

Yes, a systematic program to reach

counselors a. Kinds of students likely/unlikely to benefit from attendance 21.1% 31.6% 47.4% b. The likely performance and/or persistence of students with a

given secondary school GPA and/or admissions test scores 40.4% 31.6% 28.1%

c. Academic support services for students with special learning needs 14.0% 50.9% 35.1%

d. Whom to contact with questions about academically related matters 5.3% 47.4% 47.4%


- 5 -

16. Are the following services/training available to first-year students?

No Yes, but always

optional

Yes, required for some first-year students


year students

a. Academic advising 0% 3.5% 12.3% 84.2% b. Career planning 1.8% 64.9% 12.3% 21.1% c. On-campus community-building activities 3.5% 49.1% 7.0% 40.4% d. Community service opportunities 1.8% 52.6% 8.8% 36.8% e. Computer setup and tech support 3.5% 61.4% 3.5% 31.6% f. Computing workshops 28.1% 49.1% 5.3% 17.5% g. International student advising/services 8.8% 22.8% 21.1% 47.4% h. Learning Center /Academic support services 0% 49.1% 28.1% 22.8% i. Use of library resources 0% 45.6% 19.3% 35.1% j. Peer mentoring 15.8% 43.9% 12.3% 28.1% k. Services for students for whom English is a second

language 29.8% 35.1% 24.6% 10.5%

l. Personal counseling 3.5% 82.5% 14.0% m. Child care services 78.9% 21.1% 0% 17. Does your institution offer any of the following activities or programs? (Please check ALL that apply.)

Selected NOT

selected

56.1% 43.9% First-year leadership programs 66.7% 33.3% First-year class officers or other first-year student government

18. Does your division have a policy of encouraging professional or

paraprofessional staff to organize events in which students have the opportunity to become acquainted with:

No Yes,

informal policy

Yes, formal policy

a. Students whose socio-political attitudes are different from theirs 35.1% 57.9% 7.0% b. Students whose race, or ethnic background, is different from theirs 26.3% 59.6% 14.0% c. Students whose socio-economic status is different from theirs 35.1% 52.6% 12.3% d. Students whose age is different from theirs 63.2% 29.8% 7.0% e. Students whose religious beliefs are different from theirs 33.3% 57.9% 8.8% f. Students from other countries 24.6% 63.2% 12.3%

19. Does your institution formally recognize student organizations or groups for: No Yes

a. African American students 21.1% 78.9% b. Asian American students 40.4% 59.6% c. Latino/a American students 28.1% 71.9% d. Native American students 68.4% 31.6% e. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Ally students 28.1% 49.1% f. Commuter students 50.9% 49.1% g. International students 21.1% 78.9% h. Judeo-Christian students 24.6% 75.4% i. Non-Judeo-Christian students 47.4% 52.6% j. Adult learners 73.7% 26.3% k. Women 45.6% 54.4% l. Politics (e.g., Young Republicans, Young Democrats) 29.8% 70.2% m. Social justice issues 19.3% 80.7%



- 6 -

20. In your division’s programming, how much emphasis do you give each of the following topics?

Little or none Slight Moderate A great

deal

a. Current events 12.3% 26.3% 47.4% 14.0% b. Social issues (e.g., peace, gun control, human rights,

equality, race relations, health care, abortion) 8.8% 8.8% 56.1% 26.3%

c. Different lifestyles, customs, or religions 5.3% 19.3% 43.9% 31.6% f. Social and ethical issues related to science and technology

(e.g., energy, pollution, chemicals, genetics) 12.3% 36.8% 40.4% 10.5%

g. The economy (e.g., employment, poverty, taxation, trade) 17.5% 36.8% 36.8% 8.8% h. International relations (e.g., immigration, free trade,

military activities, political differences) 19.3% 36.8% 29.8% 14.0%

21. To what extent does a specific programming model (e.g., Wellness Wheel, Chickering’s Vectors) guide the programs and activities of the Student Affairs division? 21.1% Little or none 22.8% Slight 35.1% Moderate 21.1% A great deal

22. To what extent were the programs and activities of the Student Affairs division this past year guided by a central theme (e.g., environmental awareness, social justice, patriotism, diversity, international awareness)?

38.6% Little or none 22.8% Slight 19.3% Moderate 19.3% A great deal

23. Does your institution make purposeful efforts to offer housing that will bring together a racially/ethnically heterogeneous groups of students? 3.5% No, our institution does not have residential facilities.

66.7% No, we do not consider race/ethnicity in housing students. 8.8% Yes, we have a specific housing unit(s) that focuses on racial/ethnic diversity.

21.1% Yes, we have an institution-wide housing-assignment policy intended to maximize racial/ethnic diversity in all or most of our residential facilities.

0% Other (please specify) _______________________________________________________

24. Does the Student Affairs division purposely recruit staff members or counselors with expertise specific to one or more of the following student populations (Please check ALL that apply):

Selected NOT selected

Selected NOT selected

29.8% 70.2% No special recruiting efforts 33.3% 66.7% Intercollegiate athletes 19.3% 80.7% First-year transfer students 15.8% 84.2% Honors students 50.9% 49.1% Students of color 52.6% 47.4% International students 1.8% 98.2% Part-time students 17.5% 82.5% Commuter students

33.3% 66.7% First-generation students 45.6% 54.4% Students with disabilities 29.8% 70.2% Developmental or provisional students

7.0% 93.0% Other (please specify) _____________________ 8.8% 91.2% Adult or returning students


- 7 -

25. Does your institution formally assess the effects of Student Affairs first-year programs and activities on:

No Yes, but rarely

Yes, occasionally

Yes, regularly

a. Student learning outcomes 26.3% 7.0% 21.1% 45.6% b. Other student development outcomes 22.8% 8.8% 28.1% 40.4% c. Persistence into the second year 10.5% 5.3% 19.3% 64.9% d. Student satisfaction 3.5% 5.3% 21.1% 70.2% Complete questions #26 and #27 only if you have done any of the assessments listed in question #25. 26. Which of the following methods do you use in those assessments? (Please check ALL that apply)

Selected NOT

selected

86.0% 14.0% Locally-developed instrument(s) (including institutional records) 66.7% 33.3% Focus groups or interviews 10.5% 89.5% State/system-wide or regional instrument(s)

66.7% 33.3% National/commercial instrument(s)

27. What impact have the findings of those assessments had on the Student Affairs division’s:

Little or none Slight Moderate A great

deal a. General sense or understanding of its effectiveness 5.3% 7.0% 50.9% 36.8% b. Program evaluation and/or revision 5.3% 12.3% 31.6% 50.9% c. New program development 5.3% 8.8% 50.9% 35.1% d. Budget allocation 21.1% 35.1% 29.8% 14.0% e. Hiring/personnel assignments 22.8% 42.1% 28.1% 7.0%

Thank you very much for your assistance. Please return this survey to:

Dr. Bradley Cox

Linking Institutional Policies to Student Success The Florida State University

1114 W. Call Street, Mailcode 4452 Tallahassee, FL 32306 [email protected]


Appendix FReferences

Abel, M., Bice, A., & Cox, B.E. (2007). Importance of faculty involvement in orientation. Journal of College Orientation and Transition, 14(2), 25-31.

Allen, W., Epps, E., & Haniff, N. (Eds.). (1991). College in black and white: African American students in predominantly white and in historically black public universities. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

American Association of Colleges and Universities. (2000). National survey on diversity in the undergraduate curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/divsurvey/index.cfm

American Association of Colleges and Universities and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2004). A statement on integrative learning. Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/integrative_learning/pdfs/ILP_Statement.pdf

American College Personnel Association. (1996). Preamble: The student learning imperative. Journal of College Student Development, 37, 118-122.

Anaya, G. (1996). College experiences and student learning: The influence of active learning, college environments, and co-curricular activities Journal of College Student Development, 37, 611-622.

Anaya, G., & Cole, D.G. (2001). Latina/o student achievement: Exploring the influence of student-faculty interactions on college grades. Journal of College Student Development, 42(1), 3-14.

Astin, A.W. (1991). The changing American college student: Implications for educational policy and practice. Higher Education, 22(2), 129-143.

Astin, A.W. (1992). What really matters in general education: Provocative findings from a national study of student outcomes. Perspectives, 22, 23-46.

Astin, A.W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Barefoot, B.O. (1993). Exploring the evidence: Reporting outcomes of first-year seminars. National

Resource Center for the First-Year Experience, University of South Carolina.

Barefoot, B.O., Warnock, C., Dickinson, M., Richardson, S., & Roberts, M. (1998). Exploring the evidence: Reporting outcomes of first-year seminars (Vol. No. 25). Columbia, SC: National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.

Bean, J.P. (1990). Why students leave: Insights from research. In D. Hossler & J. P. Bean (Eds.), The strategic management of college enrollments (pp. 147-169). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bettinger, E., & Long, B.T. (2004). Do college instructors matter? The effects of adjuncts and graduate assistants on students’ interests and success. National Bureau of Economic Research.

Bourassa, D.M., & Kruger, K. (2001). The national dialogue on academic and student affairs collaboration. New Directions for Higher Education(116), 9-38. doi: 10.1002/he.31

Bowman, N.A. (2009). College diversity courses and cognitive development among students from privileged and marginalized groups. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 2(3), 182-194.

Bowman, N.A. (2010). College diversity experiences and cognitive development: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 80(1), 4.

Boyer, C.M.E. & Ewell, P.T. (1988). State-based approaches to assessment in undergraduate education: A glossary and selected references. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.

Braxton, J.M. (2003). Student success. Student services: A handbook for the profession, 4, 317-335. Braxton, J.M., Hirschy, A.S., & McClendon, S.A. (2004). Understanding and reducing college student

departure. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 30(3). Brown, S.S. (1989). Approaches to collaboration between academic and student affairs: An overview.

NASPA Journal, 62(1), 2-7.Buch, K., & Harden, S. (2011). The impact of a service-learning project on student awareness of

homelessness, civic attitudes, and stereotypes toward the homeless. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 15(3), 45-61.

Castonguay, L.G. (2011). Psychotherapy, psychopathology, research and practice: Pathways of connections and integration. Psychotherapy Research, 21(125-140).

Chang, M.J. (2002). The impact of an undergraduate diversity course requirement on students’ racial views and attitudes. Journal of General Education, 51(1), 21-42.

Chickering, A.W., & Reisser, L. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Council on Undergraduate Research. (2012). Council on undergraduate research fact sheet. Retrieved

from http://www.cur.org/about_cur/fact_sheet/Cox, B.E., & Orehovec, E. (2007). Faculty-student interaction outside the classroom: A typology from a

residential college. Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 343-362. Dugan, J.P., Garland, J.L., Jacoby, B., & Gasiorski, A. (2008). Understanding commuter student self-

efficacy for leadership: A within-group analysis. NASPA Journal, 45, 282-310. Dugan, J.P., & Komives, S.R. (2010). Influences on college students’ capacities for socially responsible

leadership. The Journal of General Education, 51(1), 21-42. Endo, J.J., & Harpel, R.L. (1982). The effect of student-faculty interaction on students’ educational

outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 16(2), 115-138. Engberg, M.E., Meader, E.W., & Hurtado, S. (2003). Developing a pluralistic orientation: A comparison of

ethnic minority and white college students. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Erwin, T.D. (1991). Assessing student learning and development: A guide to the principles, goals, and methods of determining college outcomes.

Ewell, P.T. (2002). An emerging scholarship: A brief history of assessment. Building a scholarship of assessment, 3-25.

Feldman, K.A., & Newcomb, T.M. (1969). The impact of college on students (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Festinger, L., Riecken, H.W., & Schacter, S. (2008). When prophecy fails. London: Pinter & Martin.

Gardner, J.N., Barefoot, B.O., Schwartz, S.W., Siegel, M.J., Swing, R.L., Reason, R.D., Terenzini, P.T., Zlotkowski, E. (2005). Foundational dimensions: First-year focus (four-year college version). Retrieved from http://www.jngi.org/foe-program/foundational-dimensions/four-year-first-year-focus/

Gordon, V.N., & Grites, T.J. (1984). The freshman seminar course, helping students succeed. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 315-320.

Grayson, J.P. (1999). The impact of university experiences on self-assessed skills. Journal of College Student Development, 40(6), 687-699.

Guiffrida, D.A. (2003). African American student organizations as agents of social integration. Journal of College Student Development, 44(3), 304-319. doi: 10.1353/csd.2003.0024

Gurin, P., Dey, E., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 330-366.

Habley, W.R. (1993). Fulfilling the promise? Final report: ACT fourth national survey of academic advising. Iowa City, IA: American College Testing Program.

Harper, S.R., & Quaye, S.J. (2007). Student organizations as venues for black identity expression and development among African American male student leaders. Journal of College Student Development, 48(2), 127-144. doi: 10.1353/csd.2007.0012

Hathaway, R.S., Nagda, B.A., & Gregerman, S.R. (2002). The relationship of undergraduate research participation to graduate and professional education pursuit: An empirical study. Journal of College Student Development, 43(5), 614-632.

Hearn, J.C. (2006). Student success: What research suggests for policy and practice. New York: National Postsecondary Education Cooperative.

Hendle, D.D. (2006-7). Efficacy of participating in a first-year seminar on student satisfaction and retention. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 8(4), 413-423.


Kezar, A. (2003a). Achieving student success : Strategies for creating partnerships between academic and student affairs. Higher Education, 41(1), 1-22.

Kezar, A. (2003b). Enhancing innovative partnerships: Creating a change model for academic and student affairs collaboration. Innovative Higher Education, 28(2), 137-156. doi: 10.1023/b:ihie.0000006289.31227.25

Kezar, A. (2006). Redesigning for collaboration in learning initiatives: An examination of four highly collaborative campuses. Journal of Higher Education, 804-838.

Komives, S.R., & Woodard, D. (2003). Student services: A handbook for the profession. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kowalski, T.J., & Lasley, T.J. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of data-based decision making in education. New York: Routledge.

Kuh, G.D. (1993). Ethos: Its influence on student learning. Liberal education, 79(4), 22-31. Kuh, G.D. (2001-2002). Organizational culture and student persistence: Prospects and puzzles. Journal of

College Student Retention, 3(1), 23-39. Kuh, G.D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why

they matter: Association of American Colleges and Universities.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. Journal of Higher Education, 79(5), 540-563.

Kuh, G.D., & Hu, S. (2001). The effects of student-faculty interaction in the 1990s. Review of Higher Education, 24(3), 309-332.

Kuh, G.D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J.A., Bridges, B.K., & Hayek, J.C. (2006). What matters to student success: A review of the literature. National Symposium on Postsecondary Student Success: Spearheading a Dialog on Student Success. Washington, D.C.: National Postsecondary Education Cooperative.

Kuh, G.D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J.A., Bridges, B.K., & Hayek, J.C. (2011). Piecing together the student success puzzle: Research, propositions, and recommendations: Ashe higher education report (Vol. 116): Jossey-Bass.

Kuh, G.D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J.H., Whitt, E.J., & Associates. (2010). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kuh, G.D., & Love, P.G. (2000). A cultural perspective on student departure. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle (1st ed.) (pp. 196-212): Vanderbilt University Press.

Leibow, D. (2010). What to do when college is not the best time of your life. New York: Columbia University Press.

Light, R. (2001). Making the most of college: Students speak their minds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lundberg, C.A., & Schreiner, L.A. (2004). Quality and frequency of faculty-student interaction as predictors of student learning: An analysis by student race/ethnicity. Journal of College Student Development, 45(5), 549-565.

Maki, P.L. (2004). Assessing for learning: Building a sustainable commitment across the institution (2nd ed.). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Manning, K., & Coleman-Boatwright, P. (1991). Student affairs initiatives toward a multicultural university. Journal of College Student Development, 32, 367-374.

Milem, J.F. (2003). The educational benefits of diversity: Evidence from multiple sectors. In M. Chang, D. Witt, J. Jones & K. Hakuta (Eds.), Compelling interest: Examining the evidence on racial dynamics in higher education (chapter 5). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University, Center for Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity.

Hossler, D. H., Kuh, G.D., & Olsen, D. (2001). AIR research and practice: Finding fruit on the vines: Using higher education research and institutional research to guide institutional policies and strategies. Research in Higher Education, 42(2), 211-221.

Hurtado, S. (Ed.). (1999). Linking diversity and educational purpose: How the diversity of the faculty and the student body impacts the classroom environment and student development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Publishing Group.

Hurtado, S. (2001). Linking diversity and educational purpose: How diversity affects the classroom environment and student development. In G. Orfield & M. Kurleander (Eds.), Diversity challenged: Evidence on the impact of affirmative action (pp. 187-203). Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University, Harvard Education Publishing Group.

Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pedersen, A., & Allen, W. (1999). Enacting diverse learning environments: Improving the climate for racial/ethnic diversity in higher education ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report (Vol. 26). Washington, DC: George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development: Association for the Study of Higher Education.

Inkelas, K.K., Daver, Z., Vogt, K., & Brown Leonard, J. (2007). Living-learning programs and first-generation college students’ academic and social transition to college. Research in Higher Education, 48(4), 403-434.

Inkelas, K.K., & Weisman, J.L. (2003). Different by design: An examination of student outcomes among participants in three types of living-learning programs. Journal of College Student Development, 44(3), 335-368. doi: 10.1353/csd.2003.0027

Ishiyama, J. (2002). Does early participation in undergraduate research benefit social science and humanities students? College Student Journal, 36, 380-387.

Jackson, J.F.L., & Ebbers, L.H. (1999). Bridging the academic-social divide: Academic and student affairs collaboration. College Student Journal, 33(3), 380.

Jacob, P. (1957). Changing values in college: An exploratory study of the impact of college teaching. New York: Harper.

Jaeger, A.J. (2008, November-December). Contingent faculty and student outcomes. Academe Online. Retrieved from http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/CMS_Templates/AcademeTemplates/AcademeArticle.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRNODEGUID={0E63D834-967E-4F89-AE69-1286093D56DE}&NRORIGINALURL=/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2008/ND/Feat/jaeg.htm&NRCACHEHINT=NoModifyGuest

Jamelske, E. (2009). Higher education: Measuring the impact of a university first-year experience program on student gpa and retention. The International Journal of Higher Education and Planning, 57(3), 373-391.

Jehangir, R., Williams, R.D., & Pete, J. (2011). Multicultural learning communities: Vehicles for developing self-authorship in first-generation college students. Journal of the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition, 23(1), 53-74.

Johnson, D.R., Soldner, M., Leonard, J.B., Alvarez, P., & Inkelas, K.K. (2007). Examining sense of belonging among first-year undergraduates from different racial/ethnci groups. Journal of College Student Development, 48(5), 525-542.

Judge, L.W., Pierce, D., Petersen, J., Bellar, D., Wanless, E., Gilreath, E., & Simon, L. (2011). Engaging experiential service learning through co-curricular club: The chase charlie races. The ICHPER-SC Journal of Research, 6(2), 30-38.

Keup, J.R. & Barefoot, B.O. (2005). Learning how to be a successful student: Exploring the impact of first-year seminars on student outcomes. Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 17(1), 11-47.

Kezar, A. (2001). Documenting the landscape: Results of a national study on academic and student affairs collaborations. New Directions for Higher Education, 2001(116), 39-52.



Milem, J.F. & Berger, J.B. (1997). A modified model of college student persistence: Exploring the relationship between Astin’s theory of involvement and Tinto’s theory of student departure. Journal of College Student Development, 38, 387-400.

Montelongo, R. (2002). Student participation in college student organizations: A review of literature. Journal of the Indiana University Student Personnel Association, 50-63.

Museus, S.D. (2008). Role of ethnic organizations in minority adjustment. Journal of College Student Development, 49(6), 568-586.

Nelson Laird, T.F. (2005). College students’ experiences with diversity and their effects on academic self-confidence, social agency, and disposition toward critical thinking. Research in Higher Education, 46(4), 365-387. doi: 10.1007/s11162-005-2966-1

The National Study of Living-Learning Programs. (2007). 2007 report of findings. Retrieved from http://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/1903/8392/1/2007%20NSLLP%20Final%20Report.pdf

National Research Council. (2009). 2009 executive summary. Retrieved from http://www.sc.edu/fye/research/surveys/survey_instruments/index.html

Palomba, C.A., & Banta, T.W. (1999). Assessment essentials: Planning, implementing, and improving assessment in higher education. Higher and adult education series: ERIC.

Pascarella, E., Terenzini, P., & Blimling, G. (1994). The impact of college residence halls on student development. In P. Mable & C. Schroeder (Eds.), Realizing the educational potential of college residence halls (pp. 22-52). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pascarella, E.T., & Terenzini, P.T. (1977). Patterns of student-faculty informal interaction beyond the classroom and voluntary freshman attrition. The Journal of Higher Education, 48(5), 540-552.

Pascarella, E.T., & Terenzini, P.T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pascarella, E.T., & Terenzini, P.T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research (Vol. 2). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pascarella, E.T., Terenzini, P.T., & Wolfle, L.M. (1986). Orientation to college and freshman year persistence/withdrawal decisions. The Journal of Higher Education, 57(2), 155-175.

Peterson, M.W., & Einarson, M.K. (2001). What are colleges doing about student assessment? Does it make a difference? Journal of Higher Education, 72(6), 629-669.

Philpott, J.L., & Strange, C. (2003). “On the road to Cambridge”: A case study of faculty and student affairs in collaboration. Journal of Higher Education, 74(1), 77-95.

Pike, G.R. (2002). The differential effects of on- and off-campus living arrangements on students’ openness to diversity. NASPA Journal, 39(4), 283-299.

Porter, S.R., & Swing, R.L. (2006). Understanding how first-year seminars affect persistence. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 89-109. doi: 10.1007/s11162-005-8153-6

Quintana, S.M., Vogel, M.C., & Ybarra, V.C. (1991). Meta-analysis of latino students’ adjustment in higher education Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 13(2), 155-168. doi: 10.1177/07399863910132003

Reason, R.D., Cox, B.E., Lutovsky Quaye, B.R., & 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.

Ross, L., & Boyle, M. (2007). Transitioning from high school service to college service-learning in a first-year seminar. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 14(1), 53-64.

Schmidt, P. (2010, November 30). Conditions imposed on part-time adjuncts threaten quality of teaching, researchers say. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Conditions-Imposed-on/125573/

Scrivener, S., Bloom, D., LeBlanc, A., Paxson, C., Rouse, C.E., & Sommo, C. (2008). A good start: Two-year effects of a freshmen learning community program at Kingsborough Community College. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corp.

Schuh, J.H. (1999). Student learning in college residence halls: What the research shows. In J. H. Schuh (Ed.), Educational programming and student learning in college and university residence halls (pp. 2-20). Columbus, OH: Association of College and University Housing Officers-International.

Schuh, J.H. (2004). Residence halls. In F. MacKinnon & Associates (Eds.), Rentz’s student affairs practice in higher education (3rd ed). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

Schwitzer, A.M., Griffin, O.T., Ancis, J.R., & Thomas, C.R. (1999). Social adjustment experiences of African American college students. Journal of Counseling & Development, 77(2), 189-197.

Seidman, A. (2005). College student retention: Formula for student success. Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group.

Shepard, A. (2011). The best four years: How to survive and thrive in college (and life). New York, NY: Harper.

Singer, W. (2003). The role of the campus visit and summer orientation program in the modification of student expectations about college. The Journal of College Orientation and Transition, 10(2), 52-59.

Smith, J., & Griffin, B. (1993). The relationship between involvement in extracurricular activities and psychosocial development of university students. College Student Affairs Journal, 13, 79-84.

St. John, E.P., & Asker, E.H. (2003). Refinancing the college dream: Access, equal opportunity, and justice for taxpayers. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Terenzini, P.T. (1989). Assessment with open eyes: Pitfalls in studying student outcomes. The Journal of Higher Education, 60(6), 644-664.

Terenzini, P.T. (2010). Assessment with open eyes: Pitfalls in studying student outcomes. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2010(S1), 29-46.

Terenzini, P.T., & Reason, R.D. (2007). Bad rap or regrettable truth: Engagement and student learning at public research universities. In R. L. Geiger, C. L. Colbeck, R. L. Williams & C. K. Anderson (Eds.), The future of the american public research university (pp. 165-186). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: SensePublishers.

Terenzini, P.T., & Reason, R.D. (2012). Rethinking between college-college effects on student learning: A new model to guide assessment and quality assurance. In R. Yamada & R. Mori (Eds.), Quality assurance for higher education and assessment: Higher education policy and quality assurance in globalization (pp. 7-22). Oslo, Norway: Center for Higher Education and Student Research, Doshisha University.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Tinto, V. (1999). Taking student success seriously: Rethinking the first year of college. NACADA Journal, 19(2), 5-9.

Tobolowsky, B.F., & Associates. (2008). 2006 national survey of first-year seminars: Continuing innovations in the collegiate curriculum. Columbia, SC: National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.

Tobolowsky, B.F., Mamrick, M., & Cox, B.E. (2005). The 2003 national survey of first-year seminars: Continuing innovations in the collegiate curriculum. Columbia, SC: National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.

Upcraft, M.L., & Gardner, J.N. & Associates (1989). The freshman year experience: Helping students survive and succeed in college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Wasley, P. (2007). A secret support network. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(23), A 27. Zeller, W.J. (2005). First-year student living environments. In M. L. Upcraft, J. N. Gardner, B. O. Barefoot &

Associates (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college (pp. 410-427). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.



Participating InstitutionsCaliforniaArt Center College of DesignBrooks InstituteCalifornia State University San MarcosHarvey Mudd CollegeLife Pacific CollegeOccidental CollegeUniversity of RedlandsWhittier College

FloridaFlagler CollegeFlorida Hospital College of Health

SciencesPalm Beach Atlantic UniversityRollins CollegeSoutheastern UniversityStetson UniversityUniversity of North FloridaUniversity of South Florida St.

Petersburg

IowaClarke UniversityGrand View UniversityIowa Wesleyan CollegeMount Mercy UniversityNorthwestern CollegeSt. Ambrose UniversityUniversity of DubuqueUniversity of Northern IowaUpper Iowa University

Albright CollegeAllegheny CollegeAlvernia UniversityArcadia UniversityBloomsburg University of PennsylvaniaCentral Penn CollegeDickinson CollegeDrexel UniversityGrove City CollegeLycoming CollegeMillersville University

TexasAbilene Christian UniversityConcordia University TexasHuston-Tillotson UniversityLubbock Christian UniversityMidwestern State UniversityThe University of Texas at BrownsvilleThe University of Texas at TylerUniversity of St. ThomasUniversity of Texas of the Permian BasinWayland Baptist UniversityWest Texas A & M University

Misericordia UniversityPennsylvania College of TechnologyRobert Morris UniversitySaint Joseph’s UniversityUniversity of Pittsburgh at BradfordUrsinus CollegeWashington & Jefferson CollegeWaynesburg UniversityWidener UniversityWilson College

Pennsylvania

Participants in this 2011-12 LIPSS pilot study include 57 institutions, of which 22 are bachelor’s degree granting institutions, 29 are master’s degree granting institutions, 2 are doctoral degree granting institutions, and 4 are specialty institutions (e.g. a Bible college, a health professions school, and 2 schools of art and design). Participating colleges and universities include 13 public not-for-profit, 42 private not-for-profit, and 2 private for-profit institutions. The overall scales and the state scales in this report are based on all 57 institutions; the public and private scales exclude the 2 for-profit institutions.

http://cherti.fsu.edu/LIPSS/Participants.html


Project StaffBradley E. Cox is an Assistant Professor of Higher Education in The Florida State University’s Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies. Broadly invested in research that aims to understand student success and improve student outcomes, Cox undertakes projects that illuminate or extend “actionable intersections” that affect college students’ development, persistence, and graduation. Of primary interest are projects exploring how institutional policies shape student experiences and outcomes during the first year of college. Related topics of interest include: 1) the interplay between students’ college experiences and their home lives; 2) interactions between faculty members and students outside of the classroom; and 3) equity of outcomes for traditionally underserved students. His research has appeared in higher education journals including Research in Higher Education and The Review of Higher Education. At Florida State, Cox teaches Theories of College Student Development and The American College Student.

Robert D. Reason is an Associate Professor of Student Affairs and Higher Education at Iowa State University. His work has been published in numerous scholarly journals, such as the Journal of College Student Development, NASPA Journal, and College Student Affairs Journal. Reason is the Director of Research and Assessment for the Core Commitments Initiative of the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U), and in that role, directs the Personal and Social Responsibility Inventory. He currently is a Faculty Fellow for the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) and a Senior Scholar for the American College Personnel Association (ACPA).

Barbara F. Tobolowsky is an Assistant Professor in the Educational Leadership and Policy Studies department at the University of Texas at Arlington. Her research focuses on student transitions into and through higher education. More specifically, she investigates the experience of first-year students, transfer students, and sophomore students, as well as the impact of media on college expectations. Prior to coming to UTA in 2009, she was the Associate Director of the National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition based at the University of South Carolina-Columbia. She earned her PhD from UCLA in 2001.

Thomas Kent “TK” Wetherell was the President of The Florida State University from 2003 to 2010. Under President Wetherell’s tenure, Florida State University set new records for research dollars and experienced a boom in campus construction. A career educator who served in the Florida House of Representatives from 1980-92, including two years as House Speaker, Wetherell earned his bachelor’s and master’s degrees as well as a doctorate in Education Administration from Florida State. He served as President of Tallahassee Community College from 1995 until 2001. On his retirement from the presidency, Wetherell became a tenured Professor in the College of Education and President Emeritus.

Rebecca B. Underwood is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at Florida State University and a research assistant for the Linking Institutional Policies to Student Success project. She has worked in various capacities while at Florida State University including leading a policy project for the University Business Administrators and coordinating the bylaws project for the Dean of the Faculties. She holds master’s degrees in Hispanic Studies and Higher Education Administration, both from Auburn University. She holds a bachelor’s degree in History from the State University of New York at Oswego.

Sarah Luczyk is the Director of Assessment and Planning for the Division of Student Affairs at the University of West Florida. Sarah recently graduated with her doctorate in Higher Education from The Florida State University’s Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies. Her dissertation research explored the efficacy of Achieving the Dream as a mechanism to improve community college student retention, transfer, and degree attainment. She received her M.A. in college student development from Appalachian State University in 2004, and her B.S. in Child and Family Community Services from Bowling Green State University in 2002.

Jessica Dean is a second-year master’s student in the Higher Education program at The Florida State University. Currently, she serves as the Program Coordinator for the Jon C. Dalton Institute on College Student Values. In this role, she directs the processes related to theme and speaker development, as well as program and awards selection. Additionally, she serves as the campus advisor for the Beta Nu chapter of Kappa Alpha Theta. She received her B.S. in Psychology with a minor in Nonprofit Leadership at Clemson University.

Samantha Nix is a second-year master’s student in The Florida State University’s Higher Education program. She currently serves as the Program Coordinator for the Women in Math, Science, and Engineering Living Learning Community. Her other roles at FSU include assisting the Department of Physics Advisors’ Council with educational research and interning with the LIPSS project. Before pursuing her degree in Higher Education, she received B.A. degrees in English Literature and French from the University of Southern Mississippi in 2009. At the completion of her master’s degree in April 2013, Samantha plans to enroll in a Higher Education PhD program.

Coordinating Partners:

http://cherti.fsu.edu/LIPSS/Team.html

http://myweb.fsu.edu/bcox2/

http://coe.fsu.edu/


http://http://nsse.iub.edu/

L PSI SThe pilot administration of the Linking Institutional Policies to Student Success project has been made possible by generous

support from:

TG Public Benefit Grant ProgramFlorida State University’s

College of EducationDepartment of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies

Council on Research and CreativityCenter for Higher Education Research, Teaching, and Innovation

and in collaboration with colleagues from the:

Iowa State UniversityUniversity of Texas - Arlington

National Survey of Student Engagement

CHERTI.FSU.EDU/LIPSS

http://coe.fsu.edu


http://cherti.fsu.edu/LIPSS/Index.html

Documents

LIPSS National Report